At 21:33 2000-09-26 +0200, Måns Björkman wrote:
>Johan Winge wrote:
>
>[Concerning what I described as "a cursive '2' or an upside-down
><romen>"]
>
>Forgive me, my formulation was ambigous. What I meant was that in DTS
>17, the tengwa in question resembles a "rómen nuquerna"; in DTS 18 it
>resembles a cursive "2", as exemplified in line 13.

Ok, now I follow you! To completely put an end to the confusion I have
uploaded a picture:
http://m1.174.telia.com/~u17402402/tolkien/tengwar.gif

1a is the w-tengwa from DTS-17. 1b is the same tengwa from DTS-18, which I
mistook for Måns' "cursive 2". I think everyone can agree on that these has
_nothing_ to do with hwesta sindarinwa.

2a is from DTS 17 and used in the word "whither".
2b is from DTS 18, line 13, likewise used for "wh" in "whither".
2c is also from DTS 18, line 19, used in the word "where".
2d, which isn't on the picture, is the "cursive L" in DTS 37; the only
difference between this and 2c is basically that the upper (open) bow is
much smaller and turns to the right and not to the left, if you see what I
mean. I'm prety confident that this is only a result of the different styles.

The difference between 2b and 2c is disturbing though. Maybe Tolkien
couldn't make up his mind, or he simply forgot how he had wroten it before
when he came to line 19. But still, why wouldn't he close the bow in 2b if
it really was a hewsta sindarinwa? But then again, why on earth would he
use a different tengwa in "where" and "whither"?! Maybe they are the same
tengwa but _not_ hwesta sindarinwa? (Note how 2b looks like a mirrored
hyarmen. Hmmm...)

My opinion is that the 2c and 2d both are examples of hwesta sindarinwa. 2a
may be the same tengwa as 2b, and 2b may be the same as 2c. If this is the
case they are all examples of hwesta sindarinwa, as Måns suggested.

>> >Common for all these is the closed bow to the left of the stem,

Ok, except for 2b, as you also pointed out.

[Snipped interesting thoughts on the development of the additional tengwar.]

Later
Johan Winge

Dan Smith wrote (in http://www.geocities.com/fontwizard/elfscript1.pdf):

> >Mans Bjorkman <mansb@...> writes:
> >Near the bottom of the Tengwar table in Appendix E to _The Lord of the
Rings_, there is an odd-looking
> >tengwa which resembles a "d" with a tail. The text names it _hwesta
sindarinwa_, "Grey-elven _hw_". The
> >tengwa was "mostly used (if at all) for voiceless _w_ (_hw_)".

> It looks like this [...]

Note, though, that in Tolkien's version the "tail" is actually at the
baseline, not below it: the stem has just the same height as that of
<hwesta>, and the tail is attached to its lower end.


> I am also not sure what you mean by a closed bow to the left.
> They look like their top most curl is open on the left.

It is clear my wording left much to be desired. As I wrote in my
response to Johan Winge, "What I meant was that in DTS 17, the tengwa in
question resembles a "rómen nuquerna"; in DTS 18 it resembles a cursive
"2", as exemplified in line 13." The former can certainly be said to
have a closed bow. There is also, as you say, a "lambe nuquerna" (two
allographs) that represents /w/.


> I am not entirely sure that I agree with you. I do remember reading
> somewhere that romen is an 'evolved' form of ore. But likewise, it
> could be reasoned that the HW character might also be an 'evolved' for
> of anna.

Certainly, but IMHO it would make more sense if the character developed
from one with the same, or a similar, meaning (as <óre> > <rómen>, <aha>
> <hyarmen>).

Actually, if my theory is correct, the <rómen nuquerna> is really a
*secondary* development of <hwesta sindarinwa>. Written quickly, the
<hwesta sindarinwa> would easily end up as the letter in DTS 18 and 37.
After the similarity with a turned <rómen> was noted by the users, it
would then be re-shaped (in the 'pointed' style, but apparently nowhere
else) to resemble that character more closely. This imagined chain of
events would in its complexity be a weakness to my theory, if it weren't
that the <rómen nuquerna> in DTS 17 has such a clear correspondance to
the WH-tengwa in DTS 18.


> I've always thought that 'hwesta sindarinwa' was a combination of
> 'ure' (W) and 'halla' (H):

That may indeed be a possibility, though the name of the tengwa makes me
believe rather that it developed from <hwesta>.


Johan Winge wrote:
>
> 2d, which isn't on the picture, is the "cursive L" in DTS 37; the only
> difference between this and 2c is basically that the upper (open) bow is
> much smaller and turns to the right and not to the left, if you see what I
> mean. I'm prety confident that this is only a result of the different styles.

I agree.


> The difference between 2b and 2c is disturbing though. Maybe Tolkien
> couldn't make up his mind, or he simply forgot how he had wroten it before
> when he came to line 19. But still, why wouldn't he close the bow in 2b if
> it really was a hewsta sindarinwa? But then again, why on earth would he
> use a different tengwa in "where" and "whither"?! Maybe they are the same
> tengwa but _not_ hwesta sindarinwa? (Note how 2b looks like a mirrored
> hyarmen. Hmmm...)

Well, we must keep another thing in mind here: the _Errantry_ and _Tom
Bombadil_ inscriptions were written *early* in Tolkien's life. The
_Errantry_ inscription corresponds closely to the versions Tolkien wrote
in the early 1930's (see HME 7 pp 84 ff), and based on the Tengwar mode
used it is reasonable to assume the _Tom Bombadil_ inscriptions are
roughly contemporary.

At this time, Tolkien's ideas on the writing system may still have been
in a state of flux. It would surprise me if he had already then worked
out the history of the letters as we know it today.

Actually, from a *superfictional* perspective, I think the HW-tengwa
seen here is the *origins* of what was to become <hwesta sindarinwa> in
LR, not a development from it. Seen from *within* the subcreation, I of
course have to explain it the other way around.


Regards,
	 Måns


--
Måns Björkman                                             "Mun þu mik!
Störtloppsvägen 8, III                                        Man þik.
SE-129 46 Hägersten                                         Un þu mer!
Sweden                                                         An þer."

I just recently started writing in tengwar, and I'm totally
fascinated by it.  But I haven't been able to find a whole lot of
information on some of its finer points.  I downloaded Dan Smith's
fonts, which are amazing btw, and the help file he wrote to go with
them.  One question I had is about using a downward hook on the back
of a letter.  In one section of the help file, Dan mentions that the
down-curl indicates that an aspirant "h" is added to the sound.
Other information I've read says that the down curl is a
following "s" sound, and in reading things like the title page
inscriptions in the LotR, Unfinished Tales, and the Shaping of Middle
Earth books, this is what JRR and C Tolkien seem to use it for.

Also, there are two different kinds of down hooks included in the
font.  One type extends horizontally from the tengwa and curls either
up or down.  The other type projects down and left from the
character, and has a little right or left hook on it.  Is there a
difference between these two types of curls?  The tengwar font help
file is a bit ambiguous; in one place the horizontal curls are said
to indicate a following aspirant, but then the extended character map
calls them "s-curls."

Can anyone help clear up the confusion?  Thanks so much!

Stephen

> I just recently started writing in tengwar, and I'm totally
> fascinated by it.  But I haven't been able to find a whole lot of
> information on some of its finer points.  I downloaded Dan Smith's
> fonts, which are amazing btw, and the help file he wrote to go with
> them.  One question I had is about using a downward hook on the back
> of a letter.  In one section of the help file, Dan mentions that the
> down-curl indicates that an aspirant "h" is added to the sound.
> Other information I've read says that the down curl is a
> following "s" sound, and in reading things like the title page
> inscriptions in the LotR, Unfinished Tales, and the Shaping of Middle
> Earth books, this is what JRR and C Tolkien seem to use it for.
  It's used for 's', yes.

> Also, there are two different kinds of down hooks included in the
> font.  One type extends horizontally from the tengwa and curls either
> up or down.  The other type projects down and left from the
> character, and has a little right or left hook on it.  Is there a
> difference between these two types of curls?  The tengwar font help
> file is a bit ambiguous; in one place the horizontal curls are said
> to indicate a following aspirant, but then the extended character map
> calls them "s-curls."
  As far as I know they are all the same.
  Angasule

Stephen Ross wrote:
>
> I just recently started writing in tengwar, and I'm totally
> fascinated by it.  But I haven't been able to find a whole lot of
> information on some of its finer points.  I downloaded Dan Smith's
> fonts, which are amazing btw, and the help file he wrote to go with
> them.  One question I had is about using a downward hook on the back
> of a letter.  In one section of the help file, Dan mentions that the
> down-curl indicates that an aspirant "h" is added to the sound.
> Other information I've read says that the down curl is a
> following "s" sound, and in reading things like the title page
> inscriptions in the LotR, Unfinished Tales, and the Shaping of Middle
> Earth books, this is what JRR and C Tolkien seem to use it for.

The s-curls are always used for /s/. In the section "Tehtar Chart for
Sindarin Tengwar/Tehtar Mode vowels" in his help file, Daniel writes:
"mh - indicates that 'm' is a spirant rather than a stop". The sign
referred to is a curious character used in the so-called _King's Letter_
(DTS 45, 48, 49) for indicating a labialized /m/ which had become /v/ in
Third Age Sindarin (Daniel's description contains a small error that I
hadn't noticed before, BTW: /m/ is a nasal, not a stop).

Some have assumed that the character consists of the tengwa <malta> + an
s-curl, but since no other s-curl is attested for any sound other than
/s/, and since the curl is so closely "integrated" into the /m/, I think
rather that this is a single, specialized tengwa.


> Also, there are two different kinds of down hooks included in the
> font.  One type extends horizontally from the tengwa and curls either
> up or down.  The other type projects down and left from the
> character, and has a little right or left hook on it.  Is there a
> difference between these two types of curls?

When an s-curl is attached to a tengwa with bows to the left, the s-curl
extends leftwards and downwards from the joint between the stem and the
bow. I believe the characters | and } in Daniel Smith's fonts are
intended for this.

On the other hand, some Tengwar modes (specifically the Old English
mode) often place vowel tehtar *beneath* the tengwar. They are then
turned 180 degrees, and thus the /u/ and /o/ tehtar may resemble s-curls
(but they are never "connected" to the tengwar, as the s-curls are,
though they may intersect with them). See the Old English section in
Dan's help file.

Hope that helped.

Yrs,
	 Måns


--
Måns Björkman                                             "Mun þu mik!
Störtloppsvägen 8, III                                        Man þik.
SE-129 46 Hägersten                                         Un þu mer!
Sweden                                                         An þer."

Måns Björkman writes:

>The sign
>referred to is a curious character used in the so-called _King's Letter_
>(DTS 45, 48, 49) for indicating a labialized /m/ which had become /v/ in
>Third Age Sindarin

Don't you mean "spirantized /m/" or something similar?  /m/ is labial by
definition.

>(Daniel's description contains a small error that I
>hadn't noticed before, BTW: /m/ is a nasal, not a stop).

Yes, /m/ is a nasal, but so is the sound represented by <mh>, more or less;
Tolkien describes the sound as "spirant _m_ (or nasal _v_) in his
discussion of the Cirth in Appendix E.  The m/mh distinction is between a
nasal stop (a term that is indeed used in some linguistic textbooks) and a
nasal (or at least nasalized) fricative.  Such a distinction is not usually
made, hence the normal use of the generic "nasal".

********************************************************************
     Arden R. Smith                          erilaz@...

    "Do you know Languages?  What's the French for fiddle-de-dee?"
    "Fiddle-de-dee's not English," Alice replied gravely.
    "Who ever said it was?" said the Red Queen.

                                      --Lewis Carroll,
                                       _Through the Looking-glass_
********************************************************************

>From: "Stephen Ross" <Monkeyboy007@...>
>Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:49:41 -0000
>
>I just recently started writing in tengwar, and I'm totally
>fascinated by it.  But I haven't been able to find a whole lot of
>information on some of its finer points.  I downloaded Dan Smith's
>fonts, which are amazing btw, and the help file he wrote to go with
>them.

**I haven 't read Dan Smith's explanation in a long time, but I think that
you have misinterpreted part of what he wrote.

**The way that the tengwar indicate the aspirate is by extended the telco or
stem both up and down.  Examples appear in the ring inscription in the first
volume.  This sound is found in the Black Speech, but doesn't occur in
English, Quenya or Sindarin.  The extension of the stem is not really curly
except in so far as the letters are formed gracefully.  It is also quite
close to vertical.

**One of the small, more or less horizontal curls which indicate following s
appear in the word hobbits, the last word in the inscription on the title
page (as you saw).

** Lisa Star
** LisaStar@...

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

Arden R. Smith wrote:

> Måns Björkman writes:
>
> >The sign
> >referred to is a curious character used in the so-called _King's Letter_
> >(DTS 45, 48, 49) for indicating a labialized /m/ which had become /v/ in
> >Third Age Sindarin
>
> Don't you mean "spirantized /m/" or something similar?  /m/ is labial by
> definition.

Quite right: I'm afraid my ad-hoc phonemic analyze was much to hasty, as
Fangorn would have said.


> >(Daniel's description contains a small error that I
> >hadn't noticed before, BTW: /m/ is a nasal, not a stop).
>
> Yes, /m/ is a nasal, but so is the sound represented by <mh>, more or less;
> Tolkien describes the sound as "spirant _m_ (or nasal _v_) in his
> discussion of the Cirth in Appendix E.  The m/mh distinction is between a
> nasal stop (a term that is indeed used in some linguistic textbooks) and a
> nasal (or at least nasalized) fricative.  Such a distinction is not usually
> made, hence the normal use of the generic "nasal".

I see. The description of /m/ as a "nasal stop" seems rather odd,
though. I always pictured the distinction as between a bilabial nasal
/m/ and a bilabial fricative /mh/, which then turned into a labio-dental
fricative /v/.


Yrs,
	 Måns


--
Måns Björkman                                             "Mun þu mik!
Störtloppsvägen 8, III                                        Man þik.
SE-129 46 Hägersten                                         Un þu mer!
Sweden                                                         An þer."

Måns Björkman wrote:

>I always pictured the distinction as between a bilabial nasal
>/m/ and a bilabial fricative /mh/, which then turned into a labio-dental
>fricative /v/.

Certainly the shift from bilabial to labiodental is part of it, but a
voiced bilabial fricative need not be nasalized, as the medial consonant of
Spanish _saber_ 'to know' demonstrates.


********************************************************************
     Arden R. Smith                          erilaz@...

    "Do you know Languages?  What's the French for fiddle-de-dee?"
    "Fiddle-de-dee's not English," Alice replied gravely.
    "Who ever said it was?" said the Red Queen.

                                      --Lewis Carroll,
                                       _Through the Looking-glass_
********************************************************************

Arden Smith wrote:
>
> Måns Björkman wrote:
>
> >I always pictured the distinction as between a bilabial nasal
> >/m/ and a bilabial fricative /mh/, which then turned into a labio-dental
> >fricative /v/.
>
> Certainly the shift from bilabial to labiodental is part of it, but a
> voiced bilabial fricative need not be nasalized, as the medial consonant of
> Spanish _saber_ 'to know' demonstrates.

So the significant trait of the lenition is actually the adding of
friction, later followed by loss of the nasal quality? Well, you learn
something new every day!

I hope Stephen Ross feels his "quick question" is anwered by now. :)

Yrs,
	 Måns

--
Måns Björkman                                             "Mun þu mik!
Störtloppsvägen 8, III                                        Man þik.
SE-129 46 Hägersten                                         Un þu mer!
Sweden                                                         An þer."

well yes, yes I do!  Thanks guys...  Although being a biolgist rather than a
liguist, I have NO clue what ya'll just decided...  hee hee  I'm sure it was
important though!

Got another question, if you don't mind.  How much punctuation was actually
used?  I've seen the various title pages, and there wasn't much used at all.
   Hard to tell if there is even a space between words sometimes.  Are there
spaces between words?  And what about other punctuation?  Dan's excellent
font includes a lot of characters that are labelled various things, question
mark, exclamation point, etc, but are those "authentic" or surmised?  Just
curious...

Thanks!

Stephen
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

Stephen Ross wrote:

>Are there
>spaces between words?

There can be, but they're not required.  There aren't any on the _LotR_
title page or in the Ring-inscription, but there are on the Moria Gate and
in the texts in _The Road Goes Ever On_.

>And what about other punctuation?  Dan's excellent
>font includes a lot of characters that are labelled various things, question
>mark, exclamation point, etc, but are those "authentic" or surmised?

They're legit.  See especially the tengwar texts in _The Road Goes Ever On_
and  _Sauron Defeated_ for examples.


********************************************************************
     Arden R. Smith                          erilaz@...

    "Do you know Languages?  What's the French for fiddle-de-dee?"
    "Fiddle-de-dee's not English," Alice replied gravely.
    "Who ever said it was?" said the Red Queen.

                                      --Lewis Carroll,
                                       _Through the Looking-glass_
********************************************************************

Arden Smith wrote:

> Stephen Ross wrote:
>
> >Are there
> >spaces between words?
>
> There can be, but they're not required.  There aren't any on the _LotR_
> title page or in the Ring-inscription, but there are on the Moria Gate and
> in the texts in _The Road Goes Ever On_.

I actually think there are spaces in the title page inscription. True,
many words seem to have no spaces between them, but in other places
there can be no doubt there are spaces, e.g. around the word "ring". The
ring inscription does without spaces, though. Perhaps lack of spaces is
one of the qualities that made the mode of this inscription "ancient".


> >And what about other punctuation?  Dan's excellent
> >font includes a lot of characters that are labelled various things, question
> >mark, exclamation point, etc, but are those "authentic" or surmised?
>
> They're legit.  See especially the tengwar texts in _The Road Goes Ever On_
> and  _Sauron Defeated_ for examples.

The "roman" punctuation found in Dan Smith's fonts was used by Tolkien
only for inscriptions in English, and primarily in early ones, probably
before he had figured out what punctuation the Elves actually used.


Yrs,
	 Måns


--
Måns Björkman                                             "Mun þu mik!
Störtloppsvägen 8, III                                        Man þik.
SE-129 46 Hägersten                                         Un þu mer!
Sweden                                                         An þer."

Greetings,

	 I have a little question for all the certardili regarding the
runes used in "The Hobbit" (don't worry, I won't ask why the dwarves used
Anglo-Saxon based runes :-))

	 AFAIK, Tolkien used what I call "The Hobbit mode" in the book "The
Hobbit" (of course) and in a couple of other occasions: an edition of "The
Hobbit" for schools and a postcard he sent to a fan. In this last piece,
sometimes there's a small dot under some rune to tell the reader that its
sound is double.

	 This feature is not used regularly (I think Tolkien introduced it
to correct some spelling error: hobit for hobbit, etc.), but I'd like to
know, anyway, what you think about it.

	 In "The Hobbit mode", as I know it from the book, there are
already some rune used for combinations of two roman character, so perhaps
the dot needn't to be used with, for example, "ee" or "ng" (I really don't
know how you could pronounce 'ng' doubled in the same way of 'b' :-)). For
"q" (and "qu") Tolkien used the "cw" combination, and perhaps even in this
case the under-dot is not applicable...

	 Examples on the use of "The Hobbit mode" aren't so much, and I
wonder if there could be more 'special' rune, but for now that's not
matter. Coming to the end, I think the under-dot is usable only with:
b, c, d, f, g, h, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, w, x, y, z.

	 I excluded the five vowels because, as there's a special rune for
"ee" there could be runes for "aa", "ii", etc. For "j" Tolkien used the
same rune of "i", and for "v" the same as "u", so I think they neither
should go with the under-dot.

	 Comments are welcome.


	 Saluti,
	 Emanuele.

	 "He loved maps, as I have told you before; and he also
	 liked runes and letters and cunning handwriting..."
		 -- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit

The runes in the Hobbit are Anglo-Saxon runes. They are not Cirth.

Michael Everson  **  Everson Gunn Teoranta  **   http://www.egt.ie
15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
Vox +353 1 478 2597 ** Fax +353 1 478 2597 ** Mob +353 86 807 9169
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn;  Baile an Bhóthair;  Co. Átha Cliath; Éire

Greetings,

On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Michael Everson wrote:

> The runes in the Hobbit are Anglo-Saxon runes. They are not Cirth.

	 I didn't have any doubt about them being Anglo-Saxon (based)
runes. My post concerned another thing: the use of that under-dot in
Tolkien's script and nothing more.


	 Saluti,
	 Emanuele.

	 "He loved maps, as I have told you before; and he also
	 liked runes and letters and cunning handwriting..."
		 -- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit

Emanuele Vincentini wrote:

>        This feature is not used regularly (I think Tolkien introduced it
>to correct some spelling error: hobit for hobbit, etc.), but I'd like to
>know, anyway, what you think about it.

Tolkien later used a subscript line for the same purpose in the cirth of
the Book of Mazarbul (_Pictures_ #23, page III).  I'm not aware of such a
use of diacritical marks to indicate gemination in any historical runic
inscriptions.  In most authentic runic inscriptions, geminate consonants
and long vowels are represented by single runes.  Doubled runes are more
common in later inscriptions than in early ones (due to the influence of
manuscript spelling practices), and they also seem to be more common in
Anglo-Saxon inscriptions than in Scandinavian ones.  Doubled consonants
appear on the Franks Casket and the Ruthwell Cross, for example.

You may be right about Tolkien introducing the dot to correct a misspelt
_hobit_.  I suspect that the stemless forms of cirth #55 and #56 likewise
had their origin in a scribal error.  In the title page inscriptions of the
first impressions of _The Fellowship of the Ring_ and _The Two Towers_, the
_d_ is missing from _translated_.  In later impressions (and in the first
impression of _The Return of the King_), this has been corrected by
changing the final #55 (schwa) into #9 (d) and squeezing a stemless #56
between the _t_ and the _d_.  See Wayne Hammond's _J. R. R. Tolkien: A
Descriptive Bibliography_, p. 94, for facsimiles of the original and
corrected inscriptions.


********************************************************************
     Arden R. Smith                          erilaz@...

    "Do you know Languages?  What's the French for fiddle-de-dee?"
    "Fiddle-de-dee's not English," Alice replied gravely.
    "Who ever said it was?" said the Red Queen.

                                      --Lewis Carroll,
                                       _Through the Looking-glass_
********************************************************************

Ar 17:39 +0100 2000-11-03, scríobh Vicentini Emanuele:
>Greetings,
>
>On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> The runes in the Hobbit are Anglo-Saxon runes. They are not Cirth.
>
> I didn't have any doubt about them being Anglo-Saxon (based)
>runes. My post concerned another thing: the use of that under-dot in
>Tolkien's script and nothing more.

My point was that you can't really talk about a "Hobbit mode" because the
script being used isn't Cirth. In Unicode we have already encoded the
Runes, but we have not yet encoded the Cirth.

Michael Everson  **  Everson Gunn Teoranta  **   http://www.egt.ie
15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
Vox +353 1 478 2597 ** Fax +353 1 478 2597 ** Mob +353 86 807 9169
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn;  Baile an Bhóthair;  Co. Átha Cliath; Éire

Greetings,


On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 Arden R. Smith wrote:

> Tolkien later used a subscript line for the same purpose in the cirth of
> the Book of Mazarbul (_Pictures_ #23, page III).  I'm not aware of such a
> use of diacritical marks to indicate gemination in any historical runic
> inscriptions. [...]

	 That's the reason which triggered my post: Dwarves used a variant
of Anglo-Saxon runes, but that under-dot seemed "alien". That's all. From
this point I tried to "extend" the use of that dot to get a more regular
behaviour (ok, I know, ancient inscriptions aren't very regular :-)).

	 Now that you've mentioned the Book of Mazarbul: those two pages
written with the cirth, in the so called "Erebor mode" (as far as I know),
reproduced English text and, with a bit of patience, I've re-translated
them and mapped almost each certh to its roman value.

	 Here comes a little problem: according to Appendix E of LoR the
Erebor mode has some unique features and some changes, but not everything
is shown in the cirth table. When I first read LoR many years ago I
thought having understood those sentences about Erebor mode quite well,
but those pages of the Book throw in some confusion: some cirth have
"unexpected" values (please, note that I'm not referring here to the
"extra" cirth or the under-bar).

	 Being that it's used to write English I think some cirth could
have "special" values better suited for the English language; do you think
that in the Middle-earth context this mode used in the Book of Mazarbul's
pages could be the real "Erebor mode"?

> [...] In later impressions (and in the first impression of _The Return
> of the King_), this has been corrected by changing the final #55
> (schwa) into #9 (d) and squeezing a stemless #56 between the _t_ and
> the _d_.  See Wayne Hammond's _J. R. R. Tolkien: A Descriptive
> Bibliography_, p. 94, for facsimiles of the original and corrected
> inscriptions.

	 Thanks for the reference, I'll look for the book.


	 Saluti,
	 Emanuele.

	 "He loved maps, as I have told you before; and he also
	 liked runes and letters and cunning handwriting..."
		 -- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit

Emanuele Vincentini wrote:

>        Here comes a little problem: according to Appendix E of LoR the
>Erebor mode has some unique features and some changes, but not everything
>is shown in the cirth table. When I first read LoR many years ago I
>thought having understood those sentences about Erebor mode quite well,
>but those pages of the Book throw in some confusion: some cirth have
>"unexpected" values (please, note that I'm not referring here to the
>"extra" cirth or the under-bar).

Very true.  The Mazarbul pages do agree with the list of special
characteristics of the Mode of Erebor in the final paragraph of Appendix E:
#14=j, #17=x, #29=g, #43=z.  (Mazarbul uses #19 for "soft g" and #21 for
gh, but this isn't prohibited by the statement in Appendix E.)  However,
the Ereborian mode exemplified on those pages does deviate from the
Angerthas Moria in other respects, such as in the use of #35 for s and #54
for h.  So if the Mazarbul pages give an accurate picture of the Mode of
Erebor, the description of the mode in Appendix E omits some details.

********************************************************************
     Arden R. Smith                          erilaz@...

    "Do you know Languages?  What's the French for fiddle-de-dee?"
    "Fiddle-de-dee's not English," Alice replied gravely.
    "Who ever said it was?" said the Red Queen.

                                      --Lewis Carroll,
                                       _Through the Looking-glass_
********************************************************************

Mae govannen, mellyn! I'm so glad to have found this group. I am very inter=
ested in the Tolkienian writing systems and have been since high school. (IN=
  fact, I went to high school during the late 70's Tolkien Renaissance, as we=
  called it, and we used to pass notes in class written in tengwar so the tea=
chers couldn't read them if we were caught!) I am a calligrapher and find th=
at the tengwar provide an excellent oportunity for calligraphic experimentat=
ion...the shapes are so adaptable! Thanks to the publication of the King's L=
etter in SD, some light has been shed on Sindarin orthography (as well as us=
age), but there are still many questions. For example, in regular Sindarin s=
pelling with tehtar, which tengwa represents [w]...vala, vilya or úre? My gu=
ess is vala. I know that the "tilde" is used for "following w," (e.g., "Gwir=
ith", "edwen"), but in other cases? Any thoughts on the subject? I will prob=
ably have such questions from time to time! Until next time, namárië! –D. Da=
niel Andriës.

D. Daniel Andriës wrote:

>Thanks to the publication of the King's L=
>etter in SD, some light has been shed on Sindarin orthography (as well as us=
>age), but there are still many questions. For example, in regular Sindarin s=
>pelling with tehtar, which tengwa represents [w]...vala, vilya or úre? My gu=
>ess is vala.

It would depend on the mode.  In a mode in which téma IV represents a
labiovelar series, vilya would be the best bet.  Unque is also an option,
since Appendix E says that it can be used for _ghw_ or _w_.  In the Mode of
Beleriand, which is a mode of this type, vala represents _m_ and úre
represents _u_.

In a mode in which téma IV is used for velars, however, unque would have to
represent _gh_, and vilya (if used at all) would probably represent a
hiatus, a glottal stop, a g>0 lenition, or something of that ilk.  In such
a mode, vala would be the most likely candidate for _w_.  The Sindarin
portion of the King's Letter, version I, uses such a mode, and in that text
vilya is used for _a_ (but only in the King's initials) and úre for _u_.

Yes, I realize that the sample modes use full letters for the vowels, but
the same general principles would apply to tehtar modes.

********************************************************************
     Arden R. Smith                          erilaz@...

    "Do you know Languages?  What's the French for fiddle-de-dee?"
    "Fiddle-de-dee's not English," Alice replied gravely.
    "Who ever said it was?" said the Red Queen.

                                      --Lewis Carroll,
                                       _Through the Looking-glass_
********************************************************************

Thanks for your input, erilaz! Since the only significant sample of a
tehtar mode of Sindarin written by Tolkien is the King's Letter Version
III, that is the mode I use as a guide, and that is indeed a mode that
treats Series IV as the calmatéma. I realise that most of Professor
Tolkien's published Sindarin pieces written with tengwar use a "full
writing" mode, but I much prefer the look of the tehtar used in the
rendering of the Eldarin languages. In an earlier post someone objected
to the term "classical mode" to denote a mode using tehtar on the
grounds that such a mode was used to represent late Sindarin in the
King's letter, but let us remember the Professor's words: "They [i.e.,
the tengwar] had reached the stage of full alphabetic development, but
older modes in which only the consonants were denoted by full letters
were still in use." I believe that this makes it clear that this mode is
older, therefore more "classical", than a full writing mode (e.g. the
mode of Beleriand and that used in the King's Letter Versions I and II).
Possibly Professor Tolkien wished to give the King's Letter a more
"formal" look in its final draft. Or given the reference to "what a man
of Gondor might have produced, hesitating between the values of the
letters familiar in his 'mode' and the traditional spelling of English"
in Appendix E of LotR, perhaps we are to infer that the people of Gondor
used a mode that made use of tehtar. Remember that the Letter came from
Minas Tirith. Actually, though, Christopher Tokien suggests that his
father used the ómatehtar to save space on the page! Anyway, I prefer
to use a tehtar mode for Sindarin and a full writing mode for English.
Just my thoughts!

DDanielA@... wrote:
>
> . . . I realise that most of Professor
> Tolkien's published Sindarin pieces written with tengwar use a "full
> writing" mode, but I much prefer the look of the tehtar used in the
> rendering of the Eldarin languages.

Hello Daniel! Personally I think that both the full modes and the "tehta
modes" have their benefits, but like you I usually prefer writing with
the tehta modes.


> In an earlier post someone objected

(That would have been me.)


> to the term "classical mode" to denote a mode using tehtar on the
> grounds that such a mode was used to represent late Sindarin in the
> King's letter, but let us remember the Professor's words: "They [i.e.,
> the tengwar] had reached the stage of full alphabetic development, but
> older modes in which only the consonants were denoted by full letters
> were still in use." I believe that this makes it clear that this mode
> is older, therefore more "classical", than a full writing mode (e.g. the
> mode of Beleriand and that used in the King's Letter Versions I and
> II).

Not necessarily. I rather think the Sindarin tehta mode as seen in KL
was developed from a Westron tehta mode, perhaps by the Dúnedain. As you
yourself noted, the mode uses series IV as calmatéma, actually leaving
the series III unusued (except for the usage of <anna> as glide-i). Why
would it do this? The most obvious explanation seems in my opinion to be
that it was based on an existing mode that used series IV for velars.

Now what Tengwar modes existed in the early First Age (which is where we
must look if we want to predate the mode of Beleriand) for the Sindarin
tehta mode to use as a model? Well, the only ones we know of are the
Quenya modes (the standard tehta mode and the full mode) and possibly
the modes for the Telerin and Vanyarin dialects, which were most likely
never used in Middle-earth. All the Quenya modes appear to have used
series III as calmatéma and series IV as quessetéma. It therefore seems
probable that a Sindarin mode based on a Quenya mode would use series
III for the velars, as indeed the mode of Beleriand does.

On the other hand, in all the Westron Tengwar modes we know of (which
must have developed in the late Second or early Third Age) series IV is
used for velars, while III is used for palatals. It would therefore seem
plausible that the model of the Sindarin tehta mode we know of was a
Westron mode.


> Possibly Professor Tolkien wished to give the King's Letter a more
> "formal" look in its final draft. Or given the reference to "what a
> man of Gondor might have produced, hesitating between the values of the
> letters familiar in his 'mode' and the traditional spelling of
> English" in Appendix E of LotR, perhaps we are to infer that the people of
> Gondor used a mode that made use of tehtar.

I agree this is the most logical conclusion.


> . . . Actually, though, Christopher Tokien suggests that his
> father used the ómatehtar to save space on the page!

That was also Feanor's original motivation for using tehtar to represent
vowels (see "From _Quendi and Eldar_, Appendix D" in _Vinyar Tengwar_
#39, p. 8).


Suilaid,
	 Måns

--
Måns Björkman                                             "Mun þu mik!
Störtloppsvägen 8, III                                        Man þik.
SE-129 46 Hägersten                                         Un þu mer!
Sweden                                                         An þer."

Måns, it does indeed seem logical that the Edain in Minas Tirith may
have written in Sindarin with a mode based on Westron. And the fact that
it was written by an Adan rather than an Elda could perhaps explain why
"Elessar Telcontar" was written in a distinctly non-Quenya mode! While
Sindarin may have been based on an early Quenya mode, there are some
very distinct differences, as well. For example, the use of tyeller 2
and 4 for the nasalised stops could not have provided an example for the
Sindarin values of those tengwar. And since the Sindar had no need for a
labialised series (with the possible exception of the frequent
combination "gw" ), that left both Series III and IV available to
represent the velar stops. Hopefully more examples will be found in
Professor Tolkien's as yet unpublished papers that may shed more light
on the various tengwar modes.
    My chief interest is in Sindarin, but I have a question concerning
Quenya. In Appendix E, JRRT states, "This [th] had become in Quenya
spoken s, though still written with a different letter." We are led to
believe that this letter was thúle/súle. I was under the impression
that words spelt with an "s" in Quenya that had its cognate with "th" in
Sindarin would spelt with súle in its tengwar rendering, but in
Tolkien's "Namárië" calligraphy pieces in RGEO we find
"sindanóriello" and "hísië" with silme where I would expect
súle. I have two theories:
1.) Quenya was no longer a native language to anyone in Middle Earth
(except Galadriel [?], being the last of the Noldorin exiles), and
scribes automatically wrote a silme to represent the "s" sound as was
found in their own native modes.
Or:
2.) Professor Tolkien changed his own rules almost as much as he
followed them and ignored the distinction between súle and silme!
    What does anyone else think about this? Or am I wrong in thinking
that the words in question would be written with súle?
    —Danny Andriës.

DDanielA@... wrote:
>
>    My chief interest is in Sindarin, but I have a question concerning
> Quenya. In Appendix E, JRRT states, "This [th] had become in Quenya
> spoken s, though still written with a different letter." We are led to
> believe that this letter was thúle/súle. I was under the impression
> that words spelt with an "s" in Quenya that had its cognate with "th"
> in
> Sindarin would spelt with súle in its tengwar rendering, but in
> Tolkien's "Namárië" calligraphy pieces in RGEO we find
> "sindanóriello" and "hísië" with silme where I would expect
> súle. I have two theories:
> 1.) Quenya was no longer a native language to anyone in Middle Earth
> (except Galadriel [?], being the last of the Noldorin exiles), and
> scribes automatically wrote a silme to represent the "s" sound as was
> found in their own native modes.
> Or:
> 2.) Professor Tolkien changed his own rules almost as much as he
> followed them and ignored the distinction between súle and silme!
>    What does anyone else think about this? Or am I wrong in thinking
> that the words in question would be written with súle?
>    —Danny Andriës.
  Those words are written with sule, yes, at least that's the normal
usage AFAIK, I guess the reason silme is used in namarie it's because of
(1) or because Tolkien just decided not to use it or forgot (unlikely,
I'd say), I don't think he'd have just discarded the whole silme/sule
thing, being already printed in lotr. I guess modern writers can decide
whether to use silme or sule, I think using sule looks better, same with
noldo/numen.
  Angasule

I would assume that it's used in the Sindarin words "hwest" (breeze), "hwan=
n" (sponge) and "hwinio" (twirl). –Danny.
--- In elfscript@egroups.com, Mans Bjorkman <mansb@h...> wrote:
> Near the bottom of the Tengwar table in Appendix E to _The Lord of the
> Rings_, there is an odd-looking tengwa which resembles a "d" with a
> tail. The text names it _hwesta sindarinwa_, "Grey-elven _hw_". The
> tengwa was "mostly used (if at all) for voiceless _w_ (_hw_)".
>
> The name _hwesta sindarinwa_ would suggest that the tengwa was used when
> writing Sindarin, yet we have no examples of its usage in that language.
> In fact, in the whole of Tolkien's published production, a tengwa with
> this appearance occurs in one place only: the Tengwar table in LR.
> (Christopher Tolkien does use it in his title page inscription to _The
> Silmarillion_, but that inscription contains so many oddities that it
> cannot be trusted to correspond with JRRT's intentions.)
>
> On the other hand, another, quite similar tengwa occurs several times in
> Tolkien's English inscriptions, right from the early _Tom Bombadil_
> inscriptions (DTS* 17,18) down to the proposed dust-jacked design for
> _The Two Towers_ (DTS 37). In the former, it mostly resembles a cursive
> "2" or an upside-down <romen>; in the latter, it has taken the form of
> an elegant cursive "L". Common for all these is the closed bow to the
> left of the stem, and the "tail" to the right of it (in DTS 18 the bow
> may be missing, but its relatedness with the corresponding tengwa in DTS
> 17 cannot be doubted).
>
> These tengwar all represent the English voiceless "w", just as <hwesta
> sindarinwa> is meant to. Could they actually be cursive forms of that
> tengwa? We know that <romen> developed as a cursive variant of <óre>, so
> this kind of variation is not unpreceded. Given the attested usage,
> then, which form of the tengwa should be used? The cursive form, or the
> "upright" one given in the Tengwar table?
>
>
> * "DTS" in this letter refers to The Mellonath Daeron Index of Tengwar
> Specimina <http://www.forodrim.org/daeron/mdtci.html>
>
>
> --
> Måns Björkman                                             "Mun þu mik!
> Störtloppsvägen 8, III                                        Man þik.
> SE-129 46 Hägersten                                         Un þu mer!
> Sweden                                                         An þer."

Danny Andriës wrote:

> I would assume that it's used in the Sindarin words "hwest" (breeze),
> "hwann" (sponge) and "hwinio" (twirl). –Danny.

I would assume the same.

Yours,
	 Måns


--
Måns Björkman                                             "Mun þu mik!
Störtloppsvägen 8, III                                        Man þik.
SE-129 46 Hägersten                                         Un þu mer!
Sweden                                                         An þer."

Danny Andriës wrote:

> While [the mode of Beleriand used for] Sindarin
> may have been based on an early Quenya mode, there are some
> very distinct differences, as well. For example, the use of tyeller 2
> and 4 for the nasalised stops could not have provided an example for
> the Sindarin values of those tengwar.

This seems IMO to be just a natural adaption of the Tengwar to the
phonology of Sindarin.


> And since the Sindar had no need for a
> labialised series (with the possible exception of the frequent
> combination "gw" ),

...which, apparently in the mode of Beleriand and actually in the King's
Letter modes, was written with g-tengwa + w-tehta.


> that left both Series III and IV available to
> represent the velar stops.

True, but in such circumstances it would seem more logical and
economical to use series III than IV, especially since the letters in IV
each requires one pencil-stroke more than those in III.


> Hopefully more examples will be found in
> Professor Tolkien's as yet unpublished papers that may shed more light
> on the various tengwar modes.

That I am quite sure of.


> [regarding the unetymological spelling of Quenya _th_ > _s_]
>
> I have two theories:
> 1.) Quenya was no longer a native language to anyone in Middle Earth
> (except Galadriel [?], being the last of the Noldorin exiles), and
> scribes automatically wrote a silme to represent the "s" sound as was
> found in their own native modes.

Even Galadriel would have abandoned Quenya in favour of Sindarin during
the First Age. Appendix F states that it was "no longer a birth-tongue,
but had become, as it were, and 'Elven-latin', still used for ceremony,
and for high matters of lore and song, by the High Elves", and further,
that Sindarin "was the tongue of all those Elves and Elf-lords that
appear in this history."

Like Angasúle, I agree the most likely explanation for this "error" is
ignorance. Unfortunately we have to take Tolkien's word for old _th_
being written with a different letter, since no Quenya specimen
containing <súle> has been published.


Nai sarmendilin i vinya loa tyare alasse!
	 Måns


--
Måns Björkman                                             "Mun þu mik!
Störtloppsvägen 8, III                                        Man þik.
SE-129 46 Hägersten                                         Un þu mer!
Sweden                                                         An þer."

Once upon a time, I had a copy of "The Road Goes Ever On," and I was
happy. Then an orc-minded individual decided he coveted it, and now I no
longer possessed a copy. It is now out of print; I am sad. Does anyone
know of a site where JRRT's original calligraphy for "Namárië" and
"A Elbereth Gilthoniel" from RGEO is reproduced? Or his tengwar
transcriptions of "Errantry" fom "Letters"? I would be happy again! –
Danny.