--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...> wrote:
>
> At last I have received the long-awaited copy of "Return to Bag-End".
> As was to be expected, DTS 71 turns out to be most interesting, being
> the third longest tengwar text (after DTS 50 and DTS 18). It is an
> English "full writing" according to pronunciation. The vowel signs do
> not match any previously published tengwar text, though their
> distribution is most similar to other English tengwar texts according
> to pronunciation.
>
> The text is identical to Bilbo's Contract as published in the Hobbit,
> so I guess it has been written close to publication or even after it
> -- I haven't found any part of the book yet that describes DTS 71, so
> I do not know whether it is known when it was written exactly, and I
> fear that this might be indicated only in the first part of the
> History of the Hobbit which I do not possess. Does anybody know
> something about it?

The document is described in The History of the Hobbit Part One
(p.105-107), but the description provides few insights. Rateliff notes
that since the chief dwarf is called "Thorin" and not "Gandalf", the
text must date after February 1937. He also states that it must have
been in existence in February 1938, since Tolkien writes in his letter
to _The Observer_ (published on 20 February, and reprinted in Appendix
II of Part Two) that "a facsimile of the original letter left on the
mantelpiece can be supplied". The latter conclusion I think is
questionable, however. Tolkien's jovial offer of a facsimile might
just mean that he was prepared to write such a document upon request.


> I am also unable to make out what is written at
> the top. It starts with "Facsimile Thorin's ..." and ends with "39".
> Might that be the year when it was written? Could anybody decipher
> more of it, or is it explained in some part of the book?

Nothing is said about it in the book, but I think the words are
"Facsimile Thorin's Note [to] Bilbo. _Hobbit_ p 39". It seems thus to
be a reference to the page on which the letter appears in the
published book. (A 1993 edition is my possession has the letter on p.38.)


> * There are many instances of the nasalization bar used on silme
> nuquerna. If I remember correctly, that usage was previously
> unpublished. So now we now that the use of the nasalization bar is not
> restricted to the principal letters.

I too believe a nasalization bar on "additional" letters was
unattested before. Note, though, that the nasalization bar stands for
/n/, even though _silme nuquerna_ is placed in the _parmatéma_ in The
Lord of the Rings. The usage is thus inconsistent with the statement
that the bar indicated a nasal "of the same series". Of course, the
nasal /n/ does share its *point of articulation* with _silme
nuquerna_, which must be what really matters.


> * The number 11 seems to be represented by common Arab glyph within
> the tengwar text: It looks like two carriers that are joined together
> by a bar similar to the one that closes the quessetéma lúvar or the
> one on lambe. I think the most likely explanation of this is that it
> is just a tengwa-like rendering of the Arab glyphs "11" (the bar may
> resemble the upstroke of the glyph "1" that is common in certain
> regions -- what is the British usage?).

Admittedly, I am not an expert of the Arabic alphabet, but I am unable
to find any resemblance to either the Arabic numeral 1 or the
"Arabic/Indic" 1 used with the Roman alphabet. Would you care to
elaborate on this identification?

To me, the Feanorian 1 in the letter looks most like a J with a
pronounced horizontal bar at the top. A legacy from the Rúmilian? The
sarat for /t/ is also used for 1 in our specimen. Turned 90 degrees
clockwise, this sarat would resemble the Feanorian 1 in the letter a
great deal.


> * The word "Inn" has a kind of doubled understroke that might have
> been used in order to differentiate it from the homophonous word "in"
> (both are spelt identically).

Good point! Note also the similar tehta indicating double consonants
in DTS 50-51.


Yours,
Måns

--- In #70 of elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, Måns Björkman wrote:
> > -- I haven't found any part of the book yet that describes DTS 71,
> > so I do not know whether it is known when it was written exactly,
> > and I fear that this might be indicated only in the first part of
> > the History of the Hobbit which I do not possess. Does anybody
> > know something about it?
>
> The document is described in The History of the Hobbit Part One
> (p.105-107), but the description provides few insights. Rateliff
> notes that since the chief dwarf is called "Thorin" and not
> "Gandalf", the text must date after February 1937. He also states
> that it must have been in existence in February 1938, since Tolkien
> writes in his letter to _The Observer_ (published on 20 February,
> and reprinted in Appendix II of Part Two) that "a facsimile of the
> original letter left on the mantelpiece can be supplied". The latter
> conclusion I think is questionable, however. Tolkien's jovial offer
> of a facsimile might just mean that he was prepared to write such a
> document upon request.

Thanks a lot for that information! So at least there is a terminus ad
quem.


> > * There are many instances of the nasalization bar used on silme
> > nuquerna. If I remember correctly, that usage was previously
> > unpublished. So now we now that the use of the nasalization bar is
> > not restricted to the principal letters.
>
> I too believe a nasalization bar on "additional" letters was
> unattested before. Note, though, that the nasalization bar stands
> for /n/, even though _silme nuquerna_ is placed in the _parmatéma_
> in The Lord of the Rings. The usage is thus inconsistent with the
> statement that the bar indicated a nasal "of the same series". Of
> course, the nasal /n/ does share its *point of articulation* with
> _silme nuquerna_, which must be what really matters.

I don't think we can consider silme nuquerna to belong to the
parmatéma. I think the concept of témar and tyeller is tied to the
primary letters and it is only for ease of representation that the
tengwar table shows the additional letters in the same columns. The
témar and tyeller of the primary letters form a regular grid of shape
features corresponding to sound features, but the additional letters
do not. And compare App. E: "The system contained twenty-four primary
letters, 1-24, arranged in four _témar_ (series), each of which had
six _tyeller_ (grades). There were also 'additional letters', of which
25-36 are examples."


> > * The number 11 seems to be represented by common Arab glyph
> > within the tengwar text: It looks like two carriers that are
> > joined together by a bar similar to the one that closes the
> > quessetéma lúvar or the one on lambe. I think the most likely
> > explanation of this is that it is just a tengwa-like rendering of
> > the Arab glyphs "11" (the bar may resemble the upstroke of the
> > glyph "1" that is common in certain regions -- what is the British
> > usage?).
>
> Admittedly, I am not an expert of the Arabic alphabet, but I am
> unable to find any resemblance to either the Arabic numeral 1 or the
> "Arabic/Indic" 1 used with the Roman alphabet. Would you care to
> elaborate on this identification?
>
> To me, the Feanorian 1 in the letter looks most like a J with a
> pronounced horizontal bar at the top. A legacy from the Rúmilian?
> The sarat for /t/ is also used for 1 in our specimen. Turned 90
> degrees clockwise, this sarat would resemble the Feanorian 1 in the
> letter a great deal.

I don't know; to me, what I see in DTS 71 doesn't look much like that
sarat which rather resembles silme. I agree that the numeral of DTS 71
resembles the letter J, or if you will, a long carrier with a
"pronounced horizontal bar at the top". It doesn't look like the
tengwar numeral for '1' Christopher Tolkien reported. I still think it
might as well be shaped after our usual Hindo-Arabian numeral "1",
though now I'm not that enthusiastic any more for the idea of normal
numerals within a tengwar text. Maybe at that time Tolkien just used a
tengwar numeral system we don't know. What a pity it is an 11 and not
10 or 12 which would have allowed more insights in the kind of
numerals – but then Bilbo probably would have missed Thorin's company
and the Hobbits would never have played any role in the big events to
come...

---
grüess
mach

--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...> wrote:
>
> --- In #70 of elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, Måns Björkman wrote:
> > ...
> > I too believe a nasalization bar on "additional" letters was
> > unattested before. Note, though, that the nasalization bar stands
> > for /n/, even though _silme nuquerna_ is placed in the _parmatéma_
> > in The Lord of the Rings. The usage is thus inconsistent with the
> > statement that the bar indicated a nasal "of the same series". Of
> > course, the nasal /n/ does share its *point of articulation* with
> > _silme nuquerna_, which must be what really matters.
>
> I don't think we can consider silme nuquerna to belong to the
> parmatéma. I think the concept of témar and tyeller is tied to the
> primary letters and it is only for ease of representation that the
> tengwar table shows the additional letters in the same columns. The
> témar and tyeller of the primary letters form a regular grid of shape
> features corresponding to sound features, but the additional letters
> do not. And compare App. E: "The system contained twenty-four primary
> letters, 1-24, arranged in four _témar_ (series), each of which had
> six _tyeller_ (grades). There were also 'additional letters', of which
> 25-36 are examples."

I agree with you -- but it is also clear that we need to go beyond the
description in App.E to explain the use of the nasalization tehta in
DTS 71.


> > To me, the Feanorian 1 in the letter looks most like a J with a
> > pronounced horizontal bar at the top. A legacy from the Rúmilian?
> > The sarat for /t/ is also used for 1 in our specimen. Turned 90
> > degrees clockwise, this sarat would resemble the Feanorian 1 in the
> > letter a great deal.
>
> I don't know; to me, what I see in DTS 71 doesn't look much like that
> sarat which rather resembles silme. I agree that the numeral of DTS 71
> resembles the letter J, or if you will, a long carrier with a
> "pronounced horizontal bar at the top".

The sarat in question varies a little in appearance. In several
documents it looks less like a silme and more like a J (e.g. R7, R13,
R17, R20).


> It doesn't look like the
> tengwar numeral for '1' Christopher Tolkien reported. I still think it
> might as well be shaped after our usual Hindo-Arabian numeral "1",
> though now I'm not that enthusiastic any more for the idea of normal
> numerals within a tengwar text. Maybe at that time Tolkien just used a
> tengwar numeral system we don't know. What a pity it is an 11 and not
> 10 or 12 which would have allowed more insights in the kind of
> numerals – but then Bilbo probably would have missed Thorin's company
> and the Hobbits would never have played any role in the big events to
> come...

Which goes to show that everything happens for a reason. :) But I
agree it would have been nice to have at least one related numeral for
reference.


Yours,
Måns

Sothebys.com did what any reliable website should never do: They
changed their urls. What used to be
"http://search.sothebys.com/jsps/live/..." is now
"http://www.sothebys.com/jsps/app/...", that is to say, they changed
"search" into "www" and "live" into "app". So the new links are:

DTS 58: http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=34NDT
DTS 59: http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=3THKG

Sothebys.com requires registration to view these pages, but
registration is free.

Have also a look at the following Tolkien calligraphy in Latin
alphabet that looks remarkably like his tengwar calligraphy to me:

http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=42MCF

---
grüess
mach

Mach,

Thanks for the observation! The DTS posts have now been updated with
the new urls.

Yours,
Måns


--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...> wrote:
>
> Sothebys.com did what any reliable website should never do: They
> changed their urls. What used to be
> "http://search.sothebys.com/jsps/live/..." is now
> "http://www.sothebys.com/jsps/app/...", that is to say, they changed
> "search" into "www" and "live" into "app". So the new links are:
>
> DTS 58: http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=34NDT
> DTS 59: http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=3THKG
>
> Sothebys.com requires registration to view these pages, but
> registration is free.
>
> Have also a look at the following Tolkien calligraphy in Latin
> alphabet that looks remarkably like his tengwar calligraphy to me:
>
> http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=42MCF
>
> ---
> grüess
> mach
>

Hi!
  I´ve been looking arond the net and tried to come up with a
translation for the swedish name Lina. I want it to be written in
Tengwar. Can I send a picture of it to anyone that can confirm that it
is spelled right?

As a member you can post your translation photo by setting up a photo
album. Then all can see it rather than send it to individual members.
Visit the home site then click Photos. It should explain how to set up
an album.

--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "eriksson_tomas"
<tomas_eriksson_wedge@...> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>  I´ve been looking arond the net and tried to come up with a
> translation for the swedish name Lina. I want it to be written in
> Tengwar. Can I send a picture of it to anyone that can confirm that
it
> is spelled right?
>

Summary of introduced improvements
1. Enlargement of the number of characters, from 215 to 215+3+62 = 280
characters.
2. Improvement of the form of all characters.
3. Spacing improvement.
4. Mac compatibility.
5. More documentation.
6. Unicode compatibility: Definition de los glyph in the Tengwar zone
of Unicode Private
Zone.

http://www.geocities.com/enrombell/welcome.htm

enrobell

--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "enrombel" <eemunsj@...> wrote:
>
> Summary of introduced improvements
> 1. Enlargement of the number of characters, from 215 to 215+3+62 = 280
> characters.
> 2. Improvement of the form of all characters.
> 3. Spacing improvement.
> 4. Mac compatibility.
> 5. More documentation.
> 6. Unicode compatibility: Definition de los glyph in the Tengwar zone
> of Unicode Private
> Zone.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/enrombell/welcome.htm
>
> enrobell
>

Looking forward to try it out!

On your site, the document headed "Tengwar Elfica: detailed
description and form of use" seems to be missing (it is linked to
http://www.geocities.com/enrombell/files/Description.pdf).

Yours,
Måns

--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "Mans Bjorkman" <at@...> wrote:
>
> --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "enrombel" <eemunsj@> wrote:
> >
> > Summary of introduced improvements
> > 1. Enlargement of the number of characters, from 215 to 215+3+62
= 280
> > characters.
> > 2. Improvement of the form of all characters.
> > 3. Spacing improvement.
> > 4. Mac compatibility.
> > 5. More documentation.
> > 6. Unicode compatibility: Definition de los glyph in the Tengwar
zone
> > of Unicode Private
> > Zone.
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/enrombell/welcome.htm
> >
> > enrobell
> >
>
> Looking forward to try it out!
>
> On your site, the document headed "Tengwar Elfica: detailed
> description and form of use" seems to be missing (it is linked to
> http://www.geocities.com/enrombell/files/Description.pdf).
>
> Yours,
> Måns
>


Thank you Måns
Yes the file was missing. It is now on-line. The zip file(s)
containing the files are no loger available now because there are
urgent improvements to be implemented (encoding issues).

Sincerely

Enrique

Dear Friends,

where is the tehta looking like a breve (smiling mouth) attested,
and for what sound?

TIA,

/BP/Melroch

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:05:05 +0100, BP Jonsson <melroch@...> wrote:

> where is the tehta looking like a breve (smiling mouth) attested,
> and for what sound?

Off the top of my head, I'm only aware of DTS 4/5 and 10, where it stands
for the English (orthographic) <y>.

-- Johan Winge

On 23.3.2008 Johan Winge wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:05:05 +0100, BP Jonsson <melroch@...>
> wrote:
>
> > > where is the tehta looking like a breve (smiling mouth) attested,
> > > and for what sound?
>
> Off the top of my head, I'm only aware of DTS 4/5 and 10, where it
> stands
> for the English (orthographic) <y>.

Mára, hantale!


/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
                 A h-ammen ledin i phith!                \ \
      __  ____ ____    _____________ ____ __   __ __     / /
      \ \/___ \\__ \  /___  _____/\ \\__ \\ \  \ \\ \   / /
      / /   / /  /  \    / /Melroch\ \_/ // /  / // /  / /
     / /___/ /_ / /\ \  / /Roccondil\_  // /__/ // /__/ /
    /_________//_/  \_\/ /Eowine __  / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
   ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||

At last!
Elfica 4.1 now on-line
download it at http://www.geocities.com/enrombell/welcome.htm

enrombell

--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "enrombel" <eemunsj@...> wrote:
>
> At last!
> Elfica 4.1 now on-line
> download it at http://www.geocities.com/enrombell/welcome.htm
>
> enrombell
>

Enrique, thank you!

This looks very nice indeed.

Extra kudos for adding the glyphs in the Unicode Private Use block.

Yours,
Måns

Hello, my dear elfscripters,

haven't stopped here for quite a long time... I see this group's
still alive and that pleases me :-)

I have recently reviewed the Czech version of Wikipedia searching
for "Tengwar" - my hairstylist had a tattoo in Tengwar done ... she
thought she got her name there (Sarka) but the tengwar goes as
follows: silme - long carrier+A-tehta - aze - calma - short
carrier+A-tehta. I stared at the tattoe and couldn't realize what
the Tengwar had actually read! Sure, I was out of all of this stuff
for a long long time but even now I can't think of any evidence
where aze would represent the letter R - can you?
The point is that she's done the Tengwar transcription herself on
the base of the article on Wikipedia where Aze is given as "z, r,
ss", you can see it for yourselves
(http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengwar). The article is probably
trying to show Tengwar for the Czech language but the author in fact
omits to mention it ... I have to contact him/her to fix all
misunderstandings and blunders.

So, if you would know of any DTS where Aze represents R, pls let me
know! Hope to be seen here hence more often :-)

Cheers,
Lucy

--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "eriksson_tomas"
<tomas_eriksson_wedge@...> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>  I´ve been looking arond the net and tried to come up with a
> translation for the swedish name Lina. I want it to be written in
> Tengwar. Can I send a picture of it to anyone that can confirm that
it
> is spelled right?

Hello,
you mean you want to have your transcription (not translation)
checked, right? Go ahead, upload it to the Files and we have a look at
it.

Cheers,
Lucy

What for? Wikipedia articles technically don't 'belong' to anyone and
therefore have no authors. Why don't you fix it yourself?

Lucy wrote:
> (http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengwar). The article is probably
> trying to show Tengwar for the Czech language but the author in fact
> omits to mention it ... I have to contact him/her to fix all
> misunderstandings and blunders.

I haven't expressed myself correctly. I first want to correct the
article and also to tell the author off :-)

gil wrote:
> What for? Wikipedia articles technically don't 'belong' to anyone
and
> therefore have no authors. Why don't you fix it yourself?
>
> Lucy wrote:
> > (http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengwar). The article is probably
> > trying to show Tengwar for the Czech language but the author in
fact
> > omits to mention it ... I have to contact him/her to fix all
> > misunderstandings and blunders.
>

Hi Lucy and all others,

To my knowledge there is no example of _aze_ being used for /r/.
Judging by the description in Appendix E, the tengwa would only have
had this value for a brief time in ancient Quenya, before it was
reassigned to /ss/.

So although we can logically deduce that /r/ was one of the values for
_aze_, we can also see that this would be in very exceptional
circumstances.

Yours,
Måns


--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "Lucy" <calwen.rudh@...> wrote:
>
> Hello, my dear elfscripters,
>
> haven't stopped here for quite a long time... I see this group's
> still alive and that pleases me :-)
>
> I have recently reviewed the Czech version of Wikipedia searching
> for "Tengwar" - my hairstylist had a tattoo in Tengwar done ... she
> thought she got her name there (Sarka) but the tengwar goes as
> follows: silme - long carrier+A-tehta - aze - calma - short
> carrier+A-tehta. I stared at the tattoe and couldn't realize what
> the Tengwar had actually read! Sure, I was out of all of this stuff
> for a long long time but even now I can't think of any evidence
> where aze would represent the letter R - can you?
> The point is that she's done the Tengwar transcription herself on
> the base of the article on Wikipedia where Aze is given as "z, r,
> ss", you can see it for yourselves
> (http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengwar). The article is probably
> trying to show Tengwar for the Czech language but the author in fact
> omits to mention it ... I have to contact him/her to fix all
> misunderstandings and blunders.
>
> So, if you would know of any DTS where Aze represents R, pls let me
> know! Hope to be seen here hence more often :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Lucy
>

Thank you very much, Måns, this is my view as well.
Have a nice evening,
Lucy

--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "Mans Bjorkman" <at@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Lucy and all others,
>
> To my knowledge there is no example of _aze_ being used for /r/.
> Judging by the description in Appendix E, the tengwa would only
have
> had this value for a brief time in ancient Quenya, before it was
> reassigned to /ss/.
>
> So although we can logically deduce that /r/ was one of the values
for
> _aze_, we can also see that this would be in very exceptional
> circumstances.
>
> Yours,
> Måns

--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...>
wrote:

> ** yanta for [V] (as in DTS 15, note also the virtually identical IPA
> sign),

I gather you really mean a 'turned v' here--the vowel sound in the
English word 'nut'--but how would you represent that in this format? ;)

Thanks a lot for this overview (well, 'cursory survey of some
features', as you modestly call it), only stumbled upon this now...

Cheers,

Hisilome

--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "Mans Bjorkman" <at@...> wrote:
>
> --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@>
wrote:
> >> > I am also unable to make out what is written at
> > the top. It starts with "Facsimile Thorin's ..." and ends
with "39".
> > Might that be the year when it was written? Could anybody decipher
> > more of it, or is it explained in some part of the book?
>
> Nothing is said about it in the book, but I think the words are
> "Facsimile Thorin's Note [to] Bilbo. _Hobbit_ p 39". It seems thus
to be a reference to the page on which the letter appears in the
> published book. (A 1993 edition is my possession has the letter on
p.38.)

Yes, by and large I'd agree with that reading (although one really
has to _guess_ the words 'Note to'). I also have to say that the '39'
looks more like a '37' to me (??). But, for what it's worth, the text
of the letter ('Bilbo's Contract') _does_ actually appear on p.39 of
my oldest _Hobbit_ edition (a second edition [seventh impression]
from 1955 [George Allen & Unwin]), so I'm not sure. Maybe someone who
owns a first edition could enlighten us as to on what page the letter
is found in there. :)


> > * The number 11 seems to be represented by common Arab glyph
within
> > the tengwar text: It looks like two carriers that are joined
together
> > by a bar similar to the one that closes the quessetéma lúvar or
the
> > one on lambe. I think the most likely explanation of this is that
it
> > is just a tengwa-like rendering of the Arab glyphs "11" (the bar
may
> > resemble the upstroke of the glyph "1" that is common in certain
> > regions -- what is the British usage?).
>
> Admittedly, I am not an expert of the Arabic alphabet, but I am
unable
> to find any resemblance to either the Arabic numeral 1 or the
> "Arabic/Indic" 1 used with the Roman alphabet. Would you care to
> elaborate on this identification?
>
> To me, the Feanorian 1 in the letter looks most like a J with a
> pronounced horizontal bar at the top. A legacy from the
>Rúmilian? .The sarat for /t/ is also used for 1 in our specimen.

Which specimen are you referring to here? Maybe the 'King's Letter'
(where the '1' looks a bit like silme nuquerna with an overdot)?
Or are you referring to 'the tengwar numeral for "1" Christopher
Tolkien reported' that Mach mentions in message #71? (Reported
where? I'm just curious.)
I also noticed the sarati numerals in R10b and R11b, where the letter
for /t/ is used for the numeral '1', here looking more like a silme
than a 'J' and also having a dot--but _inside_ the 'hook', if you
like.

Cheers,

Hisilome

--- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...>
wrote:

Hi, a few questions occurred to me...

First, am I right to assume that at the end of the first sentence
(Thorin & Co. greeting Burglar Bilbo) a yanta with an underdot is
used to represent our exclamation mark?


> * There are two different r-signs, rómen and óre, but their usage
> differs from DTS 16, 17, 18 and 23: The "linking r" is not
>represented by a sequence of óre and rómen, but by rómen alone; the
>unstressed syllabic r is marked with a dot below, [...].

Not consistently, though? E.g. 'burglaR' (simple oore, no
dot).


> ** plain vilya for intial schwa and for [a] occurring in
combinations,

Yes, so seen in 'Assistance' or 'Acceptance', for example. But what
about 'Advance'? Is that really a 'plain vilya' preceding the ando?
Looks almost like a nwalme to me. A misspelling? Or just a rather
florid bit of calligrapy?


> ** "connected" carrier for medial schwa.

Again, not consistently I think. E.g. 'hospitalIty'
or 'prOfessional'. In the first case, we have the sign for [I]
instead of a 'connected' carrier--OK, maybe in some varieties of
English you'd pronounce it like that. But in the second
word, 'prOfessional', we have osse, which is elsewhere used for [o]--
now, as far as I can tell, this should definitely be a medial schwa,
right? I'll be happy to stand corrected.

Hm, looking at the way 'prOceeded' is spelled ('ow'), I guess Tolkien
probably _did_ pronounce 'prOfessional' with more of an [o] sound.
But then, why use osse in once case, and osse with 'following w'
tehta on top in the other? Did I miss something?

Cheers,

Hisilome

--- In #92 of elfscript2, Hisilome wrote:
>
> --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "Mans Bjorkman" <at@> wrote:
...
> > To me, the Feanorian 1 in the letter looks most like a J with a
> > pronounced horizontal bar at the top. A legacy from the
> >Rúmilian? .The sarat for /t/ is also used for 1 in our specimen.
>
> Which specimen are you referring to here? Maybe the 'King's Letter'
> (where the '1' looks a bit like silme nuquerna with an overdot)?
> Or are you referring to 'the tengwar numeral for "1" Christopher
> Tolkien reported' that Mach mentions in message #71? (Reported
> where? I'm just curious.)

I was just referring to Christopher Tolkien's transcripts published in
Quettar 13, 1982, where a sign looking like a "connected carrier" is
said to be used for the digit 1. BTW, I think the digit 1 of the
King's Letters doesn't look like a silme nuquerna, but rather like a
turned osse or like a plain tinco lúva without telco. It doesn't
extend below the baseline, whereas silme nuquerna always does. So we
have three different signs for one: The one attested in DTS 49, the
one attested in DTS 72, and the one reported by Christopher Tolkien
(which is – strangely enough – the most "popular" one, if you will,
that is to say, it's the one that's been adopted in the tengwar
comuter fonts).


--- In #93 of elfscript2, Hisilome wrote:
>
> --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@>
> wrote:
>
> Hi, a few questions occurred to me...
>
> First, am I right to assume that at the end of the first sentence
> (Thorin & Co. greeting Burglar Bilbo) a yanta with an underdot is
> used to represent our exclamation mark?

That might be right, though I'd rather describe it as a dot with a
kind of yanta-like mark above. If it really were an exclamation mark,
then I'd suppose the dot would be the more important part of it.

> > * There are two different r-signs, rómen and óre, but their usage
> > differs from DTS 16, 17, 18 and 23: The "linking r" is not
> >represented by a sequence of óre and rómen, but by rómen alone; the
> >unstressed syllabic r is marked with a dot below, [...].
>
> Not consistently, though? E.g. 'burglaR' (simple oore, no
> dot).

There's no "linking r" in 'burglar Bilbo' because here the R is
followed by a consonant, not a vowel, so óre is just what is to be
expected.

> > ** plain vilya for intial schwa and for [a] occurring in
> combinations,
>
> Yes, so seen in 'Assistance' or 'Acceptance', for example. But what
> about 'Advance'? Is that really a 'plain vilya' preceding the ando?
> Looks almost like a nwalme to me. A misspelling? Or just a rather
> florid bit of calligrapy?

To me it certainly looks like plain vilya: One lúva and one telco
only. The vertical stroke that closes the lúva is "connected" to the
telco of the ando that follows, but I think this occurs regularly in
Tolkien's tengwar writing.

> > ** "connected" carrier for medial schwa.
>
> Again, not consistently I think. E.g. 'hospitalIty'
> or 'prOfessional'. In the first case, we have the sign for [I]
> instead of a 'connected' carrier--OK, maybe in some varieties of
> English you'd pronounce it like that. But in the second
> word, 'prOfessional', we have osse, which is elsewhere used for
> [o]-- now, as far as I can tell, this should definitely be a medial
> schwa, right? I'll be happy to stand corrected.
>
> Hm, looking at the way 'prOceeded' is spelled ('ow'), I guess
> Tolkien probably _did_ pronounce 'prOfessional' with more of an [o]
> sound.  But then, why use osse in once case, and osse with
> 'following w' tehta on top in the other? Did I miss something?

I think these are really the transcriptions Tolkien intended. You
might be interested in the phonetician John C. Wells' article
"Whatever happened to Received Pronunciation?" that describes some
changes in RP that have happened during the 20th century. To me it was
an eye-opener, because I had wondered before why I'd hear Tolkien
pronouncing a tapped R in his audio recordings or why he'd transcribe
the word "lost" in DTS 24 with a long Ó: According to Wells, this was
normal early 20th century RP, see:

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/rphappened.htm

A word like "proceed" seems to be more likely to be pronounced with an
unreduced vowel than a word like "professional". I couldn't name a
reason. Perhaps there's something about the rhyme structure, but
that's something I don't know much about. At least, according to
www.merriam-webster.com , "proceed" may be pronounced with an
unreduced O, but not "professional". And see also Wells note about the
change in the quality of the GOAT vowel in the above mentioned article.

---
grüess
mach

--- On Wed, 7/9/08, hisilome <david.vdpeet@...> wrote:
...
> > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/rphappened.htm
> >
> > A word like "proceed" seems to be more likely to be pronounced
> > with an unreduced vowel than a word like "professional". I
> > couldn't name a reason. Perhaps there's something about the rhyme
> > structure, but that's something I don't know much about. At
> > least, according to www.merriam-webster.com , "proceed" may be
> > pronounced with an unreduced O, but not "professional". And see
> > also Wells note about the change in the quality of the GOAT vowel
> > in the above mentioned article.
>
> So, [ow] = /ou/ in Wells' article, and [o] = /o/? I still don't
> quite appreciate why Tolkien didn't spell the (first) 'o' in both
> 'proceed' and 'professional' the same (either both with osse + w or
> both with just osse--both of which are non-schwa representations).
> Or does it somehow have something to do with the fact that
> 'proceed' is more likely to be pronounced with an 'unreduced O'?

I'd suppose so. Compare also:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proceed
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional

I don't know how this difference is to be explained. Maybe something
with stress patterns.


> --why there is an andaith on the oore in 'BywatER'. How can this be
> a long vowel? (OR does that what looks like andaith to me [i.e. an
> acute accent] in fact belong to the ando of the word 'dragon' in the
> line above--florid calligraphy again?)

I'm quite certain this isn't an acute, but a trait of the above ando.
The same diagonal stroke is seen on most "capital" letters in the
specimen, that is to say, on most doubled telcor. It was previously
known from the King's Letters, though it didn't become part of the
computer tengwar fonts except on the "brackets" sign (a plain doubled
telco).


> --do we actually see a 'connected' carrier for the schwa-sound in
> 'persOn' or dragOn', and if so, where is the telco of the following
> nuumen ('n') then? But wait, the dots under nuumen (it has to be
> nuumen then) would indicate a syllabic 'n'. OK, this might work for
> 'person', but in 'dragon' there surely should be a schwa...? Or has
> this something to do with RP again (didn't see anything about it in
> the article, but maybe I overlooked sth)...

I'd read númen with a dot below in both cases and interprete it as
syllabic N. I have no oversight over the instances of syllabic N in
other phonemic English tengwar samples right now.


---
grüess
mach

I vaguely remember that the variant of the tengwa
Anna which looks like a Roman cursive u and is
found in the Tengwar Annatar Alf font (at position
104 h), page 11 in the PDF font manual, occurs
with a separate value distinct from that of
ordinary Anna in the same text.  Can anybody
jog my memory?



/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __
                  A h-ammen ledin i phith!                \ \
       __  ____ ____    _____________ ____ __   __ __     / /
       \ \/___ \\__ \  /___  _____/\ \\__ \\ \  \ \\ \   / /
       / /   / /  /  \    / /Melroch\ \_/ // /  / // /  / /
      / /___/ /_ / /\ \  / /Roccondil\_  // /__/ // /__/ /
     /_________//_/  \_\/ /Eowine __  / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
    ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||

On Aug 25, 2008, at 2:53 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:

> I vaguely remember that the variant of the tengwa
> Anna which looks like a Roman cursive u and is
> found in the Tengwar Annatar Alf font (at position
> 104 h), page 11 in the PDF font manual, occurs
> with a separate value distinct from that of
> ordinary Anna in the same text. Can anybody
> jog my memory?
>










It's in the "Giant Treebeard" fragment, _The Return of the Shadow_, p.
383, where regular _anna_ represents _a_, but the u-shaped version
represents the vowel of "but".


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

Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
						 --Elvish proverb

***************************************************




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Arden R. Smith skrev:
> On Aug 25, 2008, at 2:53 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
>
>> I vaguely remember that the variant of the tengwa
>> Anna which looks like a Roman cursive u and is
>> found in the Tengwar Annatar Alf font (at position
>> 104 h), page 11 in the PDF font manual, occurs
>> with a separate value distinct from that of
>> ordinary Anna in the same text. Can anybody
>> jog my memory?
>>
>
> It's in the "Giant Treebeard" fragment, _The Return of the Shadow_, p.
> 383, where regular _anna_ represents _a_, but the u-shaped version
> represents the vowel of "but".

Thank you!  Another sign whose provenance and value
I haven't been able to determine is the tehta which
looks like a breve.  I have most books only in paper
back, so it is hard to make out such fine distinctions.
If anyone can help me I'd be most obliged.



/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __
                  A h-ammen ledin i phith!                \ \
       __  ____ ____    _____________ ____ __   __ __     / /
       \ \/___ \\__ \  /___  _____/\ \\__ \\ \  \ \\ \   / /
       / /   / /  /  \    / /Melroch\ \_/ // /  / // /  / /
      / /___/ /_ / /\ \  / /Roccondil\_  // /__/ // /__/ /
     /_________//_/  \_\/ /Eowine __  / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
    ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:09:27 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson
<melroch@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you!  Another sign whose provenance and value
> I haven't been able to determine is the tehta which
> looks like a breve.  I have most books only in paper
> back, so it is hard to make out such fine distinctions.
> If anyone can help me I'd be most obliged.

See http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript2/message/81 ;-)

In DTS 10 it is very clearly shaped as a breve, while it tend to be a bit
more pointed in DTS 4/5; I'm convinced though, that the breve shape is the
intended one, and that any resemblance to an hacek is accidental. What _I_
wonder, then, is if the true hacek tehta is actually attested anywhere.
(It has a merit anyway, as a hypothetical allograph for the reversed A
tehta, but I would consider it a misspelling using it for the vocalic
English <y>.)

-- Johan Winge