Re: Tengwar [was Typesetting Lojban ]

[mark@kli.org]

>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@concentric.net>
>Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:21:17 -0400 (EDT)
>Cc: lojban@onelist.com
>
>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@concentric.net>
>
>[ split of threads again - this is the tengwar thread ]
>Ivan A Derzhanski writes:

> > But no primary-order tengwa for {'}, please! Writing it as if
> > it were a voiceless velar fricative would make it more similar
> > to {k} or {x} that many other consonants would be. 
>
>Here's the basic mode (where / stands in for a tengwa that is
>unused). Map it to the standard tengwar diagram:
>
>t p k /
>d b g /
>s f c '
>z v j x
>n m / /
>? / ? /
>
>The last row, the semi-vowels, I hadn't yet decided on whether it
>should include r and l or not. That decision was discussed briefly
>elsewhere. One thought was to switch tengwa depending on usage.
>
> > If it must
> > be a tengwa, let it be a very distinctive one such as yanta.
> > (This is why I've always opposed {h} for {'} in Roman script
> > -- it should be very prominent, but it is a Good Thing that it
> > doesn't look like a consonant.)
>
>Hmmm. I want to think about that. I used the short carrier for a comma 
>- rather than two tehtar on one tengwa, the vowel separation becomes
>explicit with the short carrier which has no consonantal sound. I used 
>the long carrier as a period (which works especially well for before a 
>vowel, and is visually indicative after a consonant).
>
>Perhaps the short carrier is better for ' than for ,. ' is only ever
>between vowels, so the short carrier seems to be a bit better
>suited. Which means I need to think about the comma, now :-)

No, not short carrier. Halla. Halla is Your Friend. It's even said to
represent /h/ in some modes by JRRT hisself. And it's nice and
distinctive. Didn't the Lojban mode in The Book use it? (didn't you design
that, Ivan?)

Or at least hyarmen.

~mark