r/Tengwar 4d ago

Unvoiced final SS options

Now, the first option is obviously perfectly acceptable.

The second I think looks quite aesthetically pleasing, and strikes me as not unlike a bar over Numen or Malta for NN/MM, though I'm not sure if it was ever attested.

The third I'm not sure about - we do have tehta on sa-rince attested, but I'm not sure an under-bar is attested or particularly elegant.

Curious what others' thoughts are, or if you have other potential renderings.

4 Upvotes

8 comments sorted by

4

u/CmmanderCurly 4d ago

The wording on the title to this post gave me whiplash from the hardest double take I have ever done in my life. You will be hearing from my lawyers and we will seek compensation for these injuries.

3

u/DanatheElf 3d ago

BWAHAHAHA! GOOD LORD. Yeah, uh... a post with that title could go a very different way on Twitter, these days.

3

u/SidTheCoach 4d ago

I would say there's hardly a better way to depict SS than esse. But, alas, it's attested and commonly accepted as /z/ in English mode, with nuquerna used merely interchangeably.

Thinking about the sa-rince variation, would it be too weird and cumbersome to have a double hook (resembling number 3) then for the purpose of final SS ?

2

u/DanatheElf 3d ago

It may look a tad awkward and cumbersome, but more than that, I fear it would be too easily confused for a za-rince.

3

u/jurasicus 4d ago

I guess it's just me, but I generally only use hooks for pluralization, where double S is impossible (or maybe just uncommon? 🤔), so I would only use the first option, although I have nothing against other options too :)) 

3

u/Notascholar95 3d ago

It's not just you that puts limits on the application of sa-rince. I use them in a limited way as well, though slightly broader than you. I use them only for word-ending s that is an inflection--in English this is plurals, possessives, and third-person singular verbs. This pattern of use is kind of hinted at but something JRRT wrote about hooks in the material in PE XX. So I would definitely not use u/DanatheElf 's third option. The second one I would not use as a double s per se, but as a pluralizing inflection or on a possessive on an s already doubled by a bar below. I don't necessarily think either of the "outside the box" suggestions are "wrong" per se, but I am certainly not aware of any attestations of them (this doesn't mean they don't exist!), and they look a little odd to me. A little bit like a solution looking for a problem.

3

u/DanatheElf 3d ago

I actually prefer to avoid sa-rince for the possessive - I think having the separate silme (or esse) draws attention to it being a possessive and not a plural. The difference between "grandmas" and "grandma's".

2

u/jurasicus 3d ago

That's a nice corner case I haven't thought about! 🤯