Fix rendering of nwalme in the classical mode

[kriskowal]

The name of the tengwa nwalme is presumably spelled using the eponymous tengwa, implying a pronunciation consistent with ñw but not ñgw (ungwe).

Using nwalme for all occurrences of nw breaks the test case for vanwa, which is allegedly rendered as numen followed by wilya. I suspect that the test case in error, but could use a second opinion.

This change, as written, assumes the test case is correct and uses nwalme only in the initial position of a word.

[vercel[bot]]

This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more).
To see the status of your deployment, click below or on the icon next to each commit.

🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/kriskowal/tengwarjs/3vj1qrpxa
✅ Preview: https://tengwarjs-git-nwalme.kriskowal.vercel.app

[arnog]

I think using {nwalme} in the initial position, and thus for "nwalme" itself, makes sense.

It seems that "vanwa" should also use {nwalme} as it appears to be formed from the "vā-" stem and the "-nwa" perfective-participle suffix. Some words ending in "-nwa" should also use {nwalme} when they use the perfective-participle suffix, but there are some that end in "-nwa" that don't, for example "Eldarinwa" or "yonwa".

Technically, it seems that what nwalme is intended, the roman transcription should use "ñw", but that doesn't appear to be done consistently.

[kriskowal]

I think using {nwalme} in the initial position, and thus for "nwalme" itself, makes sense.

It seems that "vanwa" should also use {nwalme} as it appears to be formed from the "vā-" stem and the "-nwa" perfective-participle suffix. Some words ending in "-nwa" should also use {nwalme} when they use the perfective-participle suffix, but there are some that end in "-nwa" that don't, for example "Eldarinwa" or "yonwa".

Technically, it seems that what nwalme is intended, the roman transcription should use "ñw", but that doesn't appear to be done consistently.

It occurs to me that using ñ for the n in ñg may be a personal affectation, since it helps disambiguate the transcriber input, and it is likely always unambiguous in elvish transcription. It is only helpful for non-elvish source languages.

Thank you for the second opinion. I’ve posted a follow-up that generalizes the nw cluster to always be transliterated as nwalme, regardless of position.

[kriskowal]

@arnog Reading your feedback more closely, it seems that the Quenya transcription is indeed ambiguous, and that the ñ hint might be necessary, or a comprehensive book of attested words and their corresponding outputs. I could do either.

[kriskowal]

Your feedback would suggest the following two additional tests, currently failing:

{
    "eldarinwa": "short-carrier:e;alda:a;romen;i;numen;wilya:a",
    "yonwa": "anna;numen:o;wilya:a"
}

[dreamingfifi]

So, the history of Nwalme and the NW that it represents is that it used to be pronounced /ŋʷ/ and was Romanized ÑW. It's a sound in Quenya that only occurred at the beginnings of words. In the Exilic dialect of Quenya, the word-initial Ñ became N. The only source of NW at the beginnings of words is this old /ŋʷ/. Therefore, the only way to use Nwalme is to have it used for word-initial NW and ÑW.

Therefore, you'd never write "Vanwa" with Nwalme. Instead, the NW would be rendered with Númen and Vilya.

[dreamingfifi]

"yonwa": "anna;numen:o;wilya:a"

Yonwa would fail because you need to put the double dot Y-tehta under the Anna. Also, the O ended up on the Númen somehow. It should look like this:

[kriskowal]

"yonwa": "anna;numen:o;wilya:a"

Yonwa would fail because you need to put the double dot Y-tehta under the Anna. Also, the O ended up on the Númen somehow. It should look like this:

Thanks. Posted the new test and this is what I see now:

[dreamingfifi]

Much better!

[kriskowal]

This is consistent with Tecendil:

https://www.tecendil.com/?q=yonwa&mode=quenya

[arnog]

Sounds good, but I was arguing earlier that Tecendil might be wrong :) That said, @dreamingfifi explanation convinced me, so we're all good!