Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Orcs and Elves (was Re: Common Orcish Article (Long) - was Re: tolkien?)

From:Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2003, 16:39

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:52:04 -0800,
Costentin Cornomorus <elemtilas@...> wrote:

> --- Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> > wrote: > > > I have also spent some thought on an Orc > > language phonology. My idea > > was to eliminate all labial and labialized > > phonemes, because the Orcs > > with their underbites and big fangs cannot make > > a proper lip closure, > > nor can they round their lips, at least not > > without tremendous effort. > > This also means that you cannot lip-read an Orc > > ;-) > > I rather think it will depend on the physiology > of the Orcs in question. I can not accept that > Tolkien's Orcs can't round their lips or > whatever. Because they are, essentially, Elves. > Ruined and hateful, perhaps, but physically and > genetically Elves.
Well, I wasn't really thinking of *Tolkienian* Orcs, just something that could be vaguely described as "Orcs". And regarding the "Orcs are corrupted Elves" matter, Tolkien himself later abandoned that view, I have read somewhere, though I don't remember the source. And the Orcs I had in mind *aren't* descended from Elves.
> Not that the motion pictures can be taken at more > than face value; watching the Orcs therein shows > them with very expressive mouths quite capable of > lip rounding.
> And look at the corpus of Orckish. They've got > enough Us in there to indicate the ability to > round their lips.
Minor quibble here: who knows that those /u/s weren't really pronounced [M], i.e. without lip rounding? The Orc-curse found in LotR also contains labial consonants.
> Now, if you're positing a different sort of Orc > entirely, then of course the field is wide open.
> > The Elves who speak Hesperic (my language > > family formerly known as "Q") > > are 100% human, and thus, their oral cavities > > are within human norm, > > and Hesperic phonology is within that, too. > > Glad to see they have a name at last! H is still > largely I-E, yes?
Yes, most of the roots I have so far are derived from IE (but I am going to have more roots not related to IE roots), and the morphology is similar to some extent. My idea of the Hesperic-IE relationship is that Hesperic separated from IE about 2000 years before the breakup of the latter. It is farther from the main IE stock than Anatolian, but closer than Uralic, Etruscan or anything else that might be distantly related to IE. And the name "Hesperic" is still provisional, though it might stick. I don't know yet. Greetings, Jörg.