An exploration of the evolution of Tengwar and how it relates to the evolution of real life writing systems

!
There is a difference between the spoken word and the written word, and people throughout the ages have tried to find ways to represent the spoken word through different writing systems. A writing system is any conventional system of marks or signs that represents the utterances of a language (Olson). There are many writing systems in Tolkiens legendarium,11 with the two
"

main ones being Cirth and Tengwar, the writing scripts of the Dwarves and the Elves respectively. This paper will focus on the evolution of the Elvish writing system, looking at its development from spoken language, to Sarati, to the final form of Tengwar, and it will reflect on this evolution with reference to the evolution of the Latin alphabet. Through this analysis, this paper will show how realistic Tolkiens mythology is in terms of its evolution of writing systems.

!
The Evolution of Tolkiens Elvish Writing System The first Elvish writing system in Tolkiens Legendarium is named Sarati, after the original Quenya word for symbols that represented sound, that is sarat (Smith 5). It was created by an elf by the name of Rmil, which is why this writing system was later often referred to as Rmils Tengwar, after the more well-known Quenya term for a writing system, Tengwar. Sarati is first mentioned in Appendix E of the Lord of the Rings in the introduction to the

! !
1. Legendarium has been defined by Tolkien to mean all the works that concern the world of Arda or Middle-earth, even those that contradict each other. See Legendarium.

different writing systems of Tolkiens legendarium, where its sarats, or individual characters, are described as the oldest Eldarin letters (Tolkien 493).

!
Sarati is very broad and contains many different sarats that can be arranged to form nearly every sound (Bjrkman). It can, therefore, be used to write most languages. This may result from Tolkiens original use of the script, which was to be a form of code-alphabet for English, but evolved to encompass his evolving Elvish languages (Smith 6). This change in the purpose of the script would have introduced the need to represent sounds not prevalent in English, but may be common in Elvish languages, such as Eldarins common lh (Fauskanger). It is not a large leap to make to wonder if Sarati, as Tolkien conceived it, would have been created to be able to accomodate for any sound that may yet be introduced to the Elvish languages. This is supported by the way it is written. Sarati can be written in many directions - left-to-right, right-to-left, boustrophedon, top to bottom beginning at right, and top to bottom beginning at left (Bjrkman)which suggests a freedom in the representation of language, which can change as the language changes. Of course, this is similar to other writing systems in real life, such as Egyptian hieroglyphics, which use this ability to write in different directions in an aesthetic manner, in a way to indicate respect, or to make the piece easier to read (Robinson 94).

!
Tengwar came after Sarati, both in the order in which they were created in real life by Tolkien, as well as in the order in which they came about in the history of Tolkiens legendarium. It is said that Tengwar was largely a new invention, though [it] owed something to the letters of Rmil (Tolkien 493), which suggests a progression in terms of the writing system. The

development of Tengwar from Sarati can be considered a way to differentiate the different groups of elves. Created by Feanor, it separated the Noldor elves, of which Feanor was a part of, from their Telerin and Vanyar kin, a separation which was further increased by the Noldor leaving Valinor for Middle-earth.

!
Indeed, there are many aspects of Tengwar and Sarati that suggest a link between the two writing systems. Where in Sarati diacritics are sometimes used to indicate vowels, this is not always consistent. According to Bjrkman, in Sarati, depending on the form, vowels may be omitted, such as in the Early Form, or there may be an inherent vowel a assumed after every sarat which changes only when another vowel diacritic is marked, such as in Quenya usage. Conversely, Tengwar, in general usage mode, has turned into a consistent abugida system, with vowels being completely secondary to the tengwa, or symbols, that represent consonantal sounds. The vowel diacritics alter the sound of the consonants, rather than being separate sounds of their own, and they are always marked. The exceptions to this, such as Beleriand mode, that show vowels as tengwar, - they have their own symbol rather than simply being a diacritic that altered the sound of the consonant - do this to accommodate for different languages. In Beleriand mode, it is noted that Sindarin, being the language that is being written, made the diacritics impractical to use. The use of Sindarin would have only applied to Tengwar, as it was spoken in Middle-earth where Sarati had never been used (Tolkien 493). However, these modes are earlier versions of Tengwar that eventually shift to modes that use diacritics to indicate vowels. This shift in how vowels are indicated from Sarati to the final versions of Tengwar show a progression in the writing system. The use of diacritics is solidified.

!
Another difference is that Tengwar is only written in one way - left to right (Bjrkman). This makes the writing consistent and easier to interpret at first glance, as there is no confusion about the direction of the writing. This is a change from Sarati, which can be written in many different directions (Bjrkman). This suggests a solidification of the writing system - a more formal decision that defines the usage of the entire system - which could be attributed to the solidification of the languages. Tengwar was specifically created to represent Elvish languages, rather than evolving from a way to represent English as Sarati did, and indeed there is no real canon English mode.

!
Furthermore, Tengwar uses consistent shapes while Sarati has a large array of dissimilar symbols. Tengwar has a limited array of building blocks that can be arranged to form a system of writing (Bjrkman). Instead of having a symbol for any sound possible, as Sarati does, Tengwar instead has four series of tengwa, the equivalent of letters, that change in five different stages (Tolkien 494). According to Tolkien, the first stage is the original sound, with each following stage altering the sound differently. The way the stages alter the sound differs with what language is being represented by the Tengwar. This means that the values for each tengwa is not concrete and changes according to the language used, making the use of Tengwar less precise and more region-specific. This may be attributed to the places in which Tengwar and Sarati are used in the legendarium. Sarati, being used only in Valinor among elves that did not often feud and only spoke two main languages (Quenya and Telerin), was more coherent and consistent in usage. Conversely, Tengwar, being used in Middle Earth, where different races and

different groups among races were often separated and communication between different groups was scarce, would have had more chances to be adapted for use for many different languages and cultures.

!
Evolution of Latin Alphabet and How it Relates to the Evolution of Tolkiens Elvish Writing System Unlike Sarati, the Latin alphabet writing system developed first in pictographs. The origins of what is now known as the Latin alphabet are in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Many of these hieroglyphics were logograms - symbols that represented a word or phrase - which were combined with other symbols that could also represent phonetic sound (Robinson 100). The logograms have no known connection with the evolution of Sarati, as Sarati was developed as a way to convey consonants and no precursors to this approach are known. However, symbols that convey phonetic sounds are split into three groups: 1. 2. 3. uniconsonantal signs biconsonantal signs triconsonantal signs

(Robinson 100). As their names suggest, they are made up of one, two, and three consonantal sounds respectively. This is similar to Sarati in which biconsonantal and triconsontal signs exist (see Fig 1.0), but dissimilar to Tengwar where tengwa are usually uniconsonantal but can occasionally be biconsonantal (see Fig 2.0).

! !

!
It may be theorised that as writing systems evolved, alphabets, or at least the number of symbols that were used to represent sounds, were simplified and cut down to the bare essentials. As Sarati influenced Tengwar, many of the sounds that Feanor or Tolkien may have deemed unnecessary or superfluous could have been dropped or been recreated using multiple tengwa rather than using just one. This is supported by later writing systems, such as the Phonecian alphabet and the alphabets that followed it. It also suggests some ability to adapt to different sounds and languages, as a range of different sounds can be made with existing letters or symbols. The

Fig 1.0 - Sarati having uniconsonantal, biconsonantal, and triconsonantal valuations. (Bjrkman)

Fig 2.0 - Tengwar having only uniconsonantal, and biconsonantal valuations. (Bjrkman)

sounds that the symbols represent are therefore less tied to the language, and are more likely to evolve and change depending on use and context. This is reminiscent of Tengwar being able to adapt its smaller range of symbols to many different sounds, with slight alterations of valuations depending on the language that it is representing.

!
A later writing system influenced by the idea of hieroglyphics was the Phoenician alphabet, which consisted of only 22 letters and did not mark vowels (Robinson 162-3). This alphabet greatly reduced the number of symbols needed to represent the spoken word and focused completely on the sounds made, rather than the letters or symbols having their own inherent meaning, as Egyptian logograms did. It made it necessary for multiple letters to combine to

create the different sounds possible in the language rather than having symbols that represented

triconsonantal valuations. As well as this, the writing direction of the Phoenician alphabet was simplified - instead of being written in many different ways, as Egyptian hieroglyphics, the Phoenician script was written in only two directions: right to left, or boustrophedon (Phoenician Alphabet). This simplification of writing direction means that the texts produced are more consistent and more accessible. There is less guesswork involved in the reading of the script, as direction is not as big of an issue in the legibility of the text as in Egyptian hieroglyphics. This is reminiscent of Tengwar, and the evolution of Tengwar from Sarati, as the limiting of symbols needed to represent the spoken word is evident in Tengwar, as is the simplification of the writing direction.

!
The next alteration to the alphabet was when the Greeks adapted the Phoenician alphabet. The Greeks altered the name and sounds of the Phoenician alphabet to better suit their own language,

resulting in changes like aleph to alpha. As well as that, three new symbols were added to compensate for the Phoenician alphabet not having symbols for certain sounds in the Greek language (Robinson 166-7). This altering of the script to accommodate for different languages is reminiscent of the evolution of Tengwar itself, specifically the development of the different modes. With Beleriand mode, for example, Tengwar was adapted to write Sindarin, which resulted in some tengwa being allocated to vowels rather than consonants, as it served the language better (Bjrkman). In a similar fashion, the tengwa ando (see Figure 3.0) can be used to represent the nd sound in Classical Mode, which was used to write Quenya, while in general use it represents the sound d, where it is used to write both Quenya and Sindarin. This shift in sound between different modes of Tengwar reflects the shift in sound between the Phoenician alphabet and the Greek adaption of it.
Figure 3.0 - the tengwa ando (Tengwar Alphabet).

!
This shift in the phonetic valuations of letters between different alphabets

is prevalent today in modern day alphabets. The Latin alphabet, and all the alphabets that are based off of it, have evolved through many changes from the Greek alphabet (White 198-9). The variants of the Latin-based alphabets also echo the use of Tengwar in different modes. Because of different languages that require different sounds, the phonetic valuations of the Latin alphabet can shift slightly, others may be added, and some may not even be used (Latin-derived alphabet). They still, however, use a small selection of symbols to represent the entire spoken language, which is very different from the Egyptian hieroglyphics that were some of the earliest stages in the development of these modern day alphabets. It is very rare to have letters that represent biconsonantal values, much less triconsonantal values, which is reminiscent of the

evolution of Sarati to Tengwar. However, one difference is the evolution of the scope of the alphabet. While Egyptian hieroglyphics may have been hard to use to form many different languages, the Latin alphabet has been used to represent a very large amount of spoken languages. Conversely, Sarati and Tengwar may both be used to represent a large array of languages, which may be due to the context in which they were created - they were created by one man, and were meant to represent a large amount of different dialects and languages from the start.

!
Conclusion There are many parallels between the evolution of the Latin alphabet and the evolution of Tolkiens elvish writing system. The simplification of the writing system is prevalent in the progression of the Egyptian hieroglyphics to later alphabets, such as the Phoenician alphabet. This simplification is shown through the smaller range of characters available, as sounds have been broken down to their most simplest forms. More complex sounds are formed by the combination of the different characters that represent the very simple ones. This is shown by the very limited number of characters that Tengwar uses compared to Sarati, which uses symbols to convey complex sounds. Tengwar, by comparison, is very rough with its phonetic valuations and does not accurately represent all the sounds possible in any language, which results in the shifting of phonetic valuations depending on mode, which is reminiscent of the progression through alphabets, as well as the variations of Latin-based alphabets that exist in the modern age.

In a similar fashion, the direction of writing is simplified from Egyptian hieroglyphics to the modern day Latin alphabet. From being able to write in multiple directions in Egyptian hieroglyphics, which depended on the context the writing was in and on aesthetic preference, the Latin alphabet writing system has been simplified and generalised to only be written in one direction. This is comparable to the evolution of Sarati to Tengwar, where the many different directions Sarati could be written in has evolved to the single direction Tengwar can be written in. This suggests a simplification that reduces the writing system to the simplest form it can be, which results in a more consistent writing system among different texts, further resulting in easier comprehension and accessibility.

!
However, one main difference is the scope of the alphabet. While the Latin alphabet has developed from being a very language-specific writing system (Egyptian hieroglyphics, Phoenician alphabet, and Greek alphabet have had to be greatly altered to fit different languages), it has developed into an alphabet that can represent many different languages using the same symbols. This is different from Sarati and Tengwar, where the generalisability of the writing systems has stayed consistent. This is due to the original context in which they were created: Tolkien created Sarati to represent English, but then altered it to encompass languages that he was still in the process of creating, while he created Tengwar to encompass many different languages and dialects. This aim to create a generalisable alphabet resulted in a more generalisable alphabet at the start, rather than this generalisability being achieved through natural selection of sounds and symbols as the writing system evolved.

To sum up, there are similarities in the manner in which Tolkiens Elvish writing system developed and the development of the real life Latin alphabet. These similarities result in the simplification of the writing system over time. However, one major difference is the generalisability of the writing system to different languages, in which Tolkiens writing systems have achieved since their inception due to the context in which they were created. The evolution of Tolkiens writing systems may therefore be said to be mostly realistic, with the exception of one aspect that would be difficult to replicate when considering the context in which he was creating the writing systems.

Works Cited
Bjrkman, Mns. Amanye Tenceli. Mns Bjrkman. Web. 1 Dec 2013. <http://at.mansbjorkman.net/index.html>. Fauskanger, Helge Kre. "On LH and RH (not to mention HL and HR)." Ardalambion. N.p.. Web. 1 Dec 2013. <http://folk.uib.no/hnohf/lh-rh.htm>. "Latin-derived alphabet." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 28 Sept 2013. Web. 1 Dec 2013. "Legendarium." Tolkien Gateway. N.p., 11 Oct 2013. Web. 29 Nov 2013. <http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Legendarium>. Olson, David R. writing. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopdia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/649670/writing>. "Phoenician Alphabet." Omniglot. N.p.. Web. 1 Dec 2013. <http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ phoenician.htm>. Robinson, Andrew. The Story of Writing: Alphabets, Hieroglyphs and Pictograms. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc., 1995. 7-181. Print. Smith, Arden R. "The History of the Alphabet of Rmil." Parma Eldalamberon. 13 (2001): 5-92. Print. "Tengwar Alphabet." Quenya101. N.p.. Web. 1 Dec 2013. <http://quenya101.com/elvish-course/tengwaralphabet/>. Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. New York: Ballantine Books, 1970. 492-500. Print. White, Alex W. Thinking in type: the practical philosophy of typography. New York: Alworth Press, 2005. Print.