tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 16 04:49:04 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlh-H morphology question
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: tlh-H morphology question
- Date: Tue, 16 May 95 13:49:07 METDST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Marc Ruehlaender" at May 16, 95 6:58 am
- Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
>
> jabbI'IDwI' yIlaD
>
> If I'm not mistaken (tell me if I am!) Klingon morphology
> can be described by the following formalism:
>
> Let C be any consonant, C1 any consonant except <w>,
> C2 any consonant except <w, y, '> and Cl be {<rgh, y'>}.
>
> Let V be any vowel (monophtongs AND diphtongs), V0 be
> {<a, e, I>}, V1 be {<a, e, I, o, u>} and V2 = V\V1.
>
> Then the possible syllables are:
> I) C-V1 IV) C-V1-Cl
> II) C-V1-C1 V) C-V0-w'
> III) C-V0-w
>
> which seems to be how most of you conceive it, or
>
> A) C-V C) C-V-'
> B) C-V-C2 D) C-V1-rgh
>
> which is what I prefer, because it recognises
> diphtongs as vowels like MO did in TKD. Under
Sorry, I just realized, he didn't :-{
However, I still do :-}
> this second scheme there are however no C-clusters
> except <rgh> because V1<w'> and V1<y'> are analysed
> as V2<'>.
>
> Now my question(s): which scheme do you prefer
> and for what reasons?
>
> Marc Dochlangan
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------