tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 17 10:39:12 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jItlhob Hoch
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jItlhob Hoch
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:38:25 -0500 ()
- cc: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 06:49:35 -0800 "Donald E. Vick"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Dec 1996 22:34:12 -0800 "eric d. zay"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ..
> > > > The -rQ- or -rq- combination is not legitimate, is it?
> > > > I would guess Sark to transliterate as {SarIq}
> >
> > or {Sargh}
> Somehow I doubt this. Every time I listen to the tapes, I'm surprised at
> how soft the {gh} sound is. I'm pretty sure it doesn't sound like a {q}.
> Not to me ennyhoo.
The point is not that {gh} sounds like {q}. It doesn't. But then
{Q} doesn't sound like "kr", and {gh} doesn't sound like "g",
yet we have {Qugh} as "Kruge". The only consonant which can
follow {r} to end a syllable in Klingon is {gh}, so it is
reasonable enough to expect the human "Sark" to be a
close-enough pronunciation to the Klingon {Sargh} that more than
one of us (myself and Qov, I believe) thought that would be a
likely Klingon version of the word.
> > charghwI'
> <g> maQochqa'.
<g> jImerbe'qa'.
> taDI'oS vIq, law'wI'pu'vaD Holtej jIH
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Thaddaeus Vick, Linguist to the Masses | [email protected] -or- |
> | | [email protected] |
> | gules on a saltire argent voided azure | |
> | thirteen mullets of the second. Yeeha. | http://www.crl.com/~dvick |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
charghwI'