tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 17 13:49:04 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: the nature of pIqaD
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: the nature of pIqaD
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:48:54 CDT
- In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 16 Aug 1998 20:29:42 -0700
ja' ghunchu'wI':
> Two pieces of information from TKD might be useful here.
>
> Page 11:
> There is a native writing system for Klingon (called {pIqaD})
> which seems to be well suited to the various dialects.
>
> This doesn't manage to explain whether the writing system indicates
> changes in pronunciation or not, but it does imply that there's only
> one writing system that encompasses all dialects. Something that is
> able to do that is likely to be phonetic in nature, or at least partly
> phonetic.
>
you mean phone_m_ic, I assume
> Page 14:
> Those few Klingons who pronounce {b} as {m} would say Klingon
> {baH} /fire (a torpedo)/ and {maH} /we/ the same way, and have
> to memorize which word is spelled which way.
>
> This implies that {pIqaD} does *not* indicate changes in pronunciation
> between dialects. It also argues against {pIqaD} being idiographic in
> nature, with the word "spelled" implying an alphabet.
>
jIQoch... assume there was some weird chinese ,dialect', in which the words
for "one" and for "two" are pronounced identically. The speakers of this
dialect have to remember which character to use for which word, i.e.
"which word is spelled which way" if you use the term "spelled" loosely
enough; certainly you could use the word "spelled" for an ,alphabet'
like japanese Hiragana or Katakanna?
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]