tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 20 09:16:52 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: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:16:36 CDT
- In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 19 Aug 1998 18:44:38 -0700
jIja':
> >you mean phone_m_ic, I assume
>
jang ghunchu'wI':
> No, I do mean phonetic. I'm talking about a system for representing
> spoken sounds with distinct symbols. The term "phonemic" implies to
> me an alphabet like the romanized transcription system we use now in
> writing Klingon, where each fundamental sound or phoneme has its own
> symbolic representation. A syllabic writing system would still be a
> phonetic system, wouldn't it?
>
ghItlhmeH pat *phonemic* lo'lu'taHvIS, wa' *phoneme* Del Hoch *symbol*,
'e' DaQubchugh, bIlughbe'.
ghItlhmeH pat *phonemic* lo'lu'taHvIS, wa' *phoneme* <tlhegh> Del
Hoch *symbol*.
cha' *sound* Delchugh wa' *phoneme*, *sound*vaD *allophone* luponglu'.
ghItlhmeH pat *phonetic* lo'lu'taHvIS, wa' *allophone* <tlhegh> Del
Hoch *symbol*.
ghItlhmeH pat *phonetic* lutu'be'lu', 'e' vIQub.
> So I still think that the sketchy description of pIqaD that appears
> in TKD is more consistent with a way to describe pronunciation than
vaj, *phonemic*law' ghItlhmeH pat pIqaD.
> a pictoral or ideographic system. There are a great many ways that
> pronunciation can be described, however, and we will probably never
> get any better clues than we already have.
>
wa' DoS wIqIp.
(my excuses for trying to keep this on-topic and thereby introducing
more *s than anything else :-/ )
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]