tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 12 12:01:14 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: introduction
- From: "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: introduction
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:17:11 -0500
Qermaq bravely throws himself into the fire...
charghwI'vaD ghItlh Doneq:
>Then, what is your problem with my "r" being pronounced in the back
>of my mouth, instead of in front with the tip of my tongue?
>
>In a previous post (which I unfornunately have deleated already), you
>said you wouldn't be able to understand me if I did so, that you
>wouldn't be able to distinguish between my Klingon "r" and Klingon
>"gh". And now you are contradicting yourself?
I think the situation is one of confusion, not conflict. Anyone, including
charghwI', will understand your spoken Dutch and your spoken Klingon if you
share a fluency which will enable them to understand your spoken language.
If a person grew up three houses away from you, they will likely share your
dialect, pronunciation, etc., which would on occasion be barriers to
communication for speakers in different continents.
If you speak a language perfectly, and another person understands the
language perfectly, there's no barrier. But if a person is not sufficiently
familiar with a language to differentiate among sounds which are similar
enough to seem like the same sound in their native language, then there
might be confusion.
If a raw beginner to Dutch (a native English speaker, perhaps) heard the
words 'keuken' and 'kuiken', they might, short of contextual cues, mistake
one for the other. If an intermediate student of Klingon heard a Dutch
back-r at the beginning and end of <ghogh>, there might be confusion - they
might not hear it as a Klingon word, since it is a foreign sound followed by
a fairly universal vowel followed by a foreign sound.
I assume you pronounce Klingon <r> similarly to the Dutch front-r your
mother uses. That is likely a good pronunciation. I also get the impression
you use the Dutch back-r as the Klingon <gh>. This is incorrect
pronunciation. (I'll use a capital R to indicate Dutch back-r - the growled
uvular variety.) Do you say the Klingon word for 'hand' as <Rop>? Or do you
put that sound in the rear of the oral cavity, out of the throat, and say
<ghop>?
Consider <tlhoS>. Say you think, "<tlh> is similar to \kl\ so I'll pronounce
it that way. And <S> is similar to \s\ so I'll pronounce it that way too."
You'll say the word <tlhoS> and it'll sound just like English "close"
(nearby or not far). That is not close at all. It is wrong. It is equally
wrong to use R for <gh>. It is incorrect pronunciation.
If I spoke Dutch (which I don't) and said 'keuken' and 'kuiken' exactly the
same way, you'd think "Stupid American, can't pronounce the language." You'd
be at least partly right. But that is exactly what happens when you use R
for <gh>. Perhaps charghwI' thought you would use R for <r> as well - I am
assuming a lot here, including the assumption that you do not. Clue us in on
what exactly you do.
For the record, here's my mental map of these sounds. <gh> - like the ch of
German ich, but voiced; also like English \g\ but elongated. (The
Merriam-Webster Dictionary uses an underlined \k\ to notate the sound which
resembles <H> - <gh> would then be an underlined \g\.) <r> is the same as
the non-initial r in Spanish, and likely is similar to the front-r in many
European languages. Neither involve the uvula in any way. The only Klingon
sounds which do are <q> and <Q>.
Qermaq