tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 12 21:57:59 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Vowels

On 13 Aug 1999 00:22:36 -0000 [email protected] wrote:

> >> >On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:50:27 CDT Marc Ruehlaender 
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> i) syllables can begin with a consonant 
> >> >> <b,ch,D,gh,H,j,l,m,n,ng,p,q,Q,r,S,t,tlh,v,'>
> >> >> or with <y,w>
> >> >> 
> >> >> ii) syllables can have a monophtong <a,e,I,o,u> or a diphtong
> >> >> <ay,ey,Iy,oy,uy,aw,ew,Iw>
> >> >
> >> >If we are going to get this convoluted, why not consider {r} to 
> >> >be a semi-vowel as well and consider the diphtongs <ar, er, Ir, 
> >> >or, ur> which can be followed by nothing or {gh}?
> >> 
> >> I suppose you could consider {r} to be a glide/semivowel too (a semi-vowel
> >> is not a vowel).  Certainly in American English pronunciation {r} is a
> >> full-fledged vowel in some words ("bird", "fur") and a glide in others
> >> ("red", "real".  Note that y in "yet" is to /ee/ in "eat" as r in "red" is
> >> to /r/ in "girl").  Klingon "r" isn't the same sound and isn't used the
> >> same; I suppose though that you could define things that way also.
> >
> >Well, if we are going to get into THAT kind of definition, then 
> >your observation about the difference between the "k" sound in 
> >"keep" and "cool" doesn't have to be a difference at all. Just 
> >consider the consonant to be an onset to the vowel. The "k" 
> >sound then is just an initial closed state of the back of the 
> >throat which is in the shape of the vowel you are about to 
> >pronounce. The back of the throat is in a different place for 
> >the "ee" in "keep" than the "oo" in "cool", so wherever that 
> >back is is the place that is closed with the initial "k" sound. 
> >So, these two "different" "k" sounds are not really different. 
> >They are just traits, duct taped to two different mouth shapes.
> 
> I'm not entirely positive I follow you here.  What you're saying sounds
> interesting, and novel, and clever... but I don't really see how it follows
> or relates.

As you have said, there is no discrete number of sounds that a 
human can make since the areas of contact are continuous, etc. 
So, no matter what your definition of "r", there is no one "r" 
sound. Instead, you take an arbitrary set of sounds that can 
somehow be generalized to be considered one sound, an "r". 
Similarly, we agree on a "k" sound, even though it varies. But 
what if instead of trying to label a "k" as a specific sound, as 
if it could exist without a context, suppose we simply define an 
initial "k" as a specific onset for any vowel sound. It then 
becomes a trait of a vowel sound. It has no meaning without a 
vowel sound following it.

And so, any absolute difference in sound or contact point in the 
throat is not rellevant. As long as it starts as a stop at the 
back of the throat for whatever the current vowel may be, it is 
a "k".
 
> >> Remember, we're just saying that you CAN look at things many ways.  Though
> >> considering "r" a glide doesn't gain you as much as considering "y" and "w"
> >> a glide.  Because with y/w, you can say "a syllable can end with a glide
> >> followed by an apostrophe" which conflates the common features of both
> >> glides, but r is in a class by itself, as it and only it is followed not by
> >> an apostrophe but a gh.  So making such a rule doesn't shorten or simplify
> >> your description any more than saying "it can end with -rgh" does.
> >
> >I don't see how combining a grand total of TWO examples buys you 
> >all that much efficiency in this generality. The description I 
> >personally prefer is the one that says, "A syllable can end in 
> >{rgh}, {w'} or {y'}." All three are recognized as exceptional.
> 
> Works for me too.
> 
> ~mark

charghwI'

Back to archive top level