tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 22 10:30:22 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
re: FW: Pronunciation [was RE: K'Zhen Zu-Merz]
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: re: FW: Pronunciation [was RE: K'Zhen Zu-Merz]
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:22:58 -0500
> From: "qe'San" <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:19:16 -0000
> Importance: Normal
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Firstly I do not want to say that Vowel-w or Vowel-y combinations should
> ever preceed any other character than {'}.. My name is just that my name
> and was discardedfrom this discussion.
Noted.
> Secondly I am not trying to imply that usage should be other than as
> described in accepted canon reference materials.
So, basically, you just want to define the terms "vowel" and "consonant"
your way and get other people to agree with you. What differs between your
phonology and ours is that you think that a particular kind of sound
defines a vowel, rather than a language's treatment of that sound, while we
believe that certain sounds have certain roles in a syllable, and those
roles define the terms "vowel" and "consonant" in Klingon (and probably in
most, if not all other languages).
In Cherokee, the letter "s" should probably be considered a vowel, since
all Cherokee syllables consist of either a lone vowel or a consonant
followed by a vowel, except that "s" is a lone sound in Cherokee. It is the
only sound in their syllabary which English speakers would consider to be a
lone consonant, but it, in and of itself, constitutes a syllable. Listen to
Cherokee speak and you'll notice that every now and then, they hiss for the
normal duration of a syllable. That's the "s" sound.
The most commonly used, untrilled "r" sound in English sounds at least as
much like a vowel as any a, e, i, o or u. It is not the sound itself that
determines whether or not it is a vowel or a consonant. It has more to do
with the way that sound is used in a syllable.
You'll never see a "w" or a "y" used between two consonants in a normal
Klingon syllable the way that vowels are used. They may sound to you like
vowels, but Klingon consistently uses them as consonants.
Also, I believe you are misusing the term dipthong, since, as I understand
it, a dipthong is the combination of two or more vowels or two or more
consonants to form a new sound which is quite different from the
combination of the two sounds made sequentially, like "th" in "South" is
different from a "t" followed by an "h", or "ou" in "tough" is different
from an "o" sound followed by a "u" sound. In Klingon, "aw" is nothing more
than the Klingon "a" sound followed by the Klingon "w" sound. It is not a
dipthong of any kind.
What you want to say is, "The 'w' and 'y' sounds in Klingon sound to me
like vowels." That's not much of a statement, and the arguments you try to
build with that as a foundation aren't getting you very far.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
>>
>>
>> >> ..."w" and "y"...do *not* create dipthongs in Klingon.
>>
>> ja' qe'San:
>> > BUT YES! THEY DO. TKD defines them as diphthongs (explained
>> further below).
>
> What I meant is that vowel-w and vowel-y combinations are described and
> pronunced as diphtongs even though the printed characters maynot be.
I believe you are misusing the term "dipthong". The {a} sound in the
Klingon {aw} is no different from any other {a} sound in any other Klingon
syllable, and the {w} sound in the Klingon {aw} is no different from the
{w} sound in any other Klingon syllable. One sound follows the other, like
any other vowel-consonant combination. It is not a dipthong. It is merely
two sounds you choose to call vowels, one following the other. I disagree
with you over the definition of the {w} or {y} sounds as vowels.
>> The only thing I see in TKD which involves diphthong-like
>> ideas is when the
>> {ew} and {Iw} combinations are singled out for special
>> explanation. TKD
>> says the sounds may be *approximated* by running together two
>> vowel sounds.
Running together two vowel sounds is not the same thing as a dipthong.
Creating a new sound different from either of the vowel sounds when the two
vowels are combined is forming a dipthong. This is not happening here. All
that is happening here is that two sounds that perhaps English speakers
would consider to be both vowels follow in a sequence within a syllable.
>> It never says that {w} or {y} actually have vowel sounds or behave as
>> vowels.
>>
> Ok you're correct it doesn't say {w} or {y} have vowel sounds.
That's the whole point. That doesn't stop you from starting the next
sentence with "however", however.
> However, when it says {ew}, {Iw} sounds approximately like klingon {eu}
> and {Iu} respectively it doesn't take a lot to realise apart from the
> fact that the sounds are diphthongs that the Klingon {w} after the {e} is
> vocally being represented by the Klingon {u}
Again, this is not a dipthong. You merely have two different sounds which
happen to sound very similar, if not identical, except that one of them
functions as a vowel and the other functions as a consonant.
Consider how much the English vowel "u" and the English consonant "w" sound
alike. Listen to Elmer Fudd. Even though he replaces "r" and "l" with "w",
giving three identical-sounding consonants, all of which sound like a
vowel, you can still understand what he is saying because of the way "w" is
FUNCTIONING in the syllables he forms. It is not the sound itself. It is
the way the sound functions in the syllable.
Is this enlightening?
> Agreed sounding "approximately like" isn't sounding "actually like". But
> are you saying that when MO says approximate he means SO approximately
> like a vowel that in fact its a consonant sound and if so, how?
The function of the sound in the syllable defines it as a vowel or a
consonant. The sound itself is relatively irellevant.
> Consonant and Vowel sounds are about where and how a sound is produced.
And where they are used in a syllable.
In English, "y" is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant. It is the
same sound both times. It is a vowel in "try" and a consonant in "yet". It
is a consonant in "troy" and a vowel in "rhythm".
In Klingon, {w} and {y} are always consonants.
> It has nothing to do with the character used to represent it. I'm not
> aware of anything that says if the whole vowel sound is pronounced before
> running into the second vowel "sound" that this is not a diphthong.
In Klingon, the second sound is not a vowel.
> It
> doesn't even have to move all the way to the other vowel sound.. Just
> moving away from one towards another is sufficient for the result to be a
> diphthong.
You have an interesting definition of dipthong.
> I can't see that it would even matter if the culture or
> language creating/using it knows what a diphthong is.
Or if you do, apparently.
>> >> In each
>> >> case explained on pages 16 and 17 of TKD, the vowel sound
>> >> does not change when the consonant {w} or {y} follows it.
>> >>
> Who said it did? I didn't!! I agree that the part of the sound
> represented by the preceeding vowel does not change and is pronounced as
> described for that character...But the sound does not stop there. It
> runs into the sound represented by the folowing {w} or {y} consonant
> character... The sound of this character for which the nearest
> approximation, given by MO in this arrangement, is a vowel sound. In
> other words the initial vowel sound runs into another vowel sound (not
> character) and therefore forms a Diphthong.
Again, I may be wrong. My dictionary doesn't list the word "dipthong" at
all, but I remember from school that it referred to new sounds created by
the combination of vowels or consonants that is distinctly different from
the sequence of the sounds of those vowels and consonants, like "sh" is
different from "s" followed by "h". You are defining dipthong as any sound
made by two vowels not separated by a consonant, and then you define {w}
and {y} as vowels. I think you have made two fundamental mistakes. I don't
think either of these statements are true.
>> >
>> > Pages 16-17 states the vowel sound DOES CHANGE.
>>
>> Try reading it again, pretending that you agree with me. You might
>> discover that it says merely that the sound might not be the
>> same sound
>> expected from the English spelling. If you're interpreting
>> it as saying
>> that {ay} *changes* from rhyming with "day" to rhyming with
>> "die", your
>> reading is quite wrong.
>
> I can't even see how these are close day rhymes with words like Hay but
> die rhymes with words like sly.
The point is that when an English reader sees the word {chay'}, they want
to make it rhyme with "day", while it actually rhymes (ignoring the glottal
stop for now) with "die", because the English word "die" has two sounds in
it you would call vowels, even though I'd argue that the second one can be
considered a consonant because it functions as one in the syllable. English
spelling is notorious. There are no rules that work in English for spelling.
>> The Klingon vowel represented by the
>> symbol {a}
>> *always* has the same sound, no matter what letter follows it. (For
>> nit-pickers, there are of course slight variations in the
>> sound, but the
>> "vowel sound" itself is the same.)
>
> I agree and have never meant to imply anything else.
I think ghunchu'wI' was confused by your misuse of the word "dipthong" to
refer to any two vowel sounds not divided by a consonant, combined with
your redefining of two consonant sounds to be vowels because in isolation,
they sound like vowels, even when they function as consonants.
>> [If you're planning to say something about {w} having different sounds
>> depending on whether it comes at the beginning or end of a
>> syllable, note
>
> Only as described by MO on pages 16-17 of TKD as in the sound is similar
> to the Klingon {u}. If thats what I've got wrong please explain.
The point here is that {u} always follows a consonant in a Klingon
syllable, while {w} always preceeds or follows a vowel. I don't care if
they sound exactly alike. One is a vowel because it functions as a vowel
and the other is a consonant because it functions as a consonant.
>> that {l} and {r} often change their sound in the same way. A
>> simple and
>> consistent Klingon phonological theory doesn't treat {r} as a
>> vowel, and it
>> doesn't treat {w} as one either.]
>
> I agree about r and that w is never a vowel except that when following a
> vowel it takes on a similar sound to that of the KLingon {u} and
> therefore a vowel sound (even if not exactly a u) it is still formed in
> the mouth as a vowel.
A vowel sound is not the same thing as a vowel. A consonant sound is not
the same thing as a consonant. A person being strangled makes lots of
consonant sounds, whether or not they are actually pronouncing any
syllables. There are no consonants until they function within a syllable to
fulfill their definition of being consonants.
>> >> The simplest usable theory of Klingon phonology does not
>> include the
>> >> concept of dipthongs,
>> >
>> > YES IT DOES, It may not include the word but on Pages 16 -17
>> it clearly
>> > embraces the concept and states that tlhIngan Hol has
>> Diphthongs. As said
>> > it may not mention that word but it does supply the
>> definition, "Klingon ew
>> > resembles nothing in English, but can be approximated by
>> running Klingon e
>> > and u together." A DIPHTHONG IS IT NOT?!
>>
>> The *approximation* is perhaps a diphthong. The *true*
>> sound, being merely
>> the Klingon vowel {e} followed by the Klingon consonant {w}, is not.
>
> Not written I agree. But a diphthong is about how the sound is made not
> the way it is written.
I'd argue that a dipthong is about creating a new sound that is different
from the sequence of the sounds associated with the letters combined to
spell that sound: th, sh, ou, ai, au, oa, etc. In "cocoa", "oa" is a
dipthong. In "boa constrictor" it is not. In "thought", "ou" is a dipthong.
In "out" it is not.
I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong.
>> Again, the simplest description of Klingon syllable patterns
>> ignores the
>> concept of diphthongs entirely. It's certainly possible to
>> use a theory
>> which includes them, but such a theory is significantly more
>> complicated
>> than one which does not.
>
> And because a theory is more complicated means its wrong? surely that is
> not true.
It is true that nothing is served by creating useless exceptions. You want
to redefine {w} and {y} as being vowel sounds when they follow vowels, even
though that is an exception, since it is the only place in the language
where one vowel sound follows another. These letters then become the only
letters which act as both vowels and consonants and they are also the only
vowels which follow other vowels to create what you call a dipthong.
That's a big, tangled mess with no positive functionality that I can see.
The simpler explanation that {w} and {y} are consonants and sometimes can
be followed by {'} is a much more functional analysis of the phonology.
> There will always be simple versions of any theory but it doesn't mean
> that anything outside the simple theory is nolonger true.
>
>> [And by lending credibility to
>> diphthongs, it
>> leads to people trying to justify "words" like {*'ayS} and {*QIym}.]
>
> Why? We can't create words. Only MO can do that. I'm not trying to
> clarify anything more than the diphthong definition supplied in TKD.. My
> name may be confusing things here but I accept it is no more than that
> and certainly not canon. It had just been associated with the CVC rule
> and someone said it was CVCC I then said I thought it was CDC. Or had
> meant to.
There are no dipthongs in Klingon.
>> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
>>
>
> qe'San
SarrIS