tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 20 17:20:11 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon sounds and IPA (was Re: {oy}, diphthong or V+C)
ja' qeyS:
>I'm not making a distinction here between "phoneme" and
>"basic value of each letter", but I'm saying that on that
>"klingonska" page the phoneme signs (using IPA) are mapped
>to the roman orthography (which is indeed basically a
>one-to-one relationship) but that square brackets are used
>there, which is usually used to indicate REALISATIONS of
>phonemes, instead of the theoretical value they have.
raplaw'. wa' mu' Datampu' neH. nuq bIH cha' Doch Daqelbogh? chay' pIm?
That still sounds like the same thing. All you've done is change the word
"basic" to "theoretical". What's the difference between "phoneme" and
"theoretical value" [of a phoneme sign, I assume]? Is this something to do
with a distinction between "phonomics" [?] and "phonetics"? HIchuH.
>But then IPA signs are used for both phonetics AND
>phonology, despite the fact that it is the International
>PHONETIC Alphabet.
vaj qatlh bIbeptaH? DubepmoHba' vay''e', 'ach nuq 'oH?
Then what are you complaining about? I assume you're complaining about
something, but I can't figure out what.
>Now, having overheard (or over-read)
>discussions on this thread on the pronuncation of the
>diphthong {oy},...
[it's not a diphthong in Klingon, but we've been through that already]
>...I'm quite sure by now that everybody has
>their own realisation of the Klingon sounds of which the
>PHONEMES (and not the realisations, since the phonemes are
>purely theoretical base values) are represented by the
>Klingon roman orthography.
chatlhHeyvam vIlaDlaH, 'ach vIyajlaHbe'.
Huh? I can't parse that.
But I do see that you've parenthetically equated "phonemes" and "purely
theoretical base values". I guess you really aren't making a distinction
between them. So what *are* you trying to say you disapprove of on the
klingonska page?
-- ghunchu'wI'