tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 30 03:27:25 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon phonotactics (was Re: Klingon at the Thanksgiving table - A month la

QeS 'utlh ([email protected]) 

jIja'pu':
>Only from a cultural point of view, not from a grammatical one.

mujang Russ, ja':
>No, I meant that we don't have a {jaw'} word to apply {oy} too, nor
>a suffix {'oy} to apply to {jaw}, so ?{jaw'oy} can't exist.  But of
>course, it might -- Maltz may simply not have reported them yet.

DaH qayajchu'.

It's interesting that almost all such pairs ({paw}/{paw'}, {qay}/{qay'}, 
etc.) involve two verbs. Almost none of the ones I found involved even one 
noun, let alone two.

ja'taH:
>And of course, this assumes that the {'} between vowels would only
>be pronounced, not written.  If it WERE written, then I recant the
>above.

And given the fact that we know almost nothing about the native Klingon 
writing system save that it is probably not alphabetic (and even this we 
don't know for certain), this is an area we have no ability to speculate 
upon. {{;)

ja'taH Russ:
>I think the mention of the insertion of a {'} consonant pretty
>much indicates that the {w} is part of a diphthong and definitely
>NOT a consonant -- why would it NEED the {'} if it was?

vIjang, jIja':
>You misunderstand Philip: {jaw} is not given as an example in TKD; it
>was one I provided.

mujang Russ, ja':
>No, I know it wasn't an example in TKD.  And I don't think I misunderstood
>him either.  But I'm speculating that even if the word was pronounced
>?{jaw'oy}, it would still be written as {jawoy}.  I think simply we
>don't know enough about the diphthongs and how they combine in a case
>like {jaw} + {oy}.

I still argue that the term "diphthong" is irrelevant to Klingon as it 
exists now. I guess it depends on the analysis one subscribes to, of which 
there are two possibilities.

The "Clusterian" analysis:
1) Generic syllable structure in Klingon is C1V(C2).
2) If C2 is {w} or {y}, it may be followed by {'}.

The "Diphthongian" school:
1) Generic syllable structure in Klingon is C1V(C2).
2) If V is a diphthong, it can only be followed by {'} or zero.

Since the first seems to me to be the relatively simpler analysis, I 
subscribe to that one. In addition, the fact that Okrand is a trained 
linguist leads me to believe that if they really were diphthongs, he would 
have mentioned them in TKD, particularly since the majority of people, even 
those without linguistic training, have at least a basic idea of what a 
diphthong is. I think that the fact he didn't use the word "diphthong" once 
in TKD is fairly clear: Klingon has five vowels and no diphthongs.

jIghItlhpu', jIja':
>Phonologically, {w} and {j} pattern as consonants, even if phonetically
>they may generate diphthongs for some speakers.

mujang Russ, ja':
>I don't understand the use of "pattern" there...

I mean that they can appear wherever any other consonant (except {'}) can: 
they can appear syllable-initially ({waH} "to test"), syllable-finally 
({Saw} "to marry") and even both ({wew} "to glow").

>But basically you're saying we REALLY need to ask Maltz about
>{jawoy} type combinations, is that right?  :-)

bej. {{:)

QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute


not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
     - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

_________________________________________________________________
realestate.com.au: the biggest address in property   
http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au

Back to archive top level