tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 23 16:37:00 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: cha' Hol ngeb mu'ghommey Daj vItu'pu'!
Doq wrote:
> They're not precisely what you're talking about, but I think the
> homophonous phrases {vaj toDuj Daj ngeHbej DI vI'} and {vaj toDDujDaj
> ngeHbej DIvI'} are still relevant. Syllables in separate words sound
> indistinguishable from the same syllables in a single word.
Okrand wrote this line to mean one thing; I would assume the actor, if
coached at all, was coached with that meaning in mind; and the subtitles
were changed after filming. Okrand then back-fitted the syllables to a
new meaning. So that would seem to make the example irrelevant.
On the other hand, we are kind of locked into canon examples, and
theoretically we should have to accept them as released, no matter how
convoluted the path that led to them.
Whichever way you fall, I don't think anyone really wants to adopt the
actors as a guide to proper pronunciation. That would be a mighty big
can of worms to deal with. So without reliable pronunciation, we don't
really know whether these phrases are indistinguishable.