tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 04 13:00:26 2011

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] paq'batlh no'Hol: QIch wabmey

Agnieszka Solska ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

QeS will doubtless correct me if I'm wrong or if I have omitted something.

In what follows:
- {no' Hol} linguistic material is marked with an asterisk,
- the ">" symbol means "changed into",
- sounds are represented with regular spelling, not with with phonetic
  symbols,
- the question mark (?) indicates speculative statements.

VOWELS AND DIPHTHONGS

In {no'Hol} there were five short vowels: [*a],[*e],[*i],[*o] and [*u],
(at least) two long vowels: [*oo] and [*aa],
and (at least) three diphthongs: [*ew], [*oy] and [*ay]. 

There may have been more long vowels and more diphthongs but they are not 
attested in the Prologue. 

All (attested) {no' Hol} vowels underwent a vowel shift, which yielded 
their present day values.

   (BTW I created a pdf file with a chart indicating the direction of 
   the vowel shift. It can be found at 
   
   http://muchmich.yolasite.com/resources/Klingon%20vowel%20shift%20chart.pdf
   
   Obviously, the positions of the {no' Hol} vowels in the chart are  
   speculative. I'm not even sure if I got the {ta' Hol} vowels right. If 
   you think something needs changing, please, let me know.)


"THE GREAT KLINGON VOWEL SHIFT": 

1. The high front vowel [*i] retracted to [u]:

   [*i]>[u], as in {*tlhip}>{tlhup}, {*qil}>{qul} 

2. The high back vowel [*u] lowered to [o]:

   [*u]>[o], as in {*lub}>{lob}, {*Dur}>{Dor}
 
3. The back mid vowel [*o] lowered and fronted to [a]:

   [*o]>[a], as in {*Doq}>{Daq}, {*jotlh}>{jatlh}

4. The low central vowel [*a] fronted and raised to [e]:

   [*a]>[e], as in {*Dya}>{je}, {*tyan}>{chen}

5. The front mid vowel [*e] raised to [I]:

   [*e]>[I], as in {*teq}>{tIq}, {*nev}>{nIv}

Three {ta' Hol} diphthongs emerged as the result of the vowel shift 
affecting the first element in the {no' Hol} diphthongs:

   [*ew]>[Iw], as in {*'ew}>{'Iw}
   [*oy]>[ay], as in {*moy'}>{may'}
   [*ay]>[ey], as in {*Dyay}>{jey}

6. [u] underwent elision after [sr]:

   [*u]>[0], as in {*bosru}>{baS}, {*-nesru}>{-nIS}

7. Long vowels were diphthongized:

   [*aa]>[ey], as in {*-maa}>{-mey}
   [*oo]>[aw], as in {*tungsroot}>{tongSaw'}, {'qoo}>{Qaw'}

Note that some instances of the {ta' Hol} [ey] diphthong seem to have
come from ['aa] and some from [*ay].

The sources of the remaining {ta'Hol} diphthongs, i.e. [ew], [Iy], [oy] 
and [uy], are not attested in the Prologue.


CONSONANTS

Some of the {no' Hol} consonants have been retained in {ta' Hol}, though it
cannot be ruled out that they were not exactly the same as their {ta' Hol} 
counterparts. It is also possible that some of them differed from their
{ta' Hol} counterparts in terms of their distribution (the set of contexts
in which they appeared):

The following appeared both in syllable initial and syllable final positions:

   [*v],   as in {*viv} 

   [*p],   as in {*pung}, {*tlhip}

   [*b],   as in {*beng}, {*lub} 

   [*t]    as in {*tub}, {*-lit}

   [*l],   as in {*lil} 

   [*tlh], as in {*tlhengon}, {*jotlh}

   [*m],   as in {*-maa}, {*qom} 

   [*n],   as in {*nev}, {*'qin} 

   [*q],   as in {*qoD}, {*teq}

   [*w],   as in {*wob}, {*'ew}

   [*'],   as in {*-'ag'}, , {*qi'tu'}, verb prefixes: {*'e-}, {*'u-}
           (Below I voice my doubts about {*qi'tu'} and {ba'})

The following may have had a restricted occurrence:

   [*ng],  as in {*beng}
          (no attested words with [*ng] in word initial position)
 
   [*r],   as in {*Dur}
          (no attested words with [*r] in word initial position)

   [*j],   as in {*juq}
          (no attested words with [*j] in word final position)

   [*y],   as in {*Dyay}
          (no attested words with [*y] in word initial position)

   [*D],   as in {*Doq}>{*Daq}
          (no attested words with [*D] in word final position)


The consonants peculiar to {no' Hol}, which underwent a sound shift:

   [*s],    which only appeared before [r], as in {*srib}

   [*g'],   as in {*-bug'}

            It is hard to say if the grapheme <*g'> represented a single 
            consonant (e.g. a voiced uvular stop or a voiced velar fricative
            which unlike the {ta' Hol} [gh] was not "raspy") or whether 
            it represented a consonant cluster: [*g] followed by [*'].

   [*q'],   as in {*q'uty}

            It is hard to say if the grapheme <*q'> represented a single 
            consonant (e.g. a voiceless uvular fricative) or whether
            it represented a consonant cluster: [*q] followed by [*'].

   [*'q],   as in {*mu'qberet}

            It is hard to say if the grapheme <*'q> represented a single
            consonant (e.g. a voiceless velar affricate), or whether
            it represented a consonant cluster: [*'] followed by [*q].


?{no' Hol} may possibly have had three palatalized consonants:

   [*ty/ti], a palatalized [t] spelled either <*ti> or <*ty>,
             as in {*-tyiq}, {*q'uti}

             It is hard to say if the graphemes <*ty> and <*ti> represented
             a single consonant or the consonant [*t] followed by [*y] or  
             [*i] respectively. 
                 
   [*Dy/Di], a palatalized [D] spelled either <*Dy> or <*Di>,
             as in {*Dya},{*'eDi}

             It is hard to say if the graphemes <*Dy> and <*Di> represented
             a single consonantor the consonant [*D] followed by [*y] or 
             [*i] respectively.        
 
   [*sy/si]  a palatalized [s] spelled either <*sy> or <*si>, 
             as in {*syisi}

             It is hard to say if the graphemes <*sy> and <*si> represented
             a single consonant or the consonant [*s] followed by [*y] or  
             [*i] respectively.        


"THE GREAT KLINGON CONSONANT SHIFT": 

   [*t]>['],   in word final position as in {*tyot}>{cha'}, {*-mut}>{-mo'}
             
   [*g']>[gh], as in {*g'ir}>{ghur}, {*tog'}>{tagh}

   [*q']>[H],  as in {*q'op}>{Hap}, {*-loq'}>{-laH}

   [*'q]>[Q],  as in {*'qin}>{Qun}, {*sye'q}>{SIQ}

   [*sr]>[S],  i.e. [*s] coalesced with [*r], as in {*tunsroot}>{tonSaw'}

   [*sy]>[S],  i.e. [*s] coalesced with [*y], as in {*sye'q}>{SIQ} 

   [*si]>[S],  i.e. [*s] coalesced with [*i], as in {*syisi}>{SuS}
 
   [*ty]>[ch], i.e. [*t] coalesced with [*y], as in {*tyan}>{chen} 

               (Much as in English [t] coalesces  with [y] in 
               "What your step") 

   [*ti]>[ch], i.e. [*t] coalesced with [*i], as in {*q'uti}>{Hoch}
 
   [*Di]>[j],  i.e. [*D] coalesced with [*i], as in {*-DoDi}>{-Daj} 
                   
   [*Dy]>[j],  i.e. [*D] coalesced with [*y], as in {*Dyav}>{jev}

               (Much as in English [d] coalesces with [y] in 
                "Would you?")


INCONSISTENCIES:

I wonder what your thoughts are on these...


{*mu'qberet}>{moQbara'}:

    ?{*mu'qberet} should have become {moQbIrI'}, 
    or the {no' Hol} form should have been {*mu'qborot}.

{*-tyeDi}>{-chaj}:

    ?{*-tyeDi} should have become {-chIj},
    or the {no' Hol} form should have been {*-tyoDi}.

{*-ba'}>{-be'}, as in {*tubba'lit}>{tobbe'lu'}

    The {no' Hol} form of {-be'} should have been {*-bat} 
    and indeed there is a {no' Hol} suffix {*-bat}>{-be'}, 
    attested in {*vivbat}>{vuvbe'}.
    
    ?Maybe {*-ba'} a mistake, or I am mistaken and {*ba'} 
    does not correspond to present day {-be'}.
    
{*'qi'tu'}>{QI'tu'}:

    Apart from {ba'} in {*tubba'lit}, {*'qi'tu'} is the only attested 
    {no' Hol} word containing syllables which end in [*'].

    ?The word {*'qi'tu'} should have become {Qu'to'},
    or the {no' Hol} form should have been {*'qettit}

{*-maq'}>{-moH}, as in {tyanmaq'*}, i.e. {chenmoH}:

    ?{*-maq'} should have become {-meH},
    or the {no' Hol} form should have been {*-moq'}.
    
    Of course, I may be mistaken and the suffix actually does correspond 
    to {-meH}.

{q'usru}, {'usru }: 

    Both correspond to the {ta' Hol} word {HoS}. Perhaps two versions
    of the word existed side by side, much as present day Klingon has
    both {naHjej} and {naHjej} and in present day English "either" can
    be pronounced in two different ways. If so, yet another phonological
    rule has to be posited, which changed {*'} to {H} in word initial
    position. Obviously it would have affected the verbal prefixes 
    {*-e} and {*-u} too but Klingon lost them at some point.
  
{*q'uti}, {*q'uty}: 

    Both correspond to the {ta' Hol} word {Hoch}. Another example of
    variability in {no' Hol}?

{*'ach}:

    The word seems to have the same meaning as the present day {'ach}.
    It is possible that when the book was being prepared for publication 
    MO wrote the {ta' Hol} word instead of the {no' Hol} word by mistake. 
    If it's not a mistake, {*'ach} would be the only word in the text 
    containing the [ch] consonant.

The {no' Hol} root meaning "destroy", i.e. {Qaw'}, is:

    {*'qoo} in the word {*'qoolit}, but {*qoot} in the words {*qoot'ag'},
    i.e. "destroy itself", and {*meqoot}, i.e. "they destroyed them". Yet
    another example of variability in {no' Hol}?

The {no' Hol} root meaning "two", i.e. {cha'}, is:

    {tyot} in "The End": {teq tyot lityanmaq'}, i.e. {tIq cha'(DIch) 
    luchenmoH}, but {tyo} in "The Void": {tyo teqmaa sye'q}, i.e. 
    {SIQ cha' tIqDu'}. Maybe these are two different words, meaning 
    "second" and "two" respectively. 


'ISqu'

 		 	   		  
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

Back to archive top level