tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 01 11:57:36 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: HolQeD letter response
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: HolQeD letter response
- Date: Sat, 02 Apr 94 00:53:44 EST
>Note: Even if you were to think tlhIngan was related to an earlier name for
>Qo'noS, the name would just as probably be tlhI, not tlhIn. Remember that in
>Klingon, {ng} is not a combination of two consonants. It is a single
>consonant. The suffix in question is {ngan}, not {gan}. For those who would
>object to the absence of a closing consonant, a number of the older Klingon
>words lack a closing consonant.
Well, surprise. Natural languages aren't always completely logical. Think of
the Klingon studying Fed Standard, asking (in Klingon), "In Fed, they seem to
use the {-an} ending to indicate an inhabitant of a place: "Romulan, Martian,
Bulgarian, Arkansan," so what would a "Human" be? An inhabitant of "Hume"?
No no no. {tlhIngan} is a plain and simple irreguality in an otherwise
semi-logical pattern.
> TKD is a tad inconsistent in this area. I would have expected, for
>example, vulqanngan instead of vulqangan, so obviously this is not a hard
and
>fast rule.
Well, I'd bet originally it *was* {vulqanngan}, but it was said so frequently
and quickly, it blended the {n} into the {ng} and became the word we know
today, {vulqangan}. Remember how Klingons pride themselves on swift
communication, as in battle.
English has even done this to some extent: Which is easier to pronounce?
"Doubt" or "dout"? "Knife" or "nife"? "Wrench" or "rench"? We have simply
retained the old spellings.
>charghwI'
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos