tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 20 14:36:31 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Doch Sar
>Speaking of Farsi: it distinguishes between & (a as in man) and a (a as
>in British father), and I just realised I've been using the wrong a in
>Klingon all this time. My Klingon a is central (a as in Australian father;
>it's American too, isn't it?), but Klingon a is back. At least, now I'll
>have to relisten to those tapes...
Where did this come from? TKD? Be careful; Okrand also said that Klingon {o}
is pronounced as in "mosaic". He goes on to say that the diphthong {ow} does
not exist because it is identical with the inherent glide of the {o} sound.
So, for the longest time, I was pronouncing Klingon {o} like the one in
English "mosaic" or "mode". Then the tape comes out, and lo and behold:
Okrand's {o} does not glide. It is like the "o" in "roll". It is the pure "o"
sound used in Italian or French.
Okrand's description would be good for speakers of some New England dialects,
and those Scandinavian-based dialects of Minnesota and Wisconsin, who
pronounced their o's with no glide anyhow.
So I'm not sure what to make of Okrand's vowels now. I'm not sure, but I
think He (ahem.. *he*) pronounces {a} different ways. The one in {Dal} is not
the same as the one in {pach}. But don't trust me on that yet. I haven't
listened to those tapes in so long.
>=An English phrase that Lloyd used in ST3 keeps coming to mind: "Who I am is
>=not important; [the fact] that I have them is [important]." How to render
>=this in Klingon?? There must be a way.
>'Iv jIH [net yu'laH]. ram ghu'vetlh. potlh ghu'vam: chaH vIghaj.
That {ghu'} word is cropping up quite a bit now. If I'm not mistaken, ~mark
likes it, too.
I've noticed that we on the list have no real practical use for the
distinction of {-vam} vs {-vetlh} in terms of spatial relation. We more often
employ them as a means of comparison between the same noun. "*This* situation
versus *that* one."
Only in personal contact and reference to things in the speaker's vicinity,
would the distinction of nearness vs remoteness, which these two Type 4's
quantify, become useful. So your usage here is one of comparison. I, however,
would have tried something a little different.
{ram pongwIj - qama'wI' chaH - potlhqu' ghu'vam}
Or something to that general effect.
Guido#1, Leader of Guidos