tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 20 01:50:26 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klinpack. *warning* big message
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klinpack. *warning* big message
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 13:46:51 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Heidi Wessman" at Jul 19, 94 6:22 pm
According to Heidi Wessman:
Please do not think I am overly harsh here. I appreciate all
the work going into this. A lot of this is good. Meanwhile, it
behooves me to be very critical of anything that is NOT good
because this will go out to people who don't know any better
and will consider this to be right.
I will point out that this drive to teach before one becomes
clearly proficient seems odd.
> a - as in the English psalm.
I usually use the example "father" because the consonants more
clearly separate themeslves from the vowel, causing less
confusion. "Psalm" is also a word more commonly varied between
English dialects.
> D - harsher, as in the insult Duh! Sometimes pronounced with a
> slight n sound, similar to the word sound.
Definitely not a good description. The tongue position is
altogether wrong. Go back to TKD.
> ew - similar to the word Hey-o!
nuq? More like "eh-oo". It's not a very English-like sound and
always causes me to pause and say it clearly. {ghew} is not the
kind of word I can say clearly without some care.
> gh - this is not like anything in English. The closest approximation
> is the word gobble, but is harsher, and pronounced in the back
> of the throat. Choke a bit for this one.
The primary difference between the English "g" and the tlhIngan
"gh" is that the "g" begins with what is essentially a glottal
stop and goes straight into a vowel sound, while the "gh" is a
voiced growl with a definite duration of its own before you
slide into the following vowel. You can say "gaj" as harshly as
you like as far back in your throat as you like, and it will
still never sound remotely like {ghaj}.
The "gh" is really a voiced tlhIngan "H". You might ask your
students to say the composer's name "Bach", but don't stop
voicing when they get to the end. Instead, glide into a growl.
> H - Another not like English. This is more like the german ch, as
> in the word Bach, or in the Yiddish word l'chaim. It is a harsh
> sound.
"Bach" is a name, not a word, and most people can't pronounce a
written yiddish word.
> Iw - As in French bleu.
So, is your class geared toward Jewish French speakers?
Examples in Yiddish and French are probably not good, and in
this case, I don't even think it is accurate. It is the Klingon
{I} glided into the Klingon {w}. The latter is essentially the
Klingon {u} sound with... okay, I'll make this up... "labial
closure" at the end. Of course, that's how a lot of people
pronounce the {u} anyway...
> Iy - As in English key.
I know that this is what it says in TKD, but it seems quite
odd, since the long "e" sound for {I} is rare. I tend to make
the initial sound more of a short "i", as in "hit", and as yet
I have not been corrected for it.
> Q - no English equivalent. It is an overdone Klingon q, being
> more harsh and gutteral.
Another aspect of this is that it is a glottal frickative.
Unlike the {q}, the consonant does not pop straight into the
following vowel. The consonant has a duration of its own as the
skin in the back of your throat flaps around, as if "hocking"
in preparation to spit.
> S - halfway between the English s and sh. It is
> hissed as if a snake said shh! Be quiet.
Again, you need to describe the tongue position.
> t - as in English tarp. This is also another spitter.
> tlh as in the Aztec tetl, this sound is the first sound
> in the word Klingon. It is a bit softer than the Kl sound,
> being pronounced in the front of the mouth rather than the
> back.
Cosmetic: tlh is a separate entry and is not a subset of {t}.
Also, I doubt many of your students will know how to pronounce
anything in Aztec. Also, it is not the first sound in the word
"Klingon". It is the first sound in the word {tlhIngan}. In
general, this is a weak description of a sound that is
difficult to describe. I tend to point people toward the audio
tapes. Okrand does a fine job of describing it there.
> ' - [apostrophe] a glottal stop, found (but not written) in English
> words such as uh-uh, and upsy daisy. Practice it.
"upsy daisy"? In general, we use glottal stops to begin all
initial verbs in English. We just don't know it. "Upsy daisy"
isn't different in this regard than "albatross" or "it".
> Helpful Words
>
> These are some basic words you should know.
>
>
> ghorgh (whorgh) when?
If this is as close to a phonetic spelling as you can get, just
don't try.
> chay (chee, chie) how?
ditto.
> HISaH (hee shah) Yes
Another zuccini?
> HIja' (hee jaw') Yes
PLEASE JUST FORGET ABOUT THE PHONETIC SPELLINGS. KLINGON IS
ALREADY WRITTEN IN A PHONETIC ROMANIZED ALPHABET. IF A STUDENT
IS NOT SERIOUS ENOUGH ABOUT THE LANGUAGE TO LEARN HOW TO
PRONOUNCE THE LETTERS OF THE ALPHABET, THEN THESE BADLY
PHONETICIZED LISTINGS WILL NOT HELP THEM.
> WORKSHEET 2
> vumnav cha'
> New Words: verbs and verb prefixes
>
> Sov to know ghoS to go
You might want to point out to people that Klingon does not
have infinitives, and ghoS doesn't quite mean "to go".
> VERB PREFIXES
> PREFIX-VERB-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
> \ROVER/
>
> This is the verbal structure. All suffixes are ALWAYS
> put in the order they come in.
This is an odd way to say this. I think it would be better to
say that there are nine types of verbal suffixes. Each type is
numbered. You can never use two suffixes of the same type at
the same time. The number of the type of the suffix tells you
the proper sequence of the suffixes for any given verb.
There are special suffixes commonly known as rovers. They do
not follow these rules concerning sequence. Each rover is best
considered individually, since there are very few rovers and
they do not all follow the same rules.
> OBJECT
> none me you him/ us you them
> her/it (plural)
> SUBJECT
> I jI- - qa- vI- - Sa- vI-
>
> you bI- cho- - Da- ju- - Da-
>
> he/ * mu- Du- * nu- lI- *
> she/it
> we ma- - pI- wI- - re- DI-
>
> you Su- tu- - bo- che- - bo-
> plural
> they * mu- nI- lu- nu- lI- *
>
>
> * No prefix is used. Context of the sentence indicates
> Subject/Object.
>
>
> example: I drink. jItlhutlh . We go there. wIghoS .
>
> 2. (you) Describe it.
This is an imperitive. Your chart does not include imperitives.
> 13. (you) Go.
Again.
> ***********
> WORKSHEET 3
> vumnav wej
>
> New Words: verbs and verb suffixes
> jatlh to speak/talk ja' to tell
It would REALLY be a good idea not to use "to" in any of your
definitions. Klingon does not have infinitives. That's why TKD
does not use "to" in any of its definitions.
> Sop to eat SopwI' to be eaten
SopwI' means "one who eats".
> Suffix 1: Oneself/one another
> -egh oneself -chuq one another
That's a misprint in TKD. The first suffix is {-'egh}, not
{-egh}.
> ex: I talk to myself jIjatlhegh (bI - jatlh - egh)
jIjatlh'egh.
> Suffix 2: Volition/predisposition
>
> The chocolate is ready yuch SopwI'beH (SopwI' - beH)
> to be eaten.
This is meaningless. You have a verb {Sop} with a nominalizing
suffix {-wI'}, which turns the resulting combination into a
noun, and then you put a verbal suffix on it, resulting in
gibberish. You also have "chocolate" as the subject of the
English sentence, but it is in the position of the object,
assuming that you mean {SopwI'beH} to be a verb.
Try:
yuch SopbeHlu'.
At a quick glance, i think that does it.
> I'm afraid of being eaten. jISopwI'vIp (jI - SopwI' - vIp)
This is similarly gibberish.
There's not way I know to say this quite that way. I'd use the
verb for "dread" instead and use a Sentence-As-Object
construction:
muSop vay' 'e' vIHaj.
I need to go now. Sorry. I'm willing to work more on it later,
though I'm sure those more officially qualified may offer good
advice before then.
charghwI'