tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 15 06:49:18 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Klingon babes(?)

• From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Klingon babes(?)
• Date: Mon, 15 May 95 9:49:15 EDT
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Bryan Fields" at May 15, 95 1:02 am

According to Bryan Fields:
> 
> You wrote: 
> >
> 
> >I'd think it would be more like {ghIlqa'}. There is no <G> in
> >the Klingon alphabet currently and a glottal stop would never
> >happen between two consonants. [for what it's worth].
> 
> It's been a while and I wrote before I thought.  HIvqa' veqlargh.
> But . . there was _definitly_ and <r> in there. How about {ghrIlqa'}?

There's also definitely an "r" in "Kruge", but that becomes
{Qugh} in Klingon. There are simply extra sounds added when
words are mangled by humans on TV. Think about how many
different pronunciations there have been for qagh. At least one
of them sounded like {*graH*}.

> >> yIHmey SurghwI' 
> >
> >Admirable profession.
> >
> teHbej.
> 
> Qapla'!

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

• References:
  • Re: Klingon babes(?)
    • From: [email protected] (Bryan Fields)

• Prev by Date: Re: {n/ng-a-'/gh/H}
• Next by Date: Re: Quchqu' QuchwIj
• Prev by thread: Re: Grilka?
• Next by thread: Re: Klingon babes(?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level