tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 17 04:11:10 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlh-H phonology question
>
> > If I'm not mistaken (tell me if I am!) Klingon morphology
> > can be described by the following formalism:
>
> Your greatest error is that you keep saying `morphology' while talking
> about *phonology*. Morphology is about roots and affixes, not sounds.
>
sorry - but it didn't confuse you too much I hope :-)
> > Let C be any consonant, C1 any consonant except <w>,
> > C2 any consonant except <w, y, '> and Cl be {<rgh, y'>}.
>
> > Let V be any vowel (monophtongs AND diphtongs), V0 be
> > {<a, e, I>}, V1 be {<a, e, I, o, u>} and V2 = V\V1.
>
> > Then the possible syllables are:
> > I) C-V1 II) C-V1-C1 III) C-V0-w IV) C-V1-Cl V) C-V0-w'
>
> > which seems to be how most of you conceive it,
>
> Yes, something like that.
>
> > or
>
> > A) C-V C) C-V-'
> > B) C-V-C2 D) C-V1-rgh
>
> Rule B should say C-V1-C2, otherwise it overgenerates (C-V-C2 could be
> something like *{bayb}).
>
again I have to apologize - a typo :-(
> > which is what I prefer, because it recognises
> > diphtongs as vowels like MO did in TKD. [...]
>
> > Now my question(s): which scheme do you prefer
>
> The first one.
>
> > and for what reasons?
>
> (1) It seems counter-intuitive to treat final {w} and {y} as something
> other than consonants, because
> a. they are no different from word-initial {w} and {y} and
now I think [w] and un(?)syllabic [U] are different, dito for
[j] and [I], so you say /w/ = [w,U], /j/ = [j,I] ?
> (2) Okrand called the combinations {Vw} and {Vy} diphthongs because he
> was writing for hoi English-speaking polloi, whom he expected to have
> a hard time pronouncing those combinations properly (giving both the
> vowel and the consonant the sound they normally have in Klingon).
> He was not motivated by the reality of Klingon phonology.
>
or do you say e.g. yay = [jA:j] not [jaI] ?
when I try to do this I get s.th. like [jA:j@] just like
Okrand notes about '. Also do you think the vowels should stay
the same before y,w ? so e.g. 'oy' = [?@Uj?] not [?OI?] ?
(you see, I don't have the tapes yet...)
> (3) Finally, an argument based on morphology. Under the first scheme
> all Klingon prefixes are open syllables, whereas all suffixes are
> closed syllables. The fact that there is not a single exception to
> this generalisation suggests that it has some significance in the
> structure of the language. However, it is destroyed in the second
> scheme: suffixes can be open syllables, as long as the vowel is a
> diphthong (eg {-mey}), and although all simple vowels are found in
> prefixes, diphthongs are not.
>
hmmm... maybe if we could ascertain that -oy inserts a '
at the end of open syllables and it doesn't insert ' after
"Diphtongs"... (is it ghewoy or ghew'oy? )
> --'Iwvan
>
However, thank you very much. I'm not yet convinced but
I see some new points.
Marc Dochlangan
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------