tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 27 10:55:58 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} ST Communicator vItu'laHbe'!
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} ST Communicator vItu'laHbe'!
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 10:55:58 -0400
>From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 12:57:31 MET
>in this context I'd like to know, why people often
>(at least to me it seems to happen quite often)
>insert those extra ' into transliterated words.
>also, I think, british /r/ is nowhere near a klingon
>r but rather a klingon gh, what do you think?
>I'd like to know what you think of how I had
>transliterated the following names..
>>
>> mayqel Do'rIn = Michael Dorn
>mayqel Don (the <r> isn't pronounced anyway, or is it?)
Hee... depends who you are. *I* pronounce it, surely. But someone from
London or Boston wouldn't. I rather like your transliteration without it,
though. Lots of names become simpler if we are willing to accept an
arhotic pronunciation (which doesn't sound bad even to my ears).
>> raqSan bIQ-DawSon = Roxann Biggs-Dawson
>ghaqSen bIqeS-DoSen (or is it pronounced as if it were
>Roxunn Biggs-Dowsone?)
I'd have stuck with the initial "r". So it's trilled, so what. When I
hear a trilled "r", I still think "r". I agree with your use of "DoSen",
that's how I say it anyway.
>> rabe'rIt 'o'raylIy = Robert O'Reilly
>ghabet 'oghaylIy
I'd use "r"s here too, but the "rabet" is pretty cool.
>> mayqel 'anSa'ra = Michael Ansara
>mayqel 'enSaghe
I think the first one's better.
>> jan kalI'qoS = John Colicos
>jan qalIqeS
Well, the "k" is definitely wrong!
>> barbara' ma'rIch = Barbara March
>babeghe mach (no r pronounced)
Depends who you are, again. :)
>> ghuwI'nItlh wa'lIS = Gwynyth Walsh
>quwInet woleS (I think klingon t is closer to
>english th than klingon tlh, but I won't argue about that)
I agree with you, and often wonder why so many "th"s wind up as "tlh" when
they don't sound much alike. Even stranger is the way "z" sometimes comes
out as "tlh".
~mark