tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 10 13:13:37 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Cannon for Multiple Consonants
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 06:22:05 -0700
>From: [email protected] (Sa' qIQwI')
>tIq vIngIpmo' jIQoSbej, but I refuse to feel guilty for=20
"I'm certainly sorry I borrowed a heart"? I think I'm missing the point of
this maxim.
>"Klingon uy resembles ooey in English gooey(1). Klingon ew=20
>resembles nothing in English, but can be approximated by=20
>running Klingon e and u together. Likewise, Klingon Iw is I=20
>and u run together. No words in Klingon have ow or uw. If=20
>they did, they would be indistinguishable from words ending=20
>in o and u, respectively."
>(1) none of my dictionaries knows "gooey" so for me it's=20
>a useless example of pronunciation.
>First TKD says Iw is I and u run together, then I'm told=20
>the latter sound is a consonant. I felt rather confused=20
>to hear that the u-sound is a consonant. I assumed that=20
>"I and u run together" meant diphthong, and Okrand just
>wanted to avoid a difficult grammatical term.
>I find it rather odd that TKD is praised for being made
>"easy to understand" by omitting precise terms. I find
>TKD inaccurate, confusing and sometimes even inconsistent.
>OK, I know it's best Klingon study book (...simply because=20
>there's nothing else/worse available).
>Next time it *seems* that u-sound is said to be a consonant
>or something I'll just trash the message, think no more=20
>about it and sleep well.
The easy, more accurate version for Esperantoi speakers: uy is uj like in
tuj. ew is eux like in euxropo.
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
># Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:16:36 -0700
># From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
># Subject: Re: Consonant Clusters
>charghwI' to Mark Mandel:
># While it is not stated in TKD, in HolQeD Volume 1, Number 1
># there is an excellent explanation of Klingon phenominology...
># phenomi...phenomonomonomonomonolology... Whatever.
>In HolQeD not in TKD? Is that information available only=20
>if you pay for it?
># Anyway, all canon examples still fit this description of=20
># combinations of sounds. There are no exceptions.
>I've heard this "canon" being mentioned quite frequently,=20
>but what is canon? How can I know? Is there a reference=20
>list of canonical works available somewhere, on KLI ftp for=20
>example? Is all canon available somewhere for anybody or
>is it members-only stuff?
>Or is it all copyrighted merchandise like computer programs?
>Can I use non-TKD words if I haven't paid for the licence?
I note that you have to pay for TKD also; it's no more free than HolQeD.
Basically, Okrand put some information in TKD, which he published. Some is
in CK and PK and TKW; not all of it is collected in any one place
"officially" by a Paramount publication; some of it is collected more
neatly in the pages of HolQeD. Okrand has also made other information
available through HolQeD, using that as his medium. TKD isn't free,
neither is HolQeD. Note, too, that although the KLI is non-profit, that
doesn't mean it's non-expenses; it has to pay its bills too. If you want
information about something, you buy the book, right? What's the problem,
then?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMZOjYcppGeTJXWZ9AQFCZwMArvILR4EaGBqxLJvpfGcLkGvbP15UqSIH
4nZIRAzpleSiSfkJrX8uSX+IAa0iwjnr+RKfb9DKqMrEN7dPGkU7OrxeOyRQbivy
5KFYvUc3MzYaStA+94AtSyzaPLj0I9wG
=jYw1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----