tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 13 20:08:44 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Phonology once again (was: Re: qaSovlu' jIneH)
- From: "Dr. Maciej St. Zieba" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Phonology once again (was: Re: qaSovlu' jIneH)
- Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 23:08:11 EDT
"Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:13:44 -0700
>>From: Consulat General de Pologne <#[email protected]>
>>ghunchu'wI' writes:
>
>
>>You would like to believe it that {'} isn't any more special than {p} or {k}
>>but from the phonological point of view this assumption is but a myth.
>>Well, a letter {'} is a letter like {p} or {k}, but not the sound like
>>the other two.
>Be careful. Phonology is language-dependent. ' is a special non-phonemic
>sound in English, and perhaps a slightly special phonemic sound in Klingon,
>but it's a regular consonant in Hawai'ian. It's a way to break up sound
>like any other. /k/ is an interuption of air at the velum, /p/ is an
>interruption at the lips, and /?/ is an interruption at the glottis. The
>only difference is how each language views them.
I agree 100% with the last paragraph. What I want to investigate is
HOW special it is in Klingon and HOW Klingon views it. But you reject my
efforts a priori on the basis that "you know better". One of the first
things I've learned about my teachers was that it's not necessarily
true that they know better than I or somebody else (my colleagues for the
most) and that a bit of a reflection has never done any harm to anybody
although sometimes it may do harm to your petrified opinions and bring
a bit of a fresh air. Sometimes of course "the fresh air" appears to be
a stinky smog and the "good old healthy well-rooted opinions" are the only
shield against it.
The DISCUSSION is the only place where it can appear clear.
>>First it is described in TKD as "a glottal stop". But in fact it appers
>>to have double function: one in the beginning of a syllable and another
>>in the end.
>
>>The first one is very easy to explain. It is exactly what is called
>>"hiatus". Maybe you understand something else by this, but that's what I
>>have learned about it - hiatus is a glottal stop.
>>It's the kind of rapid closing and opening of the vocal cords without
>>making them vibrate.
>>I could describe it also as a slight, voiceless cough sound.
>This is like saying that /p/ is really two letters because it's usually
>pronounced unreleased at the ends of words, while it's always released
>strongly initially. So far we've doubled the number of stops we have in
>the language. Not bad. I'll still write them with the same letter,
>though, and consider the variations environmentally triggered.
I would say you are right to a degree - because here you have in fact
two allophones of the one sound (phoneme). It might be so also with
the {'} - but I don't understand why some of you prefer avoiding
discussion instead of thinking deeply. I don't invite you to use
two letters although in phonetic alphabets for description of
the sound of a given language, you may encounter TWO different
notations, each of them for one situation only.
>>Well, this reminds exactly the Sanskrit sound called "visarga" [letting-out]
>>and written as {:} in devanagari script, transliterated as an {h} with a dot
>>below. It also cause an echo of the vowel.
>
>>Now tell me which other Klingon consonant has a similar effect on the
>>preceeding vowel?
>
>A visarga is also an aspiration, not a stop.
You're right, only I didn't tell it's a stop. Who did?
I told "this REMINDS visarga" and not "this is visarga".
>Which other consonant? All
>of the stops *would*, if you were careful to pronounce them released and
>aspirated fully in final position. In order to release a stop you need to
>have some sort of... something after them.
In this point I decided I must listen carefully to my English-speaking
clients, how they do pronounce their final stops. maybe I was mistaken
thinking that Anglophones don't echo their vowels at the end. (Some of them
have even remarked, as I think, that instead of listening to WHAT they say
I was observing them & listening to HOW they say/speak/pronounce or whatever).
Unfortunately most of my clients are Polish, then 50-50 Anglo's and Franco's.
Result: I HAVE FOUND NO SLIGHTEST SIGN OF ANY ECHO. What is following the
final stops is just a puff of air, as if you'd like to blow off a candle,
only much weaker. Exactly as in other languages I know.
>Perhaps not an echo of the same
>vowel, but SOME semi-vocalic sound (maybe unvoiced, especially if the
>consonant is unvoiced).
No semivocalic sound either (if by semivocalic you understand something
w-like or y-like etc.), unvoiced - yes, but with no "hue".
>All this tells me is that Klingons are a little
>more careful to release their glottal stops in final position than perhaps
>���������������������������������������������������������������������������
>they are of other stops. Or maybe it's to remind me that this is how you
>������������������������
>have to release a glottal stop at the end if you want to, since as an
>English speaker a member of Okrand's audience might not be expected to know
>how to handle final ''s, but final p's are familiar.
That's exactly what I said: if something happens to one sound in a special
way otherwise than regularly to all other sounds, it means this sound is
special. In the language where it is spoken. All my examples from other
languages do not have the value of a "proof" but of an example that
it might be so also elsewhere. I intend to write about things I observe
in Klingon.
If the Klingons are *more careful to release their glottal stops ...*
there must be a REASON for that. I am looking for that reason but INTERNALLY,
not in meta-ST bla-bla.
>>In Conversational Klingon it is described differently as:
>>"abrupt cutting off the sound"
>>and you can hear contrasted syllables with and without an {-'}.
>
>>The {-'} has an evident effect on the length of the vowel. Which other
>>consonant has a similar effect? It is unimportant whether you pronounce
>>"maj" with a long {a} or with a short {a} (speaking of the
>>metrical length} even if it seems that they are pronounced longer - you can
>>hear them long when the words are pronounced alone by themselves, but in
>>sentences they become neutral-length.
>
>If you listen to the tapes you'll hear that Okrand is far from consistent
>in vowel-length in general. It would seem to be a non-phonemic distinction
>in Klingon.
When other situations are concerned, yes, but not when the {'} follows the
vowel. That's what I have written: in other situations vowels are
neutral-length. As it is in Polish.
>>It {-'} also causes the syllable containing it to be stressed rather than
>>any other syllable not containg an {-'} in a word. (TKD p.17)
>
>>Is this not sufficient to consider {'} a special sound?
>
>This is meaningful, but not all that much.
What do you mean by: YES, BUT NOT? I don't understand such language.
>>To analyse fully the ture nature of {'} you must take into consideration
>>how {''} is pronounced. Is it a germinated consonant, like say {ll}?
>>or is the function of the 1st {'} a bit different from theat of the second
>>{'}? Compare the pronounciation of {cha'a'} "big torpedoes" and
>>{cha''a'} "does he show?" or more precisely: how is the syllable-
>>beginning {'} pronounced after a vowel? You have certainly more experience
>>than I do, so am I right that hiatus in both cases is similar?
>
>I have not been able to hear *any* evidence of gemination being preserved
>in pronunciation with *any* geminate consonant. It would seem that in
>Klingon, like in Welsh and English, doubled consonants are not lengthened.
>The distinction remains in writing, but I have not heard it in spoken
>examples.
You are not familiar with gemination, but in Polish we are. Dozens and
dozens of words contain geminated sounds, and we pronounce all double
consonants as geminated (even in loan words from languages like English
which treats this as a "writing distinction" with influence only on the
vowel preceding - we pronounce double letters - as geminated consonants).
I have described the pronounciation of geminated sounds in my posting
two days ago.
>>As concerns its influence of pronounciation of vowels in some other syllables:
>>I am absolutely positive there is no vowel heard between {t} and {r}
>>in {tera'ngan} on the cassette. After having read your comment I have
>>listened to the k7 three times. I can hear only {tr}.
>
>I hear a vowel. And if I didn't, I'd ascribe that to laziness on the
>speaker's (Okrand's) part; an environmental sloppiness brought on by the
>stressed syllable immediately following.
As Marc Okrand (reH yInjaj! 'ej reH najtaHvIS qeylIS ghomjaj!) is the only
native speaker of tlhIngan Hol we know, his
pronounciation is the final authority to us. If you treat everything he
has written about grammar as a "sacred rule" why are you reluctant
to accept as same what he has written of the sounds? And why do you
completely disregard what he has "pronounced" on the cassettes?
No meta-linguistical explanations satisfy me. Are you so big a
*tlhIngan Hol guru* that you can judge what is important and valid out
of what Marc Okrand (reH yInjaj! 'ej reH najtaHvIS qeylIS ghomjaj!)
has said and what is unimportant or only "situational"
due to the circumstances of the origin of the language?
>You eat your own tail!
mu'qaDveS:
qanchoHpa' qoH, Heghbe' Hoch qoH!
>>The syllable {te} contains a neutral-length, unstressed vowel.
>>The next syllable {ra'} contains an abruptly short, stressed vowel.
>>The first of the two tends to disapper. It might be either a special
>>way of pronouncing the word {tera'ngan}, not even necessarily {tera'},
>>or a more general tendency. Both seem plausible. Who knows? Maybe MO
>
>I'd consider it an idiolectical variation.
That's an interesting interpretation. And an INTERNAL one.
>I think much too much is being made of this.
But what, if that's exactly what is interesting to me?
>I know of no language which is pronounced precisely the same
>by all its speakers, except for those which have only one speaker (and
>probably not even they are perfectly consistent).
And that's exactly the case of tlhIngan Hol. It has ONE speaker, Marc Okrand
(reH yInjaj! 'ej reH najtaHvIS qeylIS ghomjaj!), and many impersonators -
both in ST and in KLI and surroundings (including yourself and myself).
>~mark
>
Qapla'
macheq
macheq noychoH jembatoQ
=========================================================================
lasciate ogni speranza voi qu'entrate
=========================================================================