tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 17 07:23:38 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: q and Q (was: help with this.)


> >Denny Shortliffe writes:
> >>...I have no formal training in linguistics but I speak three 
languages...
> >>By some definitions, that makes me a linguist.
> >
> > [ghunchu'wI']
> >That would be "a person who speaks several languages fluently."  But
> >The definition "a specialist in linguistics" is what I'm thinking of.
>
> [Denny]
> Sorry.  My 1968 Webster's gives two definitions:
> 1)	a person skilled in languages; polyglot
> 2)	a specialist in linguistics
>
> Therefore, both of us are linguists, just according to different 
definitions.

It does not take a trained linguist to study, speak and appreciate tlhIngan 
Hol.  In 1996, (I can't speak for 1968), the term for a person who speaks 
many languages is 'polyglot', and a person who studies the science of 
language is a 'linguist' (and we can argue about what science means in this 
context).  If you call yourself a linguist when you're a polyglot, you may 
be accurate by some definitions, but you are misrepresenting yourself. 
 Polyglot is the more accurate term.

> However, I never before heard of an "affricative"...

All 1st year linguistics students know what an affricate is.  A polyglot 
can make them in several languages.

> >>[quoting SuStel]
> >>>If Okrand had said "Klingon {q} is a dorso-uvular unvoiced stop, and 
Klingon
> >>>{Q} is a dorso-uvular unvoiced affricate," he would have been exact in 
his
> >>>terminology, but nobody would have understood him.
> >>
> >> [Denny]
> >>Right.  But he could also have taken the time to describe and 
demonstrate
> >>the sounds in ways that were free of jargon.
> >
> > [ghunchu'wI']
> >That's exactly what he *has* done, describing them in "layman's terms"
> >in TKD section 1, and demonstrating them in the audiotapes.  I've not
> >heard the Language Lab on the CD-ROM, but I assume they are described
> >and demonstrated there as well.
>
> [Denny]
> Yes, and he described them at the Ontario Science Centre for me in a way
> that definitely did not indicate that one was a stop and the other was an
> affricate (I think that means that one brings the air flow to a full stop
> and the other allows it to leak somewhat -- did I get it right?).  Unless
> it is that the extra force he indicated by "with an attitude" is what
> causes the leakage in one case and the lesser force the lack of leakage 
in
> the other?

An affricate is a stop followed immediately by a fricative.  So, the 
affricate /ch/ is seen as the stop /t/ followed immediately by the 
fricative /sh/.  I have no idea what you mean by "leakage."

I see /q/ as a simple stop.  I see /Q/ as a stop, /q/, followed by a 
fricative, /H/.  In other words, an affricate.

> > [ghunchu'wI']
> >Listen to the words "dam" and "jam".  Notice how similar the "d" and "j"
> >sounds are?  They are both voiced apico-palatoalveolar consonants, but
> >one is a stop and the other is an affricate.  One could describe "j" as
> >"'d' with an attitude," but "j" is so common in English that it's not
> >necessary.

No, these sounds do not have the same point of articulation, ghunchu'wI'. 
 /d/ is alveolar, and /j/ is palatal.  (Saying 'palatoalveolar' glosses 
over this distinction).  If you want to compare stop to affricate, compare 
/t/ to /ch/, or /j/ to /dz/ (as in the second consonant in 'judge').

> [Denny]
> So, O.K., that seems to conform to what I said about air leaking earlier,
> doesn't it?

We can argue about the phonetics and phonology of Klingon, from the 
perspective of the linguist or the polyglot.  But in the end, it comes down 
to how the sounds are used.  Whether you call the distinction between /q/ 
and /Q/ as "leakage" or stop vs. affricate, the question is, can a listener 
distinguish between the two?  I suspect this type of debate wouldn't be 
decided until we all sat down together and listened to the pronunciation. 
 As it happens, Denny, many of us have, at the various /qep'a'mey/.  I have 
a hard time distinguishing between ~mark's /q/ and /Q/, even though he has 
been described as one of the best pronouncers of Klingon.  And I'm a 
linguist!  (Not a polyglot, though I have studied many languages).

I agree that using technical terminology from linguistics can have the 
undesireable side-effect of "gatekeeping."  OTOH, the terminology is 
precisely defined, and specifically for handling discussions like this one. 
 I think the best solution is to use the terminology, and offer examples 
and definitions as appropriate.  But using terms like "leakage" isn't the 
answer.  Only you know what you mean by this.  And we have perfectly good 
terminology from linguistics to describe speech articulation.  Let's raise 
the water, not lower the boat.

> Denny Shortliffe

--Holtej
Stardate 96880.60

Back to archive top level