tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 17 18:50:38 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: <K'>vaD ghItlhlu''a'?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 23:52:01 -0800
>From: [email protected] (Denny Shortliffe)
>
>
>Yeah! I love it! Voobles and Kronstints forever! ({vubelmey qronStIntmey
>je}?)
>
>But your list of {vublemey} is IMHO deficient in that {aw}, {ay}, {ey},
>{Iy} and {oy} should be included as they are specifically mentioned in
>TKD, pp._16-17. You've sorta covered these in your rules (b) and (d)
>above, but I think that including them as entries in the list of voobles
>would be a clearer, neater solution to the problem. What do you think?
You totally missed the point. I invented names precisely so that I could
define them as I wanted them. My whole point was that this is quibbling
over names for things. HomDoq had it right.
You can define things as I did, with voobles and Kronstints. You can
define things with {a e I o u} and { b ch D gh H i j l m n ng p q Q r S t
tlh v '} and {w y} as your base sets and defining stuff in terms of CV,
CVC, CVG, CVG', and CVrgh. You can define things in terms of {a e I o u ay
ey Iy oy uy aw ew Iw} and the rest of the letters and have all sorts of
exceptions. You can define things in terms of {a e I o u} and {ay ey Iy oy
uy aw ew Iw} and the Kronstints and talk about CVC, CD, CD', CVrgh, and so
on.
I don't care if you call "ay" a vowel and a consonant, or a vooble and
Kronstint, or diphthong, or a single letter, or Helena Rubenstein for that
matter. It doesn't make a lick of difference.
The point, if you read the end of my reposted post, is that the rules I
gave suffice to *DE*scribe the corpus of Klingon syllables (except -oy and
the transliteration of Jean-Luc's name) as known to us. There are other
sets of rules using diphthongs or voobles or semivowels or glides or Helena
Rubensteins that you could construct that also describe the same set.
Which one tickles your qIvon is your affair. *However*, it is notable that
nowhere in the Klingon lexicon do we have a syllable which ends in {ay}
followed by anything other than '. The same is true for {ey oy uy Iy aw ew
Iw}. This seems significant; it would appear unlikely that if that
sound-combination (AND I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU CALL IT! Diphthong-consonant,
vowel-glide-consonant, vooble-Kronstint-Kronstint, Helena Rubenstein, who
cares!) is valid in tlhIngan Hol, that it would appear *nowhere* in the
known lexicon. That doesn't mean we're right; these descriptions DEscribe
and don't PREscribe, as I noted.
OK?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMo/O7MppGeTJXWZ9AQE0MQL/Yg/RwXHX5HZzNsRStx8WMDXhQZqZssHZ
WYpYLvrCnsNL07a/dupKN2+QWPrSvLEIaNjifTGo4T6xBfwcreXRQGSGVm31rIyx
I+lo5vSi5mOyotbG75FaeVMwKX9x0UPZ
=cnlk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----