tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 18 19:32:43 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: q and Q (was: help with this.)
- From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: q and Q (was: help with this.)
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 22:34:52 -0500
- Encoding: 31 TEXT
ghunchu'wI'vo':
> ja' charghwI':
> >All this discussion about {q} {Q} and {H} have me stunned by the
> >recognition that it would be impossible to hear the difference
> >between {baQa'} and {*baqHa'*}. Perhaps this is why there is no
> >verb {*baq*}? Or perhaps Okrand merely misunderstood Maltz?
>
> I think Holtej misspoke when he described {Q} as {q} followed
> immediately by {H}. I pronounce the fricative portion of {Q}
> much further back in my mouth than I do {H}, as I believe it
> is described in TKD:
ghobe', vIjatlhHa'be'. {{:)
I agree that the point of articulation is a little different when you're
saying /q/ and /Q/. But the same can also be said for /t/ and /ch/, where
/ch/ is an affricate, seeming to be a combination of /t/ and /sh/. It
didn't mean for it to sound so, well, mechanical. Just injecting a little
linguistic observation.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
--Holtej
Stardate 96884.73