tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 15 09:27:59 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yet more KGT puns
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: yet more KGT puns
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:27:56 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from TPO on Sun, 14Sep 1997 21:35:09 -0700 (PDT))
>Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
>From: TPO <[email protected]>
>
>Scott D. Randel wrote:
>>Marc Okrand and I must not share the same interests, because the word
>>for "be big" really should have been {Stan}! (Who can tell me why?)
>
>I'm quite certain that you can not have the word [Stan] in klingon. My
>understanding is that S and t can not go next to each other in the same
>syllable. Syllables are consonant-vowel or consonant-vowel-consonant (with
>a few exceptions).
>Grammarians?
A word like [Stan] would, indeed, break the rules of Klingon phonology so
far as we know them, and unless our data is wrong (which would be very
surprising considering how much data we have), could not exist in Klingon.
However, I don't Scott was suggesting this; I think he was just joking
about Okrand's jokes, saying that following the punning style we've been
seeing, he'd have expected [Stan] to be the word for "big" (for some reason
which I don't personally know).
~mark