tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 15 14:23:29 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yet more KGT puns
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: yet more KGT puns
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
At 12:34 PM 9/15/97 -0700, Scot D. Randall wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:39:41 -0700 (PDT), ~mark wrote:
>
>>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).
>
>Hu'tegh!
>
>I was not joking; I was unaware of this rule. TKD gave me information
>on pronouncing and using words, but I recall nothing on constructing
>them. Have I been derelict in my studies, or is this information to
>be found elsewhere (thus not previously available to me)?
The information comes from examining all the words we have. No Klingon word
ever has two consonants in a row at the beginning of a syllable and the only
consonant clusters ever found at the end of a syllable are {rgh}, {w'} and {y'}.
It is *possible* that we could have seen well over 2000 words and not have
seen all possibly combinations, but it is unlikely. Just as the combination
of sounds "gb" can't be pronounced at the beginning of a word in English,
even though we can say "bugbear," the combination {*St} doesn't seem to
exist at the beginning of a Klingon word, even though they can say {qaStaH}
just fine.
Qov ([email protected])
Beginners' Grammarian