tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 18 08:01:10 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: the nature of pIqaD (was Re: KLBC - attempt at translation, v 1.1)
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: the nature of pIqaD (was Re: KLBC - attempt at translation, v 1.1)
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
---David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> >Page 14:
> > Those few Klingons who pronounce {b} as {m} would say Klingon
> > {baH} /fire (a torpedo)/ and {maH} /we/ the same way, and have
> > to memorize which word is spelled which way.
> >
> >This implies that {pIqaD} does *not* indicate changes in
pronunciation
> >between dialects. It also argues against {pIqaD} being idiographic
in
> >nature, with the word "spelled" implying an alphabet.
>
> I think "spelled" could very well be a simplification of "form the
written
> version of." I don't think it's necessarily meant that
specifically, just
> as the rest of that chapter is fast and loose with description of
> pronunciation. Again, it *could* mean that, but I don't think this
confirms
> it.
>
> Let the symbol % mean "shoot a torpedo out of the ship." Let the
symbol &
> mean "we, us."
>
> ta' Hol:
> % baH
> & maH
>
> Morskan:
> % maH
> & maH
>
> and the Morskan would have to memorize the "spellings" of the
different
> meanings.
If that was the case, the Morskan and the ta' Hol speaker would quite
identically have to memorize the different 'spellings,' just as they
would have to memorize ever other symbol. The fact that it's the
*Morskan* who has to do extra work because of his pronunciation
difference strongly implies to me that pIqaD shows pronunciation.
I was quite impressed by ghunchu'wI''s argument. especially as it was
based on material from the first six pages of the original Klingon
reference.
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com