tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 06 10:03:17 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Vowels

On Fri, 6 Aug 1999 12:28:55 -0400 [email protected] wrote:

> >Date: Fri, 06 Aug 99 14:44:17 EST
> >Errors-To: [email protected]
> >Originator: [email protected]
> >From: "C.J. Miller" <[email protected]>
> >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> >X-Comment:  TO UNSUBSCRIBE: email "unsub tlhingan-hol" to [email protected]
> >
> >In Elvish/Klingon are the vowels?  What exactly constitutes a vowel? 
> >If you were to create a new language could you make the vowels
> >different?
> 
> Your first sentence is missing either a subject ("what") or a predicate
> complement.  I'm not sure I follow it.

I'm sure I cannot follow it.
 
> The vowels of Elvish are pretty well studied, though they vary among gthe
> various Elvish languages (Sindarin has "y", Quenya doesn't).  Mainly,
> a/e/i/o/u in short and long lengths, iI think.
> 
> Klingon vowels are well defined as well (as opposed to English, which has
> lots and sometimes more than people realize).  there's a, e, I, o, u.  You
> could argue that diphthongs in Klingon comprise sorta vowels 

I don't believe that Klingon has any diphthongs. I've never seen 
one. Since {y} and {'} are consonants, the only affix that 
offers any potential for a diphthong is {-oy}, and that is 
preceeded by {'} if it follows an open syllable. So, where do 
you get this idea of a diphthong in Klingon?

> ,since
> something they can be the nucleus of a syllable, and while that bothers
> some folks the fact is that if you define the accompanying rules right you
> wind up with the same result, so what's the difference.  It's likely
> simpler not to, though, since diphthongs are not commonly used as
> syllable-nuclei except with specific cases (final consonant ', etc (and
> others, I know, this isn't exhaustive))

It sounds like you are counting {y} as a vowel. I don't.
 
> I've used a/e/i/o/u/y/r as vowels in a language of mine (the r being a
> syllabic r like in American English "bird", y being a rounded high front
> vowel or an unrounded high mid vowel).  I could see definite arguments for
> all kinds of vowel sets.  The basic triangle a/i/u is simple and maximally
> distinct; Adding things like unrounded u and o and rounded i and e
> (u-umlaut and o-umlaut) makes for asymmetry of rounding (Turkish takes
> advantgage of this in its harmony rules). 

I'm just starting out learning Turkish and find this a 
fascinating aspect of the language. Basically, instead of having 
fixed suffixes which are then slurred by people who are trying 
to talk fast, you make rules demanding that you take the easiest 
possible pronunciation of the suffix, changing the 
voiced/unvoiced state of the opening consonant to match the 
closing consonant of the previous syllable and changing the 
front/back and rounded/unrounded state of the vowel to match the 
vowel of the previous syllable... all to make the word easier to 
say quickly. It's wild. As arbitrary rules go, this one seems 
remarkably "natural" to follow.

It also works only because the possible expected set of 
syllables is limited so that the altered suffixes are not easily 
confused with other potential suffixes. In other words, when the 
rules change {-dir} to {tur}, you still know it means {-dir} 
because there are no other suffixes that can be altered to sound 
like {tur}.

> Would ddepend on what I was
> creating the language for.  Artistic sensibilities?  Ease of use/learning?
> And by whom?  You could also have fun with syllabic l or n or m...

So, basically, you are ready to use any voiced consonant as a 
vowel. Hey, why stop there? Cherokee uses "s" as a whole 
syllable. :) For that matter, for one exclammatory, so does 
Klingon.
 
> ~mark

charghwI'

Back to archive top level