tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 10 07:33:59 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Vowels
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Vowels
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:32:57 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On 9 Aug 1999 02:56:23 -0000 [email protected] wrote:
> >Date: Fri, 06 Aug 99 17:12:41 EST
> >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
> >
> >On Fri, 6 Aug 1999 12:28:55 -0400 [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
>
> This argument has been done before; I was just remembering it. The fact is
> it's all a matter of how you choose to name things: if you formulate the
> rules right you wind up with the same results at the end of the day whether
> you believe in diphthongs or not. I find it simpler, as you do, to keep it
> as vowels and consonants and occasional glides and exceptions to make the
> phonology work, but you could construct the exact same phonology by
> starting from vowels and diphthongs and having different exceptions and
> whatnots. *Shrug*. Whatever floats the individual language-student's boat.
The difference that I see is that a "y" in English is truely a
"semi-vowel" because there are mysterious rhymes where it holds
a position in a word that only a vowel could hold. This never
happens in Klingon. The "y" is used in Klingon only where a
consonant can be used.
To make the rules such that {y} could be considered a Klingon
vowel, you'd have some very complex exceptions to rules to make.
It would then be the only vowel to accompany other vowels with
no interceeding consonant, AND it would be the only vowel that
can begin a word with no preceeding consonant. Add that it is
never used between two consonants and is indeed never used
without at least one other vowel adjacent to it.
In other words, it would be the only vowel which is always
treated like a consonant and never treated like a vowel. {{:)>
> >> 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.
>
> Any voiced consonant? Are you mad? After all, some languages have
> *unvoiced* vowels too! :) But it would have to be a *continuant*, not a
> stop. I can't find my linguistics dictionary atm for a proper definition
> of "vowel", but if for the sake of argument we use "sound that can be the
> nucleus of a syllable," practically any continuant can qualify... with
> varying degrees of likelihood. Certainly r is in English (for some values
> of r and some values of English) and Sanskrit, n is syllabic in Japanese,
> there's a vocalic l in *one* verb in Sanskrit (it used to be more
> widespread in earlier forms of the language, but dropped mostly out by the
> Classical period),... these are all fairly frictionless sounds. S is in
> the Klingon exclamation and s is in Cherokee and in stuff like "Pssst!" I
> think the more friction the sound has the harder it is to make it hold a
> syllable, so H would be hard... but not necessarily impossible.
[raspberry]
That is, an intralabial unvoiced, lingual fricative. I'm not
sure if that's accurate. I just made it up and it makes sense to
me.
Sorry. It was just the perfect response.
> ~mark
charghwI' 'utlh