tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 11 21:50:32 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Vowels



On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:50:27 CDT Marc Ruehlaender 
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I think the whole discussion is somewhat complicated by the fact
> that we don't really know what Klingon linguists consider to
> be phonemes, and that we have to base all this phonological
> stuff on the artificial non-Klingon writing systems graphemes.
> 
> jatlh charghwI':
> > Again, when you look at the phonological patterns of Klingon, 
> > you can either say:
> > 
> > {y} and {w} are consonants which constitute participants in two 
> > of the three allowable consonant clusters at the end of a 
> > Klingon syllable.
> > 
> > Or you can say:
> > 
> > {y} and {w} are the only vowels that can begin a word, and they 
> > are the only vowels that are a necessary part of the only 
> > diphthongs allowed in Klingon, and they are the only vowels that 
> > never appear alone in the typical vowel position in a syllable 
> > and they are the only vowels which frequently behave exactly 
> > like normal consonants at the beginning or end of a syllable.
> > 
> or I can say that
> 
> i) syllables can begin with a consonant 
> <b,ch,D,gh,H,j,l,m,n,ng,p,q,Q,r,S,t,tlh,v,'>
> or with <y,w>
> 
> ii) syllables can have a monophtong <a,e,I,o,u> or a diphtong
> <ay,ey,Iy,oy,uy,aw,ew,Iw>

If we are going to get this convoluted, why not consider {r} to 
be a semi-vowel as well and consider the diphtongs <ar, er, Ir, 
or, ur> which can be followed by nothing or {gh}?
 
> iii) monophtongs can be followed by any or no consonant or the cluster <rgh>;
> diphtongs can only be followed by <'> or nothing
> 
> this does away with the rule that <o,u> cannot be followed by
> <w,w'> and may better correspond to the actual pronounciation
> of <ay,ey,Iy,oy,uy,aw,ew,Iw> as it is explained in TKD.

It may. I don't see it that way, but it may. I really do see {r} 
as the same kind of consont as {y,w}. It is exceptional in that 
it can be followed by another consonant in a syllable ending. It 
just happens to be a different consonant than the one which 
follows {y,w}. All three are voiced consonants that don't 
involve stops. All three could be considered semi-vowels, but 
it just seems so artificial to consider them to be consonants 
for syllable beginnings and semi-vowels for syllable endings.

> (assuming they are not really pronounced, like (IIRC) qa'ral
> reported for Russian "i kratkoje", with more friction and TKD's
> description is just to make it easier for English speakers to
> produce them; but then again, from the tapes, I don't get that
> impression)
> 
> [snip]
> > The exceptions you have 
> > to make in order to call them anything but consonants is just 
> > ugly.
>
> the only thing remotely "ugly" I see, is that you have digraphs
> for vowels now as well as for consonants.

You miss my point. With {r,w,y} considered as consonants, their 
function does not change between when they open or close a 
syllable. They are merely exceptional in their ability to 
participate in consonant clusters at the end of a syllable. That 
makes one kind of exception.

If you treat them as semi-vowels, then you are either claiming 
that these are the only vowels that can open a syllable, or you 
are claiming that they are consonants when they begin a syllable 
and vowels when they end one. Meanwhile, they also happen to be 
the latter half of all diphtongs. That makes them very special.

Treating them as consonants doesn't require this much special 
treatment.

> > > > > wind up with the same result, so what's the difference.  It's likely
> > >                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!
> > 
> > The difference is obvious. One explanation is simple. The other 
> > is wittering, like a string of apologies for why the explanation 
> > doesn't work very well.
> >  
> apart from being of the opinion that it works just as well as
> saying "a syllable can end in no consonant, one consonant other than
> <w>, one of the clusters <rgh,y'>, or, if the vowel is not <o,u>,
> it may end in <w,w'> as well", the difference _for_the_resulting_
> _phonolgy_ is of course = none. The difference for _discussing_
> the phonology of Klingon or _explaining_ the phonological rules
> to someone is that each person can chose which set of rules she
> likes best. In this sense, IMHO, variety is good!

I guess that I was just so charmed by the description given in 
the first issue of HolQeD that no other explanation has come 
close to so neatly describing the model to which Klingon 
consistently complies. When such a system is published and it 
works with no exceptions except for two Federation Captains' 
names, the only function I can see in coming up with yet another 
system is to have an opportunity to attach one's name to the 
concept.
 
> > > what it _should_ sound like, though, is that non-syllable-initial
> > > {y} and {w} can (but don't need to) be seen as forming a diphtong
> > > with the preceding vowel.
> > 
> > If that is all you say, then you have more explaining to do. 
> does the above do the cut, or do you need more?
> 
> [snip]
> > 
> > You can either say that they always behave as consonants (and 
> > are exceptional when they behave as parts of specific consonant 
> > clusters at the end of syllables), or you have to explain why 
> > they behave as consonants except when they are behave as vowels 
> > participating in a diphthong, but only as the second member of 
> > that diphthong and only with certain vowels... Yuck.
> >  
> or you can say that like *<g> behaves differently in <gh> and
> in <ng>, or <h> behaves differently in <ch> and <tlh>, the
> *<y> and *<w> in <ay,aw> etc. are not really the same as the
> syllable-initial <y> and <w>.

So, then you are suggesting that the same romanized character is 
being used for two distinctly different characters, even though 
they are pronounced identically. They can only be differentiated 
because one is used to open a syllable, while the other is used 
to close a syllable.

But then we could say that for EVERY consonant. You are 
inventing ghosts.

> and I've already been talking much more than I should've...
> 
>                                            Marc Ruehlaender
>                                            aka HomDoq
>                                            [email protected]

charghwI'



Back to archive top level