tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 12 10:27:44 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Vowels
>Mailing-List: contact [email protected]; run by ezmlm
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 00:53:09 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
>Priority: NORMAL
>X-Authentication: IMSP
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:50:27 CDT Marc Ruehlaender
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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}?
I suppose you could consider {r} to be a glide/semivowel too (a semi-vowel
is not a vowel). Certainly in American English pronunciation {r} is a
full-fledged vowel in some words ("bird", "fur") and a glide in others
("red", "real". Note that y in "yet" is to /ee/ in "eat" as r in "red" is
to /r/ in "girl"). Klingon "r" isn't the same sound and isn't used the
same; I suppose though that you could define things that way also.
Remember, we're just saying that you CAN look at things many ways. Though
considering "r" a glide doesn't gain you as much as considering "y" and "w"
a glide. Because with y/w, you can say "a syllable can end with a glide
followed by an apostrophe" which conflates the common features of both
glides, but r is in a class by itself, as it and only it is followed not by
an apostrophe but a gh. So making such a rule doesn't shorten or simplify
your description any more than saying "it can end with -rgh" does.
>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.
I always considered semi-vowels as more consonant than vowel, so I don't
see this weirdness of considering them one way at beginnings and the other
way at ends. Or at least, that's the way semi-vowels always are.
>> 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.
Ugh... Yes, I agree with charghwI'; that's a perverse way of looking at
things, and the roman characters have nothing to do with it. More on that
later.
>But then we could say that for EVERY consonant. You are
>inventing ghosts.
Pretty much.
~mark