tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 12 13:06:08 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Vowels
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Vowels
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:04:38 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On 12 Aug 1999 17:23:24 -0000 [email protected] wrote:
> >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.
Well, if we are going to get into THAT kind of definition, then
your observation about the difference between the "k" sound in
"keep" and "cool" doesn't have to be a difference at all. Just
consider the consonant to be an onset to the vowel. The "k"
sound then is just an initial closed state of the back of the
throat which is in the shape of the vowel you are about to
pronounce. The back of the throat is in a different place for
the "ee" in "keep" than the "oo" in "cool", so wherever that
back is is the place that is closed with the initial "k" sound.
So, these two "different" "k" sounds are not really different.
They are just traits, duct taped to two different mouth shapes.
> 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.
I don't see how combining a grand total of TWO examples buys you
all that much efficiency in this generality. The description I
personally prefer is the one that says, "A syllable can end in
{rgh}, {w'} or {y'}." All three are recognized as exceptional.
> >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.
Then why aren't they called "semi-consonants"?
> >> 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
charghwI'