tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 12 17:26:02 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 16:04:38 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
>Priority: NORMAL
>X-Authentication: IMSP
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>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.
I'm not entirely positive I follow you here. What you're saying sounds
interesting, and novel, and clever... but I don't really see how it follows
or relates.
>> 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.
Works for me too.
~mark