tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 14 14:58:33 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Klingon Phonetics
I'm answering several notes in one here.
ja' "John Bowman" <[email protected]>:
>I wouldn't consider <y'> and <w'> to be exceptions to the coda rule. In
>these cases, <w> and <y> form part of a diphthong (<aw> or <ey>, for
>example) and are part of the nucleus (the vowel part of the syllable).
I don't intend to rejoin an ancient debate, but I have to point out that
the official description of Klingon phonology pointedly avoids mentioning
the term "dipthong", and it labels {w} and {y} as consonants. Whether or
not you believe the {aw} combination is "really" a dipthong, it doesn't
get called one in Klingon. The {a} retains its separate status as "the"
vowel sound, and the {w} is a separate consonant.
>Still, I think it's unusual that you don't see constructions like <ayq>
>or <uyD> in tlhIngnan Hol.
I don't think it's unusual at all. The {'} consonant doesn't affect the
placement of the tongue; all other consonants would interfere with clear
voicing of the preceding one. The thing that strikes *me* as unusual is
the lack of other combinations like {r'} and {l'}. But there's a lot of
asymmetry in the phonology as it is. That's a big part of what gives
well-pronounced tlhIngan Hol its distinctiveness.
[SottaH -> SotaH]
>The process you are describing is called degemination and is quite
>common in many languages. I would not consider degemination an "error"
>anymore than I would assimilation. They are natural processes in
>phonetics.
Reducing a geminate consonant to a single sound is apparently a natural
process in tlhIngan Hol as well, but it's one that is actively rejected
and corrected by careful speakers. It's not out-and-out "wrong" to say
a doubled consonant without taking care either to pronounce each one as
a separate sound or with a slightly longer hold time, but it's definitely
sloppy pronunciation. See page 138 of Okrand's _The Klingon Way_ for
*his* explanation of this.
Again, you have to recognize that the lexicalization of affixed words
is apparently very rare in tlhIngan Hol. For the most part, the suffixes
are separate entities and don't get assimilated with the root word. The
use of affixes in tlhIngan Hol usually doesn't really make a "new" word.
It is much closer to the separate words "in balance" in English than it
is to a single "inbalance" that becomes "imbalance".
[only {-rgh} and {-w'} and {-y'} clusters seen at the end of syllables]
>A rule that can be deduced from the vocabulary of a language *is* a
>restriction.
Since we don't create vocabulary ourselves, the difference between an
observed pattern and a prescribed one is moot.
> In English, for example, there are no words that begin with
>two stops together; that is restriction in English. It is not in other
>languages (remember the Tkon Empire? :-) Seriously, in many African
>languages constructions like "gb" and "pt" are common
Well, there *are* words like "pterodactyl" in English, though they're
generally not pronounced with a carefull pair of stops at the start.
But names taken from those languages -- like "Mfume" -- often retain the
"illegal" spelling and pronunciation when rendered in English. That's
especially true when the person having that name is of special celebrity
or importance. Like Picard -> {pIqarD}.
>I don't see why names should be special when borrowed. Even Worf's name
>becomes <warIv> to conform to the restrictions of tlhIngan Hol.
It's actually {wo'rIv}. And you're failing to look at the situation from
the point of view of a theoretical native Klingon. He sees the borrowing
quite differently: {wo'rIv} is the *true* pronunciation of the name, and
it comes out "Worf" when badly pronounced by someone who doesn't know the
real name and who has a difficult time understanding the speech of a very
young Klingon who's apparently the only survivor of a devastating attack
on his home. :-)
The name of the captured science officer from Star Trek III comes out
"Maltz", which is quite impossible to spell in Klingon without violating
a number of apparent rules about the way things work. But we know that
it isn't necessary to do it that way, because we also know that his name
is really {matlh}. The {tlh} sound doesn't come out consistently when
transcribed into English. That says nothing about *Klingon* phonology.
Check out the "Klingon names" of many of the regular posters to this
mailing list. trI'Qal and r'Hul haven't been heard from in a while,
but DloraH and T'Lod are recent examples. They get no complaints from
the rest of us due to their oddly-formed (no offense intended) names.
Whether you see why or not, names are considered special by the people
who use them here.
>Look at
>your transcription of Grilka. To conform to the Klingon language's rule
>about consonents, the <I> was inserted between <gh> and <r>.
Our fantasy is that it was always {ghIrIlqa'} from the beginning, and
"Grilka" is the warped transcription. :-)
>So why didn't Picard become <pIqarID> or <pIqar>?
Because it was very carefully rendered to preserve what the official
translator thought was the "correct" pronunciation of the name. It's
not a borrowed name at all; it's a *foreign" one. And I think the
translator botched it anyway -- {janluq} is a poor transliteration of
"Jean-luc", with {Sanluq} being at least as good and arguably better.