tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 15 07:34:40 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: Klingon Phonetics
On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 15:04:43 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Evidence to back this up is that {y} and {w} are both used to
open syllables with no preceeding consonant. Vowels can't do
that in Klingon. The explanation that these otherwise consonants
become vowel dipthongs when following a vowel quickly becomes
very complex in explaining exceptions, like we don't see other
consonants besides {'} following them in a single syllable.
Besides, a vowel {a} followed by a consonant {w} sounds exactly
like what you are calling a dipthong {aw} and in most cases,
dipthongs sound different from the combination of the two
lone sounds of the characters, like the English "t" followed by
"h", which when combined don't sound anything like a "t" sounds
followed by an "h" sound.
Far simpler is the phonological explanation given in HolQeD
volume 1 number 1, which counts {y} and {w} as consonants and
the consonant pairs {y'} and {w'} become similar to {rgh} as
exceptional syllable closing consonant pairs. This explanation
also explains why {-ow} and {-uw} don't happen, since they
generally would not be distinguishable from {-o} and {-u}.
> >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.
Interesting point. I personally find {rgh} difficult to
pronounce really well, if one rolls the {r} like it is generally
rolled when not preceeding {gh}. The tongue vibration runs from
the tip to the base. That's actually one of the things I like
about my name, though when one mispronounces it, bad things
happen. {chaghwI'} drops things (like {r}s)and {charwI'} is one
you'd generally seek to avoid.
> [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.
I had a friend who would always correct my English for saying
things like "platter" with just one "t" sound. She "correctly"
pronounced it "plat-ter". I got her back when I pointed out to
her that "water" has only one "t", even though she pronounced it
"wat-ter". It was a highlight in our relationship. I will
cherish it to my grave.
charghwI' 'utlh