tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 22 08:28:59 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Doubled ligature characters (Was Re: Prefix Quiz)
Okay.
There is no rule that says that a noun ending in {ng} or
{n} has to drop that consonant when you add {-ngan}. There
are consistent examples that suggest a general tendency.
Every time that Okrand had made a {ngan} version of a name
for a place ending in either {n} or {ng}, that final
consonant was dropped before adding {ngan}.
That doesn't make it a rule unless Okrand says it is a
rule. Then again, he has said that the key to understanding
the langauge is observing usage and in all of Okrand's
usage of *noun*ngan where the noun ends in {n} or {ng},
that {n} or {ng} is ALWAYS dropped. It is not so much a
matter of how many examples we have. We do have several
and there are few things in Klingon that we have more than
a few canon examples of. The big thing to note here is that
there are no exceptions. Okrand has never given us
*vulqanngan* or *tlhIngngan*.
It is at least passingly interesting that while it is
common to have {ng} start a syllable in Klingon, it is
never used to begin a suffix, and there are no compound
nouns with it at both sides of the boundary between
syllables. Double consonants are common in Klingon, but we
NEVER get {ngng} appearing in a word or even {nng}.
For that matter, will we ever find {tlhtlh}? Are there
certain characters of the romanized character set that
makes them unusable as double consonants in a word?
Languages have arbitrary limits on pronunciation, like
English's aversion to beginning a syllable with "ng". Maybe
there are certain consonant sounds in Klingon that are
never placed adjacent to one another.
My suspicion is that the seemingly special case of {ngan}
is really only an obvious example of a less obvious general
trend in the language. {ngan} is simply one of those
extremely rare nouns that is often combined with other
nouns to form compounds where the second noun begins with a
"problem" character.
I initially suspected that this might be the case with all
ligature characters, but it was quickly obvious that {chch}
doesn't create a problem. While I'm not certain that Okrand
has ever presented a canon example of such a word, I feel
certain that we'd say {'uchchoH} and {bachchoH} and not
*'uchoH* or *bachoH*.
But what are consonant combinations that never happen? By
the seat of my pants, I suggest that we'll never see:
nng
ngng
tlhtlh
yy
Hmmm. Not very many.
In the vocabulary list itself, I casually found:
bb - yes. jabbI'ID
chch - no. But I consider bachchoH.
DD - yes. toDDuj.
ghgh - no. And since {-ghach} is the only suffix that
begins with {gh} and it is never used on a bare verb
root, and the only other verb suffixes that end in {gh}
are {-'egh} and Type 9 suffixes, I'm quite challenged to
come up with a decent "natural" construction. While
{HoH'eghghach} makes sense for "suicide", we already have
{Heghba'} and {Heghbat} for that meaning. We'd need a
verb that makse sense with {'egh} (transitive with the
subject as a potential direct object) that can then be
nominalized meaningfully with {-ghach}. I cannot easily
think of one, though I suspect such a word could be
found. Still, this would qualify as an exceptionally rare
combination of sounds.
HH - yes. nuHHom.
jj - no. But consider bejjaj.
ll - yes. mellota'.
mm - yes. tammoH.
nn - yes. chonnaQ.
nng - no. I can't think of any natural constructions. No
suffix begins with {ng}.
ngn - no. But consider pongna'.
ngng - no. I can't think of any natural constructions. No
suffix begins with {ng}.
pp - yes. toppa'.
qq - yes. jeqqIj.
qQ - no. But consider SuqQo'.
Qq - yes. 'oQqar.
QQ - no. But consider {HInuQQo'}.
rr - no. Consider ghurrup.
SS - yes. leSSov.
tt - no. But we have the canon example yIttaHbogh.
ttlh - yes. vIttlegh.
tlht - no. But consider tlhutlhtaH.
tlhtlh - no. No suffixes begin with tlh. I can't imagine a
"natural" construction with {tlhtlh}.
vv - no. Consider nuvvam.
ww - no. Consider SawwI'.
yy - no. No suffixes begin with {y}. I can't imagine a
"natural" construction with {yy}.
So, is this food for anyone's thoughts? Does anyone
disagree with any of the constructions I made up saying
"consider..."? Does anyone know of any canon examples of
the ones I can't find:
ghgh
nng
ngng
tlhtlh
yy
I'm sure voragh could be helpful in this quest.
charghwI'
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:11:14 -0500 (EST) david joslyn
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, David Yeung wrote:
>
> > Is there some rule that says /Xn/ + /-ngan/
> > becomes /Xngan/?
> >
> > (I do seem to recall that there was such a
> > rule... but I can't say where I read it. The
> > existence of /vulqangan/ seems to confirm
> > this.)
>
> As does <thlIngan> from <tlhIng>+<ngan>
>
> quljIb
>