tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 15 03:46:23 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: K'Zhen Zu-Merz
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: K'Zhen Zu-Merz
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:46:10 GMT
>
>> > we haven't seen {wn} in one syllable either...
>> > but it's his name...
>> >
>> > Marc Ruehlaender
>> >
>> I was thinking of it more as:
>> >
>> | b | e | ' | r | aw | n |
>> >
>> basically as I believe/d aw is mentioned in TKD as acting like a vowel
>> itself eg it can take a glottal stop after the <w> in <aw> which
it cou>ldn't
>> do without the <a>(e.g. chImlaw')
>> >
>> aw = ow as in English cow
>> >
>I probably should let the BG sort this out, but as I started talking
>about it...
>
>common wisdom, as I understand it, is that Klingon syllables are
>
>either CV (consonant vowel)
>or CVC (where aw etc count as VC, *not* as V)
>or CVw' or CVy' or CVrgh
>
>with the additional restriction that w, w' don't follow o, u
>
>so be'rawn separates into syllables as be'-raw-n or be'-rawn,
>but neither n nor rawn are "valid" syllables in the sense that
>they follow this descriptive set of rules.
>
> Marc Ruehlaender
I understand the CVC norm, with the odd canon exceptions. I'm not suggesting
this is an exception
but rather that TKD suggests, to me, that <aw> is treated as the vowel.. My
belief is backed up as
<'> is a consonent which unless it is an exception idicates that if the <law'>
in chimlaw' is a CVC and
not a CVCC. If it's not an exception then the <aw> construction is surely
being treated as a vowel.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I know, it's just how it appears to me.
qe'San