tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 19 15:54:40 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Pronunciation [was RE: K'Zhen Zu-Merz]
>> ..."w" and "y"...do *not* create dipthongs in Klingon.
ja' qe'San:
>BUT YES! THEY DO. TKD defines them as diphthongs (explained further below).
The only thing I see in TKD which involves diphthong-like ideas is when the
{ew} and {Iw} combinations are singled out for special explanation. TKD
says the sounds may be *approximated* by running together two vowel sounds.
It never says that {w} or {y} actually have vowel sounds or behave as
vowels.
>> In each
>> case explained on pages 16 and 17 of TKD, the vowel sound
>> does not change
>> when the consonant {w} or {y} follows it.
>
>Pages 16-17 states the vowel sound DOES CHANGE.
Try reading it again, pretending that you agree with me. You might
discover that it says merely that the sound might not be the same sound
expected from the English spelling. If you're interpreting it as saying
that {ay} *changes* from rhyming with "day" to rhyming with "die", your
reading is quite wrong. The Klingon vowel represented by the symbol {a}
*always* has the same sound, no matter what letter follows it. (For
nit-pickers, there are of course slight variations in the sound, but the
"vowel sound" itself is the same.)
[If you're planning to say something about {w} having different sounds
depending on whether it comes at the beginning or end of a syllable, note
that {l} and {r} often change their sound in the same way. A simple and
consistent Klingon phonological theory doesn't treat {r} as a vowel, and it
doesn't treat {w} as one either.]
>> The simplest usable theory of Klingon phonology does not include the
>> concept of dipthongs,
>
>YES IT DOES, It may not include the word but on Pages 16 -17 it clearly
>embraces the concept and states that tlhIngan Hol has Diphthongs. As said
>it may not mention that word but it does supply the definition, "Klingon ew
>resembles nothing in English, but can be approximated by running Klingon e
>and u together." A DIPHTHONG IS IT NOT?!
The *approximation* is perhaps a diphthong. The *true* sound, being merely
the Klingon vowel {e} followed by the Klingon consonant {w}, is not.
Again, the simplest description of Klingon syllable patterns ignores the
concept of diphthongs entirely. It's certainly possible to use a theory
which includes them, but such a theory is significantly more complicated
than one which does not. [And by lending credibility to diphthongs, it
leads to people trying to justify "words" like {*'ayS} and {*QIym}.]
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh