tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 23 16:33:14 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: Pronunciation [was RE: K'Zhen Zu-Merz]

Mark Shoulson was right it doesn't matter what label you put on things or
"voobles and kronstints". HOWEVER what does worry me is that maybe this
discussion is a result of me or others not pronouncing tlhIngan correctly...
That I do not want to drop because of a disagreement over labels. You have
more history with that and so maybe its me. You seem to be telling me that
what is printed in TKD is not so.

Just to tackle the definitions of a dipthong here are a few variations care
of the dictionary.com site:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
diph·thong (dfthông, -thng, dp-)
n. Linguistics

A complex speech sound or glide that begins with one vowel and gradually
changes to another vowel within the same syllable, as (oi) in boil or () in
fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[Middle English diptonge, from Old French diptongue, from Late Latin
dipthongus, from Greek diphthongos: di-, two; see di-1 + phthongos, sound.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
diph·thongal adj.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Pronunciation Key
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third
Edition
Copyright © 1996, 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
diphthong \Diph"thong\ (?; 115, 277), n. [L. diphthongus, Gr. ?; di- = di`s-
twice + ? voice, sound, fr. ? to utter a sound: cf. F. diphthongue.]
(Ortho["e]py) (a) A coalition or union of two vowel sounds pronounced in one
syllable; as, ou in out, oi in noise; -- called a proper diphthong. (b) A
vowel digraph; a union of two vowels in the same syllable, only one of them
being sounded; as, ai in rain, eo in people; -- called an improper
diphthong.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
diphthong \Diph"thong\, v. t. To form or pronounce as a diphthong;
diphthongize. [R.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
diphthong n : a vowel sound that starts near the articulatory position for
one vowel and moves toward the position for another
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Notice how they all refer to vowel sounds (not characters) and how the vowel
sounds can still maintain their normal sound but form a diphthong when the
mouth changes or moves towards the sound of another vowel. A single but
changing sound that you describe being an "improper diphthong". th does not
appear to come under these definitions and I would therefore say it is not a
diphthong... MO clearly says that {ew} sounds approximately like {e}{u}
running from one to the other....ie they're diphthong's.

In two cases, implying the third, MO states that the sound to produce for a
{w} following vowels is the Klingon {u} sound.  So whether or not that makes
a 'doodlepip' or a diphthong is almost irrelevant the Klingon {u} sound is
one of the Kliongon Vowels in character and pronunciation.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William H. Martin [mailto:[email protected]]
>
> > From: "qe'San" <[email protected]>
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> >
> > Firstly I do not want to say that Vowel-w or Vowel-y
> combinations should
> > ever preceed any other character than {'}..  My name is
> just that my name
> > and was discarded from this discussion.
>
> Noted.
>
> > Secondly I am not trying to imply that usage should be other than as
> > described in accepted canon reference materials.
>
> So, basically, you just want to define the terms "vowel" and
> "consonant"
> your way and get other people to agree with you.

Snap! However I would be happy to agree with you if I can why you believe
that what is writeen in TKD is incorrect.  Please tell me why {ew} is not
pronounced by running Klinngon {e} and {u} together...

TKD: "Klingon ew resembles nothing in English, but can be approximated by
running Klingon e and u together. Likewise, Klingon Iw is I and u run
together."

Now there's an interesting phrase "I and u run together".  That would seem
to go against what you say..

> What differs
> between your
> phonology and ours is that you think that a particular kind of sound
> defines a vowel,

Not just the sound its also the way that sound in created. It is phonology
we are talking about after all.

Hopefully I pronounce the phoneme's the same way as everyone else but that
is what is confusing me.  From what you are saying my TKD is different to
yours.

> rather than a language's treatment of that
> sound,

I'm talking about tlhIngan Hol treatment of the sound.

> while we
> believe that certain sounds have certain roles in a syllable,
> and those
> roles define the terms "vowel" and "consonant" in Klingon
> (and probably in
> most, if not all other languages).
>
> In Cherokee, the letter "s" should probably be considered a
> vowel, since
> all Cherokee syllables consist of either a lone vowel or a consonant
> followed by a vowel, except that "s" is a lone sound in
> Cherokee.

I cannot talk about Cherokee itself but if this "s" has A speech sound
produced by a partial or complete obstruction of the air stream by any of
various constrictions of the speech organs. Then I would have thought it was
a Consonant sound but if some of the sound was also A speech sound created
by the relatively free passage of breath through the larynx and oral cavity,
usually forming the most prominent and central sound of a syllable, then the
Cherokee "s" could represent a combined sound. But not a diphthong.

> It is the
> only sound in their syllabary which English speakers would
> consider to be a
> lone consonant, but it, in and of itself, constitutes a
> syllable. Listen to
> Cherokee speak and you'll notice that every now and then,
> they hiss for the
> normal duration of a syllable. That's the "s" sound.
>
> The most commonly used, untrilled "r" sound in English sounds
> at least as
> much like a vowel as any a, e, i, o or u.

Although untrilled the sound is still produced at the front of the mouth and
by a partial obstruction there.. So I would disagree with you there.

> It is not the sound
> itself that
> determines whether or not it is a vowel or a consonant. It
> has more to do
> with the way that sound is used in a syllable.

What reference do you use for that conclusion.  Not according to what I
could see from websters, Oxford dictionary or IPA (International Phonetics
Association). I would of thought the latter would know.

>
> You'll never see a "w" or a "y" used between two consonants
> in a normal
> Klingon syllable the way that vowels are used.

I never said they were.

> They may sound
> to you like
> vowels,

No they don't sound like vowels to me at all.  I don't know where you get
that from.
All I ever meant is what MO says on page 16-17 (in the vowel section) where
he describes the sound that is represented when either of these two
consonant characters follow a vowel character. He even uses the actual
definition of a diphthong to describe {ew} and {Iw}

> but Klingon consistently uses them as consonants.
>
> Also, I believe you are misusing the term dipthong, since, as
> I understand
> it, a dipthong is the combination of two or more vowels

That's what I believe.

> or two or more consonants

No that is incorrect.  I'm sure they must have a name but not sure what it
is.

> to form a new sound which is quite different from the
> combination of the two sounds made sequentially, like "th" in
> "South" is
> different from a "t" followed by an "h", or "ou" in "tough"
> is different
> from an "o" sound followed by a "u" sound. In Klingon, "aw"
> is nothing more
> than the Klingon "a" sound followed by the Klingon "w" sound.
> It is not a
> dipthong of any kind.

I wish there was more specifics on {aw} but it  rhymes with English {ow}
which to copy a phrase used for {ew} {Iw} and effectively if they existed
{ow} and {uw} can be approximated with pronouncing klingon {a} and {u}
together but I agree a maybe stretching things a bit but it would be
following the pattern set down by Marc Okrand.

>
> What you want to say is, "The 'w' and 'y' sounds in Klingon
> sound to me
> like vowels." That's not much of a statement, and the
> arguments you try to
> build with that as a foundation aren't getting you very far.
>

I do not want to say that!!! They do not sound like vowels at all and I have
never said so.
My arghuments don't get far because I'm limited to a few paraagraphs
supplied by Marc Okrand and phonological definitions.

I might well be misinterpreting somethings but arguements put forward so far
seem to ignore TKD.. I really don't want to pronounce {Iw} {I-w} as you are
suggesting when TKD tell me it is closer to Klingon {I-u}.

> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> >>
> >>
> >> >> ..."w" and "y"...do *not* create dipthongs in Klingon.
> >>
> >> ja' qe'San:
> >> > BUT YES! THEY DO. TKD defines them as diphthongs (explained
> >> further below).
> >
> > What I meant is that  vowel-w and vowel-y combinations are
> described and
> > pronunced as diphtongs even though the printed characters maynot be.
>
> I believe you are misusing the term "dipthong". The {a} sound in the
> Klingon {aw} is no different from any other {a} sound in any
> other Klingon
> syllable, and the {w} sound in the Klingon {aw} is no
> different from the
> {w} sound in any other Klingon syllable. One sound follows
> the other, like
> any other vowel-consonant combination. It is not a dipthong.

It is if it rhymes with ow in English COW.

> It is merely
> two sounds you choose to call vowels, one following the
> other. I disagree
> with you over the definition of the {w} or {y} sounds as vowels.

It's not my definition of {w} it's Marc Okrand's in TKD.

> >> 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 says approximate and I can accept that doesn't mean it's the same but are
you telling me that MO wrote that and meant that this approximation was not
the closest he could get to describing the sound

Also it's not just {ew} and {Iw} he singles out.  He also applies the same
approximation to the irrelevant sounds that would be appropriated if {ow}
and {uw} were found in Klingon.  They're not because for example {uw} would
sound like {u} and {u} run together.. ie no differnt to {u} on it own..

There is a clear difference if I pronounced a combination of klingon {u}
followed by {w} and that of {u} and {u} so even these statements by MO back
up his approximation of {Iw} sounding like {I-u} and not {I-w}.  To put that
another way that in most and possibly all cases when {w} follows a vowel it
represents a klingon {u} sound.  A vowel sound.

>
> Running together two vowel sounds is not the same thing as a
> dipthong.

I've not seen any evidence to the contrary. IT IS A "PROPER DIPHTHONG".

> Creating a new sound different from either of the vowel
> sounds when the two
> vowels are combined is forming a dipthong.

This is an "IMPROPER DIPHTHONG".

> This is not
> happening here. All
> that is happening here is that two sounds that perhaps
> English speakers
> would consider to be both vowels follow in a sequence within
> a syllable.

A DIPHTHONG by definition.  The sound is irrelevant to the language.
Diferent languages may have diferent words for the same thing but a MO
describes a vowel and even uses a Klingon vowel character to illustrate the
approximate sound produced when the character normally used to indicate a
Consonant follows a Klingon vowel.

>
> >> It never says that {w} or {y} actually have vowel sounds
> or behave as
> >> vowels.
> >>
> > Ok you're correct it doesn't say {w} or {y} have vowel sounds.
>
> That's the whole point. That doesn't stop you from starting the next
> sentence with "however", however.

I was only agreeing that {w} and {y} do not have vowel sounds all the time
hence the valid However to state what MO says happens when they follow
klingon vowels.

>
> > However, when it says {ew}, {Iw} sounds approximately like
> klingon {eu}
> > and {Iu} respectively it doesn't take a lot to realise
> apart from the
> > fact that the sounds are diphthongs that the Klingon {w}
> after the {e} is
> > vocally being represented by the Klingon {u}
>
> Again, this is not a dipthong.

Yes it is.

> You merely have two different
> sounds which
> happen to sound very similar, if not identical, except that
> one of them
> functions as a vowel and the other functions as a consonant.

So you mean it functions as a consonant at the smae time as being a vowel
sound.  How?

>
> Consider how much the English vowel "u" and the English
> consonant "w" sound
> alike.

To me they sound so unalike.. Unless you want me to say 'YOU' and 'DOUBLE
YOU' instead of the phonetic sounds.  I would say that "v" sounds like "w"
though.

>Listen to Elmer Fudd. Even though he replaces "r" and
> "l" with "w",
> giving three identical-sounding consonants, all of which sound like a
> vowel, you can still understand what he is saying because of
> the way "w" is
> FUNCTIONING in the syllables he forms. It is not the sound
> itself.

I've hardly ever watched Elmer Fudd although I would have thought this is
more down to the human brain rather than the similarity of sounds.  The
brain is a wonderful thing in the way it will take what it gets and make a
best fit solution out of it and normally get it right.

If I said "I went up pears to bed" you may work out that I meant "I went
upstairs to bed".  Surely you wouldn't say that you may understand this
because "P" and "ST" sound similar.

> It is
> the way the sound functions in the syllable.
>
> Is this enlightening?
>
> > Agreed sounding "approximately like" isn't sounding
> "actually like".  But
> > are you saying that when MO says approximate he means SO
> approximately
> > like a vowel that in fact its a consonant sound and if so, how?
>
> The function of the sound in the syllable defines it as a vowel or a
> consonant. The sound itself is relatively irellevant.

No its is the how a sound is produced that defines it as a vowel or
consonants.

>
> > Consonant and Vowel sounds are about where and how a sound
> is produced.
>
> And where they are used in a syllable.

Please tell me where you find this definition on what a vowel/consonant is.

>
> In English, "y" is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a
> consonant. It is the
> same sound both times. It is a vowel in "try" and a consonant
> in "yet". It
> is a consonant in "troy" and a vowel in "rhythm".

In troy it is a vowel forming a classic diphthong

I don't have a problem that English has many sounds for each character
whereas Klingon has quite a straight forward phonology with little or no
exceptions on how a character is vocalised.

>
> In Klingon, {w} and {y} are always consonants.

Except for when following vowels when in particular {w} sound as klingon
{u}!

>
> > It has nothing to do with the character used to represent
> it. I'm not
> > aware of anything that says if the whole vowel sound is
> pronounced before
> > running into the second vowel "sound" that this is not a diphthong.
>
> In Klingon, the second sound is not a vowel.

So why does Marc Okrand describe it as such????

>
> > It
> > doesn't even have to move all the way to the other vowel
> sound.. Just
> > moving away from one towards another is sufficient for the
> result to be a
> > diphthong.
>
> You have an interesting definition of dipthong.

SEE THE TOP.  IT'S NOT MY DEFINITION

>
> > I can't see that it would even matter if the culture or
> > language creating/using it knows what a diphthong is.
>
> Or if you do, apparently.

Apparently I do.
>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >>
> > Who said it did? I didn't!!   I agree that the part of the sound
> > represented by the preceeding vowel does not change and is
> pronounced as
> > described for that character...But the sound does not stop
> there.  It
> > runs into the sound represented by the folowing {w} or {y} consonant
> > character...  The sound of this character for which the nearest
> > approximation, given by MO in this arrangement, is a vowel
> sound.  In
> > other words the initial vowel sound runs into another vowel
> sound (not
> > character)  and therefore forms a Diphthong.
>
> Again, I may be wrong. My dictionary doesn't list the word
> "dipthong" at
> all,

Try looking it up with as diphthong rather than dipthong ("h" after the
"p".. DIPHTHONG).

Or for a quick look up go to
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=diphthong

> but I remember from school that it referred to new
> sounds created by
> the combination of vowels or consonants that is distinctly
> different from
> the sequence of the sounds of those vowels and consonants,
> like "sh" is
> different from "s" followed by "h".

Incorrect.  IT only refers to Vowels.

>You are defining dipthong
> as any sound
> made by two vowels not separated by a consonant,

Yes, basically correct.

>and then you
> define {w}
> and {y} as vowels.

When it comes to the individual characters, No never have. When as expressed
in TKD they follow Klingon vowels the sounds that they represent are vowel.
So basically here there are two distinctions.  1st/ its when cirtain
criteria apply (ie following vowels) and 2nd/ I say they represent vowels
not that I define them as vowels.  A big difference.

>I think you have made two fundamental
> mistakes. I don't
> think either of these statements are true.
>
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >
> > I can't even see how these are close day rhymes with words
> like Hay but
> > die rhymes with words like sly.
>
> The point is that when an English reader sees the word
> {chay'}, they want
> to make it rhyme with "day", while it actually rhymes
> (ignoring the glottal
> stop for now) with "die", because the English word "die" has
> two sounds in
> it you would call vowels, even though I'd argue that the
> second one can be
> considered a consonant because it functions as one in the
> syllable.

It does fit the definition of a vowel though in how the sound is produced.

> English
> spelling is notorious. There are no rules that work in
> English for spelling.

There are lots of rules. Most do have exceptions I agree but there are rules
eg "i before e except after c" is one I can remember from school.

I used to have a book of English spelling rules.

>
> >>  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.)
> >
> > I agree and have never meant to imply anything else.
>
> I think ghunchu'wI' was confused by your misuse of the word
> "dipthong" to

I neither misuse nor with the exception of a typo misspell it.

> refer to any two vowel sounds not divided by a consonant,
> combined with
> your redefining of two consonant sounds to be vowels because
> in isolation,
> they sound like vowels,

Thank you you understand... They sound like vowels because the sound
produced is a vowel sound albeit represented in in this case by a character
which represent a consonant when not following a vowel.

> even when they function as consonants.

Again you on about function as defining a vowel..  A vowel is defined by how
it is produced not by how it functions in a word.

>
> >> [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
> >
> > Only as described by MO on pages 16-17 of TKD as in the
> sound is similar
> > to the Klingon {u}.  If thats what I've got wrong please explain.
>
> The point here is that {u} always follows a consonant in a Klingon
> syllable, while {w} always preceeds or follows a vowel. I
> don't care if
> they sound exactly alike.

If they sound alike the sound is a vowel sound.  Therefore when following a
vowel {w} represents a vowel.

>One is a vowel because it functions
> as a vowel
> and the other is a consonant because it functions as a consonant.
>

Please look at the definitions of vowels, consonants and maybe diphthongs
they are about phonology not function.

> >> 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.]
> >
> > I agree about r and that w is never a vowel except that
> when following a
> > vowel it takes on a similar sound to that of the KLingon {u} and
> > therefore a vowel sound (even if not exactly a u) it is
> still formed in
> > the mouth as a vowel.
>
> A vowel sound is not the same thing as a vowel. A consonant
> sound is not
> the same thing as a consonant. A person being strangled makes lots of
> consonant sounds, whether or not they are actually pronouncing any
> syllables. There are no consonants until they function within
> a syllable to
> fulfill their definition of being consonants.

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=consonant

>
> >> >> 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.
> >
> > Not written  I agree. But a diphthong is about how the
> sound is made not
> > the way it is written.
>
> I'd argue that a dipthong is about creating a new sound that
> is different
> from the sequence of the sounds associated with the letters
> combined to
> spell that sound: th, sh, ou, ai, au, oa, etc. In "cocoa", "oa" is a
> dipthong. In "boa constrictor" it is not. In "thought", "ou"
> is a dipthong.
> In "out" it is not.

It most certainly is  The ou in "out" rhymes with the ow in cow.
>
> I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=diphthong
>
> >> 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 because a theory is more complicated means its wrong?
> surely that is
> > not true.
>
> It is true that nothing is served by creating useless
> exceptions. You want
> to redefine {w} and {y} as being vowel sounds when they
> follow vowels, even
> though that is an exception, since it is the only place in
> the language
> where one vowel sound follows another. These letters then
> become the only
> letters which act as both vowels and consonants and they are
> also the only
> vowels which follow other vowels to create what you call a dipthong.
>
> That's a big, tangled mess with no positive functionality
> that I can see.
> The simpler explanation that {w} and {y} are consonants and
> sometimes can
> be followed by {'} is a much more functional analysis of the
> phonology.
>
> > There will always be simple versions of any theory but it
> doesn't mean
> > that anything outside the simple theory is nolonger true.
> >
> >> [And by lending credibility to
> >> diphthongs, it
> >> leads to people trying to justify "words" like {*'ayS} and
> {*QIym}.]
> >
> > Why?  We can't create words. Only MO can do that. I'm not trying to
> > clarify anything more than the diphthong definition
> supplied in TKD.. My
> > name may be confusing things here but I accept it is no
> more than that
> > and certainly not canon.  It had just been associated with
> the CVC rule
> > and someone said it was CVCC I then said I thought it was
> CDC. Or had
> > meant to.
>
> There are no dipthongs in Klingon.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

>
> >> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
> >>
> >
> > qe'San
>
> SarrIS
>
>
>
>

Back to archive top level