tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 24 01:58:27 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Pronunciation [was RE: K'Zhen Zu-Merz]
So tell me How should I say them. If it'll be easier please use the IPA's
graphical references in exactly where the sound is produced in the mouth.
At leaset I might have a clearer reference to understand.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 24 February 2001 02:59
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Pronunciation [was RE: K'Zhen Zu-Merz]
>
>
> ja' qe'San:
> >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."
>
> Klingon {u} and Klingon {w} are not the same sound.
I know I don't mean say they are. They have clearly defined sounds that
don't waver. All I mean is that the sound represented by the {w} when
following a vowel is moves very close (approximately) to the klingon{u}
sound. If it was still the klingon {w} sound it would negate the need for
MO to have even mention the {u} in that section of TKD.
> Please
> stop ignoring
> the word "approximated" -- it's there for a reason. The
> sounds represented
> by {u} and [trailing] {w} are quite similar,
So am I right in saying that [trailing] {w} is not exactly the same sound as
{w} in every other context? If not, that appears to be what you said.
> and are often pronounced
> similarly enough by sloppy speakers to be considered
> identical, but they
> ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE THE SAME SOUND.
OK but sloppy or not for it even to be mentioned surely the sound must vary
from the normal sound and to mention what the sound is approximately like
for us "sloppy speakers" I would have thought the closest sound to that
required would be quoted. Also where have all the non-sloppy speakers got
their canon information from and why can't the sloppy speakers get to see
it.
> Klingon {y} is not
> the same sound
> as English "ee", though to an untrained ear they are indistinguishably
> close, and in careless speech they can be indistinguishable to even a
> trained ear.
To be this close they I would have thought then that were produced in a part
of the mouth.
Am I ok to say that?
>
> The entire discussion of what you think are diphthongs on
> pages 16 and 17
> of The Klingon Dictionary is there to warn people NOT to
> pronounce {ay} and
> the like as diphthongs the way "ay" and the like are
> pronounced in English.
OK I get that but MO goes to say the sound produced rhymes with another
sound that is a also diphthong.
Even getting away from labels for a moment, the main thing is that the part
of the sound they represent is also nothing like klingon {a}and {y} run
together so the {y} therefore represents a different sound, whatever the
label, to the one normally associated with it.
> Recognize that TKD was written for non-linguists, and is
> intentionally a
> little loose in its treatment of certain concepts.
So are you saying that non-linguist aren't entitled to the real canon
information. I thought that what MO writes was classified as the real thing.
Sorry maybe that was uncalled for but I'm not a second class citizen because
I'm not a linguist. Even if TKD was "loose" in its treatment it would still
be as close as he could loosely make it. ie [trailing] {w} is not exactly
the same sound as {w}.
> The bit
> about how to
> pronounce {ew} and {Iw} is *very* loose -- because those
> combinations of
> sounds are foreign to the majority of TKD's intended audience, the
> description of how to pronounce them draws on combinations of
> sounds that
> are less foreign.
So who has determined how loose these sounds are?
> One of the best descriptions of how to pronounce them comes
> from Seqram,
> who suggests that you imagine Elmer Fudd saying "terrible"
> and "miracle".
> If you have any significant experience with Fudd's
> idiosyncratic speech,
> you'll get it immediately: "tewwible" has the Klingon {ew}
> combination in
> its first syllable, and "miwacle" has Klingon {Iw}.
THANK YOU! and I mean that I hadn't got that connection in that last post.
Let's see if I've got it.... The [trailing] {w} sound is more like moving
the mouth and lips towards the position used to create the normal Klingon
{w} sound but not finishing with a extra expelation of air at the final
point results in a sound that to a listener sounds like {vowel-u}. Therefore
the reason MO uses the {w} character to represent it is because although it
sounds similar to a {u} the mouth position is that of the {w}???? Is that
sort of it? sort of the first part of {w} whithout finishing it off?
If that was correct or almost correct then I understand what was written in
TKD and more importantly how to pronounce these combinations "non loosely" .
Phonetically speaking the part that produces the {u} sound alike is when the
mouth parts move between the two positions and as such the vowel is changing
in sound. If I'm correct with that and there is a change in the vowel
production then that combination/change would be a diphthong even if it gets
so close to the {w} production that it can be said that the sound finishes
with a consonant production. If you don't believe me and assuming I do
understand it now sound it yourself very slowly and you'll feel as well as
hear the vowel sound change before getting to the {w} position. That is
all that is needed to classify the sound as a diphthong.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
>
Qapla'
qe'San