tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 02 00:38:51 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Aspiration of semi-geminate



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rohan Fenwick [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:25 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Aspiration of semi-geminate
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am currently being bugged with a question that I haven't been able to
> resolve for myself.
>
> The question is: Does the /t/ in <<vIttlhegh>> have aspirated
> release, or is
> it unreleased? I know that in KGT, Dr O states that geminate
> consonants may
> receive phonemic length in lieu of the double release which would be
> expected. However, at least as far as I can find, he hasn't said anything
> yet about whether the /t/ which is part of <<tlh>> also produces
> this effect
> when coupled with a preceding /t/, or whether one should always pronounce
> the /t/ with normal aspiration, then go on with the rest of the word.

There is no {t} in {tlh}. Realize that {tlh} is just a romanized ligature
for a consonant sound that is quite distinct from {t}.

Having said that, pausing to think about what happens in my mouth when I
pronounce the words {vIttlegh} and {vItlhej}, I do recognize that {tlh} is a
sound that explodes outward from the stop that ends the {t}. Even if I don't
release any air between {t} and {tlh}, I definitely pause longer with the
air stopped, primarily in order to make clear the syllable boundary which is
quite different between these two words. {vIt-tlhegh} and {vI-tlhej}. I also
find myself emphasizing the first syllable of {vIttlhegh} or saying both
syllables with equal emphasis, while I definitely emphasize the second
syllable of {vItlhej}.

Thank you for making me think about this.

> Is this combination conducive to the shortening phenomenon as
> well? (Which
> would effectively make the word /vItlhegh/.)

I would pronounce {*vItlhegh} (if it were a word) quite differently than
{vIttlhegh}, both because of the greater pause between the syllables and the
difference in emphasis of the syllables. While Okrand describes that any
syllable ending in a glottal stop is emphasized, every Klingon speaker I
know naturally tends to emphasize verb and noun roots. Certainly, verb roots
are emphasized more than their prefixes. *vItlhegh would only make sense as
a verb with {vI-} on it. Polysyllabic root words are extremely rare in
Klingon. Out of a vocabulary of roughly 2,300 words, there are perhaps less
than two dozen polysyllabic root words, nearly all nouns (and a couple
adverbials and a couple verbs). I believe {HoSghaj} and {lo'laH} are the
only two polysyllabic verbs. {HaSta} is the only polysyllabic word ending in
an open syllable, but it was one of the pre-Okrand words from the first Star
Trek movie. Open first syllables in these rare words are nearly nonexistant.
The only examples I can think of are {nIteb} and {naDev}.

You are venturing into the world of the "It probably wouldn't happen". It
COULD happen, but it probably wouldn't.

It occurs to me that open syllables seem to be universally de-emphasized.
Again, thank you. I never would have recognized that. Everyone emphasizes
the first syllable in {HoSghaj}, {lo'laH} and {HaSta}, but they emphasize
the second syllable in {naDev} and {nIteb}, and to my knowledge, there are
no written guidelines that explain this universal trend (except for
{lo'laH}, since the glottal stop rule explains this emphasis).

> Are there many studies of Klingon phonetics in progress? I have
> considered
> doing one myself, using the PK and CK tapes, and maybe even how
> it is spoken
> by some of the listers, if any of you are keen to volunteer :)
>
> Please reply with your thoughts on either of these issues.
>
> Qapla' 'ej Satlho'
>
> ro'Han
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

reH Saprup SapwI'na' net Sov.

charghwI' 'utlh



Back to archive top level