tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 26 21:42:37 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon phonotactics (was Re: Klingon at the Thanksgiving table - A month la
At 9:39 AM +0100 1/26/06, Philip Newton wrote:
> On 1/26/06, Russ Perry Jr <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At 10:38 AM +1000 1/26/06, QeS 'utlh wrote:
>>> (would it be {jawoy} "beloved Lord" or ??{jaw'oy}?).
>> Uh... I'm not familiar with ?{oy} or ?{'oy}, but you'd pronounce it
>> the way it was spelled. Is there a suffic ?{oy} AND ?{'oy}?
> No, there's only a suffix {oy}. However, its use is only attested
> on words ending in a consonant; it is not known for sure what
> happens when you add it to a word ending in a vowel.
Okay, so we only know of {jaw} and {-oy}, meaning that, to the best
of our knowledge, we need not worry about how {jaw'oy} would be
pronounced, because it simply can't happen. But are there other
possibilities? I am not familiar enough with Klingon vocabulary to
say, but I guess I get what QeS was "worried" about, and just
because this example seems okay, there MAY be some problem elsewhere.
> TKD, however, provides this guess: "Though there are no examples,
> it is suspected that for those few nouns which end in a vowel, {'}
> is inserted before this suffix."
But even then, the {aw} part would be pronounced the same way,
essentially as a diphthong, I assume.
> For that reason, whether {w} in {aw} is a vowel or not is important
> in determining what the diminutive of {jaw} would be -- if it were a
> vowel, then {jawoy} would be an invalid word, since the second
> syllable does not begin with a vowel, and (by TKD's guess) the word
> would have to be {jaw'oy} instead. If, on the other hand, the {w} in
> {jaw} is a consonant, then {jawoy} is legal, while {jaw'oy} would be
> something different.
I think the mention of the insertion of a {'} consonant pretty
much indicates that the {w} is part of a diphthong and definitely
NOT a consonant -- why would it NEED the {'} if it was?
> Also, if a {w} or {y} after a vowel is also considered a vowel, as
> part of a diphthong, and if TKD's conjecture is correct, then a word
> such as {Duy'oy} would be ambiguous between "dear agent" and "dear
> defect".
Weird example... I mean, I should have read ahead, because you've
already found an interesting example of the concern posted a few
emails earlier in this thread... I'm wondering if Maltz meant that
the inserted {'} was spoken, but not written... In that case,
?{Duy'oy} and ?{Duyoy} would be easily distinguished in writing, but
not so much when spoken (though I think the inserted {'} would be
"softer" than the always-present version).
--
//*================================================================++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #114 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 [email protected] VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================================*//
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}