tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 23 16:45:33 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon orthography
On 23 Jun 2009, at 23:27, David Trimboli wrote:
>> No, when he writes the words in KGT he writes them in the same bold
>> face that he uses for other orthographic forms. {U} and {s} and {h}
>> may be non-standard language, but the orthographic forms are within
>> the parameters of the standard system. A revised Latin orthography
>> for Klingon should also have the facility to indicate these.
>
> Yes, that's what I mean.
OK. I know I can get stuffy with precision in language about writing
systems, but that's my hobgoblin.
> I would also point out—completely tangentially to the topic—that TKD
> mentions that pIqaD "seems to be well suited to the various dialects."
> That's pIqaD, and not the roman transcription characters used by the
> Federation Scientific Research Council (Okrand), so it's not
> particularly relevant.
And not the pIqaD used by the KLI or encoded in the PUA, either.
>> These are rather interesting questions. My assumption has been to
>> take Standard Klingon as Okrand gives it, with due respect to the
>> fact that the pronunciation he gives is the pronunciation that most
>> Klingonists strive for. (The actors are as we know often less than
>> successful.) The deviations, dialectal or generational, are as Okrand
>> describes them.
>
> Okrand himself doesn't always follow his own pronunciation rules.
> Stress
> often differs from TKD 1.3, but we're warned that the rules given
> there
> are very simplistic and not always followed. But Klingon /r/ is
> described as "lightly trilled," and Okrand pronounces them that way,
> but
> he returns to his usual retroflex approximant (which is, I believe,
> the
> technical term for an "American r") whenever he pronounces Klingon /
> rgh/.
Happens in Irish too. :-) Even so, Okrand's description is canonical
and was what I was looking at.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/