tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 23 21:11:12 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
• Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:10:35 EDT

In a message dated 6/23/2009 22:11:50 Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] 
writes:

>  The ambiguities introduced by folding q/Q are not 
> trivial, or we wouldn't bother distinguishing them in the first place.  
> There does not appear to be any reason within the language to consider 
> the two phonemes to be related lexically.
> 

That's a good point.

lay'tel SIvten

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
• Next by Date: Re: Klingon Tengwar
• Previous by thread: Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
• Next by thread: Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level