Paramount Hol and transliteration

[ngabwI]

posted on 5-13-2003 at 01:29 PM

Originally posted by qurgh
Kesvirit, whats is peremawn'It Hol???

I believe it is the {tlhIngan Hol} transliteration of "Paramount Hol", that peculiar brand of {tlhIngan Hol} spoken by the actors of most of the episodes, and some of the movies. See STVI:
"DEEHEEVLAATAAVEES, DEEHEEVNEES"
{DIHIvlaHtaHvIS, DIHIvnIS}

[qurgh]

posted on 5-13-2003 at 02:15 PM

Oh.... I would transliterate Paramount to para'mawnt (pa - ra' - mawnt / Para - mount).

peramawn'It would be pronouced pe - ra - mawn' - 'It and I don't know n' sounds like since it's nearly impossible to glottal stop a letter like n thats just a short puff of air when a glottal stop is supposed to stop a letter with a short puff of air...

Nevermind then..
 

[Kesvirit]

posted on 5-13-2003 at 05:57 PM

Cursed Weak Vowels!

inquired qurgh Kesvirit, whats is peremawn'It Hol???

replied nbabwI'
I believe it is the {tlhIngan Hol} transliteration of "Paramount Hol", that peculiar brand of {tlhIngan Hol} spoken by the actors of most of the episodes, and some of the movies. See STVI:
"DEEHEEVLAATAAVEES, DEEHEEVNEES"
{DIHIvlaHtaHvIS, DIHIvnIS}

Annoying, is it not? perebor'Igh squandered its funds on inflated salaries and special effects budgets, and had no DarSekmey left over to hire a dialogue coach. Simply inexcusable.

Such is one of the drawbacks of English -- it has congealed from such a hodgepodge of sources (Latinate, Germanic, Celtic language families, etc) that sound values are inconsistant at best. Add to that all the elements brought in by "immigrants" from all over the world to the US during the last 400+ years, and the American Standard Language (aka "American English") is even worse.

Take a look at the vowel chart of the IPA inventory.

Though "Paramount" is spelled with the "a" used in the {a:} sound value, a long, open "a" as in "almond", or according to Okrand's exapmle in TKD, "psalm", the two "a's" in the words are/can be pronounced differently, according to the individual speaker (even amongst the company's own executives).

The first is actually pronounced {e}, as in "head" or (TKD) "sensor". The second "a" takes the value of the infernal schwa. The nearest thing to a short, unstressed (mumbled) leter in Okrand's phonology is the {I}.

tlhIngan Hol was designed with very few instances of more than one consonant sound at a time, so the glottal stop {'} is used to break up those common to "foreign" languages. This is as much a matter of convention as actual pronunciation.

So I suppose that one could also transcribe "Paramount" as either {peremawn'It} or {perImawn'It}. I believe that the {H} in {Hol} could remain as such, as this is the sound "h" makes sound in most European languages and many others on Terra. The majority of Terrans who speak it do so properly, as Klingons do.

- Kesvirit

[qurgh]

posted on 5-13-2003 at 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Kesvirit
Take a look at the vowel chart of the IPA inventory.

I don't bother with complecated sound charts, I just sound out the word and then spell it like I spell any Klingon words I hear...

Though "Paramount" is spelled with the "a" used in the {a:} sound value, a long, open "a" as in "almond", or according to Okrand's exapmle in TKD, "psalm", the two "a's" in the words are/can be pronounced differently, according to the individual speaker (even amongst the company's own executives).

The first is actually pronounced {e}, as in "head" or (TKD) "sensor". The second "a" takes the value of the infernal schwa. The nearest thing to a short, unstressed (mumbled) leter in Okrand's phonology is the {I}.

Ok.. now remember I'm from England. "Paramount" is pronouced by me as "para" like paratrooper or pan (for the pa). The a is short, but it's followed by an r in one case and I added the ' (glottal stop) after the second one.

In Klingon "ar" and just "a" are very similar, the "ar" has a much longer "r" sound. "a'" sounds almost like a short "a". Therefore "para" and "para'" sound similar, there is just more "r" sound in the word.

"pere" on the other hand sounds almost spanish (the e sounds like the e at the start of edge, almost like the word "air"). So as you see, Para and Pere are completely different sounding words in my ear. I would never say that "I" is mumbled. It's a short i sound. Like "it" or "in".

tlhIngan Hol was designed with very few instances of more than one consonant sound at a time, so the glottal stop {'} is used to break up those common to "foreign" languages. This is as much a matter of convention as actual pronunciation.

There are many occasions of constanant clusters in Klingon, they just normally break on the sylables.

Take a phrase like:
wIghaghchuqnISchoHmoHlaHbejchugh
(If we can certainly cause ourselves to change to need to gargle)
Lots of constanents, no ' in sight (try saying that line 10 times quickly)

The ' is used around vowels. When the ' starts at the beginning of word, it's actually pronouced and you do it automatically, because all English words that start with a vowel, also start with a ', we just don't write it. Most Klingon words that end in a vowel also end in a ', this is because Okrand wanted the C-V-C set up of words. He breaks it from time to time, but thats Marc for you. The ' is not in there to make the language easier, it's there because its uncommon for languages to actually write it down. Also it helps create other vowel sounds that wouldn't be there otherwise. Contrast be' and be, very different sounding words. To the layperson they would sound almost like "bet" and "bear".

Marc goes into detail on this on Conversational Klingon and a bit in Power Klingon.

So I suppose that one could also transcribe "Paramount" as either {peremawn'It} or {perImawn'It}. I believe that the {H} in {Hol} could remain as such, as this is the sound "h" makes sound in most European languages and many others on Terra. The majority of Terrans who speak it do so properly, as Klingons do.

Why do you throw that ' in the middle of the word? Paramount is two sylables. Para and Mount, not Para, mou and nt. (Para could be broken down more, but I'm asking about the end of the word).

peremawn'It or perImawn'It would be "pere-mawn-'it" or "perI-mawn-'it". You cannot have a glottal stop in the middle of a syable, it breaks it in half.
Ie:
nga'chuq (nga'-chuq) not (nga'ch-uq)

Also, "peremawn'It" would be pronouced "pearem-own-it"
"perImawn'It" would be "perim-own-it"

We want "para-mount". Leaving the pa/pe bit to the side, mount would have to be "mownt". Thats the Klingon sounds put together in away that gives us the sound "mount". You are allowed to put two constanents together to make a sound. Okrand does do it, all be it very rarely.

The "a" in Paramount doesn't exist in Klingon, that is one of the major problems. 99% of the time I just see people do Paramount Hol (it's incorrect Klingon and thats the point . The writers don't transliterate, and neither should we when talking about them. I've never seen Paramoun transliterated this way before, so I'm off to investigate it.

Qapla'
 

[Kesvirit]

posted on 5-19-2003 at 02:50 AM

Transposing from Paramount Hol and other alien languages to tlhIngan Hol

quoth Kesvirit tlhIngan Hol was designed with very few instances of more than one consonant sound at a time, so the glottal stop {'} is used to break up those common to "foreign" languages. This is as much a matter of convention as actual pronunciation.

quoth qurgh There are many occasions of constanant clusters in Klingon, they just normally break on the sylables.
Take a phrase like:
wIghaghchuqnISchoHmoHlaHbejchugh
(If we can certainly cause ourselves to change to need to gargle)***
You are allowed to put two constanents together to make a sound. Okrand does do it, all be it very rarely.

The one makes my point for me. Very rarely is more than one consonant use to construct either a word or a phoneme. I am talking about the remainder of the time, the vast majority. tlhIngan Hol was designed with very few words with more than one consonant sound at a time, and {'}/{'I} are used to break up consonant clusters within foreign (i.e.non-Hol) words. Languages that evolve naturally contain redundancies in both spelling and syntax that artificial ones like the Hol have been designed to eliminate. One thing that marks foreign languages as such is the occurrence of the consonant clusters and doubling of the same letters -- e.g., spelling, occurrence. Not to mention such "vestigal letters" as the silent 'e'.

{wIghaghchuqnISchoHmoHlaHbejchugh} is a conjoined phrase composed of many words, not one long word. The reason the consonant clusters break on the syllables is because those places are where the different words join.

The ' is used around vowels. When the ' starts at the beginning of word, it's actually pronouced and you do it automatically, because all English words that start with a vowel, also start with a ', we just don't write it...*** The ' is not in there to make the language easier, it's there because its uncommon for languages to actually write it down

Untrue. Many Terran languages use the glottal stop and have a separate letter to indicate it. Of every phonetic inventory I've looked at to date, Arabic has by far the widest range of both spoken sound, and has separate letters to indicate most of them. A lot of these sounds don't show up in English, let alone have corresponding letters.

That is one of the benefits of learning the IPA inventory. It has an internationally agreed upon/"default" standardized sound values. Another is it's flexibility in studying different dialects and regionalisms of a given language -- such as Yank vs British English, Manchester vs. Shrewsbury, Cajun vs. Tejano, and the way different areas within London have very differing accents and syntax. It takes into account the differences in pronounciation you use in your post above.

The IPA chart is like a 2-D graph. It uses aperature as the x axis and tongue position as the y to indicate the anatomical positions necessary to produce each sound. It is an ideal way to explain and teach the pronunciation of weak vowels to speakers of languages that do not have them. (It is also far easier than it sounds.)

Why do you throw that ' in the middle of the word?

I use the {'} to break apart that foreign consonant cluster into something that a hypothetical "tlhIngan-only" speaker could get their ears and tongues around. It is part of trying to understand and incorporate as authentic a Klingon perspective as possible instead of acting/thinking as a Human trying to act/think like a Klingon. I seriously doubt I shall ever master such a complete paradigm shift, but it is a useful exercise with Real Life applications.

Paramount is two sylables. , not Para, mou and nt.

In tlhIngan Hol, "Paramount" (as in {peremawn'It} or {perImawn'It}) would have four syllables. In English, it has three, not two:"Para and Mount" = three syllables. Pa-ra-mount. (It does have two morphemes: "beside" and "mountain". But syllables and morphemes don't have anyany correlation that I know of.) Unless you are in SoCal, capital of the show-biz industry and the gullet of the beast. There it is usually pronounced "pear-moun" {permown}, without even bothering to mumble the middle syllable, thus leaving it out altogether. Such pronunciation also results in "swallowing"/deleting the final consonant, {t}.

*shudder, disdainful snort* Most sloppy. Were I in a forgiving mood, I suppose I could dismiss it due to the need for expediency and the habit of shortening oft-used phrases in the form of jargon or cant. Another example is the code doctors and pharmacists use in writing prescriptions, or the MLAs (Multiple Letter Acronyms) that have taken over the net and are working their way into everyday spoken conversation.

But how often have you known me to be in a forgiving mood? :-/

The "a" in Paramount doesn't exist in Klingon, that is one of the major problems. 99% of the time I just see people do Paramount Hol (it's incorrect Klingon and thats the point . The writers don't transliterate, and neither should we when talking about them.

The writers of episodic television are not linguists. They are lower-level employees in the industry heirarchy, paid to come up with 42 minutes of material aimed at the lowest common denominator of the potential common TV audience in order to sell commercial air time. Consistency and acccuracy (two different things; another rant for another time) are neither their purview nor their concern. Those who study these things in greater detail, as you do, should aspire to higher goals. Raise the bar and show them how it ought to be done!

I've never seen Paramoun transliterated this way before, so I'm off to investigate it.

I look forward to hearing of your findings.

- Kesvirit
 

[qurgh]

posted on 5-19-2003 at 03:13 AM

Few things:

1) The letter ' is a constonant in tlhIngan Hol, you can't break up constonants with a constonant.
2) The KLI has offered its services to Paramount many times, it has always remained silent as a reply.
3) I'm not from "SoCal" I'm from England. Paramount is pronounced Pa-Ra-Mount (sometime I make it sound like Para-Mount (paratrooper, para-troop-er)), not pear-mown. I'm going to transliterate it from the OED pronuncation guide for the word, not a regional dialect from the Western US.
4) wIghaghchuqnISchoHmoHlaHbejchugh is one word, not a bunch of words stuck together. Sticking words together to make new words is a big taboo in Klingon. Adding suffixes to a word is correct Klingon and just makes another complete word. (A suffix is not a word since you cannot use it on it's own)
5) Throwing ' into a middle of a word doesn't make it easier for an English speaker, in fact misplaced ' can make a word harder to pronouce.
6) When I refer to common language usage I'm talking about English. This would get way to confusing if I was refering to another language I speak (FYI: I know French, Farsi, a little Arabic and a little German)
7) I don't use IPA when talking about Klingon because it's not needed, Marc made a perfect system for writing Klingon, we don't need another one...
Paramount = pa'ra'mownt. All the sounds are there, you don't need extra Is or 's. Thats as close as you will get. "nt" is fine, it's a foreign word, it doesn't have to follow the CVC structure of Klingon perfectly. Just as Chris is qrIS and qurgh is qurgh (qr in qrIS and rgh in qurgh). Marc does it, especially with names....

Well thats about it I think...
 

[Kesvirit]

posted on 7-14-2003 at 06:41 PM

The uses of " ' ", the IPA, and the g'daya peremawn'It Hol

quoth qurgh Well thats about it I think...

Surely you know better that that by now.

Upon my return from an away assignment I found a hardcopy of the above post shoved into a bag of dirty bootliners and rotted t'ruilu treats. I had intended to compose a reply to it while in transit, but more pressing matters took precedence. Fortunately I sorted through everything before dumping the refuse in the 'cycler and salvaged it so that I could respond in detail.

I've never seen Paramoun transliterated this way before, so I'm off to investigate it.

And yet you never posted any results of this hypothetical investigation, but instead throw out random opinions and assertions. Nevertheless, I will refute the information contained in your "counterarguement".

If the one will allow me to elaborate...

The letter ' is a constonant in tlhIngan Hol, you can't break up constonants with a constonant.

To my knowlege, it is designated a consonant only in tlhIngan Hol. How many native Hol speakers do you know who speak no other tongues? They are going to have to go back and forth between thIngan Hol and at least one other language, quite probably fedegonaase ot its English precurser. In the latter, " ' " is frequently used to break up or abbreviate consonants.

The KLI has offered its services to Paramount many times, it has always remained silent as a reply.

Given the inflexibility of most of the KLI members I have had dealings with, I am not at all surprised.

The reason for Paramount's decline of the KLI's "services" should be obvious. These two organizations have opposing goals. Paramount's sole concern is the accumulation of the sacred Darsek. The KLI is obsessed with linguistic purity. There is little corporate profit to be found by observing the latter. If Paramount is too arrogant, miserly, and greedy to incoprorate scientists and continuity editors, it is certainly not going to go out of its way to court the participation of those who are locked into a strict doctrine of microspecialization. It already has Okrand under contract. There is no reason to involve his followers who chose to incorporate under the 503©, therefore forfeiting any rights to independent contracting and receiving compensation for their work.

I'm not from "SoCal" I'm from England.

Those who rule the franchise and define the bovine (or COW, Canon of the Week, or the Hol-y COW, ordained language Canon of -- well, you get the idea) are from SoCal. If not originally, be assured that the individuals involved do their best to pick up the prevailing vernacular and customs as quickly as possible in order to assimilate, to "play the game" according to strict but unwritten rules, and rise in the chain of command. Conformation to the industry norm is a great motivator.

Paramount is pronounced Pa-Ra-Mount (sometime I make it sound like Para-Mount (paratrooper, para-troop-er)), not pear-mown.

Unless you are in the Land of the Media and Entertainment Lords who act as the prime agents of the socialization of English-speaking Terran young, too often to the exclusion of parents, and instructors.

I'm going to transliterate it from the OED pronuncation guide for the word, not a regional dialect from the Western US.

That is of course your choice. But you should be aware that most of those who learn their Trek from television, as opposed from books, learn it as conceived, spoken, and produced by the Paraborg and their kuvei. They are in turn headquartered in SoCal and well-seeped in its linguistic and cultural traditions.

wIghaghchuqnISchoHmoHlaHbejchugh is one word, not a bunch of words stuck together. Sticking words together to make new words is a big taboo in Klingon. Adding suffixes to a word is correct Klingon and just makes another complete word.
(A suffix is not a word since you cannot use it on it's own)

Words are often abbreviated to such in everyday speech.
-hood, for neighborhood
-able. "Potential to." Not only a suffix, but can be used as alone as a predicate adjective.
-dom. State of being; domain. Frequently seen in fandom ("Which doms do you follow?") as well as those involved in political schisms.
-ism. Doctrine, belief; action or conduct. "Some people get so caught up in isms that they are blind to other possiblities."
-ship. Condition, state, status. "What's the ship?" (on a given situation) Common fandom usage: "shipper", one who sees two canon characters as being involved in a romantic relationship whether or not the canon material supports it.

This does not even begin to address those used in the medical and chemical fields, where context determines meaning and abbreiated words are universally used and understood within a given specialty.

Some words have been part of compound word for so long that they have come to be used as suffixes. "Meter", formerly used as an add-on to indicate measurement (e.g. "thermometer), had come to mean any sort of measuring device. "Scope" was formerly used to indicate any device that aids in vision (e.g. "telescope". Now it stands on its own as both a noun and a verb. "Graph" (lit. "to write") was formerly used to indicate a given way of recording something; now it stands alone, as any refugee from an intermediate maths class can testify.

I am told that the practice is very common in Spanish, though I do not know enough of that language to confirm this.

Throwing ' into a middle of a word doesn't make it easier for an English speaker, in fact misplaced ' can make a word harder to pronouce.

The apostrophe is often used in place of the schwa, a default sound value for unstressed or mumbled weak vowels. Many Terran languages, including various dialects of English which you either do not know of or do not chose to acknowlege, do not contain weak vowels. Therefore "throwing ' into a middle of a word" does indeed make it easier for English speakers, both native and non-, to pronounce. It in effect tells the reader to ignore the vowel and go straight to the next consonant when speaking it aloud.

" ' "/{'} is also frequently used to indicate either the schwa or an ejective (plosive) because most keyboards do not provide a character for either. It is also sometimes used for the open back unrounded ("script a"; IPA and Okrand's {a}). As zan Klythe pointed out, most ascii pronunciation guides use {@} for the schwa.

When I refer to common language usage I'm talking about English.

Which English? You speak as if there is one and only one, yet have already acknowledged and disparaged "a regional dialect from the Western US" that does not conform to the standards of whatever as-yet-unnamed variant of UK English that you speak..

Many different English variants are spoken in many different countries. Some would say that there are as many variations as there are individual speakers, though I personally do not take it that far. The parental unit is a native English speaker and is recognized as our family's resident polyglot, fluent in several languages and able to "get by" in several more. Yet even when we travelled together I frequently found myself having to "translate" from English to English.

This would get way to confusing if I was refering to another language I speak (FYI: I know French, Farsi, a little Arabic and a little German)

All the more reason for you to be aware of local/regional variations in syntax and pronunciation. A consistant set of sound values serves as a key for all of them.

Paramount = pa'ra'mownt. All the sounds are there, you don't need extra Is or 's. Thats as close as you will get. "nt" is fine, it's a foreign word, it doesn't have to follow the CVC structure of Klingon perfectly. Just as Chris is qrIS and qurgh is qurgh (qr in qrIS and rgh in qurgh). Marc does it, especially with names....

If, according to TKD, Kras = {QaS}, Valkris = {valQIS), Kruge = {Qugh}, etc. I would think that Okrand's followers would "transcribe" (and I use the term loosely) Chris as {QIS} insead of {qrIS}. I would think you would at least be consistant in applying the one oversimplified phonetic inventory you are willing to use.

I don't use IPA when talking about Klingon because it's not needed, Marc made a perfect system for writing Klingon, we don't need another one...

I would expect more from one who claims to know of the separate conventions and standards of such diverse Terran languages as French, Farsi, Arabic, and German. "Marc does it" is poor justification and circular reasoning at best. Why would one with enough interest in languages to learn something of all those named above limit themselves to a single inadequate phonology inventory that applies only to one tongue?

- Kesvirit
 

[qurgh]

posted on 7-14-2003 at 07:16 PM

I read through that long winded post that just seems to be attacks on the KLI, Paramount and myself. Obviously you dislike all three for some unknown reason...

You keep attacking my minor writing quirks and typo's, and are completely missing the point of the thread(s). If you have a problem with me, please email me privately or get back to the topics at hand.

This thread is about the transliteration of the word "Paramount" into the writing system created by Dr Okrand. If you have something else to discuss, start a new thread.

As I have already said, I would transliterate Paramount - pa'ra'mownt. When I sound out all the sounds in the word Paramount, as spoken to someone who speaks The Queen's English* (since you wanted the name of my brand of English) those are the sounds I get.

If you believe that it should be spelt a different way, then post that way and your reasons for transliterating it that way, instead of random attacks against organizations that are mostly based on assumptions made from limited facts. My example of that would be you claiming you know what Paramount does regarding the KLI. Unless you work for Paramount or the KLI you have no idea the true reasons.

*The Queen's English is the name of the English that is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary. It is considered the base from which all English dialects are created.
 

[Kesvirit]

posted on 7-15-2003 at 05:08 AM

quoth qurgh I read through that long winded post that just seems to be attacks on the KLI, Paramount and myself. Obviously you dislike all three for some unknown reason...

My, my. It appears that someone has missed his nap. Your lack of sleep seems to be prevent you from being able to distinguish between "long-winded posts" and detailed explanations.

You keep attacking my minor writing quirks and typo's,

"Keep"? Three times. Twice when you had omitted verbs from your sentences, rendering them incomprehensable. Once when you ignored the BB code in favor of cutting and pasting a URL, rendering your link inoperable. That BB code is there for a reason. Without it, you will find that you have difficulty posting links that actually take the user to your intended destination.

Communication via this Forum system is restricted to the written word. While members' writing skills vary, I do expect everyone to at least make an effort. It is foolish to insult your fellow posters by not making the effort to communicate clearly and then expect them to take you seriously. You are a computer programmer by trade, are you not? You of all people should know how important it is to get the language markers, symbols, and elements in the proper order. A single misplaced letter can ruin your code and make an entire application inoperative. Running your posts through a spell-check before before posting them will help.

There is also the Preview Post function. I suggest you use it.

...and are completely missing the point of the thread(s). This thread is about the transliteration of the word "Paramount" into the writing system created by Dr Okrand. If you have something else to discuss, start a new thread.

I directly addressed and refuted every point you brought up in your previous post in a thread titled "Paramount Hol". I have also delved further into the phenonemon and incorporated additional background material. If that is not addressing the point of the thread and the topics at hand, what is? If you cannot be gracious in defeat, move on to another topic.

As I have already said, I would transliterate Paramount - pa'ra'mownt.

Yes, so you have said. I have taken the time to read the entire thread and am not in need of a review. I have also explained at length why I disagreed with this transliteration and proposed what I consider a preferable alternative.

If you believe that it should be spelt a different way, then post that way and your reasons for transliterating it that way,

I have done so in my previous post. Read it.

instead of random attacks

My statement regarding the differing goals of Paramount and the KLI was neither random nor an attack. It was an illustrated explanation. It concerns me that you cannot discern between the two.

against organizations that are mostly based on assumptions made from limited facts. My example of that would be you claiming you know what Paramount does regarding the KLI. Unless you work for Paramount or the KLI you have no idea the true reasons.

You do not work for Paramount or the KLI, yet seem to think that you know of these "true reasons". The KLI signed away its rights to profit from its work by hiding behind the 503© in order to appease Paramount. Show business is just that -- a business, where the sole goal is to maximize profit and minimize expenditure. Why pay good latinum to the lesser householders when you have the linefounder under contract?

The Queen's English is the name of the English that is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary. It is considered the base from which all English dialects are created.

Once again you post erroneous nonsense in the expectation that doing so will somehow make it true. "The Queen's English" is a result of a conglomeration of many languages mixing and remixing over time. It cannot remain static, and will continue to evolve.

English is classified as a Germanic language, along with Icelandic, Swedish, Danish, and others. All of these split off from a language called Proto-Germanic around 2500 years ago. Proto-Germanic is related to Latin and thus the Romance language groups as well, both in its earliest roots and later as a result of the spread of the Roman Empire across Europe. I recommend you read this page on language variation and change as relates to the development of modern English and its grammar and sound values. This site goes into detail on Terran spoken language family clades and trees and their branching across time and space.

If you have a problem with me, please email me privately or get back to the topics at hand.

Very well. I have already addressed every other point you have raised in this thread. Your open challenge has just become one of "the topics at hand". Prepare to have it answered.

I have had, and continue to have, problems with your attitude and "magic thinking" approach. Public counteraguements and private appeals to reason and cooperation for the good of the Forums have fallen on deaf ears, and I grow weary of it. Therefore I leave you with the following ultimatum expressed by Lady K'Zin in the Klingons and Tobacco and listed in the Posting Guidelines:

Do not make baseless accusations, but rather defend your opinions with facts, research, logical reasoning, and links to relevant material. That is the intellectual and diplomatic approach to discussions, and that is what is expected here in these forums - not reactive back-stabbing.

I do not want to have to remind you of this again.

- Kesvirit

[Somraw+]

posted on 7-17-2003 at 11:50 AM

transcription of paramount

para'mawnIt
pa-ra'-maw-nIt/net

that is the only phonotactically permissable transliteration of paramount into tlhIngan Hol. I can't believe that it has caused such an arguement and got qurgh banned. he is right though in saying that you can't have a consonant breakup a consonant cluster in klingon. The short vowels e and I can breaka consonant cluster so para'mawnIt is quite permissable.

[Kesvirit]

posted on 7-17-2003 at 04:59 PM

Aim well before firing.

quoth Somraw+
para'mawnIt
pa-ra'-maw-nIt/net
that is the only phonotactically permissable transliteration of paramount into tlhIngan Hol.

They are not. I have already explained my reasons for this earlier in this thread. You are encouraged to re-read it and do the same.

The short vowels e and I can breaka consonant cluster so para'mawnIt is quite permissable.

It is indeed permissable, but in my opinion the less desirable of several viable options.

I can't believe that it has caused such an arguement and got qurgh banned.

This is not why qurgh was banned. According to your file, you have been on board for only eleven days. That is not enough time to learn the intricacies of Forums that have been active for over a year. Most private and off-topic communications take place out of the public view via email or the U2U. Please do not make such sweeping assumptions about situations you know nothing about.

If you had read many of the other threads you would know that arguements often become spirited and involved. Most Klingons are adamant about defending their beliefs. Those seeking to become proficient word warriors pay serious attention to the words of their opponents. If they remain unconvinced or are defeated, they come away with knowledge of new ideas and perspectives, a degree of respect for a worthy opponent, and new weapons to add to their own arsenal for latter battles.

- Kesvirit
 

[Klythe]

posted on 7-23-2003 at 06:35 AM

I feel somewhat responsible for this getting out of control by not adding what I know to this arguement. I don't know how I missed this thread for so long... Perhaps the topic of Paramont Hol did not interest me, as I do not wish to hear complaints of how bad it is, when it can be safely ignored for the careless usage by terrans with less interest in the warrior's language than present company.

Points I should have made a lond time ago, but failed:

1) Okrand transliterates Worf as wor'Iv. He breaks up the consonant cluster with 'I wich amounts to reducing a short vowel even further. 'I is the closest thing Klingons get to a schwa or a null vowel.
2) qurgh as a name is proper phonetics, because rgh is an allowable cluster, as used in words like targh and Sargh. However qrIS is not. It should be QIS, as Q is transliterated to English as Kr.
3) The correct way to transliterate Paramount really *does* depend on how the foreign speaker who pronounces it as it is only the sounds and not the spelling that a Klingon would hear when encountering the name. I believe I pronounce it similar to qesvIr'It. But the wn cluster is not seen in the Klingon inventory. I would transliterate my lazier regular pronunciation as pereman'It with my more careful formal pronunciation would have to be tranliterated just a formally into peremaw''In'It.

I believe the KLI specifies the only consonant clusers that are safe to use are y', w', and rgh. I believe rq is/was being considered to allow Sargh to be spelled Sarq, but I wouldn't risk it... As Her'q (Paramont Hol name for the aliens who stole the sword of qeylIS violates this rule, so who knows what will happen...
 

[Kesvirit]

posted on 7-23-2003 at 08:39 PM

quoth Klythe I feel somewhat responsible for this getting out of control by not adding what I know to this arguement...*** Points I should have made a lond time ago, but failed:

Zan Klythe, surely one as dedicated as you toward the exploration of the komerex zha knows that falsely borne blame can quickly becomes real in the eyes of others. Most of the points you address have come up in this thread, and most have been mentioned elsewhere. When first posted I suppose they were conisdered by those who read them to be unworthy of a warrior's time. Or perhaps they slipped in past sensor nets in need of recalibration. Here, they and many other factors combined to reach critical mass.

I don't know how I missed this thread for so long... Perhaps the topic of Paramont Hol did not interest me,

I encourage members to read threads outside of their immediate personal interests, for "warriors" of all kinds must keep track of the activities of comrades and potential enemies. Any Klingon knows that these are one and the same. (Besides, one might even learn something :rolleyes: ) But I certainly do not expect everyone to read every post in every thread. That duty falls to me.

as I do not wish to hear complaints of how bad it is, when it can be safely ignored for the careless usage by terrans with less interest in the warrior's language than present company.

I disagree with the one's assertion that it can be safely ignored. Many ignorant and foolish aliens learn what little tlhIngan Hol they know from entertainment recordings produced by the Federation's top propogandists and indoctrination experts. It is important that those with the true spirit and knowledge of things Klingon recognize this, be able to account for it in their dealings with lesser beings, and look for ways to exploit it for the glory of the Empire.

The correct way to transliterate Paramount really *does* depend on how the foreign speaker who pronounces it as it is only the sounds and not the spelling that a Klingon would hear when encountering the name.

This makes no sense. It is the transliteration that the Klingon would hear. If the speaker is reading from an off transliteration, the Klingon does not hear the word as it was intended to be heard.

I believe I pronounce it similar to qesvIr'It.

Who or what might this be? I know of no "qesvIr'It". Though of course that does not preclude the possbility of something with that name... Does the one refer to me? If so, please do not Hol-ify it. It is neither spelled not pronounced that way. I have resigned myself to hearing my names mangled, but really, there are limits.

Regardless of whom or what you speak, why the {'}? I thought words comprised of syllables made from both CV( C ) or CVCCV( C ) were acceptable. Both
{qeSvIyrIt}
CV( C )/CVCCV( C ) or
CVCCV( C )/CV( C )
and
"Kesvirit"
CV( C )/CV/CV or
CVCCV/CV( C ) conform to that, regardless of how you apply your lev'ek.

I would transliterate my lazier regular pronunciation as pereman'It with my more careful formal pronunciation would have to be tranliterated just a formally into peremaw''In'It.

Did you mean to write {peremaw''In'It) with the double glottal stop separating the offglide and weak vowel, or was this an entry error? Why do you use two?

I believe the KLI specifies the only consonant clusers that are safe to use are y', w', and rgh.

Why these exceptions, and why do they not distinguish between consonants and the semi-vowels/offglides {y} and {w}? These self-proclaimed Thought Masters of Language and Keepers of the Hol-y are supposed to be experts and academicians.

*grunt* Perhaps it is part of a Klingon pronunciation system that these Humans misunderstand or are not aware of.

Her'q (Paramont Hol name for the aliens who stole the sword of qeylIS violates this rule, so who knows what will happen...

Conquerers usually do not concern overly concern themselves with the customs of kuve peoples. Why should the Her'q be any different?

- Kesvirit
 

[Klythe]

posted on 7-23-2003 at 09:46 PM

Zan Klythe, surely one as dedicated as you toward the exploration of the komerex zha knows that falsely borne blame can quickly becomes real in the eyes of others.

I feel I have some responsibility, even if is only to myself to help promote the free and spirited exchange of ideas in this forum. Perhaps, next time, I will only apologize to myself.

I disagree with the one's assertion that it can be safely ignored. Many ignorant and foolish aliens learn what little tlhIngan Hol they know from entertainment recordings produced by the Federation's top propogandists and indoctrination experts. It is important that those with the true spirit and knowledge of things Klingon recognize this, be able to account for it in their dealings with lesser beings, and look for ways to exploit it for the glory of the Empire.

The fools do not matter, they will enslave themselves without our intervention. The proverb does not say "the weak will make a mistake that the sneaky warriors will exploit". But I will grant you the line can be finely drawn...

If so, please do not Hol-ify it. It is neither spelled not pronounced that way. I have resigned myself to hearing my names mangled, but really, there are limits.

I hope that you will forgive me. You have told me before, so I knew better. I have no excuse.

This makes no sense. It is the transliteration that the Klingon would hear. If the speaker is reading from an off transliteration, the Klingon does not hear the word as it was intended to be heard.

Letters (graphemes) can not be heard. Sounds are heard and are mapped by the listener into the phonemes they are most accustom to recognise. When the speaker uses different phonemes and morphology than the listener, the listener tends to substitute their own phonemes and morphology to the sounds that are heard. This is what I believe is transliteration as both languages in this case are primarily verbal. We forget this matters when we are in a typing our responses instead of speaking them.

Did you mean to write {peremaw''In'It) with the double glottal stop separating the offglide and weak vowel, or was this an entry error? Why do you use two?

This is no error. Although I don't hink it's pronounced differently, we do see double glottal stops in a number of Klingon words such as gre''etor the name of the place guarded by the Beast known as veqlargh. Two adjecent stops also are not combined to one when adding a suffix that starts with a glottal stop to a word that ends in one. toywI' is a servant, and it can be augmented with 'a' to toywI''a' a slave.

Why these exceptions, and why do they not distinguish between consonants and the semi-vowels/offglides {y} and {w}? These self-proclaimed Thought Masters of Language and Keepers of the Hol-y are supposed to be experts and academicians.

The Klingon language is supposed to be simple as rules go. Just as the parts of speech are 'simplified' to Nouns, Verbs, and Leftovers, there are only two categories, Consonants and Vowels.... 'w', and 'y' are always though of as consonants, despite thier use in forming what terran linguists choose to call dipthongs... I have not heard Okrand use the term semi-vowels when describing Hol.

Conquerers usually do not concern overly concern themselves with the customs of kuve peoples. Why should the Her'q be any different?

How about this reason: Klingons are not kuve. I do not remember how Okrand transliterated this name to tlhIngan Hol from Paramount Hol. This is why I suggested caution.
 

[Kesvirit]

posted on 8-3-2003

quoth Klythe I feel I have some responsibility, even if is only to myself to help promote the free and spirited exchange of ideas in this forum. Perhaps, next time, I will only apologize to myself.

Owning up to one's mistakes is one of the most courageous and honorable acts one can commit.  But the loss of personal integrity is too high a price to pay to play down the foolish mistakes of another. Attempts at martyrdom usually fail and get one demoted into the other's ranks, and such a fall is a hard one from which many never recover.

quoth Kesv: Many ignorant and foolish aliens learn what little tlhIngan Hol they know from entertainment recordings produced by the Federation's top propogandists and indoctrination experts. It is important that those with the true spirit and knowledge of things Klingon recognize this, be able to account for it in their dealings with lesser beings, and look for ways to exploit it for the glory of the Empire.

The fools do not matter, they will enslave themselves without our intervention. The proverb does not say "the weak will make a mistake that the sneaky warriors will exploit". But I will grant you the line can be finely drawn...

Surely the one has more sense than to live his life and make complex decisions according to proverbs. But your point is taken. To summarize mine: It is more difficult to control those with whom one cannot communicate. How can they follow instructions that they do not understand? Executing them for failure to obey does not serve as a deterrent if the conection is not made in their compatriots' minds

quoth Kesv: I know of no "qesvIr'It"... Does the one refer to me? If so, please do not Hol-ify it. It is neither spelled not pronounced that way. I have resigned myself to hearing my names mangled, but really, there are limits.

quoth Klythe I hope that you will forgive me. You have told me before, so I knew better. I have no excuse.

Though annoying, the insult was unintended and so minor as to not be worth remembering. But a warning to all within range of this transmission:  My avatar, Fluffy, has standing permission to disembowel anyone who addresses or referrs to me as "Kes". Living as we do in a setting in which Humans predominate, the poor beast has few opportunities for open-range hunting and misses the sensation of still-throbbing organs bursting against its tongue.

quoth Kesv: It is the transliteration that the Klingon would hear. If the speaker is reading from an off transliteration, the Klingon does not hear the word as it was intended to be heard.

quoth Klythe Letters(graphemes) can not be heard. Sounds are heard and are mapped by the listener into the phonemes they are most accustom to recognise.

Graphemes represent the sounds that are heard, more often than not on a direct one-to-one basis. These sounds in turn combine to make phonemes. The letters used reflect the sounds heard. Therefore getting the right graphemes in the right order is crucial to recognition and correct pronunciation of the words spoken.

When the speaker uses different phonemes and morphology than the listener, the listener tends to substitute their own phonemes and morphology to the sounds that are heard.

Not if both the transliterator and the listener are paying close attention to what they are doing, dotting their i's and crossing their t's. With the proper effort and awareness by both parties, the listener will hear the transliterator's intended words and not plug the nearest familiar, convenient equivalent into its place.

This is what I believe is transliteration as both languages in this case are primarily verbal. We forget this matters when we are in a typing our responses instead of speaking them.

I agree about the written vs. spoken part. Outside the Empire's boundaries, the Klingon tongues are primarily written, not spoken. But those of us in the Diplomatic Corps must deal face-to-face with alien races (those that have them), and must take care with the nuaces and details of spoken communication.

The Klingon language is supposed to be simple as rules go. Just as the parts of speach are 'simplified' to Nouns, verbs, and leftovers, there are only two categories, Consonants and vowels.... 'w', and 'y' are always consonants, despite thier use in forming dipthongs... I have not heard Okrand use the term semi-vowels when describing Hol.

Being born and educated on Earth, where the semi-vowel is univerally recognized by the Thought Masters of Language even when it does not appear in their respective native tongues, he should know better. At the very least, he is insulting his followers by assuming that they do not have the intelligence necessary to grasp the concept and make the necessary distinctions.

quoth Kesv Conquerers usually do not concern overly concern themselves with the customs of kuve peoples. Why should the Her'q be any different?

quoth Klythe How about this reason: Klingons are not kuve.

Conquered populations become kuve. (Those are the fortunate ones -- others become straave.) The Klingons were conquered by the Her'q. Thus Klingons became kuvei. It is a simple syllogism. There are also Klingon individuals who, for any number of reasons, become kuve to other Klingons. This may be because they are living out a punishment due to past dishonorable actions or simple fate. All Klingons serve; the only thing distinguishing them is proscribed social status.

In the "What is Honor?" thread, you mention the virtues of "aetheln, the property of knowing your role and playing it well..." Those who serve by caring for the young or mucking out the waste disposal systems of a fabrication center provide as vital a service to the Empire as the Admirals who lead fleets into battle. Mighty warriors bring dishonor on themselves by failing to recognize the contributions of the laborers, and, yes, even servitors.

 - Kesvirit

(Moderator's note: The  "What is Honor?" thread was eaten by hungry spiderbots.)

[Klythe]

posted on 8-4-2003 at 07:03 PM

Surely the one has more sense than to live his life and make complex decisions according to proverbs.

If the proverb is a concise statements of a principle I have analysed and found to be true, then why should I not make decisions based on those proverbs?

Klythe: Letters(graphemes) can not be heard. Sounds are heard and are mapped by the listener into the phonemes they are most accustom to recognise.

Kesvirit: Graphemes represent the sounds that are heard, more often than not on a direct one-to-one basis. These sounds in turn combine to make phonemes. The letters used reflect the sounds heard. Therefore getting the right graphemes in the right order is crucial to recognition and correct pronunciation of the words spoken.

Graphemes are the smallest symbols of written language, phonemes are the smallest symbols of spoken language. This is how the terms are defined. In listening , sounds (analog sensory data) are mapped to phonemes (discrete or 'digital' units exiting as thought). Phonemes are combined to morphemes which are combine to sentances. In written communication, graphemes which may be digital as these are, or more analog when written by hand, are also combined to form morphemes, but these are not the same thing. Graphemes represent the way the word is written. Phonemes represent the way it is spoken. While there are exactly 26 graphemes(plus punctuation) in English regardless of how on speaks, there are around 44 phonemes that are commonly used in English speech, representing 99% of usage. This does not include mandatory, but seldomly used phonemes like our friend the glottal stop, which must be used in words like uh-oh(worry), uh-huh(agreement), uh-UH(disagreement), but is otherwise almost unheard of.

It is easy to confuse graphemes and phonemes when working with artifical languages who try to match how words are spelled (pronouned spelt) with how they are spoken, or natural languages, such as Hawai'ian and (speaking in character) tlhIngan Hol, where the writing system was never developed or not shared. This does not mean there is any relation between graphemes and phonemes. In a live language, pronunciation will vary by region and over time. But spellings, once codified into a dictionary, tend to remain in that form causing the disconnect that allows for the ghoti/fish effect (Pinker attributes the origin of ghoti to George Bernard Shaw).

By the way Pinker's chapters on Phonology and Morphology, I do not find quite so disagreeable. When he talks about language as it can be precieved, he does an decent job

Klythe: When the speaker uses different phonemes and morphology than the listener, the listener tends to substitute their own phonemes and morphology to the sounds that are heard.

Kesvirit: Not if both the transliterator and the listener are paying close attention to what they are doing, dotting their i's and crossing their t's. With the proper effort and awareness by both parties, the listener will hear the transliterator's intended words and not plug the nearest familiar, convenient equivalent into its place.

If the speaker makes no distinction between certain sounds that the translitorator does, there is no way for the transliteration to hear a distinction that is not there. Sure, if the speaker and the listener are both aware of each other's set of phonemes, then they will prounce so that the listerer will chose the phonemes the speaker wants him to. But in most cases where transliteration is used, the listeners are unaware of what the speakers rules are and vice versa.

Kesvirit: I believe it is possible for a skilled and attentive listener to learn to disregard the rules of their primary language, and listen objectively. It is difficult, but it can be done if the listener focuses, then diffuses their attention just enough so that nothing is familiar, thereby becoming an auditory "blank parchment" for the speaker's words.

Klythe: The Klingon language is supposed to be simple as rules go. Just as the parts of speech are 'simplified' to Nouns, verbs, and leftovers, there are only two categories, Consonants and vowels.... 'w', and 'y' are always consonants, despite thier use in forming dipthongs... I have not heard Okrand use the term semi-vowels when describing Hol.

Kesvirit: Being born and educated on Earth, where the semi-vowel is univerally recognized by the Thought Masters of Language even when it does not appear in their respective native tongues, he should know better. At the very least, he is insulting his followers by assuming that they do not have the intelligence necessary to grasp the concept and make the necessary distinctions.

I try not to attribute motives, on so little information. Perhaps he is trying hard to be scientific by avoiding assigning familiar terminology in fears that would introduce malglico (engish-speaking bias) into his work, reducing his honor among his fellow linguists.

Conquered populations become kuve. (Those are the fortunate ones -- others become straave.) The Klingons were conquered by the Her'q. Thus Klingons became kuvei.

We do not share agreements on the meaning of kuve and straave. No one can make straave, but the straav make themselves. A race may be occupied, individuals captured and forced to perform tasks, but still not become dominated and demoralized away from having ambition for freedom and success. Klingons were made to serve, but they were never made into servants. Their blood never stopped singing.

It is a simple syllogism. There are also Klingon individuals who, for any number of reasons, become kuve to other Klingons. This may be because they are living out a punishment due to past dishonorable actions or simple fate. All Klingons serve; the only thing distinguishing them is proscribed social status.

Some Klingons may become straav', but Klingons will never be made into kuve. The Klingon racce has a fire that can only spread or be extinguished. It can not be controlled and tamed to serve in a lamp. They will not burn long like that, they will either catch the lamp on fire, or sputter out and die. Others like vulcan souls perfer to burn with steady equamity, there is no shame for that is how they are, but it is now how Klingons are.

In the "What is Honor?" thread, you mention the virtues of "aetheln, the property of knowing your role and playing it well..." Those who serve by caring for the young or mucking out the waste disposal systems of a fabrication center provide as vital a service to the Empire as the Admirals who lead fleets into battle. Mighty warriors bring dishonor on themselves by failing to recognize the contributions of the laborers, and, yes, even servitors.

The destiny of the Klingons is not to muck waste, there are those Klingons who wind up doing so, but they are staav' and are despised. They enslaved themselves with foolishness or weakness, and deserve thier low station.

Caring for the young is not done by straav! Children should not be exposed to straav except as a moral lesson. "You see the kuve over there? He was gambling with Ferengi..."  

[Kesvirit]

posted on 8-11-2003

quoth Kesv Did you mean to write {peremaw''In'It) with the double glottal stop separating the offglide and weak vowel, or was this an entry error? Why do you use two?

quoth Klythe This is no error. Although I don't hink it's pronounced differently, we do see double glottal stops in a number of Klingon words such as gre''etor... Two adjecent stops also are not combined to one when adding a suffix that starts with a glottal stop to a word that ends in one. toywI' is a servant, and it can be augmented with 'a' to toywI''a' a slave.

Ah.  Of course.  I had not made the connection, yet I too have used the double glottal stop in the form of {Qochbe''a'}. If pronounced properly it would be difficult to tell if the speaker were inquiring or hiccoughing.  Were I to violate the above rule by using three in a row, I don't think I would ever be able to stop stammering.

If the proverb is a concise statements of a principle I have analysed and found to be true, then why should I not make decisions based on those proverbs?

Because proverbs that are applicable under even multiple sets of circumstances cannot apply to every possibility that life will throw at you. Adaptation is the key to survival. Becoming dependent on a given set of proverbs for decision making processes locks you into a restricted set of thought patterns and responses and limits your ability to adapt to novel situations.  

...there are around 44 phonemes that are commonly used in English speech, representing 99% of usage. This does not include mandatory, but seldomly used phonemes like our friend the glottal stop, which must be used in words like uh-oh(worry), uh-huh(agreement), uh-UH(disagreement), but is otherwise almost unheard of.

Any word in English that begins with a vowel actually has a glottal stop proceeding it, just as with the thlIngan Hol.  Sound it out. Each begins with a tightening of the glottal folds at the top of the throat completely close off the flow of air, then pulling away to aspirate the stop. The glottal stop is pronounced, but there is no grapheme for it in English. Unlike English, tlhIngan Hol has a (psuedo) grapheme for it in the form of the apostrophe {'}

 Arabic indicates the glottal stop with a separate letter/grapheme. Unfortunately, even if I could read the "flags-in-the-wind" script my qwerty keyboard could not reproduce it.  In Romanized spellings it is indicated with an apostrophe. Same with Hebrew, which I can pronounce but not read. Hawai'ian has a name for the glottal stop, the "'okina".  I have been unable to find a non-Romanized grapheme for it, but have only seen it indicated by the apostrophe.  In many non-written Native American languages it is transcribed by the IPA as {?}, or more commonly with the fall-back of the apostrophe.

If the speaker makes no distinction between certain sounds that the translitorator does, there is no way for the transliteration to hear a distinction that is not there. Sure, if the speaker and the listener are both aware of each other's set of phonemes, then they will prounce so that the listerer will chose the phonemes the speaker wants him to. But in most cases where transliteration is used, the listeners are unaware of what the speakers rules are and vice versa.

I believe it is possible for a skilled and attentive listener to learn to disregard the rules of their primary language, and listen objectively. It is difficult, but it can be done if the listener focuses, then diffuses their attention just enough so that nothing is familiar, thereby becoming an auditory "blank parchment" for the speaker's words.

Perhaps he is trying hard to be scientific by avoiding assigning familiar terminology in fears that would introduce malglico (engish-speaking bias) into his work, reducing his honor among his fellow linguists.

As for attributing motives, one can only hypothesize using the information one has. I have looked for information on the process of the creation/development of tlhIngan Hol, but have found very little. (Granted, I may share in the shortcomings by not having looked in the right places.)  The "familiar terminology" of which you speak is the default setting for the field. Failing to take this into account is hardly scientific, but comes across as a rather sloppy shortcut.

Umlauts and tildes are less a part of my primary language than semi-vowels are to tlhIngan Hol, but they are fairly common amongst spoken languages.  To speak at all knowlegably with others in the field of linguistics, I must know what they are and how they are used. Among my suspicions are that Okrand was folllowing the orders of his own masters to make the Hol accessable to the lowest common denominator, and in carrying them out took some decidedly "unscientific" shortcuts by violating convention.

Note that it is not the violating of convention that I criticise..  I frequently do so for my own reasons. But I am also aware of and acknowlege the industry standards when I do.  It looks to me like Okrand was told to simplify for sales' sake, and did not want to confuse potential targets by educating them in the process of language study. That would detract their attentions from studying his language. It might also cut into his own royalties. It would definitely cut into the profits of his corporate masters if their potential marks diverted their interests and allowances away from licensed franchise paraphernalia. }}>:-(

Klingons are not kuve. I do not remember how Okrand transliterated this name to tlhIngan Hol from Paramount Hol. This is why I suggested caution.

I hold less regard for Okrand's transliteration of "kuve" than I do for the putrifying remains of a f'lansopra. }}>:-E  It is not his word and it is not his concept!    As to whatever Paraborg may have done with it...  I will spare you my views on that lest your screen explode and drive shards of plastic into your brain.  I would hate to see the one suffer such a mundane death.

As to your assertion that:

We do not share agreements on the meaning of kuve and straave...*** Some Klingons may become straav', but Klingons will never be made into kuve.

I think that we agree further on that than you realize.  I believe straav'i to be a subset of kuvei, and that the designation of the former is attributed more to the individual than the population or species to which they belong.  But that is another topic for another thread and another time.

-=- Kesvirit

[Klythe]

posted on 18-8-2003 at 19:07

Though I have not read the book in question, I am skeptical that the spelling of this fruit is the founding precedent for dropping the glottal stop. The fact that retaining it would repeatedly break the speaker's airflow, however, would form a likely basis for the grammatical rule that the (English-language) singular article for a word begnning with a vowel is always "an" and not "a".

I did not assert that it was 'the founding precident'. I asserted his as an example that spoken English usually does not work as you suggest. In the few times I have recorded terran speech into waveform files, editing the clips to end properly, I discovered for myself that the space between words is largely omitted. Most of the time you can't really find word boundries by looking for pauses, because the pauses just aren't present in natural conversation. Most of what I was editing wasn't even conversational, it was lines from movies. Intentionally more dramatic and spoken atypically clearly. Even then, it still was far from true that there was a measureable stop or pause between words, even the ones that start with vowels.

My point with the nornge was only that if it was as you say, that people generally pronounce it an 'orange. there wouldn't need to be the a/an rule as the glottal stop would be audible enough that the seperation would be clear.

If either of you word warriors decide to forgo the "word" aspect of the battle in favor of live steel, will you announce your intentions ahead of time so that I may take bet- ah, insure adequate witnesses to confirm the outcome of the duel?

You should know me well enough that I do not allow myself to allow physical battle to supplant word battles. I accept each seperately on thier own terms. I will not allow you to imply otherwise... Should you demonstrate it to be true, then I would hear you, and then seek to discover how I failed...

[El Payaso Malo]

If anyone is interested, Okrand states that the Klingon word is Hur'Iq. This word is difficult for me to pronounce, and I doubt I'll get it right often. Luckily, I can just use nov. They both mean "foreigner, outsider, alien." Cheers.