[102665] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Pronouncing Klingon correctly
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Mon Nov 30 02:09:59 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 17:09:42 +1000
In-Reply-To: <11378111.371.1448864405016.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============2299186470531371396==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_9c343afd-31e2-44f7-ba37-d1578e8b998c_"
--_9c343afd-31e2-44f7-ba37-d1578e8b998c_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' Anthony=2C jatlh:
> This subject is handled in the book "Klingon for the Galactic Traveller"=
=2C
> which I have. But it omits one source of trouble. I am British and I
> pronounce {t} and {d} correctly everywhere=2C naturally from babyhood.
Calling it "correct" assumes an inherent superiority of British English ove=
r US English (and my native Australian English=2C come to that). Some might=
say=2C equally=2C that even British English dialects like Cockney=2C Yorks=
hire=2C and Lancashire pronounce /t/ "wrongly" too in glottalising it in a =
wide array of contexts. (In fact=2C I'm not sure there are many dialects ou=
tside of London that regularly retain an oral /t/ in all positions.)
taH:
> But most Americans seem to mishandle {t}=2C pronouncing it as {d} except
> at starts of words=2C e.g. "latter" as "ladder".
This is called "intervocalic flapping" and is a regular phonological proces=
s in several non-British English dialects (US=2C Canada=2C Australia=2C and=
New Zealand). It results in a phonological merger of /t/ and /d/ in interv=
ocalic positions: a notable minimal pair is "latter" vs. "ladder"=2C which =
are indistinguishable for most speakers of these varieties. But to call thi=
s "wrong" or a "mishandling" is ethnocentric: it's only "wrong" if you assu=
me that there is only one "right" way to speak. In Klingon=2C we see a simi=
lar thing in the Krotmag dialect: /b/ and /m/ fall together into /m/=2C suc=
h that {bagh} "tie" and {magh} "betray" are both pronounced as {magh}. Krot=
mag is a non-standard dialect=2C but that doesn't make it "wrong" to speak =
this way - it's just not the same as the prestige dialect.
taH:
> And many seem to mishandle {d} also=2C inside words or at the ends
> of words=2C slurring it or dropping it. And this may carry across into
> their pronunciation of Klingon. (I wonder if this is why Marc Okrand
> chose the opposition {t} (not retroflex) versus {D} (retroflex). to
> distinnguish.)
Let me put it this way: I have quite a bit of experience with Klingon spoke=
n by native speakers of American and Canadian English=2C and all of them se=
em to be just fine with their {taymey}. It's never been an issue I've heard=
to be a problem. Whether that was Marc's reasoning behind the t/D distinct=
ion I can't say for certain=2C but I'd always heard it was just because few=
Earth languages have such combinations.
Those who've spoken to me in voice conversations=2C have any of you ever ha=
d trouble with distinguishing {tay} in my speech?
taH:
> (OK=2C OK=2C 'ej jiQagh=2C with the {r} sound=2C dropping it at the ends =
of
> syllables as in standard British English=2C e.g. pronouncing "Thor"
> the same as "thaw"=2C and "horse" as "hawss".)
I don't think any English dialect exists that shows all of the splits and n=
one of the mergers found in other dialects. In Australian English we have a=
phonemic length distinction between /=E6/ and /=E6:/=2C for instance (mini=
mal pairs are rare=2C but do exist)=3B I don't believe any other English di=
alect possesses this split.
It's possible Klingon is the same=2C for that matter. From KGT we only know=
of mergers=2C not splits=2C such that {ta' Hol} has the largest phonemic i=
nventory of any known Klingon dialect. But dialects may exist where there a=
re splits we don't know about: maybe one of them preserves the ancient no' =
Hol distinction between *{sy} and *{sr}=2C for instance=2C or retains phone=
mic vowel length (as seen in the no' Hol verb *{'qoot} "to destroy" or the =
plural suffix *{-maa}. Who knows?
QeS 'utlh
=
--_9c343afd-31e2-44f7-ba37-d1578e8b998c_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>ghItlhpu' Anthony=2C jatlh:<br>&=
gt=3B This subject is handled in the book "Klingon for the Galactic Travell=
er"=2C<br>>=3B which I have. But it omits one source of trouble. I am Bri=
tish and I<br>>=3B pronounce {t} and {d} correctly everywhere=2C naturall=
y from babyhood.<br><br>Calling it "correct" assumes an inherent superiorit=
y of British English over US English (and my native Australian English=2C c=
ome to that). Some might say=2C equally=2C that even British English dialec=
ts like Cockney=2C Yorkshire=2C and Lancashire pronounce /t/ "wrongly" too =
in glottalising it in a wide array of contexts. (In fact=2C I'm not sure th=
ere are many dialects outside of London that regularly retain an oral /t/ i=
n all positions.)<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B But most Americans seem to mishandl=
e {t}=2C pronouncing it as {d} except<br>>=3B at starts of words=2C e.g. =
"latter" as "ladder".<br><br>This is called "intervocalic flapping" and is =
a regular phonological process in several non-British English dialects (US=
=2C Canada=2C Australia=2C and New Zealand). It results in a phonological m=
erger of /t/ and /d/ in intervocalic positions: a notable minimal pair is "=
latter" vs. "ladder"=2C which are indistinguishable for most speakers of th=
ese varieties. But to call this "wrong" or a "mishandling" is ethnocentric:=
it's only "wrong" if you assume that there is only one "right" way to spea=
k. In Klingon=2C we see a similar thing in the Krotmag dialect: /b/ and /m/=
fall together into /m/=2C such that {bagh} "tie" and {magh} "betray" are b=
oth pronounced as {magh}. Krotmag is a non-standard dialect=2C but that doe=
sn't make it "wrong" to speak this way - it's just not the same as the pres=
tige dialect.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B And many seem to mishandle {d} also=2C =
inside words or at the ends<br>>=3B of words=2C slurring it or dropping i=
t. And this may carry across into<br>>=3B their pronunciation of Klingon.=
(I wonder if this is why Marc Okrand<br>>=3B chose the opposition {t} (n=
ot retroflex) versus {D} (retroflex). to<br>>=3B distinnguish.)<br><br>Le=
t me put it this way: I have quite a bit of experience with Klingon spoken =
by native speakers of American and Canadian English=2C and all of them seem=
to be just fine with their {taymey}. It's never been an issue I've heard t=
o be a problem. Whether that was Marc's reasoning behind the t/D distinctio=
n I can't say for certain=2C but I'd always heard it was just because few E=
arth languages have such combinations.<br><br>Those who've spoken to me in =
voice conversations=2C have any of you ever had trouble with distinguishing=
{tay} in my speech?<br><br><div>taH:<br>>=3B (OK=2C OK=2C 'ej jiQagh=2C =
with the {r} sound=2C dropping it at the ends of<br>>=3B syllables as in =
standard British English=2C e.g. pronouncing "Thor"<br>>=3B the same as "=
thaw"=2C and "horse" as "hawss".)<br><br>I don't think any English dialect =
exists that shows all of the splits and none of the mergers found in other =
dialects. In Australian English we have a phonemic length distinction betwe=
en /=E6/ and /=E6:/=2C for instance (minimal pairs are rare=2C but do exist=
)=3B I don't believe any other English dialect possesses this split.<br><br=
>It's possible Klingon is the same=2C for that matter. From KGT we only kno=
w of mergers=2C not splits=2C such that {ta' Hol} has the largest phonemic =
inventory of any known Klingon dialect. But dialects may exist where there =
are splits we don't know about: maybe one of them preserves the ancient no'=
Hol distinction between *{sy} and *{sr}=2C for instance=2C or retains phon=
emic vowel length (as seen in the no' Hol verb *{'qoot} "to destroy" or the=
plural suffix *{-maa}. Who knows?<br><br>QeS 'utlh<br></div> </=
div></body>
</html>=
--_9c343afd-31e2-44f7-ba37-d1578e8b998c_--
--===============2299186470531371396==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============2299186470531371396==--
