[1673] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: opinions on Orthography & Phonetics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Oct 14 00:23:03 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: DSTRADER@delphi.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 00:17:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM"
...
>The opinion I was dismissing was that if you have a glottal stop (') at the
>beginning of a verb, when you add a prefix to it, it somehow is supposed to
>stop being a glottal stop and instead, you are supposed to pronounce the two
>vowels just smoothly gliding into each other. That is the opinion for which I
>believe there is no basis. It is still a glottal stop SEPARATING the two
>vowels, even if it were silent when the verb is spoken with no prefix.
>-- charghwI'
DaH maQochbe'!!!
My intention was not to say that {jI'ong} was supposed to be *{jIong};
but rather {jI_'ong}. Why should the prefix be considered anything
except a seperate word from the verb. It's the same for something like
{Suwam}. Okrand declared /uw/ nonexistent, but that by no means illegi-
timitizes {Suwam} or {ghowuv}, latlhmey je. The prefix does not have
to stick to the verb like that. Pronounce it as a seperate word..
That's what I'm saying. It looks as tho most others have drawn the same
conclusion.
qechvam Hoch vIjatlh rIntaH
qechvam vIjatlhtaHbe'
Guido1
