Re: lexicon; comments
Sorik of Vulcan 
Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:02:33 PST

>Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:47:37 -0600
>To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net
>From: Rob Zook <rzook*informix,com>
>Subject: Re: lexicon; comments
>Reply-To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net
>
>At 12:37 PM 3/12/98 -0600, Saul Epstein wrote:
>
>>> Is the a vowel suposed to be pronounced like Bach, like base, or
>
>>like 
>
>>> bat?
>
>>
>
>>This has yet to be resolved, exactly. We're pretty sure that [a:] is
>
>>as in German "Bach," and StandAmEng "stop." But [a] is a bit of a
>
>>mystery...
>
>Funny I thought that we felt pretty sure about [a], not [a:] since
>
>an example pronunciation for [a:] does not even appear in the >
>Lexicon

>i - as in Eng. pit
>
>u - as in Eng. put
>
>e -    "       set
>
o -    "       not
>
>^ -    "       but in fast speech; almost as final vowel in              
>     "teacher".
>
>a - as in French patte
>
>i: - as in Eng. mean
>
>u: - as in Eng. prune
>
>e: - as in French prenez (emphatic)
>
>o: - as in Eng. fault
>
>^: -     "      sir ; lengthened pronunciation.

You abviously have some foreknowledge of Japanese.  Do you ever wonder 
if the Vulcan vowels should be pronounced as in romaji?  That's how I 
usally read at least.  I see <i> as sounding like "sea".  I think <a> 
should sound like "stop" or "Bach", not "back" or "sat".  I see <o> as 
sounding like "boat" or "low".  I don't see any logic in using one 
alphabetical character to represent two or more Vulcan sounds.  You may 
have made different Vulcan characters to use, but using a notation where 
<a> can sound differently in separate instances is not logical.  Is it?

So I think we should use a more Japanese "romaji" notation to illustrate 
sounds.

>
>>> In reading chapter 5, I wonder if there should be a camparative
>
>>property in this section of the lexicon.  A way to say, like the 
friend, unlike 
>
>>> the friend, same as the friend, and opposite of the friend.  I
>
>>think we 
>
>>> will find this neccessary for debate and logical sentences.
>
>>
>
>>Rob may have to respond to this, as I'm not sure how it relates the
>
>>work he's done with logical particles. It looks to me that such will
>
>>be handled differently in the two modes, though.
>
>I think we need a whole selection of logical and mathematical 
>
>operators, beyond what appears in the Lexicon. Some of which I have 
>
>already proposed. You can view my proposal of how formal mode Vulcan 
>
>might handle logical argumentation, here:
>
>http://www,jccc,net/~sepstein/vald/0273,txt
>
>and
>
>http://www,jccc,net/~sepstein/vald/0306,txt
>
>The original messages have a few typos and mistakes so be sure to check
>
>out the follow up messages, before pointing them out to me please :-)
>
>As far as comparisons go, we should handle them much more distinctly
>
>and precisely than English does. I intend (when I get to it on my
>
>list of things to do) to make another proposal regarding mathematics 
>
>and what I call "abstractors".
>
>Mathematics would have operators for basic concepts like equals,
>
>plus, and greater than. You posed some example comparisons:
>
>>like the friend, unlike the friend, same as the friend, and opposite 
of 
>
>>the friend
>
>We can express these some that now. Keep in mind that English has a
>
>very primative logical structure, and that it's very difficult to 
>
>express a precise logical equation in it exactly. This should not
>
>be so difficult in formal mode Vulcan. 
>
>For example, "opposite of the friend" rendered logically would equate
>
>to NOT-friend. For "same as the friend" one could use a Vulcan equals
>
>operator. But we really should compare more precisely than that, so 
>
>we need to add what I call "abstractors". An example of the set of
>
>abstractors I'm fiddling with:
>
><bigger>Sensory Abstraction Particles
>
>iz  visual abstraction operator "looks like"
>
>ez  audio  abstraction operator "sound like"
>
>az  tactile abstraction operator "feels like"
>
>oz  olefactory abstraction operator "smells like"
>
>uz  gustitory abstraction operator "tastes like"
>
>^z  non-verbal abstraction operator "feels like"
>
></bigger>
>
>So using these one could say:
>
>iw't'hai'la'^z 
>
>iw'-t'hai'la-'^z
>
>He -friend  -[non-vebal abstractor]
>
>"He feels like a friend"
>
>in'<bigger>r'mnasekiz
>
>in'-r'mnasek-iz
>
>it -book    -[visual abstractor]
>
>"It looks like a book"
>
>in'plomiikozong in'plomiikuzong plomiika
>
>in'-plomiik-oz-ong 
>
>it -plomiik-[olfactory abs.]-[logical and]
>
>in'-plomiik-uz-ong
>
>it -plomiik-[gustitory abs.]-[logical and]
>
>plomiik-a
>
>plomiik-[affirmation]
>
></bigger>
>
>"It smells like plomeek, it tastes like plomeek, it is plomeek"
>
>Another set of abstractors could indicate the level of abstraction 
>
>of non-sensory events like a proposition:
>
>ig  Observed directly
>
>eg  Later recalled
>
>ag  indirectly observed (information from another, heresay)
>
>og  speculate (based on some previous thought or experience)?
>
>ug  opine (because I say it is so)?
>
>^g  ???
>
>We could say for example, about the speaker of the above comments
>
>about the plomeek soup: iw'aj iwl'aj plomiik'ig ("He or she directly
>
>observed plomeek soup).
>
>Now none of these examples should be taken as workable yet. Just a
>
>snapshot of my thoughts at the moment. I'm not really satisfied with 
>
>them yet. But they give a direction to what I'd like to see happen.
>
>Rob Z.

**Sorik, of Vulcan.


"If everyone is unique, then that also makes everyone the same."

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www,hotmail,com