Re: lexicon; comments Rob Zook Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:36:56 -0600 At 05:02 PM 3/13/98 PST, Sorik of Vulcan wrote: >>Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:47:37 -0600 >>To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net >>From: Rob Zook >You abviously have some foreknowledge of Japanese. Do you ever wonder >if the Vulcan vowels should be pronounced as in romaji? Don't know what romaji means. >That's how I usally read at least. I see as sounding like "sea". >I think should sound like "stop" or "Bach", not "back" or "sat". I >see as sounding like "boat" or "low". Should, does not enter into it. Prof. Zvelebel as already stated what the vowels sound like. () sounds like the vowel in sea. sounds like in French patte. sounds like British English not, or American English naught. >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 > can sound differently in separate instances is not logical. Is it? Depends on what you mean. Right now, the notations represent the base phonemic sounds. They may have different sounding..,oh, damn, Saul help me out here, what do you call different phonetic manifestations of a phoneme? Anyway, we have the phonemes and the base sounds for them. They may sound different, in different contexts we have not worked out yet. But each phoneme only has one base sound. What instance have you seen us use one alphabetic character to represent more than one sound? >So I think we should use a more Japanese "romaji" notation to illustrate >sounds. We already have two notations why do we need another one?