My Vote
Ryan McReynolds 
Thu, 9 Jul 1998 14:32:50 -0500


For what it is worth, I would prefer to use the so-called "Epstein Notation"
as it originally appeared on this list, with no symbols other than typical
western letters.  The simple fact is that the vast majority of usage of the
Vulcan language will be written, not spoken, due to the fact that very few
people will be in vocal contact with each other, and most of use simply use
the computer for this sort of communication.  Because it will be primarily a
written language (for now), I think the goal should make it as "user
friendly" as possible for the on-linguist.  I have come to understand
several IPA symbols only through necessity, but for the layman, they are an
indecipherable mess and a needless complication, in my opinion.  Anyone who
is bothering to learn Vulcan at all will have at least gotten the
transcription system straight in their head, so using phonetic symbols is
unnecessary.  So, for the purposes of this vote, count me down for the
Epstein notation, shaken not stirred.

To tell you the truth (though this risks a great deal of additional
complication), I would recommend an entirely new system, thought out from
scratch and used consistently from this point forward.  Right now, we've got
the aforementioned five versions of the transcription.  If I had my say, we
would start from scratch and straighten this out before it goes too far.
For what it is worth, here's my thoughts on what the system should be, from
my layman's point of view.  First of all, it should be easily understandable
by all.  As far as vowels go, I like the Epstein version, with <a>, <aa>,
<e>, <ee>, etc., despite the recent speculations about only having five.
With consonants, most are acceptable as is.  However, I for one see no
problem with a few digraphs rather than non-typical letters to represent.
For example, the sound which is presently <x>, I would represent as <kh>.
Some might ask why, seeing as <x> is otherwise unused.  As I said before,
ease of learning.  To the untrained eye, <kh> already looks a lot like what
it sounds like, while <x> just looks like <ks>.  Note: this is really just
speculation, and it probably isn't worth considering to avoid confusion.  If
everybody likes this, great, but if not, pretend I never wrote it.  We've
already got five versions, a sixth will only confuse unless we all love it
and take it now.  I'm welcoming discussion, but expecting none.

-McReynolds