Re: vote on Comparison Rob Zook Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:16:20 -0500 At 09:19 PM 7/10/98 -0400, MDriest wrote: >>As far as just the proposed ascii transcription methods, the votes go >>like this I would think: >> >>Zvelebil: 1 (T'Zaq) >>Epstein: 1 (Pat) >>Zook: 1 (Me) >>McReynolds: 1 (McReynolds) >> >>An even split so far, unless someone switches sides, or someone wants >>me to count their vote for just the ascii versions. > >Yes, thank you Rob. Why didn't I think of this earlier? (Hold the >irritation Sorahl, it's illogical!) >After reading the Comparison I definitely vote Zvelebil. >Thats only speaking of transcription. I say that every phonome (item >on the lists) is a separate Vulcan letter, Epstein repeats letters. I'm not sure I get that "repeats letters"? >Peculiarly a : was used in old Dutch (several centuries old, in fact) to >represent a long vowel. (By the way, that's "graag", Saul. Never mind.) >Zook en McR miss out on a few characters. Intentionally. After listening to Marketa pronounce the words in the Dictionary over the phone, it does not appear that the 12 vowels listed in the Lexicon are seperate phonemes. It looks like we have about 5 actual phonemes with 5-6 more allophones. I would like to represent the allophones with vowel+h. >Furthermore, I am against, repeat against using fl and ph for whatever >sounds. What if someone creates a Vulcan word like raphat, is that >pronounced rap'hat or rafat? Or is raphat an impossible word in Vulcan? Well, using what Saul just proposed it would be an "f" sound. Personally, I'd rather see used as an [f] sound. I know Saul would like the symbols in the transcription to look structurally similar to the phonetic organization of the sounds. But, it may not happen that a structurally similar set of transcription symbols will be most easily recognizable. >That is an intruiging possibility. All Terran languages have limitations >to what is a valid word. It's extremely difficult to formalize all this >but any child knows the different between an unknown word and total >gibberish. 'Clatoring' is (in my Dutch mind) an English verb, we just >don't know what it means. 'hoghjiftl' is simply not English although >it may very well have a meaning in some other language. >Get it? Of course, it's formally called the phonological and morphological constraints of a language. certainly follows the phonological constraints of English, while definitely does not. English phonological constraints forbits certain combinations of various types of consonants. Like when combining three or more consonants two must be [s] or an [r]. They must be in a specific order, with the [s] almost always first. violates this rule. Generally though, as you say people do not consciously think of these rules, they just evaluate the words and move on. Rob Z. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ And isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony, anyway? I mean, all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, ooh ooh ooh, the sky's the limit! -- The Tick