Re: Fwd: vowel notation; yet another visit
Sorik of Vulcan 
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:02:02 PST

>From: "Saul Epstein" <locus*planetkc,com>
>To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net
>Subject: Re: Fwd: vowel notation; yet another visit
>Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:16:46 -0600
>Reply-To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net
>
>(Quotes Sorik of Vulcan: Monday, November 16, 1998 12:37 PM)
>
>
>>From: "Saul Epstein" <locus*planetkc,com>
>>
>>>If people _really_ care, someone can sort through the
>>>data and make the rules for this explicit. I got part
>>>way through before I decided it was less important than
>>>elaborating the grammar and switched tracks.
>>
>>This one _really_ cares.
>
>
>At my next opportunity, I'll post the available phonetic data and my
>tentative, partial findings with regard to vowel phonology.
>
>>>Also, I seem to recall a, um, Klingonist suggesting
>>>using capitalization for Vulcan at some point in the
>>>past. The suggestion met mostly with disapproval,
>>>because people felt it would be hard to read...
>>
>>And you think what we have now isn't hard to read?
>
>I am not an objective judge of what others find hard to read. Having
>had to adapt to different transcriptions of different languages over
>time has rendered me sufficiently flexible that I find most semi-Latin
>transcriptions easy. I think what we have now has achieved a broad
>base of support, no matter how grudging in some cases.

I'd like to think I _could_ be flexible in that regard as well, as I 
have learned at least parts of about four languages, but as to what I 
find confusing, I'd have to say I don't like not knowing whether a vowel 
sound is "long" or not when saying a word.

>
>>The only problem I
>>have with whatever transcription we're using is that
>>it contradicts itself.  (see the <zh> and <dj>)
>
>If you have only one problem with it, I suggest you seek to evaluate
>that as basis for contentment. Each of us must reconcile herself to
>the collaborative nature of this project and abandon any expectation
>that her own ideals will be realized. Otherwise we'll make little
>progress.
>
>
>(As an aside, <zh> and <dj> need not be contradictory, as I tried to
>explain to you once. The underlying phonology of the "blade" or
>"palatal" consonants has not been established.)
>

Well, maybe just one problem was understating things a little. (a lie?  
NO, an error)  I do recall your explanation.  And now that you reminded 
me of it, I don't see the contradiction. (the <d>+<j> equaling a 
<d>+<zh> sound)

-Sorik


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