Sev Trek 2 (Part 8 Re: New project) Saul Epstein Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:16:42 -0600 0495 - Privacy and Translating Sev Trek 2 Rob Zook Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:25:32 -0500 At 07:18 PM 5/28/98 -0400, MDriest wrote: >>The first Vulcan translation of a Sev Trek comic strip has been >>completed and posted to the web. > >Hurray! (without emotion of course...) >NEXT! > >Gaudy: Beta, can I ask you a personal question? >Beta: Of course, Gaudy. >Gaudy: Are you IBM compatible? > >Maybe we could even invent a ritual thingy for the >personal question. We know how Vulcans think about privacy. This might be a good time to introduce something I've been playing with. All Terran languages I'm familiar with have words which Lojban calls "attitudinal indicators". I'm not sure if that is an actual linguistic term or not. Generally these words refer to the verbal expressionss of emotions, but in many languages they include ritual/meta-linguistic terms involving politeness or specialized communication words like aircraft pilots and radio operators use. For example, "Whee!" "Wow!", "Alas!", represent examples of emotional attitudinals, while "Roger", "Acknowledged", "Ready to Send" all represent meta-linguistic attitudinal indicators with a very specialized use in certain communications situations. I would expect vulcan to have something similar. The emotional type attitudinals no doubt have fallen out of use since Surak's time (except perhaps for use in meditations involving the learning of emotional control). But the others probably remain. Emotional attitudinals in English are generally limited in form to vowels, and "liquid" consonants (and some silibants). I wonder if all languages have these phonological limitations on how these words are formed or just English. There are a few exceptions to this rule like "Ack!". It might be more in keeping with vulcan's phonology to have more of the one's like "Ack!" than like "Wow", and "Aww". So here are a coulple we could us in translating the SevTrek 2 quotations, with attitudinals concerning vulcan privacy: Gaudy: Beta, can I ask you a personal question? Beta: Of course, Gaudy. Gaudy: Are you IBM compatible? Beta-'a qia gio Beta-[voc], [requesting permission] [privacy] qa th'-nidroi jidokh-ti ? I -ask question-[instrumentive?] "Beta, may I ask a question that may broach your privacy?" gaudi-'a jia -'ah* Guady-[voc] [permissive]-[affirmative] s -'nidroi you-ask "Guady, you may ask (with no guarentee I'll answer)" ih,bu,mu. qa s' -izgezu [IBM letter pronunciations] ? you-[compatable] "(are) you IBM compatable?" * as opposed to nijia - [permissive]-[negative] "may not" Since Vulcan has no "are" or "be", the question "are you?" appears malformed for Vulcan grammar. So I would pose an equivalent vulcan form of that kind of question as < qa you-[qualifier]. The issue of privacy is mentioned in the TOS books only a little, and not in the TV TOS at all. At least not as such, Spock and Sarek just display an incredible reluctance to discuss certain things but no specific rules are mentioned besides "we dont discuss that". From what I've picked up about privacy in the books, one makes a formal request to ask a personal question like the above, and the affirmative ritual answer is in English, "you may ask". Which give permission only to ask the question, and does not imply an answer will be forthcomming. This seems a fitting behavior for vulcans concerning privacy so I've always liked it. I think _Spock's World_ mentioned something about the rules of silence or some such thing, but even that book did not discuss Vulcan privacy in much detail. ---------- 0496 - Re: Privacy and Translating Sev Trek 2 Saul Epstein Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:26:36 -0500 Quotes from: Rob Zook Date: Friday, June 19, 1998 11:46 AM >So here are a coulple we could us in translating the SevTrek 2 >quotations, with attitudinals concerning vulcan privacy: > >Gaudy: Beta, can I ask you a personal question? >Beta: Of course, Gaudy. >Gaudy: Are you IBM compatible? > >Beta-'a qia gio >Beta-[voc], [requesting permission] [privacy] > >qa th'-nidroi jidokh-ti >? I -ask question-[instrumentive?] > >"Beta, may I ask a question that may broach your privacy?" Unfortunately, this reads more like, "Do I ask?" than "May I ask?" The ZC includes an infix for a permissive mood, but I doubt there's room for it among the proposed revisions. We might do well to pull the question out of the statement altogether, and shoot for something like, "If permitted, I will ask an invasive question." jia'ek inveisiv th'nidroi permitted-if invasive I-question This might literally mean either "If permitted, I invasively ask," or "If permitted, my question [is] invasive." >gaudi-'a jia -'ah* >Guady-[voc] [permissive]-[affirmative] > >s -'nidroi >you-ask > >"Guady, you may ask (with no guarentee I'll answer)" The response could be the same. >ih,bu,mu. qa s' -izgezu >[IBM letter pronunciations] ? you-[compatable] >"(are) you IBM compatable?" I'd suggest , literally, "(Is it so, that) you [are] compatible with IBM?" (Though I'd like at some point to split the associative sense of "with" away from the instrumental sense.) ---------- 0497 - Re: Privacy and Translating Sev Trek 2 Rob Zook Fri, 19 Jun 1998 16:44:03 -0500 At 01:26 PM 6/19/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >Quotes from: Rob Zook < < >>Beta-'a qia gio >>Beta-[voc], [requesting permission] [privacy] >> >>qa th'-nidroi jidokh-ti >>? I -ask question-[instrumentive?] >> >>"Beta, may I ask a question that may broach your privacy?" > > >Unfortunately, this reads more like, "Do I ask?" than "May I ask?" >The ZC includes an infix for a permissive mood, but I doubt there's >room for it among the proposed revisions. Well, the suggested additudinals could work as infixes just as well. I had forgotten about the ZC permissive infix. Actually it looks like a suffix, like the imperative. 6,5 Action/State words have the following basic forms. 1. STEM; e,g. Kroy (stop) Ran (kill), Kapra (calculate) 2. IMPERARIVE; ,e,g. rankah (ran-kah) 'Kill!' PROHIBITIVE e,g. rIankah (see above) 3. PERMISIVE; e,g. Kroma (Kroy-ma) 'may stop' 4. VERB-NOUN; e,g. ranat (Ran-at) ' killing' >We might do well to pull the question out of the statement >altogether, and shoot for something like, "If permitted, I will ask >an invasive question." > >jia'ek inveisiv th'nidroi >permitted-if invasive I-question > >This might literally mean either "If permitted, I invasively ask," or >"If permitted, my question [is] invasive." Hmmm..,I feel really sure we should not use -ek as a conditional clause indicator. I think we could probably use the permissive suffix. We can give it the more specific sense of "x may do/be the action/state" while the prohibitive may work as the exact opposite "x may not do/be the action/state". So jia, could be the additudinal, which means "please permit", "if permitted", it's a request, but not exacly a question. So, a formalized request to violate another's privacy: th'nidroijia goifa jidokhti 'I ask a privacy question' where means 'privacy', so a (a 'privacy question') would mean a very specific thing, a question which the speaker suspects or knows the listener would regard the answer of which, as private. To which, a listener may reply 'you may ask', or 'you may not ask'. >>ih,bu,mu. qa s' -izgezu >>[IBM letter pronunciations] ? you-[compatable] >>"(are) you IBM compatable?" > >I'd suggest <, literally, "(Is it so, that) you >[are] compatible with IBM?" (Though I'd like at some point to split >the associative sense of "with" away from the instrumental sense.) Yes, that sounds a bit better. As far as spliting 'with' away from the instrumental sense, how about, < 'with', < 'using'? Guady: th'nidroijia goifa jidokhti beta'a Beta: s'nidroima guadi'a Guady: qa s'izgezu ibumute Now, that's how we could handle it in a privacy situation, but since neither are Vulcan maybe a more strict translation might be: Guady: th'nidroijia jidokhti beta'a Beta: ah'ah guadi'a Guady: qa s'izgezu ibumute Where ah'ah would be an intensively reduplicated 'affirmative' which could mean 'of course'. I think adding a -h to the "long" allophones matches the various TOS book vulcan transcriptions nicely. Also in our phone conversation, when the original spelling had a vowel+h, Marketa almost invariable gave it a different sound than the vowel without an h. Hmmm..,maybe that should be jidokh'hi, in both cases? ---------- 0498 - A Few Suggestions (was Re: Privacy and Translating Sev Trek 2) Saul Epstein Sat, 20 Jun 1998 09:15:15 -0500 From: Rob Zook Date: Friday, June 19, 1998 4:44 PM >As far as spliting 'with' away from the instrumental sense, >how about, 'with', 'using'? I've already suggested using as a gerund or "noun-from-verb" suffix, though, to partly translate the various words from _Spock's_World_. So, while we're on the subject, I'll propose for "with" (as opposed to "by means of," which would still be ). >I think adding a -h to the "long" allophones >matches the various TOS book vulcan transcriptions nicely. >Also in our phone conversation, when the original spelling >had a vowel+h, Marketa almost invariable gave it a different >sound than the vowel without an h. (Resisting an urge to pull my hair) Yes, I realize that. That's part of what I would have "fixed" when it came time to update the dictionary. Once I had the whole a/^ business settled... Instead, how about this: remove the isolated H sound from Vulcan altogether. Turn all of the few occurances into /x/. Then we can use vowel + h to distinguish "long" from "short" vowels (though I anticipate trouble there...) and consonant + h to indicate aspiration or friction. ---------- 0499 - Re: A Few Suggestions (was Re: Privacy and Translating Sev Rob Zook Sat, 20 Jun 1998 10:07:32 -0500 At 09:15 AM 6/20/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >From: Rob Zook >Date: Friday, June 19, 1998 4:44 PM > >>As far as spliting 'with' away from the instrumental sense, >>how about, 'with', 'using'? > >I've already suggested using as a gerund or "noun-from-verb" >suffix, though, to partly translate the various words >from _Spock's_World_. So, while we're on the subject, I'll propose > for "with" (as opposed to "by means of," which would still be >). Hmmm..,I'm going to have to put all of these terms in the database. I keep missing stuff like this with a manual search. :, Yup, works fine. So: Guady: th'nidroijia goifa jidokhti beta'a Beta: s'nidroima guadi'a Guady: qa s'izgezu ibumusko >>I think adding a -h to the "long" allophones >>matches the various TOS book vulcan transcriptions nicely. >>Also in our phone conversation, when the original spelling >>had a vowel+h, Marketa almost invariable gave it a different >>sound than the vowel without an h. > >(Resisting an urge to pull my hair) Yes, I realize that. That's part >of what I would have "fixed" when it came time to update the >dictionary. Once I had the whole a/^ business settled... > >Instead, how about this: remove the isolated H sound from Vulcan >altogether. Turn all of the few occurances into /x/. Then we can use >vowel + h to distinguish "long" from "short" vowels (though I >anticipate trouble there...) and consonant + h to indicate aspiration >or friction. Sounds good to me. What kind of trouble to you think we'll run into with vowel+h constructions? ---------- 0503 - Re: Is the Sev Trek 2 translation ready? (and catagories of Rob Zook Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:37:41 -0500 At 10:14 PM 6/25/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >Quotes from: Rob Zook >Date: Thursday, June 25, 1998 4:27 PM > >> English: >> Gaudy: Beta, can I ask you a personal question? >> Beta: Of course, Gaudy. >> Gaudy: Are you IBM compatible? >> >> Vulcan: >> Gaudi: th'nidroijia goifa jidokhti beta'a >> Beta: s'nidroima gaudi'a >> Gaudi: qa s'izgezu ibumusko >> >>Does anyone see anything else wrong with this translation? > >As you suggested in your last post on the subject, should >take - in the first sentence, as the direct (or Accusative) >object of . However, I'm not sure the word needs to be there >at all. In English (and other IE languages) we use "to ask" to refer >to inquiries AND requests, but this is hardly necessary. If >specifically refers to the act of asking a question (as opposed to >asking a favor, for which there could be an unrelated word) we could >leave out a direct object in this case, and the sentence could mean >something like "Can I inquire..." Well, I can find nothing wrong with that, I was trying to do a literal translation of the English. Also, I thought that the way it is makes it a good formal form for the breaching of privacy. It depends on how formal Vulcan's would get in that kind of situation, and since neither Gaudy or Beta are Vulcan it that kind of ritual may not even apply. I think I meantioned something like this previously, but we could do something like this: Gaudi: th'nidroijia beta'a Beta: ah'ah Gaudi'a So Guadi says literally: "may I ask, Beta?", and Beta replies with a intensively reduplicated yes, which I would take as meaning: "of course". >Also, could you go a bit into what - and do? Well, I was thinking of -jia as a part of a set of suffixes having to do with permissive/prohibitive verbs. In the ZC we have a little blurb on them: 9. Negative verb Morpheme -infix I e,g. th'rIan - 'I don't kill' rIankah - 'Do not Kill!' 6,5 Action/State words have the following basic forms. 1. STEM; e,g. Kroy (stop) Ran (kill), Kapra (calculate) 2. IMPERARIVE; ,e,g. rankah (ran-kah) 'Kill!' PROHIBITIVE e,g. rIankah (see above) 3. PERMISIVE; e,g. Kroma (Kroy-ma) 'may stop' 4. VERB-NOUN; e,g. ranat (Ran-at) ' killing' So we already have a "may" and "may not" we can attached to a verb, like: "you may stop", and "you may not stop". I had meant the -jia to be a kind of ? in the middle of the verb for a [permissive] value positive or negative. But I guess we don't need to have that kind of structure if we can say: qa th'nidroima "[Is it true?] I may ask" I think then that: Gaudy: qa th'nidroima jitokh'hi Beta'a May be best to distinguish from forms of askings like you meantioned: qa th'nidroima [favor]'hi qa th'nidroima [forgiveness]'hi >I understand your objection to using - as a casual conditional >(though I think it would not be a problem in the Ambiguous Mode). But >does the Formal Mode make any kind of provisions for this sort of >thing? Would an Ek-structure be applicable to something like: > >Gaudy: yarapu ci'goifa th'nidroi'icek, yarabu pujia'ek > P-labels (invasively I-inquire)-if, B-labels P-is-permitted-if > (P="I ask an invasive question;" B=permitted(P); If B then P.) >Beta: bu'a' > B. >Gaudy: az pu'a: qa s'izgezu ibumusko > Therefore P: Are you IBM-compatible? If we where to do this in a formal Vulcan argument form, I would say it like this: Guady: pu ci goifa th'nidroima jitokh'hi ic bu s'[permit] bu'ek pu'ek Beta: bu'ah Or since it's already pretty short, one could just use the parenthesis and the logical connectives: Gaudy: ^ci qa th'nidroima jitok'hi icek s'[pemit]'ek Beta: ^[permit]'ah Guady: az qa s'izgezu ibumusko I think that does work as a valid argument. In English it sounds a little awkward: "If it is permitted then may I ask a question? It is permitted. Therefore, 'are you IBM compatable'?". However, I think the logic of the argument seems valid, and I like the idea of splitting the argument up between two speakers this way. Did we talk about before and I forgot, or is this something new you want to add? BTW, I only of mentioned it as an afterthought in my "logical vulcan" post, but putting that little <^> at the beginning of a premise would probably help clue in the listener that one is starting a formal argument form of conversation. >> Also, Saul had proposed the suffix -sko for the "with" kind of >> instrumental object. Since the general indirect objects we have >> already, can have much more specific meanings. I had been wondering >> can the various kind of objects be divided into well defined >> catagories? > >Probably. My inclination regarding "with" is similar to that >regarding "ask:" I see pieces of the languages with which we're most >familiar committing some lumpings-together that are more glaringly >arbitrary than others (sometimes with unfortunate implications). >Drawing lines between categories in different but still sensible >places seems an easy way to keep Vulcan from being too much like >Terran languages, particularly Indo-European ones. This is why I >didn't want a "together with" suffix to look like the "by means of" >suffix: I'd like the former to be a different kind of "indirect" >object altogether, perhaps an associative case, with no relation to >the instrumental. Makes sense. Do you have a list of "recognized" types of objects of verbs somewhere. I found a list of latin ones which may help or not. Most of them seem pretty familiar, and I think it would help Vulcan to have some pretty unfamiliar ones too - although of what kind I'm not sure. >> Knowing the indirect object catagory might be enough if the >> sentence makes the meaning fairly obvious. While the specific >> indirect object would make it easy to speak very precisely without >> obfustication or overcomplication. >> >> Comments? > >I think this would work very well, though I might prefer that the >specifiers be set off as separate words, for the sake of various >kinds of clarity. I just hope I'm getting across that I'd like, with >the unrelated -ti and -sko, to make it impossible for a Vulcan to >say, "I walk with Surak," and for another to interpret this to mean >that the speaker uses Surak as a cane or a walking stick. Yeah, I can see that. In the context of what I said about catagorizing the various kinds of objects, you mean that -ti and -sko should head, or at least be in different catagories. ---------- 0520 - Re: Is the Sev Trek 2 translation ready? Saul Epstein Wed, 8 Jul 1998 10:05:41 -0500 Quotes from: Rob Zook Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 9:52 AM >At 10:14 PM 6/25/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: > >>As you suggested in your last post on the subject, should >>take - in the first sentence, as the direct (or Accusative) >>object of . However, I'm not sure the word needs to be there >>at all. In English (and other IE languages) we use "to ask" to refer >>to inquiries AND requests, but this is hardly necessary. If >>specifically refers to the act of asking a question (as opposed to >>asking a favor, for which there could be an unrelated word) we could >>leave out a direct object in this case, and the sentence could mean >>something like "Can I inquire..." [...] >I had meant the -jia to be a kind of ? in the middle of the verb for >a [permissive] value positive or negative. But I guess we don't need >to have that kind of structure if we can say: > >qa th'nidroima "[Is it true?] I may ask" > >I think then that: >Gaudy: qa th'nidroima jitokh'hi Beta'a > >May be best to distinguish from forms of askings like you meantioned: > >qa th'nidroima [favor]'hi >qa th'nidroima [forgiveness]'hi Ah, yes. Good. My point there (which I reprinted above) was to suggest an even sharper distinction between the two kinds of asking. So ~ "I inquire" but * ~ "I request" -- whether compliance, attention, forgiveness, a hug, whatever. In addition, we might have a sort of "requestive" as a counterpart to the imperative. So ~ "Stop!" while * ~ "Please, stop." I can see including if it means a specific kind of question -- in this case a "personal" one. The pattern I've been abstracting from the ZC implies that "question" in general is . [...] >I think that does work as a valid argument. In English it sounds >a little awkward: "If it is permitted then may I ask a question? It >is permitted. Therefore, 'are you IBM compatable'?". I was actually aiming for something that would sound awkward in English. >However, I think the logic of the argument seems valid, and I like >the >idea of splitting the argument up between two speakers this way. Good. I just have it in the back of my mind that the Formal should have structures for dealing with "everyday" kinds of statements and exchanges that aren't normally logical in the seriously symbolic sense. This was an experiment in that direction. >Did we talk about before and I forgot, or is this something >new you want to add? I just made it up, and looking back at it, I disapprove. ;-) We have to much and as it is. And I don't know that it needs adding, I just don't know how to represent an assignment operation. So, is this where we are? G: qa th'nidroima jidokh'hi beita'a B: s'ninidroima godi'a G: qa s'izgezu ibumusko ---------- 0523 - Re: Is the Sev Trek 2 translation ready? Rob Zook Wed, 08 Jul 1998 12:35:27 -0500 At 10:05 AM 7/8/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >>I had meant the -jia to be a kind of ? in the middle of the verb for >>a [permissive] value positive or negative. But I guess we don't need >>to have that kind of structure if we can say: >> >>qa th'nidroima "[Is it true?] I may ask" >> >>I think then that: >>Gaudy: qa th'nidroima jitokh'hi Beta'a >> >>May be best to distinguish from forms of askings like you >>meantioned: >> >>qa th'nidroima [favor]'hi >>qa th'nidroima [forgiveness]'hi > >Ah, yes. Good. My point there (which I reprinted above) was to >suggest an even sharper distinction between the two kinds of asking. >So ~ "I inquire" but * ~ "I request" -- >whether compliance, attention, forgiveness, a hug, whatever. Ok, I'll buy that. >In addition, we might have a sort of "requestive" as a counterpart to >the imperative. So ~ "Stop!" while * ~ "Please, >stop." That was behind my idea of adding the -jia suffix. I just didn't think of calling it a "requestive" :). So, maybe we could say: "Please, may I ask a personal question, Beta." >I can see including if it means a specific kind of >question -- in this case a "personal" one. The pattern I've been >abstracting from the ZC implies that "question" in general is >. Yes, a question that would breach the traditional bounds of privacy. And you mean "question" in terms of "asking a question" as opposed to "inquiring after someone's health", or "requesting help", right? >>Did we talk about before and I forgot, or is this something >>new you want to add? > > >I just made it up, and looking back at it, I disapprove. ;-) We have >to much and as it is. And I don't know that it needs adding, >I just don't know how to represent an assignment operation. Do you think that we need more than just ? >So, is this where we are? > > G: qa th'nidroima jidokh'hi beita'a > B: s'ninidroima godi'a > G: qa s'izgezu ibumusko I think, except for the intensively reduplicated nidroi in Beita's reply. Why does that need to be there? ---------- 0524 - Re: Is the Sev Trek 2 translation ready? Saul Epstein Wed, 8 Jul 1998 13:48:09 -0500 From: Rob Zook Date: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 12:56 PM >At 10:05 AM 7/8/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: > >>In addition, we might have a sort of "requestive" as a counterpart >>to the imperative. So ~ "Stop!" while * ~ "Please, >>stop." > >That was behind my idea of adding the -jia suffix. I just didn't >think of calling it a "requestive" :). So, maybe we could say: > > >"Please, may I ask a personal question, Beta." Ah, I'd rather not. That "please" in my example was a paraphrase. I meant "requestive" in the sense that it would be a polite imperative. Not for commands, but for requests, directed at one's audience. So, Gaudy here could preface his final question with "tell me," which could either be a forceful , or a polite * (or *). >>I can see including if it means a specific kind of >>question -- in this case a "personal" one. The pattern I've been >>abstracting from the ZC implies that "question" in general is >>. > >Yes, a question that would breach the traditional bounds of >privacy. And you mean "question" in terms of "asking a question" >as opposed to "inquiring after someone's health", or "requesting >help", right? Only as opposed to "requesting help," depending on the form of the health inquiry. I see that as a statement of ignorance, with an implied request to have the ignorance informed. (I'm partly motivated here by the apparent etymology of as .) >>>Did we talk about before and I forgot, or is this something >>>new you want to add? >> >>I just made it up, and looking back at it, I disapprove. ;-) We have >>to much and as it is. And I don't know that it needs adding, >>I just don't know how to represent an assignment operation. > >Do you think that we need more than just ? It probably depends on the complexity of the statement... >>So, is this where we are? >> >> G: qa th'nidroima jidokh'hi beita'a >> B: s'ninidroima godi'a >> G: qa s'izgezu ibumusko > >I think, except for the intensively reduplicated nidroi in Beita's >reply. Why does that need to be there? No need. I did it to reflect the underlying "of course," more intense than "you may," or a simple "yes." (I also considered duplicating the - instead, but I feel like that's too literal somehow. I think the reduplicative process should operate on an otherwise "finished" word, rather than parts.) ---------- 0525 - Final SevTrek 2 translation and Transcriptions (Re: Is the Sev Rob Zook Wed, 08 Jul 1998 15:23:12 -0500 At 01:48 PM 7/8/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >> >>"Please, may I ask a personal question, Beta." > >Ah, I'd rather not. That "please" in my example was a paraphrase. I >meant "requestive" in the sense that it would be a polite imperative. >Not for commands, but for requests, directed at one's audience. Hmmm..,so saying nidroijia(nidroicul... whatever) would be telling yourselve politely to ask? In that case, I misunderstood, that's not what I had in mind for -jia at all. I was just meant having it as a kind of interogative suffix, so I think we've ruled that possibilty out as well. >>Yes, a question that would breach the traditional bounds of >>privacy. And you mean "question" in terms of "asking a question" >>as opposed to "inquiring after someone's health", or "requesting >>help", right? > >Only as opposed to "requesting help," depending on the form of the >health inquiry. I see that as a statement of ignorance, with an >implied request to have the ignorance informed. (I'm partly motivated >here by the apparent etymology of as .) So your saying that a "not tell" = "ask", etymologically? That seems kind of odd to me. >>>So, is this where we are? >>> >>> G: qa th'nidroima jidokh'hi beita'a >>> B: s'ninidroima godi'a >>> G: qa s'izgezu ibumusko >> >>I think, except for the intensively reduplicated nidroi in Beita's >>reply. Why does that need to be there? > >No need. I did it to reflect the underlying "of course," more intense >than "you may," or a simple "yes." (I also considered duplicating >the - instead, but I feel like that's too literal somehow. I >think the reduplicative process should operate on an otherwise >"finished" word, rather than parts.) Ok, I'll buy that, so why don't we go with the version above. However, before we submit the second translation into vulcan, I suggest we get the transcription argument resolve once and for all. Then, ask the SevTrek author to reissue the translation of #1 in whatever method we decide on. I suggest we simply vote on it. These are the possibilities, that I've seen so far: 1. Original ZC notation unaltered. 2. Original Epstein notation as posted on his page. 3. Epstein notation plus ISA characters when the medium allows it. 4. Epstein notation plus "long vowels"+h notation, with - to seperate an otherwise ambiguous pair of Hs. 5. Mixture of ZC and Epstein notations. Please, everyone speak up and vote for one of those choices or offer another choice. I vote for #4. Randall, You have access to the subscriber list. If anyone doesn't vote maybe you could bug them about it :) Marketa, Please, as our ultimate arbiter, make a decision about which transcription method we should use - whether you take the votes into consideration or not - it's more important to lay this issue to rest finally. ---------- End Part 8 -- from Saul Epstein locus*planetkc,com - www,planetkc,com/locus "Surakri' ow'phacur the's'hi the's'cha'; the's'pharka the's'hi surakecha'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at