Re: A Proposal for a Modern Vulcan script
Rob Zook 
Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:54:16 -0600

At 05:18 PM 10/30/97 -0600, you wrote:
>
>I very much like the way it looks, and I note with interest 
>that by rendering vowels as comparatively small marks 
>associated with consonants you leave open the very definite 
>possibility of using a "nagari"-style system like that used to 
>to write Sanskrit.

>Your organization of the sounds is..,interesting? And in some >places I
can't read the phonetic value off the graphic. But it 
>may need clarifying that:
>
>1. In addition to /wh/ and /whl/, Vulcan has /w/ a voiced >bilabial
approximant/fricative.

Yup, I did forget that one.

>2. /kh/ is an aspirated voiceless velar stop that may or may 
>not be phonemic.

When did we decide this? I thought we did not know if it
described an aspirated voiceless velar stop or redundently 
decribed a voiceless velar fricative /x/?

>3. /x/ is a voiceless velar fricative
>4. /y/ is a voiced palatal approximant
>

Yes, I need to rearrange things a bit. I drew that chart up
before I found the IPA chart.

Take a look at: 
http://home,unicom,net/~lalaith/startrek/vulcan/vulc_lang/vulc_phonomes,html

I have been trying to create an organized chart of Vulcan
PhonEmes. I think it's pretty accurate now - although I won't
guarantee it. If I'm missing a phonEme let me know and I'll
put it on there.

>5. /rh/ is both described as "retroflex" and compared to a 
>sound which is a palato-pharyngeal approximant (the 
>Irish/American /r/). This discrepency needs to be explained.

Now, this one I also notice, I mixed ZC orthography and yours.
You did this one as "rr" right?

>6. Just to be picky: the unit of phonology is, as far as I 
>know, the phonEme, as opposed to the phonOme.

Ah, I love English spelling - don't you? Funny, I did not
remember spelling it as phonOme anywhere ;-)

>Now, in light of (1), above, I wonder if Vulcan should have >distinct f
AND wh, v AND w. There might instead be a 
>voiced/voiceless pair of labials which have bilabial and 
>labio-dental allophones.

Well, the ZC implies that they actually exist as seperate
phonEmes (strange that an English word should use mixed 
captitals). So on that basis alone I would hate to fiddle
with it too much. However, I grant you we should get some
clarification. 

Let us put together all our requests for clarification, 
and ask that Marketa explain what she will, and to please
pass the rest on to her father.

>On a personal preference note: I would very much like the 
>explicit <'> sign to look like a "real" consonant, rather than 
>like a diacritic or a piece of punctuation.

<sigh> Your catching all my foibles tonight Saul. It was more 
of an afterthought than anything else. I think I have something 
else in mind for the <'> sign, so fear not. I need to make
a couple more alterations, as well - /f/ looks too much like 
/th/. And I still have to come up with a a /w/ and a /ks/.

Rob Z.