Re: A Proposal for a Modern Vulcan script
Saul Epstein 
Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:35:27 -0600

From: Rob Zook <lalaith*unicom,net>
Date: Thursday, October 30, 1997 9:54 PM
> 
> At 05:18 PM 10/30/97 -0600, Saul 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.

Understandable. I think it's missing in some of the description, and
it probably occurs twice in the entire current lexicon.

> >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/?

Um, I guess I decided it. But there's no reason to have a redundant
description, is there? And if there is no phonemic aspirated /k/,
just /k/-/h/ clusters, then I don't know that it needs its own mark,
unless its very common. And if we decide that all occurances of <kh>
in the lexicon represent /x/, then we certainly don't need a symbol
for it. I think my only point was that we probably don't need this
symbol. ;-,

> >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_phonome
s,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.

A little touchy about that <e> aren't we?

> >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?

Mmm? Oh, yes, but that isn't what I was talking about. That is, I
recommended <rr> to replace <rh> in order to restrict a following <h>
to representing aspiration or similar things. But the sound /rh/
itself is described as two different sounds, and we'll have to decide
(or be told) which is more correct, or if the difference is related
to dialect, or represents two allophones, etc.

> >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 ;-)

Huh?

> >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. 

Rob, I only capitalized the vowels to draw attention to them. I
assumed, because I consistently spell the word one way and you
consistently spell it another, that you weren't seeing the
difference. The appearance of "phonomological," just pushed me over
the edge, I guess.

> 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.

Good idea.

> >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/.

I understand.

--
from Saul Epstein
liberty <at> uit <dot> net
www <dot> johnco <dot> cc <dot> ks <dot> us <slash> <tilde> sepstein
"Surak ow'phaaper thes'hi thes'tca'; thes'phaadjar thes'hi
suraketca'."
							-- K'dvarin Urswhl'at