Re: Some more idea about modern Vulcan writing Saul Epstein Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:36:04 -0600 From: Rob Zook Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 10:57 AM >At 08:55 AM 11/19/97 -0600, Saul wrote: > >>From: Rob Zook >>Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 7:27 AM >> >>>qa kja'aj qa kjaniaj >> >>Uh-oh. This makes the third spelling of "being." ;-) > >Third? What was the second? I refer you to message #150. In which >Marketa states that the correct pronounciation of kya was kja. >Which still seems confusing as I do not know if she meant the >lexicon transliteration or yours. If the she used the Lexicon >transliteration then since I generally use your transcription method >i probably should have spelled it kdja. However, if she meant >your transliteration then I spelled it that way. > >Personally I hope she means the zh sound in azure when she said >kja, since kdja seems a little unweildy. Neat. This is what I observed: 1. We began with a word written in a system which used to represent the diphthong [ai]. 2. When I modified the original system, I transliterated OLD as NEW. (This marked the second spelling.) 3. When asked, Marketa indicated that the original spelling was a mistake, and that the word in question should have been written . (This, as you pointed out, was the first appearance of the third spelling, which I had completely forgotten -- though I know remember that I meant to say something about it at the time...) 4. OLD = NEW, which means that the original spelling, though a mistake at the time, is now correct. Now, I can't be sure if 4 follows from 3, for the same reason you stated above: I don't know if Marketa meant OLD or NEW. But since she was issuing a correction to the original document, and has refrained from making a personal commitment to NEW, I'm leaning strongly toward the former. -- from Saul Epstein liberty*uit,net http://www,johnco,cc,ks,us/~sepstein "Surak ow'phaaper thes'hi thes'tca'; thes'phaadjar thes'hi suraketca'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at