Re: Some more idea about modern Vulcan writing Rob Zook Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:16:55 -0600 At 03:09 PM 11/19/97 -0600, you wrote: >From: Rob Zook >Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 1:56 PM > >>At 11:36 AM 11/19/97 -0600, you wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Unfortunately I agree with that assessment. In which case I would >>advocate a sound switch in this case from kdja to kja. > >? > >My whole point was that I think the word is NEW. If I'm wrong about >that, I'd advocate pushing the sound all the way to NEW. Oh. Well, I evidently misunderstood you. The word kya, I beleive is word made up after the fact to explain kaiidth which occurs in _Spock's World_. It is spelled as kya in the dictionary. When I asked Marketa et all, about the spellings in the dictionary I posted: > kya kaia? > kyani kaiani? > Kya'shin kaia'cin? kya = kja The last line was her reply. Since as you said, she has never posted anything using your transliteration method. I assume she means the j in the Lexicon which was listed as meaning the sound [dj] in "judge". which would make it kdja by your transliteration method. That sound seems most unlovely, and I would rather see it spelled kja by your transliteration method since that would have a nice [zh] sound which rings favorably in my ears. What seems really strange is the etymological relationship between kya and kaiidth, if it really should be spelled kja. It would almost make more sense for kya to sound like [kaia], then it's relationship to kaiidth would seem obvious. Rob Z. -------------------------------------------------------- Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. -- Bertrand Russell