Re: Some more idea about modern Vulcan writing Saul Epstein Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:03:04 -0600 From: Rob Zook Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 4:26 PM >At 03:09 PM 11/19/97 -0600, Saul wrote: > >>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. We have located the zone of our misunderstanding. In "Vulcan Lexicon," the signs are mapped as follows: zh - [as in] measure... dzh - [d]+[zh] pronounced as one voiced sound. j - [as in] yolk, yes. and I modified those, OLD -> NEW OLD -> NEW OLD -> NEW >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. Oh, I definitely think NEW or NEW makes more sense than either NEW or NEW. j and y are close enough that some relationship is possible, of course. j spontaneously appeared in French and got written down using a sign that had meant y -- and which still has that meaning in German. But a more likely situation would be between kajidth and kya where some rule deleted the "a," invoking another rule transforming j->y. Morphology can be..,interesting. -- 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