Re: Vulcan Word Generator (VWG) trials and tribulations Saul Epstein Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:43:35 -0600 (Quotes Rob Zook: Thursday, March 25, 1999 4:32 PM) >At 03:20 PM 3/25/99 -0600, Steven Boozer wrote: > >>Refresh my memory, I've forgotten where we left the approved >>transcription. (Marketa did approve it, yes?) She did, and therefore I REALLY, REALLY hope we can abide by it. >>What's the difference between e/e:/ei/ey and aa/ah/a:/ae in Marketa's >>pronunciation? Though Marketa seems to pronounce two major variants each of A, E, I, and O, the distribution does not seem to bear any relation to the use of the <:> diacritic, but rather to the context of the sounds, which suggests that each of the variants are allophones of single phonemes, (except in the case of A). For this reason, I suggested that no distinctions be made in spelling to represent the variations, either through diacritics or two-letter signs (except in the case of A). This suggestion informed the transcription that was approved. With regard to the sounds specifically asked about, the approved represents both the [e] in "bet" and the first vowel in the diphthong in "bait." It doesn't represent the diphthong in "bait;" that is written [ei]. And I'll recommend right here that any occurance in the original wordlist of apparent dipthongs consisting of be converted to , because I would guess that is what whoever coined those words meant in almost every case. and were alternatives offered for transcription of what had been , and which Marketa does seem to use phonemically. It is the vowel in "ah-hah" in many dialects. I don't remember Marketa pronouncing any differently from the approved diphthong , so it may be that should become . >e: and a: are transliterations for a couple of sounds which appear in the >ZC Lexicon, but which I think we all agreed to dispense with because the ZC >Lexicon does not adequately define how they sound. There were several different problems involved, and that was one of them, mainly with regard to ,,<^>, and <^:>. >>: kre-nath >> >>krenath >> >>As for /e/, bEt and bAIt are quite different, at least by me. If it works >>the way I think, I like /e/ for bEt and /eh/ for bAIt. Unfortunately, we cannot reconcile everyone's likes together. >You know that bothered me too, since in my list, I don't have an explaination >as to why we had those both listed for /e/. As I said above, does not represent the whole diphthong in "bait," only the first vowel. Many people, including most native English speakers, won't be able to hear the difference between this sound and the vowel in "bet." If mentioning the variants is confusing, we should just focus on "bet." >>: ur-sev-eh >>: va'-ne: >> >>ur-seveh, va'neh >> >>/eh/ and /e:/ are the same vowel? > >Possibly, that's what I'm asking about. The H was probably included in to prevent English speakers from pronouncing it as a "long E," a "long A," or a "silent E." Fortunately, it doesn't matter all that much if they're phonetically the same or not; phonemically, their identical with each other, and with plain old . >>: krey-la >>: se-heik >> >>kreila, seheik -or- kreyla, seheyk > >Hmmm..,I missed the signifigance of that /y/ the first time around. Maybe >that should go kre-y-la. se-heik I think should stand as it is. ei looks >like another dipthong - the ZC Lexicon says Vulcan has lots of diphthongs so >we should probably keep anything that looks like one. > >>/ey/ and /ei/ are the same diphthong? > >In those two words, the probably mean different things. If /kreyla/ >is from a trek novel, /ey/ probably represents an English dipthong >which in the approved transliteration would probably go /ei/. I interpret it the same way. >>: ka-li-fee >>: qo-mee >>: shi-ka'-ree >> >>/ee/ as in thIEf & bEAt, right? We're using /i/ for both bIt and >>bEAt? How about /ih/ for bIt and /i/ for bEAt? > >I left those untouched, but those can probably get converted from >/ee/ to /i/. Yes. >>kalihfi, qomi, shihka'ri >> >>Hmm... perhaps a positional variant: final, stressed /i/ is >>pronounced long? kalifi, qomi, shika'ri Some such rule is at work, hence the use of a single sign, . >If Saavik's pronounciation of qomi in ST:II is any judge, that seems very >likely. Except she did not pronounce it with a final stress. Final is probably always as in "beat," regardless of stress. >>: kai-idth >>: lai-la-ra >>: nai-la-ra >>: rel-dai >> >>kyidth (ky'idth), lylara, nylara, reldy (yech! reldai looks better) >> >>Can we retain /ai/ or /ay/, at least for word finals? > >Personally, I think we should make the use of the /y/ or /ai/ completely >optional. I prefer the /ai/, after all, why make a special fuss over one >dipthong? wake me when it's over... -- from Saul Epstein locus*planetkc,com - www,planetkc,com/locus "Surakri' ow'phacur the's'hi the's'cha'; the's'pharka the's'hi surakecha'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at