Hi folks, I just had a chance to chat with Marc Okrand, and we briefly spoke about this o-problem. First, before I said anything, he immediately repeated that TKD really is just a rough sketch of the language, and that it was written for the layman and also for English speakers. What he easily could confirm was the letter {o} is surely not a diphthong in the middle of the word. (I'll avoid giving English examples for comparison, because it has become clear that English dialects over the world are very different.) He also confirmed that is example of "go and mosaic" was just to make clear that it's not o as in box or cop. Next, he also has noticed himself that the Klingon letter {o} is sometimes pronounced as an open [o] (IPA symbol as a reversed c) and sometimes as a closed [o]. There might be a phonetic reason for that, but he never thought about this, let stand even write it down. It would make things too complicated. (Now, first my apologies if this is phonetically and scientifically not so correct. I'll try to describe in easy words. I suggest this message being read aloud and slowly.) Regarding the ow-problem, he pointed to an interesting thing of phonetics which I was aware of, but never realized properly. The point is that when you speak {w} your lips form the shape of a letter o. That's also the same lips-form for speaking the letter u. But remember: {w} is NOT a vowel, and it is NOT {u}. {w} does not have its own sound. So, if you speak {aw}, {ew} or {Iw}, you start with the vowel (a,e,I) and close your lips to form the w. It's not the final w sound that creates this diphthong [au], it's the way of moving your lips towards that final w position. Let's do the same thing with {ow} (and {uw}): you start with the [o] sound, but the difference here is that you already have your lips in the position/the shape of the w, so there is no "transition-sound" from the vowel to the {w}. THAT is the reason why {Dow} would sound identical to {Do} - not because {o} is a diphthong [ou], but because {ow} also is NOT a diphthong [ou], it's more like [o:]. (as a side note: the same happens with {Iy}) These are not Okrand's words, they are mine. But I think that it now makes a lot more sense and doesn't contradict anything. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/Pronunciation