{-oy} following an open syllable
Do we have canon information about what happens to the type four noun suffix {-oy} when it follows an open (CV) syllable? I always figured a qaghwI' would be inserted to preserve phonology, e.g. so that only context would make it clear that {ghu'oy} and {ta'oy} don’t refer to beloved situations and records, respectively, but I don’t have any actual reason for believing this other than consecutive vowels being illegal. Would a Klingon speaker break the normal phonology to say something like *{ghuoy}? I was also wondering if, in Morskan, where syllable final {H} is elided, whether it would reassert itself as the beginning of a new syllable or whether it would remain silent and the syllable with a silent final {H} would behave like an open syllable (whatever the behavior for that would be). For example, as disgusting as the idea may be, would a Morskan speaker say {yIhoy}, {yI'oy}, *{yIoy}, something else?
On Nov 2, 2019, at 9:28 PM, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylis.net> wrote:
Do we have canon information about what happens to the type four noun suffix {-oy} when it follows an open (CV) syllable?
Canon “suggests” that {'} is inserted to separate the vowels. What my own mouth naturally does is to add a quiet {gh} or its uvular equivalent after {a} and {e}, a quiet {H} or unvoiced {y} after {I}, and a {w} after {o} and {u}.
I was also wondering if, in Morskan, where syllable final {H} is elided, whether it would reassert itself as the beginning of a new syllable or whether it would remain silent and the syllable with a silent final {H} would behave like an open syllable (whatever the behavior for that would be). For example, as disgusting as the idea may be, would a Morskan speaker say {yIhoy}, {yI'oy}, *{yIoy}, something else?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the {H} reasserted itself as if it were the beginning of the next syllable. — ghunchu'wI'
On Nov 3, 2019, at 05:08, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Hugh:
qIDHeylIj vIyajbe'
chaq, qepHom lIb bop..
toH. tugh De'vam wIHevchugh vaj loScha' Daj 'oHbej ghu'vam'e'. vay' vISIv neH mayIttaHvIS jIH qovIj je ghIq 'op Hogh pIq paw pabvam bopbogh De' tutlh'e'. yabwIj DabtaH'a' matlh?
On Nov 3, 2019, at 05:21, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylis.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2019, at 05:08, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Hugh:
qIDHeylIj vIyajbe'
chaq, qepHom lIb bop..
toH. tugh De'vam wIHevchugh vaj loScha' Daj 'oHbej ghu'vam'e'. vay' vISIv neH mayIttaHvIS jIH qovIj je ghIq 'op Hogh pIq paw pabvam bopbogh De' tutlh'e'. yabwIj DabtaH'a' matlh?
va DaH jIyaj. 'oHvaD DIp mojaq Segh loS vIpongpu' 'a DIp mojaq Segh wa' 'oHbej. Hagh qoHpu' neH HeghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'.
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 at 12:04, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylis.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2019, at 00:27, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 at 02:28, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylis.net> wrote:
Do we have canon information about what happens to the type four noun suffix {-oy}
loS... loS?
qIDHeylIj vIyajbe'
= "Wait... four?" jIqIDbe'ba'pu'. -- De'vID
Segh loS ‘oHbe’ {-oy}’e’. Segh wa’ ‘oH. Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 3, 2019, at 10:50, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 at 12:04, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylis.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2019, at 00:27, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 at 02:28, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylis.net> wrote: Do we have canon information about what happens to the type four noun suffix {-oy}
loS... loS?
qIDHeylIj vIyajbe'
= "Wait... four?"
jIqIDbe'ba'pu'.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I've checked all the {bang pongmey} that I know of and couldn't find any example of one formed from a CV noun. They may well exist but we've never come across one and it's unlikely we ever will. As Okrand explains in KGT: "one of the defining characteristics of a {bang pong} is that it be secret, known only by the two members of the couple". As to inserting a {qaghwI'} for euphony, note that Okrand says WRT {Ho'oy}: "It is also enormously important that this word be pronounced correctly so that it is not misconstrued as {Ho''oy'} ["toothache"])." If it happens, I suspect that it would only be those where there isn't an corresponding CV noun with a final {qaghwI'} that might be misunderstood, misconstrued, or worse, insulting. FYI, here's the section on {bang pong} from KGT: (KGT 199ff.): ... couples (officially married and otherwise) tend to call each other by pet names (sometimes called endearments or hypocorisms or, in Klingon, {bang pongmey} [beloveds' names]). A {bang pong} is usually couple-specific--that is, the set of expressions used by one couple is different from that used by another couple. Pet names are almost never uttered unless the two members of the couple are alone and, therefore, are seldom known by anyone else. Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of a bang pong is that it be secret, known only by the two members of the couple. The phenomenon of the {bang pong}, however, is not secret. Usually, parents teach their children how the system works and have to give examples in doing so, though it is not known whether the example pet names are actual pet names used by the parents doing the teaching. Sometimes, however, children learn about the custom from other children. In particular, younger children often tell each other pet names they have heard. A child who has a reputation for revealing pet names is usually quite popular among other children, though older Klingons, upon finding out about his or her lack of propriety, will certainly take disciplinary action. As children grow older and start to experience {parmaq} (love, romance) themselves, they tend to become quite protective of their own {bang pongmey}. Primarily because of the conversations of children, but also because, despite all precautions, one member of a couple is on rare occasion overheard saying a {bang pong}, it is possible to give a small number of examples. A {bang pong} is formed by attaching {-oy}, the suffix indicating endearment, to an everyday noun. Most of the resulting terms make very little sense to anyone not in the particular relationship, and none translates well. Some pet terms are based on words for kinds of food, such as {chatlhoy} and {'awje'oy}. Perhaps these words could be rendered in Federation Standard as "soupy" and "poppy" (from soda pop), though neither translation conveys the intimacy and intensity of the Klingon. Other terms consist of words for weapons plus {-oy}: for example: {yanoy, HIchoy, tajoy, jorwI'oy}. A third type involves body parts, Klingon or otherwise, as in {'uSoy, 'aDoy, pIpoy, pachoy}. Another term based on a body part, {Ho'oy}, is one of the few that makes sense to a non-Klingon if it is remembered that {Ho'} is a slang term for "hero, idol". (It is also enormously important that this word be pronounced correctly so that it is not misconstrued as {Ho''oy'} ["toothache"]). Because of the nature of the {parmaq} relationship, misusing a {bang pong} is a serious cultural offense. This could mean, among other things, revealing a {bang pong} to someone other than one's {parmaqqay}, revealing a third party's {bang pong} (regardless of how this information was acquired), addressing one's {parmaqqay} by the wrong pet name, or using a {bang pong} in a public setting. Unless a visitor gets involved in a serious relationship with a Klingon, it is strongly advised that one avoid saying anything that can be misinterpreted as a misused {bang pong}. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons -----Original Message----------Original Message----------Original Message----------Original Message----- From: Hugh Son puqloD Do we have canon information about what happens to the type four noun suffix {-oy} when it follows an open (CV) syllable? I always figured a qaghwI' would be inserted to preserve phonology, e.g. so that only context would make it clear that {ghu'oy} and {ta'oy} don’t refer to beloved situations and records, respectively, but I don’t have any actual reason for believing this other than consecutive vowels being illegal. Would a Klingon speaker break the normal phonology to say something like *{ghuoy}?
A {qaghwI'} would be one option to break the vowel sequence, but I could easily imagine {w} being used after {o} or {u}, or {y} after {I} (or maybe {e}). One might also see the elision of the suffix's vowel, especially after another {o} (i.e. {Do} + {-oy} might get {Doy}). It also isn't that strange for a language to have an affix that can't attach to words with certain phonological shapes, even if the resulting word wouldn't violate any phonological rules. For instance, the English deadjectival verbalizing suffix "-en" that we see in words such as "redden" and "darken" (it's generally used with color terms, but can occasionally occur with other adjectives) cannot be added to adjectives ending in a vowel or sonorant — which is why you don't hear *yellowen or *greenen. So it could just be the case that if a Klingon wants to construct a {bang pong} using {-oy} from a word ending in a vowel, they have to find some workaround (perhaps adding another word in between? {ghu nuvoy}, anyone?). - SapIr On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 08:01:35PM +0000, Steven Boozer wrote:
I've checked all the {bang pongmey} that I know of and couldn't find any example of one formed from a CV noun. They may well exist but we've never come across one and it's unlikely we ever will. As Okrand explains in KGT: "one of the defining characteristics of a {bang pong} is that it be secret, known only by the two members of the couple".
As to inserting a {qaghwI'} for euphony, note that Okrand says WRT {Ho'oy}: "It is also enormously important that this word be pronounced correctly so that it is not misconstrued as {Ho''oy'} ["toothache"])." If it happens, I suspect that it would only be those where there isn't an corresponding CV noun with a final {qaghwI'} that might be misunderstood, misconstrued, or worse, insulting.
FYI, here's the section on {bang pong} from KGT:
(KGT 199ff.): ... couples (officially married and otherwise) tend to call each other by pet names (sometimes called endearments or hypocorisms or, in Klingon, {bang pongmey} [beloveds' names]). A {bang pong} is usually couple-specific--that is, the set of expressions used by one couple is different from that used by another couple. Pet names are almost never uttered unless the two members of the couple are alone and, therefore, are seldom known by anyone else. Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of a bang pong is that it be secret, known only by the two members of the couple. The phenomenon of the {bang pong}, however, is not secret. Usually, parents teach their children how the system works and have to give examples in doing so, though it is not known whether the example pet names are actual pet names used by the parents doing the teaching. Sometimes, however, children learn about the custom from other children. In particular, younger children often tell each other pet names they have heard. A child who has a reputation for revealing pet names is usually quite popular among other children, though older Klingons, upon finding out about his or her lack of propriety, will certainly take disciplinary action. As children grow older and start to experience {parmaq} (love, romance) themselves, they tend to become quite protective of their own {bang pongmey}. Primarily because of the conversations of children, but also because, despite all precautions, one member of a couple is on rare occasion overheard saying a {bang pong}, it is possible to give a small number of examples. A {bang pong} is formed by attaching {-oy}, the suffix indicating endearment, to an everyday noun. Most of the resulting terms make very little sense to anyone not in the particular relationship, and none translates well. Some pet terms are based on words for kinds of food, such as {chatlhoy} and {'awje'oy}. Perhaps these words could be rendered in Federation Standard as "soupy" and "poppy" (from soda pop), though neither translation conveys the intimacy and intensity of the Klingon. Other terms consist of words for weapons plus {-oy}: for example: {yanoy, HIchoy, tajoy, jorwI'oy}. A third type involves body parts, Klingon or otherwise, as in {'uSoy, 'aDoy, pIpoy, pachoy}. Another term based on a body part, {Ho'oy}, is one of the few that makes sense to a non-Klingon if it is remembered that {Ho'} is a slang term for "hero, idol". (It is also enormously important that this word be pronounced correctly so that it is not misconstrued as {Ho''oy'} ["toothache"]). Because of the nature of the {parmaq} relationship, misusing a {bang pong} is a serious cultural offense. This could mean, among other things, revealing a {bang pong} to someone other than one's {parmaqqay}, revealing a third party's {bang pong} (regardless of how this information was acquired), addressing one's {parmaqqay} by the wrong pet name, or using a {bang pong} in a public setting. Unless a visitor gets involved in a serious relationship with a Klingon, it is strongly advised that one avoid saying anything that can be misinterpreted as a misused {bang pong}.
-- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
-----Original Message----------Original Message----------Original Message----------Original Message----- From: Hugh Son puqloD
Do we have canon information about what happens to the type four noun suffix {-oy} when it follows an open (CV) syllable? I always figured a qaghwI' would be inserted to preserve phonology, e.g. so that only context would make it clear that {ghu'oy} and {ta'oy} don’t refer to beloved situations and records, respectively, but I don’t have any actual reason for believing this other than consecutive vowels being illegal. Would a Klingon speaker break the normal phonology to say something like *{ghuoy}?
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019, 21:59 , <kechpaja@kechpaja.com> wrote:
It also isn't that strange for a language to have an affix that can't attach to words with certain phonological shapes, even if the resulting word wouldn't violate any phonological rules. For instance, the English deadjectival verbalizing suffix "-en" that we see in words such as "redden" and "darken" (it's generally used with color terms, but can occasionally occur with other adjectives) cannot be added to adjectives ending in a vowel or sonorant — which is why you don't hear *yellowen or *greenen.
You do if you're willing to embiggen your vocabulary. -- De'vID
On 11/4/2019 4:32 PM, De'vID wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019, 21:59 , <kechpaja@kechpaja.com <mailto:kechpaja@kechpaja.com>> wrote:
It also isn't that strange for a language to have an affix that can't attach to words with certain phonological shapes, even if the resulting word wouldn't violate any phonological rules. For instance, the English deadjectival verbalizing suffix "-en" that we see in words such as "redden" and "darken" (it's generally used with color terms, but can occasionally occur with other adjectives) cannot be added to adjectives ending in a vowel or sonorant — which is why you don't hear *yellowen or *greenen.
You do if you're willing to embiggen your vocabulary.
By applying known rules in ways that don't contradict other rules, as with the word /embiggen./ But you /don't/ hear /yellowen/ or /greenen/ because these contradict the very rule that SapIr just cited. /Embiggen/ violates so such rule. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (8)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
Hugh Son puqloD -
Jeffrey Clark -
kechpaja＠kechpaja.com -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel