Re: Klingon (was Re: Fictional auxlangs as artlangs (was Re: Poll))

Mark Reed/Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Jörg
Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>wrote:> > > > It's not that Klingon has bizarre
phonemes that makes the> > phonology unnatural, it is the unsystematic jumble
of> > phonemes it has.> > Yup. Did my earlier message about this not make it
through, or was it just> not clear? I thought I had pointed out exactly that
mismatch, with groups> like [d`][n][s`][t]...
 
At this distance (in time, plus my Klingon dict. and notes are 30 feet away :-)
), I seem to recall that it was _sort of_ reasonable, phonemically. Malay has
dental /t/, alveolar /d/; some Engl. dialects have /s`/> > > > > The only
grammatical thing that I see being "different" are the verb> > prefixes> > >
that represent subject-object combinations.> > > The odd thing there is that
it's an agglutinating language, but has> subject/object combined into
unanalyzable prefixes. That kind of> one-affix-tells-you-many-things feature is
usually associated with> inflecting languages.
 
That's a valid point, but IMO Basque subj(+obj)+tense markers aren't all that
transparent. (Prevli's subj-obj pronouns can be related to the base forms, but
the combinations aren't regular)