Talk:Klingon language/Archive 2

Userbox for Klingon language here
I just made this. or

or

Now you can put it on your wiki page if you can speak Klingon DyslexicEditor 03:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"Greenlandic"?

Shouldn't the code for Klingon be "tlh"? And shouldn't your userbox be something like:

or

or

Yep I tested it and you were wrong. What happened? Did you submit this comment without reading it afterwards?

Big Mac 03:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I like that blood-red color, but shouldn't the Babelbox include other levels than "native", such as "This user speaks Klingon like a recently captured desperate subordinate slave" etc... 惑乱 分からん 14:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

“kl” is the code of Kalaallisut, the language of Greenland. Please use Template:User tlh instead. -Hello World! 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the userbox is translated incorrectly. See my post (Incorrect translation) at Template talk:User tlh. --Runner5k 21:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been fixed. The Klingon now translates to "This user speaks Klingon." --Runner5k 21:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cursing Section
I dought this section is very valuble. We might as well add a whole section for all the words about fighting and all the words for different weapons. I suggest instead, that this section be removed and a less subject-specific one dealing with the lexical-cultural correlation in the language be added. -Alpha Omicron 22:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Lingualbabble line from a single episode
"In the pilot episode of Star Trek: Enterprise, "Broken Bow" (2001), the Klingon language is described as having eighty polyguttural dialects constructed on an adaptive syntax (for more, see Phonology)." keeps getting added to the language section, right after real references to the language. Given that this article is about the real language that's spoken in the world, and that sentence is basically lingualbabble, I don't see it as being relevant, especially not where it is. It's not canon for this article, any more than a reference from Star Trek would be canon for an article on Navaho. Perhaps a section for references to Klingon from the shows should be created, but it doesn't belong where it is.--Prosfilaes 18:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to think that references from canon Star Trek are somehow unreal and irrelevant. Arguably, the entire article is 'lingualbabble': this is a constructed language, based on the Star Trek fictional universe; thus, the reference – and an apt, verifiable one at that – is completely appropriate.  This conforms to both general Wikipedia guidelines and those of the Wp Star Trek wikiproject.  This reference is no less germane than (in the same section) solitary individuals who have been reared in the language and the flotsam of other refs throughout the article.  And the Navaho analogy is a red herring and not apt.  Alternatively, the notations can be placed in "Phonology" or in a tweaked intro.  Thus, until compelled otherwise, there is absolutely no reason why this reference shouldn't remain and will.  Adapt. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is not lingualbabble; when it says "Klingon has no velar plosives, and only one sibilant" for example, those are real words that mean something very clear to someone with knowledge of linguistics. Polyguttural doesn't mean anything. It's just a made up word. Your line is not about a constructed langauge; it's a meaningless sentence about an imaginary language.--Prosfilaes 03:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is your opinion: nixing source matter that, by definition, is fodder for the amalgam of "made-up" words comprising Klingon is inappropriate. I will restore this information until compelled otherwise.  End communication. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * All words are made-up. Some, like those in Klingon, have meanings attached. Others, like polyguttural, don't.--Prosfilaes 04:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As you are now in violation of 3RR, I'll let an administrator decide on your editing behaviour. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So you didn't end the conversation, you just ended the part of the conversation where you were being productive.--Prosfilaes 05:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And how could a comment written well after the langauge was created and full described be fodder for the language?--Prosfilaes 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure what your comments are trying to demonstrate, but any notations or content from Star Trek episodes, no matter when they were made or their nature – and as prescribed in the parent project – belong and are wholly appropriate in said articles (in appropriate context). I cannot be clearer than that, and further discussion regarding this would be truly counterproductive.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You've never dealt with my arguement that this is not the right context, nor is this a Star Trek article. It's not talking about a fictional property of a fictional universe; it's talking about real books, real people, in the real universe, learning a real (if constructed) language that can be used to really communicate in.--Prosfilaes 06:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I needn't deal with it: you maintain – and I disagree – that the article should be restricted to only nonfictional references to the constructed language (and please don't harp about the 'reality' of the language): it's all routed in zealous Trekkie fandom that unquestionably stem from the series and related productions. Apropos: this is a Star Trek article – like WTF? (read atop the talk page, e.g.) – and the ref is appropriate (though I've suggested alternate locales).  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'reality' of the language? it exists, deal with it. I do not, and have never maintained, that the article should be restricted to only nonfictional references. However, you've always put it right back in the first paragraph of the first and main section, right next to the major references about the language. It's actually not all routed in zealous Trekkie fandom; the art of language production is admired by some, including many of those that have actually taken the time to learn Klingon, and Marc Okrand's work is considered to be a skilled distinct work of art.--Prosfilaes 06:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edit summaries and comments reveal a different attitude regarding inclusion of said matter. And I am dealing with it, fully aware of the language's actuality: you need to get a grip.  The first sentence of that section notes a description of the language; my addition (also 'describing' the language) follows on that.  The sxn later details, in an unfocused, unstructured manner, a smattering of topics including particular individuals who have been reared on the language.  If anything, this begs for a shakeup of the current article/structure and I might just do that ... but, regardless, the ref will be restored.


 * Anyhow, this is getting circuitous and I defer to prior statements. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You've never tried moving the text, so how could you really know whether or not I would accept its inclusion elsewhere? Your addition doesn't describe the language; the quote is a meaningless statement that really communicates nothing, and belongs in a section on the Klingon language in Star Trek canon, not in real life.--Prosfilaes 06:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I'm unconcerned with what you accept: I do not require your permission to make said edit. And what's meaningless to you may not be to others.  And, again, you are implying that this article is the purview of only nonfictional topic matter regarding the language; I disagree.  If anything, more fictional matter should be added.  You seem to be contradicting yourself.  I've already satisfied Wp guidelines for inclusion; deal with it.


 * Regardless, I will be making some substantial edits to the article shortly. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You've been an ass about this from the start. Your only reaction to the removal of that sentence was to add it back exactly as is. You've tried to use the WP guidelines as a club; in reality, they only say what shouldn't be added, not what should. I haven't said that this article is only nonfictional, but that the fictional and the nonfictional should be clearly seperated. I fail to understand why that's so incredibly controversial to you.--Prosfilaes 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Pot, meet kettle: name calling will get you nowhere, and I will not respond to you further. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with Prosfilaes, disagree with E Pluribus Anthony. E appears to believe that "canon" for this topic consists of what appears in episodes of the sundry Star Trek series.  (Most of the vocabulary and syntactical rules of tlhIngan Hol have not been discussed in series episodes, so that would make this a very different, and much shorter, article.)  In this our own universe &mdash; as distinct from the Star Trek story-universe &mdash; tlhIngan Hol is a constructed language created by Mark Okrand (incorporating a few words devised by James Doohan), and its "canon" consists of what Okrand has declared and demonstrated in writing and recorded speech.  To quote the two separate sections of the tlhIngan Hol FAQ directly addressing this issue:"(Question 2.10) ... From time to time, Trek shows use language identified as 'Klingon', but apparently don't care to refer to the well known language delineated by Marc Okrand. Practically speaking, the constraints of doing a weekly show are tremendous (any weekly show). It shouldn't be surprising that the producers don't worry too much about getting the language right.  ...generally the 'odd' Klingon words heard on Trek shows (or used in occasonal Trek novels) are:

1) From Klingon tongues we don't know 2) Slang or colloquial usage not yet catalogued in TKD et al tlhIngan Hol sources. 3) Random noise used by artistic license to stand in for real Klingon.

Since the KLI concentrates its focus on the language as defined by Marc Okrand, most Klingonists assume option 3 and ignore them, unless such oddities are approved by Okrand.

(Question 3.10) ...With respect to Klingon, 'canon' refers to 'official' Klingon. There are two different perspectives on what is 'canon' Klingon. On the one hand, anything produced by Paramount is official Star Trek, and thus 'canon,' no matter how badly it mangles the language. Most Klingonists, on the tlhIngan-Hol list anyway, interpret canon in a more restricted way, to those works which are verifiably from Okrand. Any time you see a reference to canon in the context of Klingon (in particular tlhIngan Hol), it's safe to assume the more restrictive interpretation."To the extent that this article discusses "the language itself" &mdash; and not "how the language is described by characters in the show" &mdash; it should share the Klingon Language Institute's view of "canon."

The fact that the "polygutteral" quotation communicates nothing (is "meaningless") to present-day readers is another valid reason not to use it. Whether it would mean something to a 24th-century readership in that story-universe is irrelevant; this article is not directed to that readership, but to present-day readers. -- SAJordan 15:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What does this statement mean? Does anyone know what a polygutteral dialect is, or what an adaptive syntax is? --Prosfilaes 06:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentence is a bit of Star Trek technobabble, and really doesn't belong in a page that deals with the Klingon language as spoken by human beings. It means absolutely nothing in terms of actual linguistic science, and it should be deleted. thefamouseccles 00:59, 18 Apr 2006 (UTC)


 * Linguababble rap? Recall, even "STE" takes place well in the future, after exposure to Vulcans, who've had contact with other species. Who's to say "polygutteral" & "adaptive syntax" aren't perfectly correct terms we don't have, because we don't need them? Trekphiler 15:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (Or, I could be incredibly biased...)


 * But we do not live in the fictional, futuristic Star trek Universe. This article is for us, not Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk.  As such, it makes zero sense to use meaningless, made-up techno-linguo babble in the intro paragraph.  As others have pointed out, this article is meant to be a description of the language.  Terms like "polyguttural" and "adaptive syntax" do not help describe the language in the slightest; they only obfuscate and confuse.  They don't mean anything.  Such comments could be included in the part of the article that deals with its reality in the fictitious universe (as opposed to its reality in the real world), but even there it should be noted that such terms have no meaning to us, and if they have a meaning to Spock and Kirk, it's anybody's guess what it is.65.102.39.98 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? Source for this?

 * Michael Okuda, the long standing Star Trek scenic arts designer, and other Paramount staff have repudiated the mapping.

Why? What's the source for this? Anton Mravcek 23:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In HolQeD, the journal of the KLI, Okuda has been quoted as saying that the Klingon mapping he uses on the TV shows bears absolutely no relation to any language, real or constructed; he just puts together strings of characters that happen to look good. thefamouseccles 00:57, 18 Apr 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a much better approach for a conlang... =S 惑乱 分からん 11:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Appearance
Has there been any theories on why the letters look the way they do? I can't see any other way of writing them fast and simple enough, than with rough paintbrush strokes. Has there been any shorthand writing proposed? Also, personally, I think they seem quite hard to interpret, with many characters differing only in slant or different small curves around the corners. My two cents. 惑乱 分からん 11:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Or, I didn't mean shorthand, but what I meant was more like a simpler type of handwriting that could be written with a pen or pencil. 惑乱 分からん 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Try reading Hebrew one of these days; if you don't have a really good-quality font, the difference between bet and kaf, and gimel and nun, can be hard to spot. :) As to the other, despite the fact that pIqaD is rarely used even by those who speak Klingon regularly, most people who reach a certain level in Klingon scholarship eventually work out a handwriting system for it (because it's a bitch to draw the accurate pIqaD characters). I'm happy to email you an image of my own Klingon writing hand if you like, and I should have a couple of charts lying around demonstrating the handwriting of a couple of other Klingon speakers I know. Thefamouseccles 12:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * http://klingonska.org/piqadpic.html contains some pictures on possible pIqad longhand interpretations (note that none of these can be considered "canon" in any way and individual variation among people using the alphabet is even greater than longhand basd on the latin alphabet). /Zrajm 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright! Thanks for the info! 惑乱 分からん 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add one of the images from the Klingska Akedemien. Or I could scan some of my examples. Alpha Omicron 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Skybox redaings
My text: "; for instance, although not all form valid Klingon words, the string of characters representing batlh has two hundred eighty nine other possible readings. " has been removed, apparently because that is not the number of possible readings. How is this?--216.95.136.111 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Only possible readings (not neccessarily existing Klingon words) would be important and counted. A native speaker wouldn't normally even recognize that this word could also be read "gnlfrz" (just making this up right now; I already threw my sheet away), in the same way that a native speaker of English or German wouldn't read "Hello" as "H-E-I-I-zero". Of course, in some fonts, "Olga" might look like "zero-i-g-a" (bad example), but no one would ever read it that way. Thus it makes no sense counting impossible words in. I calculated and found out that only 18 (I think it was) possible readings were possible. That's far less; in addition, there are 3 possible ways of writing "tlh", of which only one can be used to form a possible word. Anyways, I don't think such a calculation is relevant for the article, as the picture and the explanation for the skybox reading already states it's nature. I also wondered why you spelled 289 out, but that was of course not a reason. — N-true 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I understand your reasoning now, thank you. I was trying to solidify the fact that Skybox pIqaD is unusable, and I don't think that really comes across in the existing text. And I spelled out 289 because I wasn't sure about the policy for large numbers and thought it looked spiffy. :) Also, we should clean out this discussion page, some of the topics here are no longer relevant even for historical purposes... --216.95.136.233 00:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Curious
I know that learning any language is good, but I'm not a 'trekkie' so I have a question: Is there any particularily good reason to learn this language?Cameron Nedland 14:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Other than to have fun with, to converse with other "speakers" in Klingon, to understand what the Klingons say in Star Trek, to read some prose in Klingon, to get to know a language that is quite different from the average Indo-European ones, to attent the qepHom and other Klingon meet-ups... I guess not. ;) Indeed any natural language, even the dead ones, would might more useful than Klingon. But sometimes humans do things just for fun. :> — N-true 15:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You've given me enuf reasons, i'll add it on my 'to do' list.Cameron Nedland 16:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess that list is sufficently large, by now? ;) 惑乱 分からん 12:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, very large, but I will get around to it.Cameron Nedland 14:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)