Talk:Klingon language

Klingon writing systems

I've copied text over to a separate Klingon writing systems page, as part of a proposal to break out the Writing systems section of Klingon language.

Reasoning:

1. The alphabets discussed here are distinct from both "Klingon languages", which are typically (and officially) written in the Latin alphabet.
2. These alphabets can also be used to transcribe English, as the illustrations show.
3. Thus the language(s) and alphabet(s) are not tied together in the way that (for instance) the Russian language and the Cyrillic alphabet are tied together.
4. Readers can, and may wish to, learn about the language(s) without learning about the alphabet(s) — or vice versa. The page structure should permit this.

If this is acceptable, the remaining step will be to replace that section in Klingon language with a link to this page. A similar link will also be placed in Klingonaase.

Translations and tags will also be needed.  – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 04:53, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

What way exactly are the Russian language and Cyrillic alphabet (which can be used to transcribe English, and which is the official alphabet of several hundred languages, and was originally designed for Old Church Slavonic, which is a South Slavic language unlike Russian which is an East Slavic language) tied together?--Prosfilaes 09:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to the points above: (1) The Russian language is typically (and officially) written in the Cyrillic alphabet; (2) The Cyrillic alphabet "maps" to the phonemes of Russian but not English (compare the remark on Mandelian, "Its letters map to various letters and digraphs of English, but they have no relation to Marc Okrand's Klingon language."); (3) An article on the Russian language will need to actually use the Cyrillic alphabet — as Wikipedia's does, right from the start: "Russian (Russian: [русский язык, russkiy yazyk] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), [ˈru.skʲɪj jɪˈzɨk]...)"; (4) Thus it will need to incorporate some discussion of that alphabet.

Marc Okrand's The Klingon Dictionary didn't use or depend upon any non-Latin characters. (It briefly refers to the Klingon "native writing system" as being "called pIqaD", but doesn't show any characters of it.) The two pIqaD scripts that do map to his phonemes were "retrofitted" to do so. Thus tlhIngan Hol can be discussed without reference to these scripts, here as in TKD, and the writing systems can be discussed separately.  – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:35, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

IPA renditions of tlh and Q

Article states:

<tlh> — ____ — voiceless alveolar lateral affricate (as Nahuatl Nahuatl)

<Q> — ____ — voiceless uvular affricate (occurs in Nez Percé, Wolof and Kabardian)

The two "____" blanks above are where the IPA renditions at issue belong.

Previously the IPA values were shown as /t͡ɬ/ and /q͡χ/ respectively.

Now 169.233.72.162 (who has made no other edits anywhere) has changed these to /tɬ͡/ and /qχ͡/ respectively, as well as changing /t͡ɬ/ to /tɬ͡/ in the infobox, with no edit summary.

Please note that the voiceless alveolar lateral affricate article uses /t͡ɬ/ — as did this article previously.

It is my impression that the arch ("tie bar") should be over the two IPA characters (conjoining them as a single phoneme), not between the latter and the closing "/". But I'm no expert. I'd like to have confirmation or correction from someone more familiar with IPA than myself, please.

In the absence of any explanation, and of any track record for this editor, I am reverting this alteration once. I'm not confident enough to do it twice.

Can anyone else conclusively determine the validity or invalidity of this alteration? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 08:13, 5 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I think the problem is that the "tie bar" is sometimes displayed wrongly in some fonts. The correct way is to put it between the first and second character of the cluster; however, in some fonts it appears to join the two characters before it. So it's a font issue... but you were right to revert 169.233.72.162's change, although (s)he did it in good faith. Thus, /t͡ɬ/ and /q͡χ/ are the correct ways to transcribe tlh and Q in IPA. — N-true 23:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Canon fodder

I like the new "Canon" section. Though, a question: Are the two books Hamlet and ghIlghameS considered Canon? — N-true 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that everything in those publications was canon already.Alpha Omicron 04:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Qapla'

Where the word Qapla' appears in the text, in quotes, it is virtually impossible to see the ' at the end because it gets hidden in the double quotes. At first I thought you guys had mispelled it, and indeed I had to go to the "edit this page" to see the source to realize it was right, just impossible to see. I don't know what the right solution is, but as it is now, readers will draw an erroneous conclusion about what the word is.

--Captain Krankor, Grammarian, Klingon Language Institute

Good point, I deleted the quotes around it. You could've done the same, you know. ;) — N-true 11:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I bow to the Grammarian in his greater understanding of the language, however I know some speakers prefer to use ` rather than ' to accent the glotal stop - Qapla` - this avoids confusion when words are placed in quotation or speachmarks 'Qapla`' "Qapla`". This is non-standard use certainly but it seems to assist non speakers. Bat King 11 July 07

Might be. Especially the German translation of the Klingon dictionary missuses that character. However, <`> is not correct, because it's a grave accent, the orthographical apostrophe is – and has to be – <'> or, alternatively, <’>. "Qapla'" / "Qapla’" / "Qapla`". — N-true 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know it isn't correct, hence stating it was'non sandard' but it remains a fact that some speakers use the ` in that way. I actually use the correct '. Bat King 27 October 2007

Cultural References

I propose we move that section to it's own article at Klingon language in popular culture, it's rather large relative to the rest of the article. Alpha Omicron 03:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

accuracy of estimation of speakers of language

hmmm, I do not agree that (the accuracy of the statement is well-known; it is as likely that there are 100,000 speakers of Klingon hiding somewhere as it is that there a few million speakers of Navaho hiding somewhere) (undo) There is linguistic documentation proving the current rate of speakers of navajo, however any linguistic research on Klingon is highly subjective... and much of what is written in one source about it contradicts what is written in another source... wheras Navajo has a more cohesive outlook. Secondly it is quite debatable as what refers to as Klingon speech. To be included in this consesus must one speak all forms of thlingon Hol, or only thlingon Hol in Canon, or must one speak Klingonaase, or clipped Klingon, or all the forms of each Klingon "language"? Each of these is distinct from the other in some fashion. It is not known precisely how many speakers of Klingonaase there are in addition to tlhIngon Hol, canon or not canon, which is why I detest your claim that "it is well known" (by whom?) The only thing that can roughly be said that is well kown about either language from a societal standard is that Navajo is spoken conversationally and so is Klingon. Aside from that we don't enough about either language, although there is much more historical data on the Navajo language since Klingon is modern. Furthermore, does one have to be relatively fluent, or know only a few words of a language in order to be considered a 'speaker' of said language? Again, I reiterate, there are many issues presented as to what would classify a proper speaker of Klingon. And I also find it quite intriguing that there is no reference material for this point of view within the article. Chado2423 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First, we're talking about tlhIngan Hol as described in The Klingon Dictionary. This article is not about Klingonaase. Different people count different things as speaking a language, but to be counted as a speaker of the language, you should at the very least be able to communicate basic ideas grammatically without reference to a book. There are no speakers of Klingonaase by that definition; the language is simply not well enough defined to speak it like that. I have never seen any estimate that puts the number of speakers of Klingon anywhere near that level.

Knowing a few words is nothing. Almost every person in the Western world knows a few words of Latin--"et cetera", "cogito, ergo sum", "Felius domesticus" "Vulpes vulpes", etc. But they couldn't use the language for the sole purpose of a language, that is to communicate.

Unless you're claiming that there are a 100,000 speakers of Klingon, there's no real point in having this argument. Are you making that claim?--Prosfilaes 14:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not stating that there are 100,000 speakers of Klingon. Instead I am stating that we do not have appropiate assesments of the number, which is why we can neither rightfully claim that there are or are not that number. "The Onion" is satircal so it cannot be used as a source, however THE KLI can and the closest thing I have found that may shed some light on the number of Klingon speakers is this: http://home.swipnet.se/~w-12689/survey.htm. This article references KLI's consensus of Klingon speakers. It is the best official estimation, however a linguistic approach would be more beneficial. My argument is that it is invalid to state that there is or is not any number, and to make any claim on any topic without a verifiable source is just poor authorship. "It is well known" what source is it well known by? This "general knowledge" is poor by wikipedia's standards. At the very least whoever wrote this could have attributed a source to their p.o.v. I believe we could at least reference the KLI'S estimation, in which that they claim that they make it clear that they do not know how many speakers there are, except that it is over 200 something. Please do not misunderstand that I am saying that there are only 200 to 300 speakers, nor am I saying that there are 100,000 or more. Instead I am saying that it would be best to find linguistic research, and find a more appropiate consesus rather than attributing it to percieved "general knowledge." Chado2423 03:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a cop-out. We always want more numbers, but they aren't going to magically appear. We have a set of numbers for the number of speakers of Klingon, and the top number is less than a thousand. The odds that there are more than 100,000 speakers is minimal and to state that their might be is deceptive and wrong.--Prosfilaes 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)