Talk:Klingon language

/Archive 1

How many speakers

It would be nice to give a rough indication of how many klingon speakers there are.

While hundreds of thousands have bought the book, only a few dozen have mastered fluency in the language, according to this secondhand report attested to the KLI [1].

I removed the following because it is an opinion and not a fact. --Chuck Smith

It is alleged that it is the most popular artificial language in the world.

I don't see what's wrong with that. Some people do believe that. Now, if it had said Klingon is the most popular artificial language in the world, you'd be right; that is not NPOV. But over a quarter of a million copies of The Klingon Dictionary have been sold; that's pretty darn good considering it's the only book from which one can learn Klingon. I don't see why saying It is believed by some that Klingon is the most popular artificial language in the world is a problem. thefamouseccles

I'll agree to that if you can find a source, like a survey, that suggests that Klingon is the most popular artificial language. Otherwise, we should stick to facts. --cprompt 00:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Esperanto aricle says it is the most widely spoken, therefore the most popular, artificial language. Bawolff 01:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to this, [2], Klingon is #5 in popularity.

Yes, but that table is based merely on hits on that site. Notice, too, that that table includes Parseltongue, which isn't even a proper constructed language AFAIK. I think this table may be somewhat skewed by the inclusion of languages such as that.

It would be bad to say that It is believed by some that Klingon is the most popular artificial language in the world because it's not true. A commonly cite estimate of number of speakers of the languages of the world came up with over a million speakers of Esperanto. There have been three books translated into Klingon, and [3] lists that many in the year 2000 alone. There are confrences held all in Esperanto and even articles in peer-reviewed journals in Esperanto. I think it's clear that Klingon is not the most popular in use.--Prosfilaes 20:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Haven't parts of the Bible been translated into Klingon?

Here is the text from Klingon Language Institute Projects, but from what I know about the project, only the Gospel of Mark and a few other passages like the Lords Prayer have been translated into Klingon and of those nothing has been published. --Chuck Smith

Co-ordinated by Kevin Wilson, the KBTP's has assumed the immense task of translating the books of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, into Klingon. Obviously the KLI's goals do not include missionary work, but this is a project worthy of our efforts for purely secular reasons. Interested members can find out more by sending a SASE to:

Klingon Bible Translation Project

5405 Willowmere Way

Baltimore, MD 21212 USA

e-mail: kwilson@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

It could be noted that there exist another (among klingonists infamous) bible "translation" into Klingon, translated by Glen Proechel of Interstellar Language School fame. However Proechel's unique take on the Klingon language makes it a very difficult read. Among other things he creates new (often non-obvious, e.g. literal translations of existing English idioms) expressions and extrapolating the usage of existing words (e.g. using a known verb, as a noun). (See also: http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Glen%20Proechel) /Zrajm 16:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing System

Klingon speakers, in the main, use the romanisation rather than the native "alphabet" (called pIqaD) simply because there is little to no support for the pIqaD system (particularly in Unicode), not because we prefer the romanisation. We Klingon speakers tend to know what the values of pIqaD characters are, and use them whenever we can (which isn't often). thefamouseccles

Under Writing System in the article it mentions Tibetan and Devanagari being the sources for pIqaD letterforms. Is this attested in any way or is it a guess? The pIqaD looks a bit like Tibetan all right, but not at all like Devanagari.

The Tibetan script is one of many refined variants of Devanagari, ergo... --Kaleissin 10:06:04, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Hospital Klingon Interpreter story

As for the Klingon Interpreter thing... "http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/05/10/offbeat.klingon.interpreter/index.html"

Where is the source that says it was taken out of context? WhisperToMe 09:31, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

See this page, currently linked in the "Language" section of the article. --Lph 15:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Why are the links to Klingon Wikipedia not treated as interwiki links (i.e. they appear in the message body rather than in the "other languages" box? e.g. tlh:tlhIngan Hol Ausir 20:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Klingon interwiki links are not allowed on any Wikipedia as a result of a compromise on the mailing list. Angela. 13:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The link is stuck onto the end of the same line as the last external link (currently Klingon Rock). Is there any way to force it to appear on its own line? --Lph 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see it has been moved to the "See also" section. --Lph 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories in Wikipedia:Babel

I have made categories for Klingon speakers in Wikipedia:Babel. They can be used with {{user tlh}} and the usual variations. I wonder when we'll have the first user to claim "tlhIngan Hol lo'wI'vam SungHol"? — JIP | Talk 08:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never, I should hope, as that phrase is ungrammatical. }}:-)

The correct way to say Klingon is the native language of this user is lo'wI'vam Sung Hol 'oH tlhIngan Hol'e'; I have changed the relevant pages accordingly, as well as those of the other levels which also contained various grammatical errors. --LRC 16:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC), tlh-2.5

Why no Klingon version of the Wikipedia

I'm surprised that the Wikipedia doesn't have a Klingon version

• Klingon edition of Wikipedia

Duomillia 15:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is the Klingon edition of Wikipedia locked?

I've looked at the Klingon edition of Wikipedia, but the database has been locked (since 2005, I think). The administrator who locked it said: "This wiki has been closed for now. (Move to WikiCities?)" I've got three questions about this:

1) How can we agree or disagree with the move when the database is locked?

2) How long is this decision going to take?

3) Why can't Wikipedia unlock the database (and still make a decision on moving it to WikiCities later if they want to)?

Big Mac 03:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but this looks pretty dumb. For great justice. 21:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1) The Klingon Wikipedia has now moved to a klingon wikia (formerly known as wikicities). You can leave a message there if you like.

2) This decision is definite. They will not re-open tlh.wikipedia.org. They even intend to remove it one day, as soon as the new tlhIngan Hol wikia is set up.

3) There has been some long discussion about that, but I don't remember the page name. Perhaps somebody can add this.

Lieven 09:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Klingonaase?

Someone proposed to merge these two articles. Frankly, I don't think that's a good idea. It's two completely different languages we're talking about, and the notability of Klingonaase can hardly be disputed. --IJzeren Jan 17:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The Klingon language section would not be improved by the merge, and the Klingonaase would suffer too. --80.202.221.146 14:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. Ford wasn't canon, but there's an argument for it: he used a different transliteration system, like the difference between Pinyin & Wade-Giles. No? Trekphiler 15:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. They really are two different languages, though Klingon fans are fond of both. ••• Trekphiler, the difference is not only transliteration, but also vocabulary. First came James Doohan's short Klingon commands (in the first movie, 1979); those helped inspire John M. Ford's Klingonaase (1984) and Marc Okrand's tlhIngan Hol (1984), but these two versions developed independently of each other. ••• As an alternative, consider making Klingon language a central or disambiguation page, leading to separate pages for tlhIngan Hol (which now is only a redirect) and Klingonaase (pretty much as is). -- SAJordan 13:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Klingon language should be a disambiguation page. It's a lot like the issue for Italian language; there are many languages natively spoken in Italy, but there's only one known as Italian. There's two Klingon languages, but one is known as Klingon and the other is known by Klingonaase. Furthermore, the Klingon language is well-defined, well-known and publicized, whereas Klingonaase is not well-defined, not canon, and is limited to two books by John M. Ford and a long out of print roleplaying game. Even if it were known as the Klingon language, I'd push for a disambig tag at the top of this page, not a full disambig page.--Prosfilaes 14:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"There's two Klingon languages..." — My point precisely. That's why the Klingon language page should disambiguate, list and link to each (at unambiguously named pages), not be about just one of them. ••• "... but one is known as Klingon and the other is known as Klingonaase." — That "one" is known unambiguously as tlhIngan Hol, just as the "other" is known unambiguously as klingonaase. Each should be discussed in detail at a page using its unambiguous name. At present, the "one" is not, only the "other" is. This is inconsistent structuring. -- SAJordan 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quick-and-dirty Google check on "Klingon language" with any of (klingonaase, John M. Ford, FASA, Final Reflection) minus (tlhingan, Okrand, Wikipedia), yielding 463 hits right now — just to show that "Klingon language" often refers to klingonaase. I will cheerfully agree that the inverse search, for "Klingon language" with any of (tlhingan, Okrand) minus (klingonaase, etc.), would get many more hits, i.e. "Klingon language" more often refers to tlhIngan Hol. The point is that both languages are called "Klingon language". Wikipedia is supposed to describe, not prescribe; and to give a neutral point of view, not take one side of a controversy — even if one side's more popular than the other. In this case, I think neutrality means making Klingon language a disambiguation page, neutrally listing and linking to both languages, rather than assigning it to just one of them and thereby excluding the other. -- SAJordan 06:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation topic is continued below. -- SAJordan 20:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

More pIqaD

Why is a set of trading cards used as a source for pIqaD when the community uses a set with letters for all the tlhIngan phonemes (? I had never heard about this Skybox-thing before I found this page so it smells of original research. Just try "klingon alphabet" in Google and see what happens. --Kaleissin 10:06:04, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Why? Because the set used by the community is made up... ok, so is the skybox letter set in terms of letter assignments and all that, but it has a few points over the KLI's well known alphabet:

• The Skybox alphabet only uses letters seen on the TV show, in fact it only uses the ten letters which commonly represent the language on the show.
• Unlike the KLI alphabet, it is little known, and so deserves a mention at the very least.
• It was used on at lesat nine Skybox trading cards, probably more, which are of importance to the Klingon speaking community because these cards contain actual klingon texts written by the language creator, Mark Okrand.
• Paramount authorised the cards production.
• Probably not a valid point but the Skybox alphabet makes it hard to read anything written in it, and one of the Star Trek films (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home) states that reading klingon is hard ("Damage control is easy, reading Klingon... that's hard!" Montogomery Scott).

If you want to see (most of) the cards in question, see here at qurgh's Skybox cards page. In particular, see the cards S7, S8 and card S9. Runic code 23:19 2005-09-22 (GMT)

(This is a side note) I'm glad I'm not hosting those cards on bandwidth I have to pay for. I never expected them to be linked to wikipedia - qurgh

But the set that is in use by the community is the set that is in use by the community! The community set only gets a mention that seems negatively biased to me, and not even a picture. What is so wrong with having both the Paramount-backed, canonical, fictional language, and the in-use, spoken, to a certain degree living conlang in wikipedia? I though wikipedia was for general knowledge, not just true believer dogma? Still confused, Kaleissin 11:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Aye there's that as well. You're right, it's too biased, I was wrong, it was my bad and I'm sorry! The section should have more on KLI's pIqaD, as such, I'll get right on it right away, might even put something else about the Mandel set as well. I'm sorry if I;'ve upset or offended anyone. Runic code 2005-09-23 13:45 (GMT)

Who's d'Armond Speers?

The article all of a sudden mentions that d'Armond Speers raised a child in a bilingual English/Klingon environment. Who's d'Armond Speers and what's the relevance? There needs to be some sort of explanation in the article. Theshibboleth 18:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The relevance is there is a native speaker of Klingon.--Prosfilaes 02:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"native speaker of Klingon"? What's he, Kang's half-brother? Trekphiler 15:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather, that it could have been... =S It seems the baby gave up Klingon when he realized his father could understand English. 85.226.122.205 17:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally think it was terrible for them to manipulate their child like that. -Unknownwarrior33 23:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why you think so? Did he try to raise up his child in Klingon only? I think he raised the child bilingually from the start, which is not a disadvantage for the child. --N-true 00:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Bilingually from the start, yes. He spoke only in Klingon and the baby's mother spoke only in English, if memory serves. • WarpFlyght (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There now appears to be a section about Dr.Speers here. He has his own article. I am therefore removing said section. Alpha Omicron 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore. The article about Dr. Speers is now a redirect to this article. The text about him was in fact moved here from its previous version. In other words, I'm gonna undo your edit if you don't mind. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's cool. I didn't think to check to see if it was a redirect. Mabey It would be better to have a section of notable speakers with just a few sentences about each. Alpha Omicron 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

John M. Ford and "Klingonaase": forgotten?

Am I the only one left who mourns for the representation of Klingons in John Ford's brilliant ST novel "The Final Reflection"? Its portrayal of Klingon family life, society, and language are thoughtful, philosophical, and ring very true to me. It saddened me very deeply when, starting with the first ST movie, and continuing with TNG, those handling ST's future decided to throw away this fine effort, and go with a much more brutal and crude culture for what I always saw as cultured (if backstabbing) adversaries.

I'm aware that some will point out that Paramount has declared the Pocket Books novels to be non-canon. This issue of canon has always confused me, as I don't see the point; ST is already rife with parallel universe, why not just believe in whichever version has the episodes and stories you like, and treat the others as being from the Dimension of Bad TV Writers? *cough* Spock's Brain *cough* Canon it's not, but doesn't Ford's effort at least deserve a mention?

-Kasreyn 07:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Klingonaase has it's own article. --Funkmaster 801 19:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But is unlinked from the main article. Perhaps I could add a link under See Also, to "Klingonaase, an earlier, non-canonical Klingon language put forth by author John M. Ford"? Would that work? -Kasreyn 05:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

sure that would work or put it under trivia --Funkmaster 801 06:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

... or under "See also". Generally, I agree Klingonaase should be mentioned somewhere in this article. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 06:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. How's it look? -Kasreyn 08:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox for Klingon language here

I just made this.

{{user|kl}}

or

{{Babel|en|kl}}

klUna atuisoq kalaallisut oqaluttarpoq inunnguuseralugu.

or

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

klUna atuisoq kalaallisut oqaluttarpoq inunnguuseralugu.

Search user languages

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:

{{user|tlh}}

or

{{Babel|en|tlh}}

tlh
tlhIngan Hol jatlh lo'wI'vam.

---

This user speaks Klingon.

or

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

tlh
tlhIngan Hol jatlh lo'wI'vam.

---

This user speaks Klingon.

Search user languages

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)

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 — as distinct from the Star Trek story-universe — 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" — and not "how the language is described by characters in the show" — 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)

Disambiguation proposal

Re the pages A= Klingon language, B= tlhIngan Hol, and C= Klingonaase. At present, A is about Marc Okrand's tlhIngan Hol; B merely redirects to A; C is about John M. Ford's language used in novels and role-playing games; and A and C briefly refer to each other. I propose moving the contents of A to B, so that B is the actual article on tlhIngan Hol; and making A the central or disambiguation Klingon language page, directing readers to B for Okrand's (Trek-canonical) "Klingon language" and to C for Ford's (non-canonical) "Klingon language". This would be a better structure to reflect the fact that there are two different "Klingon languages" extant. (And they should remain in separate articles, not be merged, but they do both have claim on the term "Klingon language.") This central disambiguation page could also list and link to the sundry Klingon "alphabets".

Given the history of controversy and competing/conflicting edits on this topic, I'd like to see some consensus reached on such a change, before it's made. So I'm not about to "just do it," and I'd ask that no-one else "just do it" either, before there's been a chance to discuss it and get general agreement. -- SAJordan 16:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This topic is also discussed above, under Merge with Klingonaase? -- SAJordan 06:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we discuss it only one place, like here?

Klingonaase is a Klingon language, just like Piedmontese is an Italian language. If you refer to the Klingon language it is pretty unambigiously referring to the Klingon language. tlhIngan Hol isn't an English name for the language; the English language dictionary is called The Klingon Dictionary, not the tlhIngan Hol Dictionary. A Google search for Klingon language reveals pages on the Klingon language, not on Klingonaase. Klingonaase is used for that language whereever it shows up.--Prosfilaes 07:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"If you refer to the Klingon language it is pretty unambigiously referring to the Klingon language." — That's tautological.   The problem is that sometimes "the Klingon language" refers to tlhIngan Hol and sometimes it refers to klingonaase, which is why "the Klingon language" is an ambiguous term.

"tlhIngan Hol isn't an English name for the language" — And klingonaase isn't an English name for that language.   Both are referred to in English as "the Klingon language".

"A Google search for Klingon language reveals pages on the Klingon language, not on Klingonaase." — I've already given you, above, a Google search link for "Klingon language" that turns up references to Klingonaase, to John M. Ford (its creator), and to The Final Reflection and FASA (where it was used). -- SAJordan 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if they were both called the Klingon language, I still wouldn't support the move. When you say the Klingon language, people think of the language that people run around in funny headgear at Star Trek conventions spouting, of the language that showed up on Big Brother and Frasier, not the language that showed up in a couple Star Trek novels and a minor roleplaying game. In these case, the Wikipedia principle to go directly to the more frequently referred article; note Java, which goes directly to the island and links to the programming language, and House, which goes directly to the page about the structures and links to the TV show. I think such a link is unnecessary here, since we mention Klingonaase later in the article, but I wouldn't object if you added one here.--Prosfilaes 07:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Even if they were both called the Klingon language," — Which they are. — "I still wouldn't support the move." — I'm listening. — "When you say the Klingon language, people think of"... — Not sharing your telepathic powers, I'm restricted to observing that some people say "Klingon language" and proceed to discuss klingonaase, John M. Ford, The Final Reflection, or the FASA role-playing game. Possibly this may indicate what they think of, even if it is not what you think of. Not all people think alike. -- SAJordan 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As for your Google search, I think it important to look at the pages that actually come up. There's pages that treat the two languages as one and the same, also referring to The Klingon Dictionary; there's pages that label the Klingon language as Klingonaase, incorrectly; there's pages that actually label the two languages as the Klingon language and Klingonaase, but fail to use any of the words you excluded. What I don't see is any good reliable pages in there that I would feel okay with quoting as to Klingonaase being called Klingon. And again, even if those were good pages, the fact is that Klingon unambigiously means the Klingon language to millions of people whereas only a few have heard of Klingonaase. One language had quotes in a Star Trek novel and some language information in a roleplaying book, and another has several grammars and dictionaries (the main of which has sold millions of copies) and has shown up on prime time TV. That's a disambig link distinction, not a disambig page level distinction.--Prosfilaes 07:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"There's pages that treat the two languages as one and the same, also referring to The Klingon Dictionary" — That's right. Do they think a book titled The Klingon Dictionary must be discussing klingonaase? Do they think klingonaase is the one true and proper name for the "Klingon language"? Do they not realize that some people think of a different language as the "Klingon language"? Not being telepathic, I don't know. But it would be interesting to poll them about which language gets to occupy the page titled Klingon language. It might not be the same one you'd choose. Me, I'm willing to share, and let the Klingon language page be a Neutral Zone impartially directing readers to the two separate languages called that.

"there's pages that label the Klingon language as Klingonaase" — Yes, that's what I've been telling you. — "incorrectly" — In your opinion? That seems rather partial. We're supposed to describe, not prescribe, remember? If some people equate "Klingon language" to tlhIngan Hol, while others equate "Klingon language" to klingonaase, we're supposed to report that fact, not call one group "right" and one group "wrong".

"What I don't see is any good reliable pages in there that I would feel okay with quoting as to Klingonaase being called Klingon." — Is this also tautological? That is, haven't you already declared that those who do refer to klingonaase as "Klingon" are "incorrect" and therefore no such page can ever be reliable, by definition?

"the fact is that Klingon unambiguously means the Klingon language" — Again, this is tautological. The problem is that both terms, "Klingon" and "Klingon language", mean tlhIngan Hol to some people, mean klingonaase to other people, mean both languages to still other people,... and some people aren't even aware that there's a difference. A disambiguation page could explain the difference, then link people to whichever language it was they came looking to learn about — which might turn out to be either or both. -- SAJordan 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, here are some "data points" from active Klingon-fan websites:

• In a Klingon.org thread on Klingon Language, a newer member asks for suggested starting points to learn "the Klingon language". An older member replies, "To which Klingon language does the one refer? As for klingonaase, this thread contains more information than any other source I have seen. As for learning the tlhIngan Hol, the first step is to obtain a copy of The Klingon Dictionary".... By "this thread" he appears to indicate Klingon Imperial Forums > Klingon Arts, Language & Culture > Klingon Language > Klingonaase.   Note that both members are using terms from The Final Reflection: the elder's title "Thought Master" and the newer member's pejorative "khest".   Note also that by asking "To which Klingon language does the one refer?" the elder indicates an ambiguity in the term "Klingon language", and then he disambiguates by using the names "klingonaase" and "tlhIngan Hol" — exactly what I am suggesting we do here.

• On the HomeWorld! page of KlingonEmpire.net, klingonaase words are used and translated in quoting the motto from The Final Reflection: "If it is not Komerex (a structure which grows), then it must be Khestorex (a structure which dies)." (Boldface red in the original; the only other words on the page so marked are the page title and final note.)   Note again the use of a title from the book, in the dispute-arbitration section: "... Final Judgment will be sought from the Thought Admiral."

• The Klingon Assault Group (KAG.org) Handbook likewise features titles (and klingonaase name-formats) from The Final Reflection, e.g. "Thought-Admiral Kris epetai-Kurkura".

• The largest Klingon fan club in Europe is Khemorex Klinzhai!, whose very name and URL are in klingonaase.

• The Klingon Legion of Assault Warriors (KLAW) "is first and foremost a Star Trek fan organization, based on the Klingon ideology. To this end we adopt a Klingon, or as we prefer, a Klin attitude in our dealings among ourselves and others." (emphasis added)   Note that klin is the klingonaase word for the Klingon essence; it has no meaning in tlhIngan Hol.

Prosfilaes, above you say, "I think it important to look at the pages that actually come up."   So I've done that.   Will these examples suffice, or do you require more?

Above you argue, "When you say the Klingon language, people think of the language that people run around in funny headgear at Star Trek conventions spouting".   From these actual online examples, at least some of the time what they're "spouting" is klingonaase.   So I think you've just provided the grounds for recognizing klingonaase as one of the two languages referred to as "the Klingon language". -- SAJordan 04:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not using reliable to mean I like it. WP:RS sets the lower limit on reliable sources: "Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources." For this issue, I would consider the published books--"The Final Reflection", the FASA RPG supplements, "The Klingon Dictionary", "Klingon for the Galactic Traveler" and successive publications--and the main webpages of the Klingon Language Institute as the really reliable sources. --Prosfilaes 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As sources for the vocabulary and syntax of their respective languages (the first two for klingonaase and the remainder for tlhIngan Hol), yes — but that's not the subject under discussion here. Your comment on "reliable" was "as to Klingonaase being called Klingon." Leave aside the detail that The Final Reflection was about Klingons (not Romulans, Andorians, or Tholians), because you weren't talking just about the source texts: you yourself cited online usage in your argument — "A Google search for Klingon language reveals pages on the Klingon language, not on Klingonaase." Now that I've shown that claim to be erroneous, and that there is extensive online usage of "Klingon"⇔"klingonaase", suddenly you repudiate the basis of your own argument, and now you don't want any reference to online usage.

Except, singularly, the webpages of the Klingon Language Institute (which is devoted specifically to Okrand's tlhIngan Hol), right?   That's special pleading, but okay, I'll let you have that as a reliable source on "the Klingon language".   And here at the Index to HolQed (Journal of the KLI), which says at the top that "Klingon words are in bold type", we find in bold type entries like "kai (Klingonaase word of greeting or salute)", "klingonaase", and "komerex zha (Klingonaase)".   By the source you have cited as reliable, these klingonaase words are "Klingon words" — even though they're not tlhIngan Hol words.

Will you once again repudiate a source you yourself had pointed to?

Oh, and please note the entry "tlhIngan Hol vs. klingonaase", with both terms boldfaced (and thus "Klingon words").   When the KLI wants to distinguish between the two languages, it unambiguously refers to Okrand's as tlhIngan Hol — rather than putting "Klingon language" on just one side and "Klingonaase" on the other, as you did. -- SAJordan 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Going back to sources that are canon for Klingonaase, the name of Klingonaase in English is not the Klingon language. Page 8 of the 1984 Pocket Books paperback edition of The Final Reflection says "He also knew that only a half dozen of the ship's complement spoke Klingonese." In the sources I consider really reliable, I don't think the name "the Klingon language" was ever used for Klingonaase. --Prosfilaes 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Page 17 of the same edition: "... Klingon culture and language." (Nearly the last page of the human/Federation preface, after which the viewpoint characters are Klingons using their own language's term for itself.) -- SAJordan 05:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Even being generous and considering non-reliable sources, a person who doesn't know that Okrand's Klingon and Klingonaase are different languages is so uninformed as to make their opinions useless. Of the links you gave, only the first shows Klingonaase being called Klingon; the rest merely show the use of Klingonaase by Klingon groups, a use that's not surprising. --Prosfilaes 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not surprising that Klingon groups use klingonaase, since they do consider it a Klingon language; that's the same reason they use tlhIngan Hol. But why would they ever use klingonaase at all if they don't consider it a Klingon language? -- SAJordan 05:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that anyone still thinks of Klingonaase as the Klingon language, given that it is incredibly obscure and Okrand's Klingon language has entered the public knowledge. --Prosfilaes 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

See above.   The KLI lists klingonaase words as "Klingon words".   Your own cited source, Prosfilaes; your own reliable source. -- SAJordan 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some continued use of Klingonaase by people. But the language used at conventions was not the whole of my argument. It's the language used on TV shows, Star Trek and Fraiser, as Klingon; it's the language established by Paramount as the Klingon language; it's the language published as the Klingon language. The Klingon Dictionary, The Klingon Hamlet, Gilgamesh: A Klingon Translation, and Much Ado About Nothing: The Restored Klingon Text, do not feel a need to make sure that people aren't confused by their use of the word Klingon in referring to the language. None of the reviewers on Amazon's page for the Klingon Hamlet, or any of the other translations, choose to point out that it's in Okrand's Klingon, not Klingonaase, a fact left unnoted on the page. I don't know of a single reliable source that calls Klingonaase Klingon. --Prosfilaes 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you do.   You cited it as "reliable" yourself.   The Klingon Language Institute even sells copies of The Final Reflection along with the books you mention, and here is their description of it:

Before there was tlhIngan Hol there was klingonaase. This novel by John M. Ford provided the template for much of Klingon fandom. If you've always wondered what that "other" Klingon language was this book will reveal it to you.

There you see an open and honest acknowledgement.   That "other" Klingon language.   Precisely. -- SAJordan 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And again, you ignore the point that a disambig page would not be following Wikipedia precedent. Java doesn't go to the programming language or to a disambig page. Given that one is a small collection of words and phrases that are not canon in Paramount's view, and the last published information about it was published over 20 years ago, and the other is a real language that is actively being published on and in, a disambig link at the top of the page is a much more appropriate solution, since you seem to think it necessary, than to move the page. --Prosfilaes 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Precedent"? — Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines are explicit, not precedent-based case law, but there are ample precedents if you need them.   Some are far more relevant than your example of Java (island vs. computer-programming language), because they're disambiguating human languages, e.g. Alemannic, Filipino English, Gaelic, and Norse (West, East, Proto-, and Old — this doesn't even go into modern variations of written Norwegian: Nynorsk vs. Høgnorsk vs. Bokmål vs. Riksmål).   (Oh, and pardon my French.)

Specifically for entries titled "*group* language", where *group* has more than one language, note that the entries don't just discuss one of them: in fact, then the (singular) "language" page may redirect to a (plural) "languages" page, e.g. Iranian language → Iranian languages, and Gaelic language → Goidelic languages.   Perhaps Klingon language should redirect to Klingon languages for the list including klingonaase, tlhIngan Hol, and the various alphabets. -- SAJordan 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there wasn't already a Klingon languages page, I created one as a first approximation of a disambiguation page.   This way we're not arguing over vaporware; we can see what we're discussing, and maybe even improve it.   If we ever actually make the change being proposed, we've got something to redirect Klingon language to, while tlhIngan Hol becomes a real page in itself. -- SAJordan 05:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Actively"? — Fan fiction still actively features klingonaase (example from the KAG periodical: "A Close Encounter of the Green Kind: an excerpt from the new book"...); Klingon fan groups (whom you willingly cited as examples of active usage when you thought they only used tlhIngan Hol) still actively use klingonaase even in clubnames, personal names, and statements of principle; the WorldWide Web wasn't around in 1984, but it's loaded with klingonaase references now.   So how can you insinuate that klingonaase softly and suddenly vanished away "over 20 years ago"?

By the way, How Much for Just the Planet? was first published less than 20 years ago... and Ford's Star Trek novels have kept being reprinted, both of them in the Worlds Apart set, and The Final Reflection together with Peter David's Kahless in the Hand of Kahless set.   If this makes them old, outdated, or worn out, it makes The Klingon Dictionary (1985, over 20 years ago) just as much so.   IF we're going to use a single standard and not a double standard, that is.

But if you want to make relative age (all of one year's difference, TFR 1984 vs. TKD 1985) the deciding factor, then the older language should have first claim.   For example, at Norse you saw listed:

• West Norse, describing the modern languages of Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic within the North Germanic language group.
• East Norse, describing the modern languages of Danish and Swedish within the North Germanic language group.
• Proto-Norse language, the Indo-European language in use from 100 B.C. to 800 A.D., predecessor of Old Norse
• Old Norse language, the Germanic language in use from 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D.

And which do you see when you go to Norse language?   Not the modern languages, and not the proto-not-there-yet, but Old Norse, the first longboat in the water.   Just as klingonaase came before tlhIngan Hol, though both of them came after the "proto-" few words in ST:TMP.

Yet we don't have to deny that "West Norse" and "East Norse", along with "Old Norse" and "Proto-Norse", are all "Norse" languageS.   The Norse entry lists them all, and disambiguates.   Likewise, the Klingon language page can list and disambiguate klingonaase, tlhIngan Hol, and even James Doohan's few words ("proto-Klingon"?), along with all the alphabets.

If you insist that the oldest (or the incomplete) should be pushed onto an ice floe and out to sea, then Doohan's words would go too.   That would be really awkward, because Okrand incorporated them into tlhIngan Hol — so if they're not "Klingon", then part of tlhIngan Hol isn't "Klingon".   Your only way out of that age-dilemma is not to set it up in the first place. -- SAJordan 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue this conversation if you insist on making it personal.--Prosfilaes 12:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

How is my "if you insist" (or your "if you insist") making it "personal"?   I've said nothing — good or bad — about you as a person.   I have addressed your arguments.

You have argued that "Klingon language" should not be a disambiguation page, but remain devoted to one of the two languages, based on assertions about what various sources say.   Upon investigation, the sources turn out to say differently, as documented above.

• Googling "Klingon language" finds pages only on Okrand's language on both languages.
• Klingon groups use only Okrand's language both languages.
• The Klingon Language Institute denotes as "Klingon language" and "Klingon words" only Okrand's language both languages.
• The Final Reflection itself (which could not have mentioned Okrand since his dictionary hadn't been published yet) does not does refer to klingonaase as a "Klingon language".
• Wikipedia does not does use disambiguation pages to link different human languages that are referred to by the same term.   A valid example would be Java (an island vs a programming language named after it) Alemannic, Gaelic, Norse, and Filipino English — the latter meaning either "English as spoken in the Philippines" (Philippine English) or "Tagalog heavily mixed with English words" (Taglish).

In your earlier responses, you repudiated your own initially cited sources as unreliable, once it was clear they'd contradicted you.   In the latest round, your own more recently cited sources were (once again) found to contradict you.   Will you therefore (a) concede, (b) again repudiate your own sources, or (c) not respond substantively at all?

This is not making the conversation "personal"; it continues to be about the factual claims and advocated policies on the issue at hand, what to do with the "Klingon language" page. -- SAJordan 14:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How many times was "you" used in that last paragraph? "Your own cited source, Prosfilaes; your own reliable source" was completely unneccessary and personal, to cite just one example.--Prosfilaes 12:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So referring to your sources and arguments is "completely unnecessary and personal" — even though neither of those are in fact you, and one could not address the prior discussion here without referring to them?   And all this time I should have been taking as personal attacks these phrases in which the word "you" refers to me?

If you refer to the Klingon language .... When you say the Klingon language .... Of the links you gave .... And again, you ignore the point .... since you seem to think it necessary .... I'm not going to continue this conversation if you insist on making it personal.

It seems you've been "making it personal" all along — by the standard offered above — although it certainly isn't a standard I'd been acquainted with before this exchange. -- SAJordan 07:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another data point, this from a source among the main page's external links,

• Klingon as Linguistic Capital: A Sociologic Study of Nineteen Advanced Klingonists (PDF) (HTML version) — Sociology — Bachelor's Thesis; includes lists of canonical words and neologisms or slang

The sentence "Okrand reviewed the linguistic material available and on this basis invented the language known as tlhIngan Hol." has a footnote: "There is more than one Klingon language. Most notable is Klingonaase from John M. Ford's novel 'The final reflection' (1984)"

Just to drag this discussion back to the topic: having "more than one Klingon language" calls for "Klingon language" to be a disambiguation page linking to the different languages grouped under that heading, tlhIngan Hol and klingonaase — as with other languages, and unlike "best known person of those sharing a name".

Further discussion?   Comments?   Objections?   -- SAJordan 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And having more than one Italian langauge doesn't call for Italian language to be a disambiguation page?--Prosfilaes 13:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Referring again to Piedmontese et al.? But your question is answered at Italian language, in the section on Dialects and regional languages of Italy — which lists Piedmontese, a regional language pertaining to northwest Italy, and specifically to Piedmont.

This might be a relevant example if klingonaase were presented as a dialect of tlhIngan Hol, or as a regional language spoken only in some region of the Klingon homeworld or one of the colony planets — but the two languages are distinct (although tlhIngan Hol has imported klingonaase terms, e.g. klin zha → tlhIn Sa); and each is spoken across the Klingon Empire in fiction; and both are used by Klingon fans in the real world (as amply cited above).

Compare the disambiguation page examples cited above, including Filipino English — whose two referents are likewise both spoken across the Philippines. -- SAJordan 06:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason why Italian language isn't a disambig page has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that Italian is called Italian and Piedmontese is called Piedmontese. --Prosfilaes 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, tlhIngan Hol is called tlhIngan Hol, and klingonaase is called klingonaase.   Both are called "Klingon" — even by the Klingon Language Institute, as cited earlier, after that had been agreed upon as a reliable source — which is what makes "Klingon language" an ambiguous reference. -- SAJordan 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Klingon is primarily spoken in America by Americans; that doesn't mean that American language needs to start listing Klingon. --Prosfilaes 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Klingon" (both klingonaase and tlhIngan Hol) will be found cited above as spoken both in and out of America, by both Americans and non-Americans (for instance, Khemorex Klinzhai! is a European group), so the above argument seems based on not only demonstrable but already demonstrated falsehood. -- SAJordan 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Both may be used by Klingon fans, but only one is spoken by Klingon fans, because Klingonaase isn't a real language; it's a small set of vocabulary, with no phonology or grammar. --Prosfilaes 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Both may be used by Klingon fans, but only one is spoken by Klingon fans,..."

That simply isn't true, and a number of citations for the contrary have been given above, including klingonaase names for the group Khemorex Klinzhai! and individual members (e.g. epetai-, sutai-) of that and other groups (KAG and KLAW among them), and mottos and statements of principle.   Or does the one contend that these others never speak their own names, titles, mottos, principles, or group names? -- SAJordan 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"... because Klingonaase isn't a real language; it's a small set of vocabulary, with no phonology or grammar."

Against that uncredentialed personal opinion we need merely weigh the above agreed and cited reliable source, the Klingon Language Institute, which refers to klingonaase as a language, and specifically a Klingon language. -- SAJordan 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between "the other Klingon language" and "Klingon culture and language" and calling it Klingon. "The other English language" and "English culture and language" could refer to Cornish, but that doesn't mean that Cornish is called Klingon.--Prosfilaes 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a reprise of the Piedmontese argument, still carefully ignoring the detail that Piedmontese and Cornish are (or were), as their names indicate, regional languages.

A speaker of Philippine English might refer to Taglish as "the other Filipino English"... and in fact the "Filipino English" page is a disambiguation page pointing to "Philippine English" and "Taglish" as the non-ambiguous names.

Replace "Filipino English" with "Klingon language", "Philippine English" with "tlhIngan Hol", and "Taglish" with "klingonaase", and the same ought to be true. -- SAJordan 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't break up other people's edits on the talk page. I'm not going to respond; you aren't discussing this, you're debating this, and I don't think John M. Ford coming back from the grave and disagreeing with you could change your mind now.--Prosfilaes 10:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"You don't break up other people's edits on the talk page."

Fair enough.   Break removed to resume original format, comment put after the whole paragraph, now using italicized quotes to indicate which parts are being addressed by replies.

"I'm not going to respond;..."

That decision, whether or not to respond, is everyone's prerogative, right, and choice, of course.

"... you aren't discussing this, you're debating this,..."

To borrow someone's comment from above:   How many times was "you" used in that last paragraph?   [It] was completely unneccessary and personal....

More directly and far more to the point:

1. Discussing the pros and cons of a proposed action is generally known as "debate" ("1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints").   Conversely, "debating" is also still "discussing".
2. We have both, and I stress both, made clear, from our first respective entries on this topic, that we had opinions one way or the other, i.e. for or against the proposal, and that we were offering reasons why others should share our opinions — which is engaging in "debate" ("2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers").
3. One of the reasons these talk pages exist — particularly in the case of "proposal" sections — is so that proposed actions, before they are taken (or not taken, as the case may be), can be subjected to "debate" ("3. deliberation; consideration").
4. Some important requirements for a good discussion or debate are that it be civil, honest, rational, and fair — not strewn with personal attacks, or falsehoods, or fallacies, or foul play.
5. I'd hoped for such a discussion or debate.   I'm open to differing opinions so offered.   I'm less amenable to verbal bullying and "because-I-said-so"-type arguments, assertions already shown to be false to fact (e.g. "only one is spoken by Klingon fans"), the recycling of fallacies already explained (e.g. the "Piedmontese"/"Cornish" false analogy), and attempts to overturn the chess board with false accusations.

"I don't think John M. Ford coming back from the grave and disagreeing with you could change your mind now."

It would depend on the argument — facts and reasoning — he offered.   Neither he nor anyone else should get away with false "facts" or invalid "reasoning".   Had John M. Ford come here to claim that "only one [language] is spoken by Klingon fans", in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, I'd have been entitled to the same incredulity — whether he'd come here alive, or borne down from Heaven in the arms of angels on a ray of Divine Light. -- SAJordan 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion

One of you asked for a third opinion on this disambiguation idea.

Frankly, I found the above discussion enlightening. I do not consider myself a trekkie, but I do consider myself a Star Trek fan (there's a difference, believe me). I did not know that there were two Klingon languages. Were I to look up "Klingon language" on Wikipedia the first thing I would want to discover was that there was more then one. The current intro to the Klingon Language page does mention towards the end that there is another Klingon language, but I agree with SAJordan that it would better serve as a disambiguation page. Barring that, at least have a dab link or otheruses template at the top.

I think if this page is to be a disambiguation page it will need to go into a little bit more detail then a disambiguation page normally does, simply because people won't know which link they want otherwise.

I found that this statement reflected my views perfectly:

and some people aren't even aware that there's a difference. A disambiguation page could explain the difference, then link people to whichever language it was they came looking to learn about — which might turn out to be either or both.

Explaining the difference goes beyond the usual function of a disambiguation page, but I think in this instance it would be important to do, so ignore all rules. At any rate, that's my two cents. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your viewpoint!   Well, take a look at Klingon languages (plural), the draft I put up during the above discussion.   Does that meet your expectations?   If not, please suggest or make improvements.   I'm suggesting the current contents of Klingon language be moved to tlhIngan Hol, and the Klingon language page itself become a redirect to Klingon languages. -- SAJordan 22:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer to keep the description of tlhIngan Hol on the Klingon language page and add a disambiguation link on the top of the page, that says something along the lines of: — This article is about the Klingon language used in the Star Trek movies and series. For the language used by John M. Ford in his Star Trek novels and in the role play games, see Klingonaase. — I think the current Klingon languages page gives too much information that might overwhelm and scare off a reader who does not know very much about this topic. Another thing is, that in 98% of all cases (or even more), people are indeed looking for tlhIngan Hol when they visit the Klingon language page. In my humble opinion as a Star Trek fan, linguist and learner of Klingon, this might be a good consense. — N-true 00:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at Klingon languages and re-arranged it some in an effort to make it easier to navigate. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're trying for... but consider this distinction made by the prior version. Prior to the first movie, "Klingon language" was truly "fictional" in the sense of not actually existing — no word of such a language was ever actually spoken in any TOS episode; it was only referred to (as "Klingonese") by Korax in "The Trouble with Tribbles", establishing its story-world existence, which is why that quote appeared after definition #1 (the language(s) supposedly spoken by Klingons). With the movie's few words, then Ford's 1984 novel, then Okrand's work, actual words could be seen and heard — even though the Klingons themselves remain fictional — creating what is chronologically the second meaning, the actually existing real-world constructed languages for use by story characters, or by real people acting the parts of (or emulating) Klingons. Here the subsets become the two "spoken" languages plus the several "writing systems".

As rearranged, the two distinct meanings are not separated, and the quote illustrating meaning #1 is moved to the opposite end of the page from the meaning it illustrates.

The importance of keeping the distinction clear is demonstrated higher on this page, where two editors dispute whether a line of dialogue from Enterprise should appear in the article. The line is by a story-world linguist describing the story-world Klingon language in terms which may be presumed meaningful and true, even authoritative (canonical), in that story-world. The problem is that those terms are not both meaningful and true if describing Okrand's constructed language as documented in this world. There is a conflict between the story-world canon and the actual characteristics of the real-world language. Therefore I'd prefer to keep meanings #1 and #2 marked out, and separately exemplified, as in the prior version. Would you agree to this? -- SAJordan 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I still think the way you had it originally was a little confusing. I put the quote back near the top and put the entries back into the order in which you had them. I tried to expand it a bit to make the distinction still more clear than it was. Do you think it's better now? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you! And I've just tried to expand it a bit further, keeping to the chronological structure (and therefore moving mention of ST:TMP to the "constructed languages" portion). Does that also help? -- SAJordan 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's good. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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