Talk:Klingon language/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:TheKlingonHamlet.jpg

The image Image:TheKlingonHamlet.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Rationale added. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Only greeting in Klingon?

Pardon me, as I do not speak Klingon. Quoted from the article:

"They often greet each other with the Klingon word nuqneH (literally: "What do you want?"). This is the only greeting in Klingon."

Perhaps that IS the only greeting currently used. How ever, I recall hearing an interview with some Star Trek authors, many years ago. In response to requests the created a Klingon greeting, which translated to: "Have you fought recently?" Saxophobia (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice and creative way that Klingons – if they existed – might actually say as a greeting. However, it's not canon, meaning it was never said in a Star Trek show or movie and cannot be found as a phrase in the various Klingon dictionaries and phrasebooks. — N-true (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Frasier

In an episode of Frasier, a Jewish Trekkie coworker called Noel performs an act of revenge by translating into Klingon, rather than Hebrew, a speech which Frasier gives at his son's bar mitzvah. I am mildly curious to know whether or not this was authentic Klingon. PDAWSON3 (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The speech was written(or translated) by Okrand, so it's authentic Klingon. The way it's spoken, though, isn't.--Cyberman TM (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2008 (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)

Hmm. In the sidebar, it says 12 fluent speakers in 1996. In the article it says "According to Guinness World Records for 2006, it is the most spoken fictional language by number of speakers." The Esperanto article has estimates for that language of 100,000-2 million speakers, and 200-2000 *native* speakers. One wonders where the Guiness claim came from. -- Mindstalk (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, a fictional language is a distinct and specific type of constructed language. Klingon is a fictional constructed language that was intended for use in a fictional production. Esperanto is a constructed language intended to be used as an international lingua franca. I see no problems with the data.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

IPA chart

Why is /v/ not in a labio-dental column? Why is /w/ not a voiced labio-velar approximant as defined in the IPA handbook? -- Evertype·✆ 22:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

quotation accuracy

In the Undiscovered Country, didn't General Chang make the remark about Shakespeare being best read in the original Klingon?

No, it was Chancellor Gorkon, as is also written on the back of the Hamlet book itself. However, the quote isn't a real quote. It was said differenty in the movie. — N-true (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this language actually deserve a page?

Firstly: According to the main Wikipedia page, only 12 speakers are known throughout the world. Technically speaking, there are more speakers of binary code (due to encryption) than Klingon, yet there in no article on Binary (Cryptographic Language). Every person since childhood who played Commander Keen had memorized most of "standard galactic alphabet" but no-one really cares. Secondly: Is the Klingon language actually used by anyone on the cast of Star Trek? For example, the cast of Avatar speak some kind of language (which was actually documented by writers) although the Navii is never actually spoke it properly. The Rayman series by UBIsoft speak gibberish throughout the whole thing.

You can't judge a constructed language by the same standards as a natural language. Especially a language like Klingon, which was never created with the purpose of becoming a spoken language to begin with. Klingon was created to serve as an illustration, a feature of an alien race, and as such it does an eminent job. The number of fans or other people who've learned it is completely moot.

Please note that numbers of speakers are always a difficult point in the case of constructed languages. It's much easier to establish the number of speakers of Russian, although even these figures are already problematic: we can take native speakers for granted, but how do we count people who've only learned it at school, for example? And well, constructed languages have no native speakers (Esperanto being the exception here) and aren't generally thought in schools. Therefore, we can't really establish their number of speakers either, because who decides who is a speaker and who isn't? Is a person who has gone through 10 lessons, but doesn't use the language, a speaker? Is a person who regularly writes a few sentences with the help of a dictionary and a grammar a speaker? And who's going to find out? Instead of "speakers" it's better to speak of "users", but even then, it is incredibly hard to give reliable figures.

As for your seond question, I don't know; never watched the series. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

'u' (opera)

There is an opera entirely in the Klingon language. See 'u' (opera). -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category: Speakers of Klingon

Category:Speakers of Klingon has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Appearances in other media - Wiktionary and Don't Copy That 2

It appears that the Wiktionary community feels that Qapla' qualifies as a loan word from Klingon. [1] (see discussion page for more details) I'm thinking that this might be worth mentioning in Klingon_language#Appearances_in_other_media. However, as a Klingonist I'm hardly an impartial judge, and I'm also not that experienced with Wikipedia or Wiktionary, so I figured I'd suggest it here rather than add it myself.

Also, the phrase De' nIb DachenmoHchugh bIquvHa' (subbed as "To duplicate data... is a great dishonor!"; more literally "If you create identical data, you are dishonored.") is used in a trailer for Don't Copy That 2. Marc Okrand - the creator of tlhIngan Hol - was on the set to make sure the Klingon was authentic. [2] Photos at time indexes 0:45, 1:14 and 1:18 of this slideshow. The Klingon subtitles used in the actual video appear to be nonsensical, but I don't have a citation for that. --Tesseraktik (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

More font families for Klingon?

I notice the article currently only has code2000 and pIqaD as the fonts for the klingon characters, there are a number of others now, is it alright if I add them to the font stuff in the page? constructium, FairFax (same site) both of which follow the CSUR. I thought I saw more but now I'm not so sure. Kaelem Gaen (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Good reference to add annotation from

http://www.startrek.com/article/qapla-klingon-language-creator-marc-okrand-part-1 contains a two part interview of Okrand from November 2011, including specific documentation for the original creator of Klingon language being James Doohan. 76.179.61.154 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Good reference, but "original creator", out of context, is quite a stretch. Quoting Okrand from the article:

[Doohan created] perhaps a half dozen lines in Klingon with subtitles at the beginning of the film [Star Trek III: The Search for Spock]. ... I came along and fleshed it out.

--Thnidu (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal request for Klingon letters

Hi,

I propose to remove the Klingon letters used throughout the text, which are only visible if you install something.

Yes, I am a friend of the Klingon language, and I even belong to the few people who can read pIqaD, so I should accept it. But I believe that using the font makes the page look less serious for people who like to look up what Klingon is when they find a bunch of incorrect shown characters. And it still is difficult to make Klingon be considered as a serious language. Next, I believe that very, very few poeple have this font system installed on their computer, and they will not install it, just to read this one page. It's not (yet) a standard option on Windows you might just activate with a click. Maybe it's better to add images to display the caracters. By the way, I know that other languages (chinese, japanese or arabic) also have the display problem, but that's not my only point.
An addtion: The article starts with the note Some characters may not display correctly on the page, unless you have the Klingon pIqaD script installed on your computer, but the link does not lead you to a useful page that helps you getting this script.

Please answer keep or remove and discuss here until we have enough answers what you consider best. Thanks for your support. -- LLieven (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Our goal should be to display the characters correctly. To that end, two solutions would be to use image text or a Klingon webfont, not to remove content in the Klingon alphabet. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove. I'm a Klingonist too, and I agree with Lieven here. — N-true (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I see them correctly, although I've no idea thanks to which font that is. But LLieven has a point. If most visitors will just see boxes or something else they shouldn't see, then it would be better to remove the sentences with images files. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove Even with Unicode-supported scripts, we don't use them if they're overly obscure. And Klingon isn't even Unicode-supported. If we want to include the script, we need images (.svg would be best). — kwami (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently there's some ambiguity in this poll, since I voted Keep for "replace with images", and Kwami voted Remove for "replace with images". ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I should have been clearer. I have no problem with the script per se, only with accessibility. As for whether we should keep something, I suppose we could look at other language articles for comparison. If the letters were accessible, I wouldn't see any reason to remove them. — kwami (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Hehe, and I voted Comment. :) So it seems we all agree: it's better to use image files. So now the two questions are: is it worth the effort doing that for all examples sentences, and who's gonna do it? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 08:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      • It would be worth it for the name of the language in the infobox. — kwami (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I intended Remove only for removing the script displaying squares for most of the users. I was not talking about the images used to display the font, which I believe is a good option. I think it's not worth for all the example sentences, but I intend to change them anyway. Those are not good examples, taken from a limmerick contest. Would you think this is a good exapmple for the english languagee to show: The thirty-three thieves thought that they thrilled the throne throughout Thursday?? ;-) -- LLieven (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The writing should absolutely be removed, unless and until it can be replaced with images. It is encoded using Unicode Private Use Area code points, which are quite simply not meant for public interchange. Since there hasn't been any activity on the above discussion (which seemed to have a "replace with images" consensus anyway), I've gone ahead and removed the text. -- Perey (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That should be reverted. It is common to have BOTH text and images. -- Evertype·✆ 18:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• I vote "Keep". I often copy and paste pIqaD text off of wiki articles, which I wouldn't be able to do if they were using images instead of text. I'm okay with using both, but I feel that it would be a disservice to the language to stop using the fonts that we do have available. It was pointed out that there is a bad link not directing to a valid pIqaD font. The solution is to fix the link. Those that want to display pIqaD can simply install the valid font. There are plenty of other language articles that use characters that not everyone can display. --NaHQun (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • But those other language articles use scripts with public assignments in Unicode. Any given computer may not be capable of rendering them, but they'll display the right thing or nothing (assuming correct behaviour at the user's end). When we use characters from the Private Use Area, all bets are off. The only place they would be appropriate would be in a section that actually states, "Here's an example of pIqaD text encoded according to the CSUR assignments; what you see will vary." They shouldn't be used elsewhere, like the lead or ordinary body text. (I hope this clarifies my earlier statements, Evertype: my issue is with PUA characters, not text vs images vs both.) -- Perey (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Klingon "o"

In the lead section it says that "o" is pronounced [o], i.e. closed. In the "Vowels" section, it also says: "close-mid back rounded vowel (in French eau)". But in the lead section of the German artcle it says [ɔ], meaning open as in "Tom". A German WP editor confirmed that, citing Okrand's official dictionary. Could someone look it up in the English original? -- UKoch (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please ignore the above -- it seems the guy who translated Okrand's dictionary made a mistake. (The German WP editor I mentioned above cited the German translation, rather than the original.) -- UKoch (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI: this mistake has been corrected in this year's updated edition. -- Lieven (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the "Noun rules" section

If it be fine with everyone, I would like to remove the noun rules section, since that is now covered in the klingon grammar section reH ghun ghunwI' 00:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the "Grammar-section" of this page should contain a very rough summary of how klingon rgrammar works with some examples. Anything that goes into detail (e.g. the noun rules) should move to that new Klingon grammar page. -- Lieven (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Example sentences

I believe I mentioned that before, but I'd suggest to add better, more usual klingon phrases as example phrases. Things, that people can use - even though it might even be "to day is a good day to die". It is my opinion that spoonerisms and pangrams are not a good example to represent a language. -- Lieven (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

angle brackets

... are not visible (at least on my screen): ⟨angle brackets⟩. Please fix that or use a different kind to show klingon letters. -- Lieven (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Why aren't they visible on your screen? They're fine here, and I oppose changing them to try and fix some unknown problem on an unknown number of computers, instead of fixing the problem as much as we can.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right; I now tried it with different computers, different screens and different browsers. Some look better others don't. I wrote my comment right after I had had the worst case, where the brackets appeared in a very light grey, so they were almost invisible. It looks like there is no way (and no need) to fix that. -- Lieven (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

citation needed

Somebody has added several marks of citation needed... A general question of mine is: when the mark comes at the end of a paragraph of three sentences, which one does he want citation for? Next, I believe that some of the statements are common knowledge. What can I use as a source for instance for "Its vocabulary, heavily centered on Star Trek-Klingon concepts such as spacecraft or warfare, can sometimes make it cumbersome for everyday use."? Another phrase, "In the bonus material on the DVD, [...]" starts with naming the source ("on the DVD"). Isn't that enough? Anyway, I'll take care of the others, which are clear they need a source. -- Lieven (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You could try to cite all sentences then: even when there is no tag it is an improvement when an uncited statement is cited. If you can use the same source for all sentences, just replace the tag, else, just add a source for each sentence individually. The former sentence is definitely not something you should assume to be "common knowledge". You could look at Klingon for the Galactic Traveler to see if it says something like that. As for the latter, it is indeed clear what the source is, but you could also add a ref tag to it with as much info about it as you could; it is nice to have it actually show in the reference list. --JorisvS (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2014 (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).

Was the name "pIqaD" /pɪqɑɖ/ intended to sound like Picard /pɪkɑɹd/? If so, this should probably be mentioned in the article. _{(suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ)} nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 23:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Major problem

In Klingon, the eyes are alwas capitalized and the ells are lowercase. This poses a problem, since the font used throughout WP does not distinguish I and l. I guess that if you look carefully, you can see a minor difference in thickness, but it is hard to tell when you are actually reading something. I thought that "pIqaD" was to be pronounced as plaque with a D.

Some suggestions:

1. Use a different font. Like Times.

 Or you can try the thing where you space in and the text becomes code.  This is easy to read I l I l I l

1. Break the rules. Make the eyes lowercase. piquaD, not pIqaD. Or at least add a curcumflex or other sign "pÎqaD" Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If one is familiar with the strict syllable structure in Klingon, one cannot become confused. However, because the article is meant as much for those who don't know, we should try to fix this. It would be solved if we could force the font that is display, but I don't know how. The other two are out of the question: The first makes the article look amateurish and the second breaks the most holy of Wikipedia's basic rules (no OR). --JorisvS (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that solution #1 looks awful and solution #2 is completely out of the question. But it is also true that it IS a problem indeed.

The simplest solution I can think of is using the <tt>...</tt> tags. Then you get something like pIqaD, which IMO doesn't look bad at all, and neither is it difficult to implement. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 15:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that's enough to solve the problem. --JorisvS (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Thnidu (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I felt that it was necessary to put an explanation at or near the top of the page because use of typewriter font for text in another language is not usual. Since the convention and the explanation may be useful for other Klingon pages as well, I made a template for it, Template:Tt-Klingon. What do you think of it? Please answer here and ping me. --Thnidu (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made the appropriate edits on a number of pages with Klingon text, and described them briefly in the output of Template:Tt-Klingon (which now uses {{Hatnote}}) and more fully in the "noinclude" documentation of that template. --Thnidu (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove Klingon Logo?

Is there any encyclopedic reason to display the Klingon emblem? I think it's not necessary and makes the article look less "serious" or "encyclopedic".

Arguments to remove:

• As the name of the file says "Klingon High Council Emblem", this is not the symbol for the language.
• The creator of the language has never referred to this symbol being the symbol for the language.
• Other articles about languages (like french or chinese) don't show a flag either.

Arguments to keep:

• Among the speaking community, everybody recognizes this image.
• the symbol is displayed on Klingon for the galactic traveler and The Klingon Dictionary.
• constructed languages who have their own smbol, like Esperanto and Lojban do show their flag.

remove or keep?

-- Lieven (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The symbols for other conlangs are for the language. This one is not. It would be fine in a Klingon navbox, but not like this. — kwami (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur. nagualdesign 00:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Gender

I think it is wrong to analyze the distinction between speakers, body parts and others as gender. In the Klingon Dictionary, Marc Okrand clearly states that Klingon does not respect gender. It is understandable that the difference between, for example, the different plural markers, the most variable suffix in this respect, the distinction being made is not a real gender system, but a distinction of animacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.106.138 (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Animate and inanimate are gender. In fact, that's what Swedish has (more or less: common vs. neuter). What Okrand meant was that Klingon does not have sex-based gender, which is how European-language speakers generally conceive of gender. kwami (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The grammatical category including animate and inanimate is "animacy", which is not the same thing as grammatical gender. It's true to say that Klingon doesn't have grammatical gender, but animacy plays a role in a way. Many languages make a distinction between gender and animacy, cf. Russian, which has three genders (m, f, n), but also two grades of animacy (anim, inanim). Spanish has a similar distinction between animacy and gender. However, I wonder if one could speak of two or three declension classes or even noun classes for Klingon. I doubt the latter, but am not sure 'bout the former idea. — N-true (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Noun class is gender. Gender need not include masc. & fem. Could be human, zoic, & inanimate. Animacy is a broader concept that animate/inanimate gender: pronouns have higher animacy than nouns, for example. kwami (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(In support of kwami) In linguistic terminology, unlike everyday speech (and discussion of society, sex, and politics), "gender" is often used to refer to noun classes regardless of whether they have any historical or statistical association with sex. Two quotations:

• Some authors use the term "grammatical gender" as a synonym of "noun class", but others use different definitions for each.
  (WP:Noun class)
• According to Brown and Miller (1980), it is a feature of many Bantu languages that (i) nouns and adjectives have the following structure: prefix + stem, (ii) the prefix carries information about gender (or, more generally, the noun class) and number and (iii) there is concord between the head noun and adjectives and demonstratives (if these exist).
  (Gender and concord in Bantu languages, query posted on the LINGUIST List by Daniel Robertson, 21 Jan 2004)

Could everyday speech please revert to "sex" so that "gender" can just mean what it always had and this kind of confusion is no longer necessary?2.103.197.76 (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Klingon language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150801070236/http://earthlings-movie.com/ to http://www.earthlings-movie.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Klingon language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061208232839/http://www.kli.org:80/pdf/Orthography.pdf to http://www.kli.org/pdf/Orthography.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

copyright

I have been told from the United States Copyright Office that "a language of itself is not protected by copyright" (I had asked specifically about conlangs), which agrees with the article. However, it would be nice to have a citable reference for this. Does anyone know one? kwami (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This copyright section is a complete mess. For one, the Loglan/Lojban litigation only ever involved trademark, not copyright. I just spoke to Robert Lechevalier yesterday about this, but feel free to look at the court of appeals records of the litigation.

Second, it is an unsettled question whether a constructed language can be copyrighted or not. There has never been litigation to solve that question, nor has there been any academic legal theories analyzing that question nor any scholarly work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kysius (talk • contribs) 20:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Amicus brief asks if the Klingon language is eligible for copyright protection

• Gardner, Eric (2016-04-28). "'Star Trek' Lawsuit: The Debate Over Klingon Language Heats Up". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2016-04-30.
• Amicus Brief on Scribd, filed by Marc J. Randazza and Alex J. Shepard of Randazza Legal Group on behalf of Language Creation Society in the case of Paramount Pictures Corporation and CBS Studios, Incorporated vs. Axanar Productions, Inc. et al, case number 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E, United States District Court, Central District of California, Document 35-1 Filed 04/27/16 Pages 1-26 Page IDs 322-347.

I have no idea how to properly cite an Amicus Brief like the one linked to above.

If the Scribd link stops working, here are some alternate links:

• https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2819294/Klingon.txt
• https://web.archive.org/web/20160430175118/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2819294/Klingon.txt
• https://popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/035-1-Brief-of-Amicus-Curiae.pdf
• https://web.archive.org/web/20160430175027/https://popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/035-1-Brief-of-Amicus-Curiae.pdf

If someone who is familiar with citing amicus briefs can get together with someone familiar enough with the topic to merge this in without giving WP:Undue weight to it or otherwise detracting from the existing article, please do so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Klingon Language Version of This Article?

--173.72.20.241 (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Not here. See meta:History of the Klingon Wikipedia. You may want to look at The Klingon Encyclopedia on Wikia.com for encyclopedic content in the Klingon language. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

 

This will display as boxes for the vast majority of Wikipedia's readership, so it'd be better to turn these into an image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory season 10 has a scene utilizing Klingon

Season 10, episode 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.2.50 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Klingon language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html?res=9A0CEFD8163BF934A35753C1A9629C8B63&fta=y
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://higbee.cots.net/~holtej/klingon/faq.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://brandbook.nokia.com/blog/view/item80143/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030822001056/http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon+Wordplay+Contests to http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon+Wordplay+Contests

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Klingon language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000407061928/http://www.kli.org/tlh/newwords.html to http://www.kli.org/tlh/newwords.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?canonical%20sources
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530164638/http://www.eatoni.com/wiki/index.php/Klingon to http://www.eatoni.com/wiki/index.php/Klingon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Klingon language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040402041317/http://www.omniglot.com/writing/klingon.htm to http://www.omniglot.com/writing/klingon.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Has anybody translated this article to Klingon yet?

-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.157.121.250 (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A similar question had been asked a few lines above this one. The answer is: there had been a Klingon translation for this page at the Klingon version of Wikipedia until it was closed in 2005. That Klingon page moved to wikia.com in 2006, so you can now find it at The Klingon Encyclopedia, but it's a lot smaller than this English page -- Lieven (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

German myth

I removed the following uncited and doubtful text regarding the "German Myth" from the article. If you believe any part of it is accurate, please re-add it to the article, making appropriate citations to reliable sources. Thanks, Vectro (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

However, this myth is unknown in Germany, although the German translation is commonly considered so good as to be better than the original.

I always thought that it was Russians who claimed to have originally had Shakespeare, etc. I even think I remember Chekhov talking along those lines once or twice. Never heard this about Germans. Anyway: for what it's worth. Shocking Blue (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As a point of data: While I wouldn't put it past German nationalists, I never heard of a German claim to Shakespeare before reading this Wikipedia entry, so I consider that alleged myth itself highly doubtful. Maybe it refers to effects described in https://www.thelocal.de/20160422/unser-shakespeare-why-germans-are-so-obsessed-with-the-british-bard-shakespeare and https://www.dw.com/en/how-shakespeare-was-turned-into-a-german/a-19208040, but in neither article is the claim that Shakespeare himself was a German. And if that myth is indeed unkown here in Germany, it'll be somewhat hard to get a citation for its nonexistence. On the other hand I also never heard about a German translation of Shakespeare being better than the original, so I'd say only the first part should be re-added. – Jürgen Lerch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.170.165 (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Klingon

Klingon cyrllic alphabet here it is Aa Бб Вв Гг Дд Ее Жж Зз Ии Йй Кк Ққ ₭₭ Лл Мм Нн Ңң Оо Пп Рр Сс Тт Ћћ Уу Ȳȳ Фф Хх Чч Шш Ьь Юю Яя Halloweenboy118 (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Case Generation

Is case necessary for Klingon and if so, how is it generated?Ghorsefield (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Relationship to Mongolian Language?

Should it perhaps be mentioned that the greater part of the Klingon language concept derives from Mongolian? I think every linguist whould agree with me. Mongolian, like any other Altaic language is highly agglutinativ, as Klingon is. Also Klingon is "thlIngan Hol" in Klingon (IPA: /tɬɪŋɑn xol/) and Mongolian is "Mongol hel" (IPA: /mɔŋɣɔl xɛl/), so we have "Hol" and "hel" for language in Klingon and Mongolian. Einstein92 (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Obviously you are not a linguist, nor have you asked one, nor have you done even the most basic research, like checking Wikipedia.

• There are plenty of non-Altaic agglutinative languages in the world.
• "[T]he large size of all languages' vocabulary and a relatively limited inventory of articulated sounds used by most languages make it easy to find coincidentally similar words between languages" (Comparative linguistics#Pseudoscientific language comparison).
• From the article, last paragraph of Language section (this was in the article as of 11 July 2011, before you wrote your comment):

  Features of the Klingon language were inspired by various real Earth languages studied by Okrand, particularly indigenous languages of the Americas. Okrand himself has stated that a design principle of the Klingon language was dissimilarity to existing natural languages in general, and English in particular. He therefore avoided patterns that are typologically common and deliberately chose features that occur relatively infrequently in human languages.

--Thnidu (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Besides all that, the Altaic language theoretical-grouping has now been abandoned by linguists.50.111.32.130 (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)