[Tlhingan-hol] 2 letter language code for Klingon?

[lojmIt tI'wI'nuv]

Until very recently, I'd agree about Klingon writing and the semi-official nature of pIqaD, but I notice that the new TalkNow! app, which apparently was vetted by Okrand and includes stuff I hate, like {maj po} for "good morning", also includes pIqaD for all the words listed in "First Words" (the only section I've had time to look at yet). Note that "Please" is translated as {qatlhobneS}, (10 characters) printed in romanized text with a white background below 8 pIqaD characters on a blue background. The pIqaD character resembling an italicized uppercase "Y" representing {tlh} is indeed one character in Klingon writing from a canon source.

I'm not making this up. I'm just adapting to a changing universe. Apparently, Okuda doesn't object as loudly as he used to, or Okrand has decided to ignore the objection, or the TalkNow! project managed to pull off something that Okrand would have objected to, had he noticed it (or something else I haven't thought of yet).

In any case, this is apparently canon now, unless Okrand makes some kind of statement to the contrary. The pIqaD lettering system is now exactly as canon as the new words and terms shared with us in TalkNow!

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



On Oct 4, 2011, at 2:30 PM, David Trimboli wrote:

> From: ghunchu'wI' 'utlh [mailto:qunchuy at alcaco.net]
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 4 Oct 2011, at 16:37, lojmIt tI'wI'nuv wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In Klingon, {tlh} is ONE letter.
>>> 
>>> I'm fairly sure that you mean "the trigraph <tlh> refers to a single
> sound".
>> 
>> Since lojmIt tI'wI'nuv is speaking about Klingon, what he said was
> obviously
>> exactly what he meant. See the introductory remarks to the lexicon in The
>> Klingon Dictionary: "Note that {ch}, {gh}, {ng}, and {tlh} are considered
>> separate letters."
>> 
>> Whether or not other language references calls it a trigraph is
> unimportant,
>> and we do not hear those words.
> 
> I disagree. The Klingon Dictionary does not describe the language with
> precision. It is written for Star Trek fans and laymen. Michael is looking
> at it from a linguist's point of view, and is describing it in more precise,
> and more accurate, terms.
> 
> "tlh" is *not* a Klingon letter. It is three lower-case Latin letters
> forming a trigraph to represent a Klingon *sound*. There is a symbol that is
> sometimes used to represent the sound of "tlh," but will never be more than
> semi-official.
> 
> Frequently people fail to distinguish between the system we use to write
> Klingon and the actual *sounds* of Klingon. This is why I always cringe when
> I see people create initialisms or acronyms with the Romanized system: you
> don't initialize by sounds; you initialize by written symbols. A Klingon
> using his native writing system would almost certainly not come up with the
> same initialism you do using our Latin letters.
> 
> This is all a matter of terminology and inertia. As time goes on I see more
> and more value to examining the language *as a language*, and less as a
> tradition to follow. More precise terminology would help us. We don't have
> to abandon Okrand's works as the pillars of the language, but they shouldn't
> prevent us from understanding things on our own.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20111004/332adadd/attachment-0001.html>