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

[Michael Everson]

On 5 Oct 2011, at 19:06, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
>>> The trigraph isn't a translation of the Klingon symbol any more than the IPA [tɬ͡]  is a translation of
>>> either; they all represent a sound.
>> 
>> For "translation" read "representation".
> 
> You know, if you didn't insist on reading things that people didn't write, you might find that you don't end up sparking heated disagreements.

I have no idea what you're on about. You used the word "translation" incorrectly in this context. A more correct word in the context would be "representation". The phrase "For 'x' read 'y'" is a common formula for indicating correction. 

Words and phrases may be *translated* from one language to another. Letters in one alphabet may *represent* letters in another; sometimes this is called *transliteration* (when going from one alphabet to another alphabet) and sometimes it is called *transcription* (when going from syllabary or logograph to alphabet or other configurations). In the present context, *representation* is most appropriate, as we do not know what the "true" Klingon writing system is like. *Transliteration* may serve for conversion between pIqaD and Latin however.

>>> In Klingon, that sound is represented by a single letter, and in The Klingon Dictionary the {tlh} symbol is considered explicitly to be its own letter.
> 
>> For "symbol" read "trigraph".
> 
> I was going to ask what's wrong with calling it a symbol, but then I decoded that it doesn't matter to me. I'm not doing typography or graphology or whatever name is appropriate for the discussion of character set technology here. I'm doing Klingon.

Language learning involves grammatical terminology, does it not? Maybe you say "name words" instead of "nouns" and "action words" instead of "verbs". There wouldn't be much to recommend that. Similarly, when discussing writing systems, why not use the terminology which is proper to such discussion?

A smiley-face is a symbol. A percent sign is a symbol. A trigraph is a series of three letters. It would be imprecise to say that "church" is spelt with three consonant symbols and one vowel symbol. "Ch" is a well-known *digraph* however, used in both English and Klingon. 

>>> But Mr. Everson's comment was more than a little patronizing.
>> 
>> No less than your using "Mr" perhaps.
> 
> In my culture, "patronizing" in this context means displaying unnecessary kindness to someone in a way that shows you are treating him or her as an inferior.

I said "I'm fairly sure that you mean 'the trigraph <tlh> refers to a single sound'". This isn't particularly "kind". It offers my opinion that the interpretation of "In Klingon, {tlh} is ONE letter" would be better put using more precise terminology. I don't see how this constitutes my treating lojmIt tI'wI'nuv "as an inferior". It is common on this forum for people to offer corrections of various kinds to other people. 

> Referring to someone as "Mr" is typically a sign of formality, and often a term of respect. Would you prefer something less terse?

Most people call me "Michael". 

> "But the comment from Michael Everson, whose contributions to the recognition of Klingon as a true language are undeniable, and whose expertise in the fields of typography and fontography is obvious, was extremely patronizing."

From this splendid sarcasm I conclude that your use of "Mr" was not as a term of respect.

>> My comment was a gentle nudge toward terminological accuracy.
> 
> Replacing someone else's words to make them say something other than what they intended is not a gentle act.

Correcting imprecise and misleading terminology with precise and accurate terminology is a means of ascertaining and clarifying what someone else may have said. lojmIt tI'wI'nuv may take offence, and if he or she does, he or she may choose to do battle with me. 

> If you care about terminological accuracy in a specific field, you'll have to define things for us so we don't use them in a way you dislike.

It isn't about what *I* dislike, Mr ghunchu'wI'. But I imagine that at least some people on this list give a damn about precision and accuracy. 

I shan't be posting a glossary here, I think. But what I have written above helps to clarify some of the terminology, even though you've decoded that you don't care. 

> At least recognize that we're not experts in the field and a "gentle nudge" isn't going to magically cause us to lose the ignorance we display.

You know, I never said anything about "magic". Nor did I pick a fight, as you have. Of course one enjoys a good fight: It's the Klingon way. 

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/