[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: veSDuj

[qunnoQ HoD]

> In a thesis written by Yens Wahlgren ("Klingon as Linguistic Capital"),
Marc Okrand commented pIqaD in this way:
> The mapping is very cleverly done... I think it is great, it makes it so
you can write the language... I wish I could read it, when I get something
written in pIqaD I'm able to very slowly > > figure it out... I am glad
someone really is doing it and has decided that it is an alphabet and not a
syllabary. Now we know, cause Michael Okuda and I didn't know that

the <<when I get something written in pIqaD I'm able to very slowly figure
it out>> is not actually a limitation inherent in the pIqaD itself. There
is a scientific proven explanation why this happens. The human mind is
trained -during reading- to actually disregard various letters. When you
read for instance the word <<flabbergasted>> your mind isn't actually
reading each and every letter ; It <<chooses>> to omit certain letters and
focus its attention on others. But in order for it to do so,a lot of
practice needs to take place. That's why at school we learn the
alphabet,then how to read syllables etc.. If someone *had to* read
pIqaD,then his mind would eventually adapt (Borg style) and remove any
obstacles at least as far speed is concerned.

at a previous mail i wrote :

> i remember many-many years ago hitting pause on some star trek
episode,and carefully looking at the various pIqaD characters thinking how
nice it would be to learn how to write them

still this not the end of the story ; the next thing i did was copy each of
those characters,assign to it a letter of my native alphabet,and memorize
them. the years that followed,i was so accustomed to writing in those
characters,that my writing speed was the same with the speed of my native
language ; but because after writing with these letters,i rarely
systematically read what i wrote, i never acquired any useful reading speed.

It is all a matter of practice ; Not an inherent flaw of pIqaD.

qunnoQ

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer at uchicago.edu> wrote:

> Lieven:
> > TKD (The Klingon dictionary) simply says that pIqaD "is not yet well
> > understood".
> >   [....]
> > In a thesis written by Yens Wahlgren ("Klingon as Linguistic Capital"),
> > Marc Okrand commented pIqaD in this way:
> >
> > The mapping is very cleverly done... I think it is great, it makes it so
> > you can write the language... I wish I could read it, when I get
> something
> > written in {pIqaD} I'm able to very slowly figure it out... I am glad
> > someone really is doing it and has decided that it is an alphabet and not
> > a syllabary. Now we know, cause Michael Okuda and I didn't know that.
>
>
> I have a couple more comments by Okrand in my notes:
>
> st.klingon (10/1997):  I'd love to know more about {pIqaD} as well... the
> Klingon romanization system is a phonemic system, but what about {pIqaD}?
> How, exactly, does {pIqaD} work? I'm not sure. Mike Okuda (who puts the
> characters on various control panels and other displays for the various
> Star Trek series and movies) and I have discussed it. We're pretty sure
> it's not an alphabet (and it's therefore not phonemic in the way the
> romanized version is), but we don't know the details. Prodding of Maltz is
> definitely in order here. There is no problem with {pIqaD} being used for
> the various dialects, regardless of how it works, because it does not
> necessarily work the same way (or, better, the details are not necessarily
> the same) for all of the dialects. Since the system has been around for a
> long time (if Kahless was literate, he was literate in {pIqaD}), it could
> provide some insights into earlier stages of the language. The rules for
> mapping the old pronunciations represented by the pIqaD writing conventions
> onto the new pronunciations surely differ for the different dialects, but
> the rules--with varying degrees of complexity, to be sure--certainly work.
> I agree with SuStel. Once we know the details of {pIqaD}, I'm sure we'll
> find it a more interesting system than the romanization system we're all
> used to.
>
> Seqram reported from a panel in Huntsville (9/1996):  "In fact, Marc
> Okrand has said publicly that part of the holdup is that he and Okuda can't
> quite agree on what {pIqaD} should be like... He hasn't decided if it's a
> syllabary or logograms or pasigraphy or who-knows-what, but it's not an
> alphabet like we've been using. (My personal excuse for our method then
> becomes: well, this is a simplified alphabetical system for offworlders and
> certain restricted environments that occasionally crop up, like the way
> Japanese is occasionally written entirely in *kana* in telegrams, even
> though that's not the right way to write it [and is hard to read for
> natives].)"
>
> I'm sure others have talked to Okrand about this.
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151020/49360d22/attachment.html>