tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 19 02:39:58 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: canon pIqaD
- From: "christoph.pichlmann" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: canon pIqaD
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:12:24 +0200
>I found a thesis on Klingon on the net where Marc Okrand among others
is
>interviewed. And as far as I can tell pIqaD (well, the pIqaD used by
KLI and
>most klingonists) now seems to be canon:
>
>So, is it okay to use pIqaD as "real" pIqaD officially now?
I think I have read the thesis as well, and the author explains that it
would mean problems if pIqaD is defined as "canon".
Not only that the displayed symbols will NEVER match anything(Okuda
said that they're completely random - so unless he's a Klingon in
disguise, the letters cannot make sense), it would mean that they
belonged to Paramount(as owner of the language). And we know what
Paramount did to Klingon.
Besides, as SuStel(?) said, we shouldn't elevate Okrand to our
Klingon(language) God, observing and interpreting every move he does.
As for pIqaD itself, I think it looks nice, and I use it quite
frequently - for display. Neither can I read or write it, nor do I own
the "official" KLI font. I'm using a font quite similar(though not
identical), which looks "klingon" enough for my purpose.
I can't speak for english, but at least in german, there are multiple
ways of (hand) writing the symbols - the same would probably be true
for pIqaD. So it's impossible to find the ONE true alphabet. As long as
they're similar enough, they should all be considered "pIqaD", IMO.
So, my conclusion would be: No, there is no canon pIqaD, and there
never will be. What for, anyway?
Rather, let's find a common "style" of glyphs, so that the different
fonts still can be understood by everyone.
"No canon" doesn't mean that there'll be no agreement, right?
Christoph