tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 16 09:16:43 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Explain Trek Inconsistencies (pIqaD)

At 06:02 AM 5/14/96 -0700, bangteH wrote:
>. . . "This way I can happily tolerate every Klingonist and 
>set designer doing different bizarre things with the characters, or 
>any character he can think of."
>
>In the spirit of Explain Trek Inconsistencies -- Isn't it possible that
printed 
>gibberish on Klingon TV show/movie sets are intended to be Eyes-Only
code-words?

But don't the officers then have to learn the meaning of the code, it would
be easier to memorize it. Unless by right of succesion on a ship, a Klingon
after killing the officer to raise his rank would automaticly get the cypher
from the computer.

>This would make sense in tactical situations especially.  Of course, we rarely 
>see anything other than tactical situations when Klingons are involved.

It would not always, the captain would first have to decypher the pIqaD and
then he would have to enter the code into the computer, that would only be
more work and Klingon may not be mathamatical geniuses, like Vulcans are
portrait, but they are efficient.

Qapla'

beHwI"av

Back to archive top level