tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 16 20:11:44 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

the nature of pIqaD (was Re: KLBC - attempt at translation, v 1.1)

SuStel jang Qov:
>> Oh, there are plenty more of these.  {pIqaD} may not be equally
>> understandable to all dialects.  It may be changed from one to
>another.  Or,
>> it could remain absolutely the same.  We don't know.
>
>Dialect variations get complicated because they might or might not
>affect the writing system.  The Klingon writing system *could* be such
>that when Maltz writes down "qetlhbe' quv" and we hand it to Kruge,
>Kruge reads aloud "Dalbe' batlh."  None of these differnces affects
>the point that I was trying to make about written vs. spoken Klingon.

Two pieces of information from TKD might be useful here.

Page 11:
    There is a native writing system for Klingon (called {pIqaD})
    which seems to be well suited to the various dialects.

This doesn't manage to explain whether the writing system indicates
changes in pronunciation or not, but it does imply that there's only
one writing system that encompasses all dialects.  Something that is
able to do that is likely to be phonetic in nature, or at least partly
phonetic.

Page 14:
    Those few Klingons who pronounce {b} as {m} would say Klingon
    {baH} /fire (a torpedo)/ and {maH} /we/ the same way, and have
    to memorize which word is spelled which way.

This implies that {pIqaD} does *not* indicate changes in pronunciation
between dialects.  It also argues against {pIqaD} being idiographic in
nature, with the word "spelled" implying an alphabet.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level