tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 11 19:02:08 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon Alphabet
ja' Klingon Emperor <[email protected]>:
>But wouldn't little Klingon children need to have a name for each
>"symbol/letter/pictogram/whatever"?
Not everything needs a name. An object can often be referred to by
describing what it *does* rather than what it *is*. In a phonetic
transcription system, each symbol does exactly one thing: it represents a
specific sound. So the {tlh} symbol can be indicated unambiguously by
saying {<tlh> 'oS}. One might say {<tlh> lIw>, or even just {tlh} and be
done with it. Why get any more complicated than that?
>I don't understand how the "drawings" in the pIqaD still can't be
>named individually. Klingons, when spelling/describing out things to
>eachother, would need some form of telling what picture to draw, qar'a'?
If pIqaD symbols represent sounds, the sounds themselves are perfectly
adequate to "name" the symbols.
"Draw the symbol for {ng}."
"Draw {bI}."
"Draw {tlhe'}."
"Draw the {QaDqu'moH} glyph." Okay, maybe not the last one.
>The question of if is an alphabet shouldn't matter too much...I just
>want to say something other than, "Qapla' is spelled que, ae, pee, el,
>ae, apostrophe." Know what I mean?
I think I know what you mean, but I also think it's an irrelevant issue
when the "alphabet" is nothing more than a straightforward representation
of the sounds. Spelling is the same thing as pronunciation.
"Qapla' is spelled/pronounced Q, a, p, l, a, '."
Join us at qep'a' and sing a few choruses of {bIngo'} with us. :-)
-- ghunchu'wI'