tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 15 15:36:27 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: pIqaD origins

ghunchu'wI' (qunchuy@alcaco.net)



On Jun 15, 2009, at 1:00 PM, roger158@msu.edu wrote:

> What's funny is that Klingon is such a well-done conlang, whereas  
> its writing system is garbage.

tlhIngan Hol QIch 'oS ghItlhmeH patDaj.  ghetwI'pu'vaD ghItlhlaHmeH  
lut qonwI'pu', "IPA" lIS pat 'oghwI'.  veQ 'oH 'e' vInoHQo'.

chaq pIqaD'e' perbogh tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom.  qo'majDaq patvetlh  
tu'lu'be'qu', vaj veQ 'oH 'e' vInoHlaHbe'.

ghItlhmeH paq vIlo'taHvIS rur pIqaDqoq'e' qelbogh ter'eS QIn.  pIm  
Deghmey 'ach nIb lo'chaj.  chaq moH 'e' DaQublaH.  chaq Qatlh 'e'  
DaQublaH.  'ach veQ 'oH 'e' DanoHchugh, lo'laHbe' 'e' Damaq.   
lo'laHbejmo', bImuj rIntaH.



Klingon's writing system is a phonetic representation of the sounds.   
It's an adaptation of IPA that can be used in a typewritten script.   
I wouldn't call that garbage -- it's a lot better than the English  
writing system.

Unless of course you're referring to the fictional {pIqaD} that is  
mentioned briefly in The Klingon Dictionary.  However, it doesn't  
really exist, so I wouldn't call it garbage either.

The pseudo-pIqaD that's the topic of this thread is merely a mapping  
of the phonetic transcription to the symbols devised for Star Trek:  
The Motion Picture.  One might call it ugly, or difficult to produce  
by hand, or use any of a number of subjective descriptions.  But  
"garbage" implies that it is unsuitable for use, which is  
demonstrably not the case.

-- ghunchu'wI'






Back to archive top level