Klingon (was Re: T-Shirt)
|From:||Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg.rhiemeier@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, September 26, 2000, 22:05|
Dan Jones wrote:
> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > 100% agreed. None of them is better known to the general public than
> > Esperanto, sure, but it is pretty well known (at least among those who
> > take an interest in fantasy and science fiction) that Tolkien invented
> > languages and that the Klingon language exists. These three classics
> > must not miss!
> Tolkien, yes. Esperanto, maybe. But please, not Klingon, please! I hate it,
> It's nonsensical and hideous. Enough of the rant, here's why I hate the damn
> 1) the orthography. The weird phonology doesn't bother me much- it's not
> very likely mind you, but I hate the orthography.
> [comments on orthography snipped]
Yes, this SturdlyCaptializingOrthography[TM] stinks. I'd prefer
a transliteration that avoids this. But better print it in Klingon
letters (piqad), anyway.
> 2) OK, the phonology. It has too many holes in it. Why are the velars the
> only fricatives to make a voiced/voiceless distinction? Where are the velar
> stops? Come to think of it, where are the uvular fricatives? Why are there
> only dental affticates?
> [Klingon phoneme system snipped]
Yes, it is totally screwed. Not to forget the bizarre distribution of
dental vs. retroflex consonants.
> 3) the lexicon. None of the words seem to have any relationship too each
> other, they appear to have been made up at random (I know they were, but
> this looks like it) like ghop and ruQ, which mean hand and manually,
> respectively. They bear no relation to each other or any other word.
Yes, this stinks.
> 4) urgh!
I don't like Klingon either. But that's a matter of taste.
> Go dtóga na púcaí do bheithígh!
> May the fairies take your livestock!
That's not nice, is it?