|Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:|
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.
Proof for Okrand spelling being canon Edit
I'm taking up this topic again in a new section, because I know no better place to put it - and I'm aware I may be opening a pandora's box again. On this discussion page (and elsewhere), everyone keeps saying that Okrand's spelling is not canon; well, I recently discovered that it is indeed used on screen, although even very blurred and only clearly visible on the BluRay. Proof is in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, in the scene with klingon outpost Morska. While the crew is searching for the translation of the Klingon words, they are shown on a screen in the background. Some people may argue this is so blurred that it could be anything, when you know what it says, you can certainly recognize it - even just by the shape of the words.
I have added evidence from the BluRay:
Screen 1 shows the words:
WHAT SHIP IS THIS?
Dujvetlh 'oH nuq. rIn.
Screen 2 shows the words:
WHAT IS YOUR DESTINATION?
nuqDaq ghoS. rIn.
I am not sure where we can add this information, but it is certainly relevant, since most MA-users are very strict regarding on "screen use" and well, this IS on screen use of Okrand's spelling. It may open an entire new world of possibilities regarding the Klingon language.
--- Klingonteacher (talk) 12:43, February 8, 2017 (UTC)
- All this would mean is that the spelling of these words is canon, not the spellings in the entire language. 31dot (talk) 13:22, February 8, 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, and taken literally, you are certainly right. But I'm sure we can make more of this: It shows that when the Universal translator picks up Klingon words, they are displayed on screen using the Okrandian writing which is used and presented only inside The Klingon Dictionary. Until now, all MA author argued that Okrand's spelling is not canon at all, it didn't even exist for them. I'm not saying that all of TKD must be canon now, but at least this one image gives a very weak proof that this writing method *exists* on screen. -- Klingonteacher (talk) 14:33, February 8, 2017 (UTC)
script spelling vs. Okrand spelling Edit
Today's change makes me so %@$§& angry again! I know that you are all so strict following the policy of using what is written in the script, but we also ALL know that what is written there is taken directly from the Klingon Dictionary. So why the hell do you change back something corectly spelled into some strange script based nonsense? There are people on this world who try to learn that language, and they want to see how it'c written so they can learn from it.
Haven't you noticed, for instance, that there are about eight ways to spell the curse "Ptak"? The authors just write what they want!
So please, if you insist to show the script's bibberish, at least add a not how it's spelled correctly, at least as backgroundinformation.
Nevermind - I'll do it my self. Seeing this really pisses me of.
- If, as you say, people want to learn Klingonese, then perhaps the best source is, of course, the original source: "The Klingon Dictionary", and therefore they should be consulting that, not a wiki that is 99% dedicated to policies and things not found in the Klingon dictionary.
- Also of note, the script is written for the actors to actually be able to read and at least be able to pronounce the words written from a laymen's perspective. This is most likely why the authors write what they want eight different ways. This is evident simply by looking at how the emphasis is written in the script, so yes, it is based on Okrand's words, but it is written phonetically because they author may wish to be accurate, but he has to do so be succinct. Should that distinction be made like you suggest? Perhaps. Should we strictly adhere to the bastardized script spellings based off of the original Okrand material? Maybe. Is it ever worth getting bent out of shape about over? No.
- Finally, if you are really that emotionally affected by edits made on this wiki, in accordance to the way this wiki works, then maybe this isn't the place for you. The classic "MA response" to this can be found in the "notice" just before you click "save" which simply states: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." The classic "real world" response is to simply walk away when you find yourself to emotionally invested in an ultimately irrelevant online collaboration about something that no sane person will ever put in the highlights reel at their own funeral.
- Personally, the edits you just made look acceptable to me, but that really means little. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 17:03, March 23, 2017 (UTC)
- I also don't see a problem with the changes(though Klingonteacher needs to lighten up a bit); though I would wonder if there is a better way to display them(so that there isn't a background note under every line), though I don't know what that might be. Again, though, the information seems OK to me. 31dot (talk) 17:11, March 23, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Alan. I am familiar with the way awiki works, so I have no problem with edits being changed at all. It's just frustrating to see how the Klingon language is treated in this wiki, and from my point I just can not understand how they can be so stubbornly rejecting the Okrandian spelling which was definitely created FOR the actors, it was distributed exactly like this TO the actors, it just was not added to the script, because the Klingon phrases were translated a lot later after the script was written and distributed to the actors. As a proof, you can even see a very short glimpse of what Okrand had written and given to the actors in this screenshot seen in the documentary Credited as conlangers. You see I don't make that up. And as you see in the discussion few lines above, the Okrandian spelling is even used on the screen in Star Trek VI, while the script probably does not show those lines (I don't know)
To, me the situation, usually goes like this, using a symbolic word:
me: Picard said Qapla'.
MA: No, he said kap-LAH.
me: But it's spelled Qapla'!
MA: The script says "kap-LAH".
me: There is even an entry in wiktionary Wiktionary, why don't you accept that?!
It's like a movie script would show German words for English speakers: "He said GOO-tan tuck" and when somebody says, this is spelled "Guten Tag", then MA's policy would reject that. Yes, when one sees it like that, it's ridiculous, but that's the way it is. I accept that, but I keep fighting against it, because I am absolutely convinced that this needs to be changed at least in this one case. Rules keep changing, and it will be no loss if one day MA will accept Klingon spelling. At least we can be lucky they accept Okrand's spelling in the background information.
- I guess the core issue here is that you see the Okrand spelling as something particularly official, while the way our resource policy is set up around the concept of canon makes it that for our purposes his dictionary is only one of a large number of reference works that exist, a secondary thing. But reference works can be cited in background notes, and given how authoritative Okrand is, these notes about the Okrand spelling are both ok and a great and useful idea. I hope it's meaningful as a step forward for you too. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:20, March 24, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, that is the core issue. And actually, I am glad that over the years, Okrand's spelling has found its way into the MA, because it has not always been the case. I remember a time when TKD was not listed in Reference works, and that way of spelling was not included in the pages.
What I am actually "fighting" for, is that this spelling may be accept as official and correct, even following the canon policy. I know it is a very thin proof, but there is a very slight evidence on which I keep holding: One of the books in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is indeed entitled Okrand's Unabridged Klingon Dictionary (by the way, it's NOT visible on screen, but accepted as canon because it's visible in the props). This does not prove anything, but "Okrand" at least is accepted as a name for someone who knows about Klingon - even inside the ST universe. Next, in a message above, we see the Klingon words Dujvetlh 'oH nuq and nuqDaq ghoS. rIn which follow the refused "Okrandian spelling" written on screen. The same happened with Qo'noS, another word that came from TKD but has always been spelled as "Kronos" in all sources and scripts before Star Trek Into Darkness. So, at least these few phrases prove that the "Okrandian spelling" IS used on screen.
So my point is simply that on one hand, I agree we really do not know how captain Picard & Co. would write Klingon on their PADD, but yet we accept to display it in a very strange way some script writers decided to write it. For instance, the script for TNG: "Redemption" writes the same word ghoS once as Ghos, then on the same page ghoS and in the script of TNG: "Redemption II" as GhoS.
I'm sure that there are other words as well that script writers have spelled incorrectly, but MA decided to take the spelling, for instance, from Mike Okuda's book Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. So why can't we just agree to one common spelling that has been "suggested" by the man who made up the entire language, so that repeating words are recognized to be the same? The above ghoS example was obviously taken out of this book.
Interesting to mention is that the script for the TNG episode "Sins of the father" has a note "See reference by Marc Okrand (provided separately)." (Well, yeah, okay, that only makes it count as a production reference work, okay.)
Actually, I'm not expecting any change right now. I just wanted to make my point clear. And I will keep adding the Okrandian spelling into the background information wherever possible.
- In a sense, I think you're on the right, but I'm really not trying to have an opinion about this. In playing devil's advocate, this is ultimately something that is hard to accept because we're not dealing with a "real" language, so we can't approach it from the same perspective as we do with other things.
- As I previously established, the script spellings are phonetic spellings devised by the writers based on the Klingon Dictionary, at least from the examples I've seen. Normally we dismiss the phoenetic spellings from the script "pronunciation guide" to background info, however, in this case, the script writer forgoes the "pronunciation guide" by placing the phoenetic spellings inline, as if that was the intended spelling of the dialog. Meanwhile, in reality, they are (mostly) consulting the Klingon Dictionary for the words they are choosing, just as if they would consult their own natural (English) vocabulary in using every other word written in the script.
- So, it's not a matter of whether or not Okrand is being accepted, in as much as this being a case of, 'we have this approach on how we do things, and this topic doesn't really fit into that approach.' --Alan del Beccio (talk) 14:25, March 24, 2017 (UTC)
Okrand spelling in Discovery Edit
The Klingon language promotional material for Star Trek: Discovery uses Okrandian spelling. The very first words seen onscreen were Klingon pIqaD characters that map to that spelling. The inscription on the "coffin launch platform" on the Sarcophagus Ship uses those characters in the same way. I think it's clear that the transcription system for Klingon used in The Klingon Dictionary is confirmed as correct in on-screen Star Trek canon. --Qunchuy (talk) 18:53, October 10, 2017 (UTC)