Talk:Klingon language/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Disambiguation proposal

Re the pages A= Klingon language, B= tlhIngan Hol, and C= Klingonaase. At present, A is about Marc Okrand's tlhIngan Hol; B merely redirects to A; C is about John M. Ford's language used in novels and role-playing games; and A and C briefly refer to each other. I propose moving the contents of A to B, so that B is the actual article on tlhIngan Hol; and making A the central or disambiguation Klingon language page, directing readers to B for Okrand's (Trek-canonical) "Klingon language" and to C for Ford's (non-canonical) "Klingon language". This would be a better structure to reflect the fact that there are two different "Klingon languages" extant. (And they should remain in separate articles, not be merged, but they do both have claim on the term "Klingon language.") This central disambiguation page could also list and link to the sundry Klingon "alphabets".

Given the history of controversy and competing/conflicting edits on this topic, I'd like to see some consensus reached on such a change, before it's made. So I'm not about to "just do it," and I'd ask that no-one else "just do it" either, before there's been a chance to discuss it and get general agreement. -- SAJordan 16:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This topic is also discussed above, under Merge with Klingonaase? -- SAJordan 06:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we discuss it only one place, like here?
Klingonaase is a Klingon language, just like Piedmontese is an Italian language. If you refer to the Klingon language it is pretty unambigiously referring to the Klingon language. tlhIngan Hol isn't an English name for the language; the English language dictionary is called The Klingon Dictionary, not the tlhIngan Hol Dictionary. A Google search for Klingon language reveals pages on the Klingon language, not on Klingonaase. Klingonaase is used for that language whereever it shows up.--Prosfilaes 07:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"If you refer to the Klingon language it is pretty unambigiously referring to the Klingon language." — That's tautological.   The problem is that sometimes "the Klingon language" refers to tlhIngan Hol and sometimes it refers to klingonaase, which is why "the Klingon language" is an ambiguous term.
"tlhIngan Hol isn't an English name for the language" — And klingonaase isn't an English name for that language.   Both are referred to in English as "the Klingon language".
"A Google search for Klingon language reveals pages on the Klingon language, not on Klingonaase." — I've already given you, above, a Google search link for "Klingon language" that turns up references to Klingonaase, to John M. Ford (its creator), and to The Final Reflection and FASA (where it was used). -- SAJordan 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if they were both called the Klingon language, I still wouldn't support the move. When you say the Klingon language, people think of the language that people run around in funny headgear at Star Trek conventions spouting, of the language that showed up on Big Brother and Frasier, not the language that showed up in a couple Star Trek novels and a minor roleplaying game. In these case, the Wikipedia principle to go directly to the more frequently referred article; note Java, which goes directly to the island and links to the programming language, and House, which goes directly to the page about the structures and links to the TV show. I think such a link is unnecessary here, since we mention Klingonaase later in the article, but I wouldn't object if you added one here.--Prosfilaes 07:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"Even if they were both called the Klingon language," — Which they are. — "I still wouldn't support the move." — I'm listening. — "When you say the Klingon language, people think of"... — Not sharing your telepathic powers, I'm restricted to observing that some people say "Klingon language" and proceed to discuss klingonaase, John M. Ford, The Final Reflection, or the FASA role-playing game. Possibly this may indicate what they think of, even if it is not what you think of. Not all people think alike. -- SAJordan 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
As for your Google search, I think it important to look at the pages that actually come up. There's pages that treat the two languages as one and the same, also referring to The Klingon Dictionary; there's pages that label the Klingon language as Klingonaase, incorrectly; there's pages that actually label the two languages as the Klingon language and Klingonaase, but fail to use any of the words you excluded. What I don't see is any good reliable pages in there that I would feel okay with quoting as to Klingonaase being called Klingon. And again, even if those were good pages, the fact is that Klingon unambigiously means the Klingon language to millions of people whereas only a few have heard of Klingonaase. One language had quotes in a Star Trek novel and some language information in a roleplaying book, and another has several grammars and dictionaries (the main of which has sold millions of copies) and has shown up on prime time TV. That's a disambig link distinction, not a disambig page level distinction.--Prosfilaes 07:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"There's pages that treat the two languages as one and the same, also referring to The Klingon Dictionary" — That's right. Do they think a book titled The Klingon Dictionary must be discussing klingonaase? Do they think klingonaase is the one true and proper name for the "Klingon language"? Do they not realize that some people think of a different language as the "Klingon language"? Not being telepathic, I don't know. But it would be interesting to poll them about which language gets to occupy the page titled Klingon language. It might not be the same one you'd choose. Me, I'm willing to share, and let the Klingon language page be a Neutral Zone impartially directing readers to the two separate languages called that.
"there's pages that label the Klingon language as Klingonaase" — Yes, that's what I've been telling you. — "incorrectly" — In your opinion? That seems rather partial. We're supposed to describe, not prescribe, remember? If some people equate "Klingon language" to tlhIngan Hol, while others equate "Klingon language" to klingonaase, we're supposed to report that fact, not call one group "right" and one group "wrong".
"What I don't see is any good reliable pages in there that I would feel okay with quoting as to Klingonaase being called Klingon." — Is this also tautological? That is, haven't you already declared that those who do refer to klingonaase as "Klingon" are "incorrect" and therefore no such page can ever be reliable, by definition?
"the fact is that Klingon unambiguously means the Klingon language" — Again, this is tautological. The problem is that both terms, "Klingon" and "Klingon language", mean tlhIngan Hol to some people, mean klingonaase to other people, mean both languages to still other people,... and some people aren't even aware that there's a difference. A disambiguation page could explain the difference, then link people to whichever language it was they came looking to learn about — which might turn out to be either or both. -- SAJordan 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, here are some "data points" from active Klingon-fan websites:
  • In a Klingon.org thread on Klingon Language, a newer member asks for suggested starting points to learn "the Klingon language". An older member replies, "To which Klingon language does the one refer? As for klingonaase, this thread contains more information than any other source I have seen. As for learning the tlhIngan Hol, the first step is to obtain a copy of The Klingon Dictionary".... By "this thread" he appears to indicate Klingon Imperial Forums > Klingon Arts, Language & Culture > Klingon Language > Klingonaase.   Note that both members are using terms from The Final Reflection: the elder's title "Thought Master" and the newer member's pejorative "khest".   Note also that by asking "To which Klingon language does the one refer?" the elder indicates an ambiguity in the term "Klingon language", and then he disambiguates by using the names "klingonaase" and "tlhIngan Hol" — exactly what I am suggesting we do here.
  • On the HomeWorld! page of KlingonEmpire.net, klingonaase words are used and translated in quoting the motto from The Final Reflection: "If it is not Komerex (a structure which grows), then it must be Khestorex (a structure which dies)." (Boldface red in the original; the only other words on the page so marked are the page title and final note.)   Note again the use of a title from the book, in the dispute-arbitration section: "... Final Judgment will be sought from the Thought Admiral."
  • The largest Klingon fan club in Europe is Khemorex Klinzhai!, whose very name and URL are in klingonaase.
  • The Klingon Legion of Assault Warriors (KLAW) "is first and foremost a Star Trek fan organization, based on the Klingon ideology. To this end we adopt a Klingon, or as we prefer, a Klin attitude in our dealings among ourselves and others." (emphasis added)   Note that klin is the klingonaase word for the Klingon essence; it has no meaning in tlhIngan Hol.
Prosfilaes, above you say, "I think it important to look at the pages that actually come up."   So I've done that.   Will these examples suffice, or do you require more?
Above you argue, "When you say the Klingon language, people think of the language that people run around in funny headgear at Star Trek conventions spouting".   From these actual online examples, at least some of the time what they're "spouting" is klingonaase.   So I think you've just provided the grounds for recognizing klingonaase as one of the two languages referred to as "the Klingon language". -- SAJordan 04:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not using reliable to mean I like it. WP:RS sets the lower limit on reliable sources: "Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources." For this issue, I would consider the published books--"The Final Reflection", the FASA RPG supplements, "The Klingon Dictionary", "Klingon for the Galactic Traveler" and successive publications--and the main webpages of the Klingon Language Institute as the really reliable sources. --Prosfilaes 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
As sources for the vocabulary and syntax of their respective languages (the first two for klingonaase and the remainder for tlhIngan Hol), yes — but that's not the subject under discussion here. Your comment on "reliable" was "as to Klingonaase being called Klingon." Leave aside the detail that The Final Reflection was about Klingons (not Romulans, Andorians, or Tholians), because you weren't talking just about the source texts: you yourself cited online usage in your argument — "A Google search for Klingon language reveals pages on the Klingon language, not on Klingonaase." Now that I've shown that claim to be erroneous, and that there is extensive online usage of "Klingon"⇔"klingonaase", suddenly you repudiate the basis of your own argument, and now you don't want any reference to online usage.
Except, singularly, the webpages of the Klingon Language Institute (which is devoted specifically to Okrand's tlhIngan Hol), right?   That's special pleading, but okay, I'll let you have that as a reliable source on "the Klingon language".   And here at the Index to HolQed (Journal of the KLI), which says at the top that "Klingon words are in bold type", we find in bold type entries like "kai (Klingonaase word of greeting or salute)", "klingonaase", and "komerex zha (Klingonaase)".   By the source you have cited as reliable, these klingonaase words are "Klingon words" — even though they're not tlhIngan Hol words.
Will you once again repudiate a source you yourself had pointed to?
Oh, and please note the entry "tlhIngan Hol vs. klingonaase", with both terms boldfaced (and thus "Klingon words").   When the KLI wants to distinguish between the two languages, it unambiguously refers to Okrand's as tlhIngan Hol — rather than putting "Klingon language" on just one side and "Klingonaase" on the other, as you did. -- SAJordan 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Going back to sources that are canon for Klingonaase, the name of Klingonaase in English is not the Klingon language. Page 8 of the 1984 Pocket Books paperback edition of The Final Reflection says "He also knew that only a half dozen of the ship's complement spoke Klingonese." In the sources I consider really reliable, I don't think the name "the Klingon language" was ever used for Klingonaase. --Prosfilaes 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Page 17 of the same edition: "... Klingon culture and language." (Nearly the last page of the human/Federation preface, after which the viewpoint characters are Klingons using their own language's term for itself.) -- SAJordan 05:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Even being generous and considering non-reliable sources, a person who doesn't know that Okrand's Klingon and Klingonaase are different languages is so uninformed as to make their opinions useless. Of the links you gave, only the first shows Klingonaase being called Klingon; the rest merely show the use of Klingonaase by Klingon groups, a use that's not surprising. --Prosfilaes 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not surprising that Klingon groups use klingonaase, since they do consider it a Klingon language; that's the same reason they use tlhIngan Hol. But why would they ever use klingonaase at all if they don't consider it a Klingon language? -- SAJordan 05:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that anyone still thinks of Klingonaase as the Klingon language, given that it is incredibly obscure and Okrand's Klingon language has entered the public knowledge. --Prosfilaes 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
See above.   The KLI lists klingonaase words as "Klingon words".   Your own cited source, Prosfilaes; your own reliable source. -- SAJordan 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there is some continued use of Klingonaase by people. But the language used at conventions was not the whole of my argument. It's the language used on TV shows, Star Trek and Fraiser, as Klingon; it's the language established by Paramount as the Klingon language; it's the language published as the Klingon language. The Klingon Dictionary, The Klingon Hamlet, Gilgamesh: A Klingon Translation, and Much Ado About Nothing: The Restored Klingon Text, do not feel a need to make sure that people aren't confused by their use of the word Klingon in referring to the language. None of the reviewers on Amazon's page for the Klingon Hamlet, or any of the other translations, choose to point out that it's in Okrand's Klingon, not Klingonaase, a fact left unnoted on the page. I don't know of a single reliable source that calls Klingonaase Klingon. --Prosfilaes 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Now you do.   You cited it as "reliable" yourself.   The Klingon Language Institute even sells copies of The Final Reflection along with the books you mention, and here is their description of it:

Before there was tlhIngan Hol there was klingonaase. This novel by John M. Ford provided the template for much of Klingon fandom. If you've always wondered what that "other" Klingon language was this book will reveal it to you.

There you see an open and honest acknowledgement.   That "other" Klingon language.   Precisely. -- SAJordan 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
And again, you ignore the point that a disambig page would not be following Wikipedia precedent. Java doesn't go to the programming language or to a disambig page. Given that one is a small collection of words and phrases that are not canon in Paramount's view, and the last published information about it was published over 20 years ago, and the other is a real language that is actively being published on and in, a disambig link at the top of the page is a much more appropriate solution, since you seem to think it necessary, than to move the page. --Prosfilaes 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
"Precedent"? — Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines are explicit, not precedent-based case law, but there are ample precedents if you need them.   Some are far more relevant than your example of Java (island vs. computer-programming language), because they're disambiguating human languages, e.g. Alemannic, Filipino English, Gaelic, and Norse (West, East, Proto-, and Old — this doesn't even go into modern variations of written Norwegian: Nynorsk vs. Høgnorsk vs. Bokmål vs. Riksmål).   (Oh, and pardon my French.)
Specifically for entries titled "*group* language", where *group* has more than one language, note that the entries don't just discuss one of them: in fact, then the (singular) "language" page may redirect to a (plural) "languages" page, e.g. Iranian language → Iranian languages, and Gaelic language → Goidelic languages.   Perhaps Klingon language should redirect to Klingon languages for the list including klingonaase, tlhIngan Hol, and the various alphabets. -- SAJordan 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Since there wasn't already a Klingon languages page, I created one as a first approximation of a disambiguation page.   This way we're not arguing over vaporware; we can see what we're discussing, and maybe even improve it.   If we ever actually make the change being proposed, we've got something to redirect Klingon language to, while tlhIngan Hol becomes a real page in itself. -- SAJordan 05:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"Actively"? — Fan fiction still actively features klingonaase (example from the KAG periodical: "A Close Encounter of the Green Kind: an excerpt from the new book"...); Klingon fan groups (whom you willingly cited as examples of active usage when you thought they only used tlhIngan Hol) still actively use klingonaase even in clubnames, personal names, and statements of principle; the WorldWide Web wasn't around in 1984, but it's loaded with klingonaase references now.   So how can you insinuate that klingonaase softly and suddenly vanished away "over 20 years ago"?
By the way, How Much for Just the Planet? was first published less than 20 years ago... and Ford's Star Trek novels have kept being reprinted, both of them in the Worlds Apart set, and The Final Reflection together with Peter David's Kahless in the Hand of Kahless set.   If this makes them old, outdated, or worn out, it makes The Klingon Dictionary (1985, over 20 years ago) just as much so.   IF we're going to use a single standard and not a double standard, that is.
But if you want to make relative age (all of one year's difference, TFR 1984 vs. TKD 1985) the deciding factor, then the older language should have first claim.   For example, at Norse you saw listed:
  • West Norse, describing the modern languages of Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic within the North Germanic language group.
  • East Norse, describing the modern languages of Danish and Swedish within the North Germanic language group.
  • Proto-Norse language, the Indo-European language in use from 100 B.C. to 800 A.D., predecessor of Old Norse
  • Old Norse language, the Germanic language in use from 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D.
And which do you see when you go to Norse language?   Not the modern languages, and not the proto-not-there-yet, but Old Norse, the first longboat in the water.   Just as klingonaase came before tlhIngan Hol, though both of them came after the "proto-" few words in ST:TMP.
Yet we don't have to deny that "West Norse" and "East Norse", along with "Old Norse" and "Proto-Norse", are all "Norse" languageS.   The Norse entry lists them all, and disambiguates.   Likewise, the Klingon language page can list and disambiguate klingonaase, tlhIngan Hol, and even James Doohan's few words ("proto-Klingon"?), along with all the alphabets.
If you insist that the oldest (or the incomplete) should be pushed onto an ice floe and out to sea, then Doohan's words would go too.   That would be really awkward, because Okrand incorporated them into tlhIngan Hol — so if they're not "Klingon", then part of tlhIngan Hol isn't "Klingon".   Your only way out of that age-dilemma is not to set it up in the first place. -- SAJordan 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue this conversation if you insist on making it personal.--Prosfilaes 12:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
How is my "if you insist" (or your "if you insist") making it "personal"?   I've said nothing — good or bad — about you as a person.   I have addressed your arguments.

You have argued that "Klingon language" should not be a disambiguation page, but remain devoted to one of the two languages, based on assertions about what various sources say.   Upon investigation, the sources turn out to say differently, as documented above.
  • Googling "Klingon language" finds pages only on Okrand's language on both languages.
  • Klingon groups use only Okrand's language both languages.
  • The Klingon Language Institute denotes as "Klingon language" and "Klingon words" only Okrand's language both languages.
  • The Final Reflection itself (which could not have mentioned Okrand since his dictionary hadn't been published yet) does not does refer to klingonaase as a "Klingon language".
  • Wikipedia does not does use disambiguation pages to link different human languages that are referred to by the same term.   A valid example would be Java (an island vs a programming language named after it) Alemannic, Gaelic, Norse, and Filipino English — the latter meaning either "English as spoken in the Philippines" (Philippine English) or "Tagalog heavily mixed with English words" (Taglish).
In your earlier responses, you repudiated your own initially cited sources as unreliable, once it was clear they'd contradicted you.   In the latest round, your own more recently cited sources were (once again) found to contradict you.   Will you therefore (a) concede, (b) again repudiate your own sources, or (c) not respond substantively at all?

This is not making the conversation "personal"; it continues to be about the factual claims and advocated policies on the issue at hand, what to do with the "Klingon language" page. -- SAJordan 14:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
How many times was "you" used in that last paragraph? "Your own cited source, Prosfilaes; your own reliable source" was completely unneccessary and personal, to cite just one example.--Prosfilaes 12:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
So referring to your sources and arguments is "completely unnecessary and personal" — even though neither of those are in fact you, and one could not address the prior discussion here without referring to them?   And all this time I should have been taking as personal attacks these phrases in which the word "you" refers to me?

If you refer to the Klingon language .... When you say the Klingon language .... Of the links you gave .... And again, you ignore the point .... since you seem to think it necessary .... I'm not going to continue this conversation if you insist on making it personal.

It seems you've been "making it personal" all along — by the standard offered above — although it certainly isn't a standard I'd been acquainted with before this exchange. -- SAJordan 07:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet another data point, this from a source among the main page's external links, The sentence "Okrand reviewed the linguistic material available and on this basis invented the language known as tlhIngan Hol." has a footnote: "There is more than one Klingon language. Most notable is Klingonaase from John M. Ford's novel 'The final reflection' (1984)"
Just to drag this discussion back to the topic: having "more than one Klingon language" calls for "Klingon language" to be a disambiguation page linking to the different languages grouped under that heading, tlhIngan Hol and klingonaase — as with other languages, and unlike "best known person of those sharing a name".
Further discussion?   Comments?   Objections?   -- SAJordan 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
And having more than one Italian langauge doesn't call for Italian language to be a disambiguation page?--Prosfilaes 13:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Referring again to Piedmontese et al.? But your question is answered at Italian language, in the section on Dialects and regional languages of Italy — which lists Piedmontese, a regional language pertaining to northwest Italy, and specifically to Piedmont.
This might be a relevant example if klingonaase were presented as a dialect of tlhIngan Hol, or as a regional language spoken only in some region of the Klingon homeworld or one of the colony planets — but the two languages are distinct (although tlhIngan Hol has imported klingonaase terms, e.g. klin zha → tlhIn Sa); and each is spoken across the Klingon Empire in fiction; and both are used by Klingon fans in the real world (as amply cited above).
Compare the disambiguation page examples cited above, including Filipino English — whose two referents are likewise both spoken across the Philippines. -- SAJordan 06:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason why Italian language isn't a disambig page has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that Italian is called Italian and Piedmontese is called Piedmontese. --Prosfilaes 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, tlhIngan Hol is called tlhIngan Hol, and klingonaase is called klingonaase.   Both are called "Klingon" — even by the Klingon Language Institute, as cited earlier, after that had been agreed upon as a reliable source — which is what makes "Klingon language" an ambiguous reference. -- SAJordan 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Klingon is primarily spoken in America by Americans; that doesn't mean that American language needs to start listing Klingon. --Prosfilaes 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"Klingon" (both klingonaase and tlhIngan Hol) will be found cited above as spoken both in and out of America, by both Americans and non-Americans (for instance, Khemorex Klinzhai! is a European group), so the above argument seems based on not only demonstrable but already demonstrated falsehood. -- SAJordan 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Both may be used by Klingon fans, but only one is spoken by Klingon fans, because Klingonaase isn't a real language; it's a small set of vocabulary, with no phonology or grammar. --Prosfilaes 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"Both may be used by Klingon fans, but only one is spoken by Klingon fans,..."
That simply isn't true, and a number of citations for the contrary have been given above, including klingonaase names for the group Khemorex Klinzhai! and individual members (e.g. epetai-, sutai-) of that and other groups (KAG and KLAW among them), and mottos and statements of principle.   Or does the one contend that these others never speak their own names, titles, mottos, principles, or group names? -- SAJordan 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"... because Klingonaase isn't a real language; it's a small set of vocabulary, with no phonology or grammar."
Against that uncredentialed personal opinion we need merely weigh the above agreed and cited reliable source, the Klingon Language Institute, which refers to klingonaase as a language, and specifically a Klingon language. -- SAJordan 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between "the other Klingon language" and "Klingon culture and language" and calling it Klingon. "The other English language" and "English culture and language" could refer to Cornish, but that doesn't mean that Cornish is called Klingon.--Prosfilaes 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a reprise of the Piedmontese argument, still carefully ignoring the detail that Piedmontese and Cornish are (or were), as their names indicate, regional languages.
A speaker of Philippine English might refer to Taglish as "the other Filipino English"... and in fact the "Filipino English" page is a disambiguation page pointing to "Philippine English" and "Taglish" as the non-ambiguous names.
Replace "Filipino English" with "Klingon language", "Philippine English" with "tlhIngan Hol", and "Taglish" with "klingonaase", and the same ought to be true. -- SAJordan 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't break up other people's edits on the talk page. I'm not going to respond; you aren't discussing this, you're debating this, and I don't think John M. Ford coming back from the grave and disagreeing with you could change your mind now.--Prosfilaes 10:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"You don't break up other people's edits on the talk page."
Fair enough.   Break removed to resume original format, comment put after the whole paragraph, now using italicized quotes to indicate which parts are being addressed by replies.
"I'm not going to respond;..."
That decision, whether or not to respond, is everyone's prerogative, right, and choice, of course.
"... you aren't discussing this, you're debating this,..."
To borrow someone's comment from above:   How many times was "you" used in that last paragraph?   [It] was completely unneccessary and personal....
More directly and far more to the point:
  1. Discussing the pros and cons of a proposed action is generally known as "debate" ("1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints").   Conversely, "debating" is also still "discussing".
  2. We have both, and I stress both, made clear, from our first respective entries on this topic, that we had opinions one way or the other, i.e. for or against the proposal, and that we were offering reasons why others should share our opinions — which is engaging in "debate" ("2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers").
  3. One of the reasons these talk pages exist — particularly in the case of "proposal" sections — is so that proposed actions, before they are taken (or not taken, as the case may be), can be subjected to "debate" ("3. deliberation; consideration").
  4. Some important requirements for a good discussion or debate are that it be civil, honest, rational, and fair — not strewn with personal attacks, or falsehoods, or fallacies, or foul play.
  5. I'd hoped for such a discussion or debate.   I'm open to differing opinions so offered.   I'm less amenable to verbal bullying and "because-I-said-so"-type arguments, assertions already shown to be false to fact (e.g. "only one is spoken by Klingon fans"), the recycling of fallacies already explained (e.g. the "Piedmontese"/"Cornish" false analogy), and attempts to overturn the chess board with false accusations.
"I don't think John M. Ford coming back from the grave and disagreeing with you could change your mind now."
It would depend on the argument — facts and reasoning — he offered.   Neither he nor anyone else should get away with false "facts" or invalid "reasoning".   Had John M. Ford come here to claim that "only one [language] is spoken by Klingon fans", in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, I'd have been entitled to the same incredulity — whether he'd come here alive, or borne down from Heaven in the arms of angels on a ray of Divine Light. -- SAJordan 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion

One of you asked for a third opinion on this disambiguation idea.

Frankly, I found the above discussion enlightening. I do not consider myself a trekkie, but I do consider myself a Star Trek fan (there's a difference, believe me). I did not know that there were two Klingon languages. Were I to look up "Klingon language" on Wikipedia the first thing I would want to discover was that there was more then one. The current intro to the Klingon Language page does mention towards the end that there is another Klingon language, but I agree with SAJordan that it would better serve as a disambiguation page. Barring that, at least have a dab link or otheruses template at the top.

I think if this page is to be a disambiguation page it will need to go into a little bit more detail then a disambiguation page normally does, simply because people won't know which link they want otherwise.

I found that this statement reflected my views perfectly:

and some people aren't even aware that there's a difference. A disambiguation page could explain the difference, then link people to whichever language it was they came looking to learn about — which might turn out to be either or both.

Explaining the difference goes beyond the usual function of a disambiguation page, but I think in this instance it would be important to do, so ignore all rules. At any rate, that's my two cents. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your viewpoint!   Well, take a look at Klingon languages (plural), the draft I put up during the above discussion.   Does that meet your expectations?   If not, please suggest or make improvements.   I'm suggesting the current contents of Klingon language be moved to tlhIngan Hol, and the Klingon language page itself become a redirect to Klingon languages. -- SAJordan 22:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd actually prefer to keep the description of tlhIngan Hol on the Klingon language page and add a disambiguation link on the top of the page, that says something along the lines of: — This article is about the Klingon language used in the Star Trek movies and series. For the language used by John M. Ford in his Star Trek novels and in the role play games, see Klingonaase. — I think the current Klingon languages page gives too much information that might overwhelm and scare off a reader who does not know very much about this topic. Another thing is, that in 98% of all cases (or even more), people are indeed looking for tlhIngan Hol when they visit the Klingon language page. In my humble opinion as a Star Trek fan, linguist and learner of Klingon, this might be a good consense. — N-true 00:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at Klingon languages and re-arranged it some in an effort to make it easier to navigate. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you're trying for... but consider this distinction made by the prior version. Prior to the first movie, "Klingon language" was truly "fictional" in the sense of not actually existing — no word of such a language was ever actually spoken in any TOS episode; it was only referred to (as "Klingonese") by Korax in "The Trouble with Tribbles", establishing its story-world existence, which is why that quote appeared after definition #1 (the language(s) supposedly spoken by Klingons). With the movie's few words, then Ford's 1984 novel, then Okrand's work, actual words could be seen and heard — even though the Klingons themselves remain fictional — creating what is chronologically the second meaning, the actually existing real-world constructed languages for use by story characters, or by real people acting the parts of (or emulating) Klingons. Here the subsets become the two "spoken" languages plus the several "writing systems".
As rearranged, the two distinct meanings are not separated, and the quote illustrating meaning #1 is moved to the opposite end of the page from the meaning it illustrates.
The importance of keeping the distinction clear is demonstrated higher on this page, where two editors dispute whether a line of dialogue from Enterprise should appear in the article. The line is by a story-world linguist describing the story-world Klingon language in terms which may be presumed meaningful and true, even authoritative (canonical), in that story-world. The problem is that those terms are not both meaningful and true if describing Okrand's constructed language as documented in this world. There is a conflict between the story-world canon and the actual characteristics of the real-world language. Therefore I'd prefer to keep meanings #1 and #2 marked out, and separately exemplified, as in the prior version. Would you agree to this? -- SAJordan 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I still think the way you had it originally was a little confusing. I put the quote back near the top and put the entries back into the order in which you had them. I tried to expand it a bit to make the distinction still more clear than it was. Do you think it's better now? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you! And I've just tried to expand it a bit further, keeping to the chronological structure (and therefore moving mention of ST:TMP to the "constructed languages" portion). Does that also help? -- SAJordan 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that's good. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)