Thanks for your thoughts, Mark. I'd like to respond to your post briefly.
I agree on all points. I do not think it would ever grow very large,
but as I have noted in the past I don't think Wikipedia creation should be limited by such factors.
That's certainly good to know, although I do not know how many of your fellow W-listers share this point of view.
The difference is that Klingon had a huge debate, and it had people
who committed to contributing who apparently gave up because it was too difficult (!), while most of the languages that lie inactive were requested by non-fluent speakers at some time in the distant past and were created without any debate.
Well, I have no wish to create a huge debate to create a Quenya wikipedia section. Either it will be allowed or it won't. However, if one is created, or a wikibooks section is provided, I don't intend to give up on such a project, and I might add that I believe Quenya-language scholars are quite a dedicated lot. Pages such as http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/birth.htm (a translation of big passages from the Bible into Quenya), etc can give you a fair idea that Quenya is workable. RL publications such as Vinyar Tengwar and Tyalie Tyelellieva, Quenya language periodical publications, have been around for decades. Fans were compiling dictionaries on Quenya ever since the series was published in the 1950's. So Quenya scholarship isn't some fly-by-night operation. And predates Klingon by some years.
Klingon and Gothic are the only two controversial Wikipedias that were
actually created that so far haven't attracted many users. At least one person has committed to me to add to the Gothic Wikipedia but I'm not sure I entirely believe that. The Klingon Wikipedia is currently suffering from the problems resulting from the fact that some people think they should use Conscript registry codepoints for piqad, while others think they should use the Roman alphabet.
Well, that's all Greek to me. Actually, it's Klingon to me. ;)
However, I strongly urge you to think over your request carefully. Is
knowledge of Quenya grammar and vocabulary extensive enough that you could translate a good, long article on a real-world modern subject?
Yes. See examples above, or check out http://www.forodrim.org/daeron/md_home.html (none of these are my sites, I'll add, but you can see the translations can be quite extensive... certainly as long as many encyclopedia articles).
What would you do when you encoutered words or grammatical structures
that are not known from those writings of Tolkien which are currently publicly available?
There is always a way around, Mark, and it's certainly not too 'difficult'. I've been writing in Quenya for years (in such publications as Tyalie Tyelellieva). The going can be slow, but articles in sciences such as Botany, Astronomy, etc, aren't all that difficult, because Tolkien's fictional elves had a love of these subjects, so there is absolutely plenty to work with in terms of the language.
As there is no Ethnologue code, I propose we use the Linguist List
code (http://cf.linguistlist.org/cfdocs/new-website/LL-WorkingDirs/forms/langs/Get...), QYA, thus art-qya as the language code.
I certainly don't object to your proposal.
Of course, this is if and only if the Wikipedia is created.
Of course.
As far as I know, there are more fluent speakers of Klingon than of Quenya.
Although the *media* reports the use of Klingon more frequently than Quenya, I've seen no data to back this up. A quick google search pulls up 133,000 hits for Quenya, but only 14,000 hits for tlhIngan (the Klingon language). That's a considerable difference.
Again, thanks for your opinions and ideas, Mark.
Ron :)
As far as I know, there are more fluent speakers of Klingon than of Quenya.
Although the *media* reports the use of Klingon more frequently than Quenya, I've seen no data to back this up. A quick google search pulls up 133,000 hits for Quenya, but only 14,000 hits for tlhIngan (the Klingon language). That's a considerable difference.
The difference here is that "quenya" is the name of the language in English and many other languages, while "tlhIngan" is in Klingon.
While there is no data to back either claim up, my vote is for Klingon. I know real people who speak fluent Klingon, but you are the first Quenya speaker.
Mark
Ron H wrote:
Although the *media* reports the use of Klingon more frequently than
Quenya,
I've seen no data to back this up. A quick google search pulls up
133,000
hits for Quenya, but only 14,000 hits for tlhIngan (the Klingon
language).
That's a considerable difference.
You shall not misinterpret Google to your own advantages. Using Google I come up with 121,000 "Quenya" results and 983,000 "Klingon" ones. Now *that* is even more of a difference, isn't it?
And I have to agree with Mark that there are in all likelyhood more speakers of Klingon than of Quenya (and perhaps even Sindarin). Randomly running into a Klingonist is more likely than finding someone who can really say something in Quenya (that is to say, more than just some phrases from the movies or the books).
Uhm... I might have to add that I'm not really against a Wikipedia in Quenya, but I fear that in future more and more conlangs might ask for a Wikipedia. Certainly Esperanto, Volapük or Interlingua isn't point of objection, but I understand that Klingon was (although I support it widely).
I was once one of the contributers to the tlhIngan Hol wIqIpe'Diya, and I must admit that it somewhat lost its appeal for me, for no special reason. It's not difficult or hard to translate or write articles in Klingon, it's fun, it's widening one's knowledge of the language and I actually did enjoy writing articles for it. I'd still do, but private reasons keep me from that... and I wonder why other Klingonists don't contribute (or seldomly do).
There is no guarantee that it'll be different for the Quenya Wikipedia. It was the same for the Volapük one (for which I also wrote some entries), as well as for many natural language.
*My* biggest problems with the Klingon Wikipedia were the following two issues:
a) What to do with proper names like "America", "Peking" or "George Bush"? Should they be kept in their English equivalent (since in Star Trek, Klingons had more contact with English speakers) and just be italicized or marked {otherwise}? Or should they be klingonified and adepted to the Klingon way of syllabic writing, such as "'amerIqa", "peyqIng", "jorIj buS"? And if yes, then should geographic names be klingonified in their own language's way or by the English way? Should it be "peyqIng" and "'InDIya" or "beyjIng" and "barat" instead?
b) What to do with words that don't exist in Klingon/Quenya? I usually tried to make them up from other words, like "browser" ---> "page viewer" and so on. Using loan words like "bIrawSer" or even "browser" I consider inappropriate.
Granted, these issues need not come up until the Wikipedia is created and editable, but I think it's worth mentioning...
That's all, just wanted to bring up some constructive criticism.
- André (N-true)
André Müller wrote:
Ron H wrote:
Although the *media* reports the use of Klingon more frequently than
Quenya,
I've seen no data to back this up. A quick google search pulls up
133,000
hits for Quenya, but only 14,000 hits for tlhIngan (the Klingon
language).
That's a considerable difference.
You shall not misinterpret Google to your own advantages. Using Google I come up with 121,000 "Quenya" results and 983,000 "Klingon" ones. Now *that* is even more of a difference, isn't it?
Something to keep in mind is that various Google user settings and other circumstances can modify the number of hits you'll receive for a given search. By default, for instance, Google image search supposedly filters out porn, but this can be altered. This might fall under the heading of "assume good faith" when your experience disagrees with the numbers presented for a Google search.
-- Chad
You shall not misinterpret Google to your own advantages. Using Google I
come up with 121,000 "Quenya" results and 983,000 "Klingon" ones. Now *that* is even more of a difference, isn't it?
No, it isn't, Andre :) . It's a difference of a factor of 10, which is the same as my results. Only thing is: "Klingon" is the name of both the *race* and the *language*. Quenya is only the name of the language. So naturally 'Klingon' gets more hits. To me, THAT seems a misinterpretation.
I was discussing with Mark the number of *fluent* speakers of Quenya vs *fluent* speakers of Klingon. Naturally, fluent speakers are more likely to use the Klingon word for "Klingon", just as fluent speakers of Quenya are more likely to refer to 'Quenya' rather than "Elf-latin" (the English term for Quenya).
In other words, "Quenya" (the word for Tolkien's elf-latin IN elf-latin) returns 121,000 results, and the the word for "Klingon" IN Klingon returns far, far fewer results. I don't think that's a misinterpretation, as I was simply discussing the number of fluent speakers of each language. I speak Spanish, and when I'm speaking Spanish, I say "Hablo español,", not "Hablo Spanish."
I actually tried this google search with several words in both languages. "Macil" (Quenya for "sword") returned 10,200 results. "Makil", an alternate spelling, returned 6,440 results. "Hyanda", another alternate, returned 3,430 results. " 'etlh", the Klingon word for sword, returned just 3,430 results.
"Aurë", Quenya "day" returned 4,350 results. "DaHjaj" ("today" in Klingon) returned just 1,360 results.
I considered testing more words (for example, 'east', 'west', 'north' and 'south'), but Klingon doesn't have words for most of these directions. And some Klingon words return results for Hebrew or Asian languages. Same for Quenya. Which somewhat defeats the point of searching for results on google.
And I have to agree with Mark that there are in all likelyhood more
speakers of Klingon than of Quenya (and perhaps even Sindarin). Randomly running into a Klingonist is more likely than finding someone who can really say something in Quenya (that is to say, more than just some phrases from the movies or the books).
I'm not sure I agree with this. Though the television media has always mentioned Klingon frequently, it's important to note that Klingon was *invented* by the television mass-media. So there's bound to be a bias. Plus, your statement ignores the thousands of Russian Tolkien liguists (and there *are* thousands).
Uhm... I might have to add that I'm not really against a Wikipedia in
Quenya, but I fear that in future more and more conlangs might ask for a Wikipedia. Certainly Esperanto, Volapük or Interlingua isn't point of objection, but I understand that Klingon was (although I support it widely).
I can certainly understand that fear. Let me ask: how many conlangs have devoted followings with workable languages (ie, a fairly full vocabulary: approximately 10,000 words) and enough scholarly source material (dictionaries, primers, etc) to back up translations? And people who speak the tongue fluently who are willing to contribute many articles to wikipedia? I actually don't know, but I suspect there can't be very many. All JMHO, of course. And I could be wrong.
*My* biggest problems with the Klingon Wikipedia were the following two
issues:
a) What to do with proper names like "America", "Peking" or "George Bush"? Should they be kept in their English equivalent (since in Star Trek, Klingons had more contact with English speakers) and just be italicized or marked {otherwise}? Or should they be klingonified and adepted to the Klingon way of syllabic writing, such as "'amerIqa", "peyqIng", "jorIj buS"? And if yes, then should geographic names be klingonified in their own language's way or by the English way? Should it be "peyqIng" and "'InDIya" or "beyjIng" and "barat" instead?
b) What to do with words that don't exist in Klingon/Quenya? I usually
tried to make them up from other words, like "browser" ---> "page viewer" and so on. Using loan words like "bIrawSer" or even "browser" I consider inappropriate.
These are good questions. As far as *Quenya* goes, I've always tried to NOT translate proper names ("George Bush", etc), but whenever possible try to find a workaround for words such as "browser", and most Quenya linguists are the same, at least in that last respect.
Granted, these issues need not come up until the Wikipedia is created
and editable, but I think it's worth mentioning... That's all, just wanted to bring up some constructive criticism.
And I appreciate your criticism. Thanks.
Ron (firsfron on wikipedia) :)
Ron H wrote:
No, it isn't, Andre :) . It's a difference of a factor of 10, which is
the same as my results. Only thing is: "Klingon" is the name of both the *race* and the *language*. Quenya is only the name of the language. So naturally 'Klingon' gets more hits. To me, THAT seems a misinterpretation.
[...]
Hmm... okay, I see your point. But then again, I think it's difficult in that matter to really estimate how many resources on the net mention the Klingon language and which one mention Quenya as a language. Quenya refers only to the language, so it's valuable. Klingon refers to the language, the species, the individuals and it's the general adverb as well. In fact, the word "tlhIngan" does this as well (just in another language), but "Quenya" covers the name for the language in most other languages (it's Quenya in English, Quenya, German, French, etc.) while "tlhIngan (Hol)" is only in the Klingon language. And on the other hand, it's "Klingonisch" in German and as far as I know, other language also have different names for it. I think Google doesn't prove much here.
As for the words, thing is that many Quenya sites just list the words or some of them just for interest. You know, for those who want to have an Elvish name. For Klingon that's seldom the case, I'd say. I'm also sure that counterproofs can be found, which have more hits in Klingon than in Quenya. So Google might not be that helpful here, either.
I can certainly understand that fear. Let me ask: how many conlangs
have devoted followings with workable languages (ie, a fairly full vocabulary: approximately 10,000 words) and enough scholarly source material (dictionaries, primers, etc) to back up translations? And people who speak the tongue fluently who are willing to contribute many articles to wikipedia? I actually don't know, but I suspect there can't be very many. All JMHO, of course. And I could be wrong.
Hm, 'fullness' (is that a word?) of vocabulary isn't always the main point. Volapük has a quite large vocabulary, also modern words. I own a good (but antique) Volapük dictionary myself. Still there are more Klingon entries than Volapük ones, although Klingon only has about 2750 words. Probably because Volapük isn't very well-known, not sure...
And the next question: If you support a Quenya Wikipedia, would you also vote for a Sindarin one? That might be soon point of discussion too, if the Quenya one will be granted.
I'm not really sure if I should be for or against it, but in my opinion, Quenya and Sindarin have about the same status as Klingon.
Greetings, - André
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:34:07 +0000, Ron H aceron99@hotmail.com wrote:
No, it isn't, Andre :) . It's a difference of a factor of 10, which is the same as my results. Only thing is: "Klingon" is the name of both the *race* and the *language*. Quenya is only the name of the language. So naturally 'Klingon' gets more hits. To me, THAT seems a misinterpretation.
I was discussing with Mark the number of *fluent* speakers of Quenya vs *fluent* speakers of Klingon. Naturally, fluent speakers are more likely to use the Klingon word for "Klingon", just as fluent speakers of Quenya are more likely to refer to 'Quenya' rather than "Elf-latin" (the English term for Quenya).
I have no wish to extend this discussion inordinately, but this point doesn't strike me as credible. 'Elf-latin' may be the formal English name for Quenya, but it is very clear that English speakers, even those unfamiliar with Quenya, do routinely call it "Quenya", not 'Elf-latin'. For proof you need look no further than this thread.
I don't see how Google rankings will be of much use here. 'Klingon' will return a lot of junk about Star Trek, mostly in English. 'tlhIngan' will probably hit a lot of stuff in Klingon. 'Quenya' will return both stuff in Quenya and stuff in English (or other languages). Since the two are commingled, I can't see how you can get any results out of this.
Steve
And the next question:
If you support a Quenya Wikipedia, would you also vote for a Sindarin one? That might be soon point of discussion too, if the Quenya one will be granted.
Sindarin? Eww. ;)
At this time, I have no interest in a Sindarin Wikipedia. I don't speak the language (aside from a few simple phrases). Of Tolkien's many fictional languages, only Sindarin and Quenya are complete enough to compose Wiki articles. So Orquin (as the Orcish language is called in "The Lost Road") isn't viable as a wikipedia language. Only S and Q.
Yet I have no interest in Sindarin, and would like to tackle just the Quenya language (one project seems enough). I wouldn't *oppose* a Sindarin Wikipedia, but I couldn't work on it.
Ron :)
There is IMHO not enough official Quenya vocabulary to create an
encyclopedia. A Wiktionary would be OK, but a Wikipedia would have to use a lot of words made up by the fans - it's a bad idea for me.
Prior to 1998, Ausir, you'd be right. Up until that year, only around 1,000 Quenya words were known. These were published in Nancy Martsch's "Basic Quenya" book. However, with the publication of the Qenya Lexicon in 1998, thousands of additional entries (4,109) were added. These entries are, I assure you, quite official, and fully authorized by the Tolkien estate. But if you are basing your opinion on the old situation, I hope you will consider a visit to some Tolkien language sites. Yes, of course, there are still a few gaps in the vocabulary. There are not, however, many words made up by fans in any of the translations I have seen, such as the Bible translations I linked to yesterday, or in other translations.
A 900-word vocabulary was deemed sufficient enough in the early 1980's for Quenya language lessons to be published, and the amount of published Quenya and Sindarin vocabulary has now reached roughly 12,000 words (source: http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/vice.htm ). Roughly half of this vocabulary is Quenya; most of the rest is Sindarin. That's certainly more than enough to not have to rely on fan-coined words.
Anyway, take care.
Ron (Firsfron on Wikipedia) :)
Prior to 1998, Ausir, you'd be right. Up until that year, only around 1,000 Quenya words were known. These were published in Nancy Martsch's "Basic Quenya" book. However, with the publication of the Qenya Lexicon in 1998, thousands of additional entries (4,109) were added. These entries are, I assure you, quite official, and fully authorized by the Tolkien estate. But if you are basing your opinion on the old situation, I hope you will consider a visit to some Tolkien language sites. Yes, of course, there are still a few gaps in the vocabulary. There are not, however, many words made up by fans in any of the translations I have seen, such as the Bible translations I linked to yesterday, or in other translations.
Maybe there's enough words to cover Middle-earth topics and such, but certainly none for writing about modern stuff...
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org