Ron H wrote: Quenya, 133,000 language). 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)

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. 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). 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. 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? 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. 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) :)

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) :)