[94221] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Fictional Origins, Real Language
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Tue Jul 31 04:09:46 2012
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:09:28 +1000
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120730230427.073afd88@flyingstart.ca>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
ghItlhpu' Qov, jatlh:
> From Lulu, an online vanity press, in response to my question
> regarding what language of publication I should select when mine is
> not listed. They had an extensive but not exhaustive list of
> languages, and choosing one is a non-optional part of submitting a manusc=
ript.
(poD vay')
> I expected to be just ignored, so this is better than I thought.
> Shall I attempt to explain the difference between fictional and
> artificial, or just pick Xhosa or Tagalog and move to the next step?
In the ideal scenario I'd say yes, definitely try. Their list of languages =
has on
it several artificial languages already, so hopefully they can be convinced.
If it helps you make a case, you could tell them that Klingon is one of onl=
y nine
constructed languages that have an ISO 639-2 code, and Lulu already have fi=
ve of
them on their list: Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, and Volap=FCk=
, so
they may as well allow the other four as well. (FWIW, even ISO 639-3, which=
is
supposed to be a comprehensive code system for the world's languages, inclu=
des
only 20 constructed languages, of which Klingon is one.)
Also, I notice they're happy to provide categories to such obscure language=
s as
Chechen and Marshallese even before they have books to go in those categori=
es.
Hell, they've even got Manx listed as an empty category. So the "Other" opt=
ion
should be a last resort - I reckon we can argue for a distinct Klingon cate=
gory.
QeS
=
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
