>>5447
>We're going to argue 'reject' versus 'resist' with a three year old?
We're going to argue facts. Resisted doesn't mean that he out right rejected it.
>Since the father had to be extremely creative to use the limited dictionary to communicate, the child would be nonfunctional if this were the only language he had.
This statement relies on the notion that children can't be creative. This statement is thus wrong, especially when a) he had his father teaching him the words and b) the language is functional and does work, entire plays have been done in it.
>Right, those aliens that can interbreed with Humans.
>Kids are better at learning languages than adults.
The kid isn't half-Klingon, you fool. It was still a language designed to do the opposite all human languages do, that makes it difficult for anyone to learn. The kid was bilingual, of course he's going to gravitate towards the easier language. That doesn't make Klingonese not a working language as you claimed.
>What Klingon amounts to is a sophisticated encryption scheme where you take words from english and encrypt them into guttural noises.
Bar Bar, that's the only noises those northern savages make. Somehow it's a language? Sounds like growls and groans. Bar Bar… Bar Bar… ian? Barbarian, yes that's what we'll call them. They make Bar Bar sounds, it's inferior to our language and lacks all the sophistication and nuance of a real language! Your statement was extremely flawed, and pretentious.
Klingonese works as a language because people do use it as a language. Your claim it doesn't work is still wrong.