tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 08 14:08:10 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
canon WAS Re: KSRP: Klingon animals
- From: Susan Farmer <[email protected]>
- Subject: canon WAS Re: KSRP: Klingon animals
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 17:09:39 -0400 (EDT)
>> I've seen a lot of people referring to words from the KAHLESS book.
>>Could we get a ruling on this? Isn't any non-Okrandian Klingon definitely
>>NOT canon, and therefore unusable?
>
>The material is almost precisely as canonical as the TKD. I.E. licensed by
>Paramount. The only thing that makes the TKD more canonical is that it has
>been used on film, however badly.
>
>OTOH the vocabulary in Kahless is highly unlike Okrand's products and I'd guess
>would be roundly attacked by the guardians of tlhIngan Hol, should you attempt
>to use it.
>
One thing that I think *needs* to be stressed in the welcome message
to new list members is this thing of canon.
First, to the Star Trek fan, canon has a completely *different* meaning
than it does to the linguist. To the fan, it is canon if it has been
depicted on film. Roddenberry himself considered the movies (after the
first NOR the books canon -- only the TV shows)
To the linquist, it doesn't matter if it's broadcast, filmed or in print;
if Dr. Marc Okrand didn't create/approve of the language it *isn't*
canon and will not be sanctioned by this list. Now, he may go and bless
such words as tu'HomIra' (or whatever the tlhIngan spelling was of the
word from _Blood Oath_), but until he does so, any vocabulary is merely
an invention of some writer connected with Paramount that is putting
words into the mouths of the same race of people as Marc Okrand.
Just remember that there is *fan*-canon and *language*-canon. They are
not the same things.
tevram