tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 08 15:19:56 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
canon WAS Re: KSRP: Klingon animals
- From: "Joel Anderson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: canon WAS Re: KSRP: Klingon animals
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 15:19:33 -0700
Regarding Kahless derived vocabulary, I said...
>>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.
"Fan-canon" is, to my mind, rather a pejorative dismissal of material that is
not unworthy of our attention.
When students of Klingon go to the effort of cataloging the vocabulary
used in the novels, or the videos, it should be appreciated for
the effort it is. If nothing else we should ascribe a "Deutero-canonical"
status to this auxiliary vocabulary. Using
it, and annotating its use would seem the best approach - for
example when I used the term yoloq, for the "yolok" worms in
Kahless, I could and should have appended a footnote.
eh. I seem to be the one who troubles this targh the most....
(or should I say beats this krad'dak ?[ drum, page 29, _KAHLESS_ ])
-
vItbe'This is not the
I think that the auxiliary vocabul
joel anderson * [email protected] * [email protected]
mIghghachvo' yImej 'ej yIQaQ; roj yInej 'ej Dochvam yItlha'
http://pages.prodigy.com/mrklingon * [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------