tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 18 14:34:25 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: parmaq (par'mach) - oh, it *IS* canon, eh?



> If an outsider could step in a moment, I think the root of the problem
> is, just what is tlhIngan Hol? I see at least three definitions:
> 
> a) The purists: it's what Marc Okrand has sanctioned, nothing more.
> b) The Trek fans: it's whatever has appeared in an official Star Trek
> epsiode/movie/book.
> c) The hobbyists: it's based on Okrand, but it's OK to stretch it if
> you find it hard to translate certain ideas.
> 
> The KLI clearly falls in category 

   
   This just ain't so!  The KLI has recognized the validity of vocabulary
that comes from Paramount episodes or movies.  I refer you to Lawrence M
Schoen's editorial on page 2 of the June 1993 issue of HolQeD, Volume 2,
Number 2, which addresses the topic of what can and cannot be considered
true tlhIngan Hol.  It says: "Despite the inherent arbitrariness involved
in this artificial language, the KLI position has to be that if it hasn't
come down to us from Paramount or Marc Okrand, or if it can't be logically
derived from these materials, it just ain't Klingon."

Since the KLI has stated that Paramount and Dr. Okrand are sources of good
Klingon, then a discussion of what Worf may or may not have said in a given
episode is a perfectly valid topic of discussion.  

SuSvaj

Back to archive top level