tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 24 19:50:35 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: translation
- From: "Kenneth Traft" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: translation
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 96 02:39:33 UT
Mark Reed writes:
>Keep in mind that Paramount has an awful record with TV Klingon:
it's
>canonical Star Trek, but that doesn't make it canonical Klingon.
I have noticed that the KLI members are always quick to critize Marc Okrand
and Paramount. In many instances Krankor out right "challenged" the maker of
the language.
To his chagrin Okrand won (I believe they are still picking up the pieces of
the human who improperly changed the word order of a toast). Everyone can
debate and critize, but in the end Okrand gets the last word. And no matter
how hard you attack on "linguistic principles" there are always "traditions
lost to antiquity" or "gammatical shortcuts are not uncommon" (QamvIS --
torvIS)."
If Paramount says that a Sarq is a Klingon riding animal, a Klingon riding
animal is a Sarq. I confess I don't remember the reference or the show, but I
have no problem trusting our illustrious KAG member that it was there! And I
don't understand how canonical Star Trek can be separated from canonical
Klingon. Did I miss something or did Paramount say, "Everything is canonical
BUT KLINGON because we do it so bad!"