tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 25 04:37:42 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Criticism (was Re: translation)
- From: "Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Criticism (was Re: translation)
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 04:37:42 -0700
>>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.
Ken Traft responds:
> I have noticed that the KLI members are always quick to critize Marc Okrand
> and Paramount.
First, I'd like to take exception to blanket statements that "KLI members are
always" *anything*, and I hope Ken will acknowledge this (especially as he's a
KLI member himself).
Second, I believe there are two very different issues at hand. When criticism
is made of Paramount for their use of Klingon, as in the example at the top of
this post, the distinction seems to be that while Paramount is in the business
of making Star Trek, they are not in the business of making language. The
opposite can be said of Okrand, he's in the business of making language, not
making Star Trek.
Thus, we can grumble when a DSN script writers give us some murky Klingon, and
likewise express surprise and amazement when they get it "right." It's their
job to provide us with Star Trek, not good Klingon. Similarly, Okrand can
dazzle us with his language, but the script writers can pull the rug out from
under him when they decree something in the Star Trek timeline/universe that
doesn't jibe with his language (e.g., the TNG episode where they suddenly tell
us "there hasn't been an emperor in ?00 years!" which surprised Marc who had
just finished explaining that the "standard" dialect reflected the current
emperor).
> 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).
This is an important distinction. When we criticize Paramount, we don't hae the
slightest expectation of a response (perhaps other than the classic "get a
life"). But criticism of Okrand is indeed a "challenge," and I see that as a
good thing. Ideas need to be challenged, to see if they hold up, if they work,
to test their consistency and validity. Okrand's linguistic ideas should
withstand our scrutiny, and where it doesn't (or doesn't seem to) we *should*
bring attention to it.
I suspect both Krankor and Okrand would be surprised at your characterization of
their little conflict. Krankor views Okrand's response more as an homage, an
acknowledgment of the inconsistency. As the creator of the language he's well
within his rights to explain away the error he was caught in (much like
programmers document "bugs" and transform them into "features"), and the line in
the tape about the mispoken toast strikes me as more of a "tip of the hat" to
Krankor than a slap on the wrist.
> Everyone can debate and critize, but in the end Okrand gets the last word.
Absolutely (and I'm glad that we agree on this, Ken). However, unlike with some
artificial languages of the past, we have a pretty good relationship with Marc,
he seems to appreciate honest feedback (though I suspect he's less happy about
raging and unstructured attacks), and he's been known to respond to some (if not
all) of the concerns we've raised over the years. Thus the very debate and
criticism which you seem to reject has been responsible (I contend) some of the
progress the language has shown.
Marc gets the last word, no argument there. All some of us are trying to do is
fill in the middle.
Lawrence
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Dr Lawrence M Schoen, Director :: The KLI is a nonprofit ::
:: The Klingon Language Institute :: tax exempt corporation ::
:: POB 634, Flourtown, PA 19031 USA :: DaH HuchlIj'e' ghonob ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: [email protected] :: http://www.kli.org :: 215/836-4955 ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::