tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 25 19:59:45 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Criticism (was Re: translation)
- From: "Kenneth Traft" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Criticism (was Re: translation)
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 02:25:21 UT
Dr. Schoen replies to my Criticism:
>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).
jIyajqu'. "KLI members" HochHomvaD jItlhIj. naDev jIleghpu' 'ej HolQeDDaq
jIleghpu'.
>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.
I can agree with that statement, but when push comes to shove Paramount will
win and though I don't know Dr. Okrand, I believe he has covered for them and
will continue to do so.
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).
jIQochbe'chu'! I don't however agree that it is all just grumbling -- The
statement, "... doesn't make it canonical Klingon." is more than grumbling.
>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.
>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.
Cut to pieces is a "tip of the hat" -- I guess I'm really NOT Klingon. Yet
he's Qrankor HoD. Not having the opportunity to of working with Qrankor, you
or Dr. Okrand I guess we miss that comradery.
>Thus the very debate and criticism which you seem to reject has been
responsible (I >contend) some of the progress the language has shown.
I can't argue with that because I am not privy to your conversations with Dr.
Okrand. I am glad if this is the case and I hope all challenges are for
advancement of the language. I'm here to learn and I believe I will and I
have a lot of catching up to do as well. I did met Krankor at the last
Klingon Camp he attended and I was quite impressed with his verbal skills.
One thing I did notice that he was quite friendly with the females, but seemed
more aloof from the males (very stoical at best). But I was only around him a
half a day Saturday and half a day Sunday (I think those were the days it was
an evening and a morning).
>Marc gets the last word, no argument there. All some of us are trying to do
is
>fill in the middle.
I have gotten some feed back (discounting Glen Proechel) that the KLI is only
7 or 8 people who are intolerant of anything, but their own opinion. I try
not to let these influence my judgement, but I don't discount it I may fall
prey to it occasionally. I have always tried to be my own person and look at
things as phenomenomologically (I love bracketing the world). I am human so
fall short of my ultimate goals.
tlhIHvaD jIvuvHa'bogh vIHechbe'chu'.
I'll try a little different approach this time. I have a little trouble with
the 'e' constructions at present and want to try a little different approach.