tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 21 16:40:11 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Par'Mach is a Canonical word. Period.
- From: Dark Viper <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Par'Mach is a Canonical word. Period.
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:40:21 -0400
At 02:30 PM 10/21/96 -0700, Joel Anderson wrote:
>"parmach" is presented as meaning "love; with more aggressive
>overtones." Worf has "a case of it". We don't really know if
>it is a verb or noun or both. Perhaps there is a nominal use
>of "par" and parmach is, like "nuqneH" a shorthand sentance
>for "my dislike is small".
How can that be? Why wouldn't they just use <parHa'tIn> following your
logic? If they were competent enough to find "par" in the dictionary, they
could've looked a bit further and found "parHa'" for love. Why would they
look for "dislike" first (as compared to "like") is anybody's guess.
>>>To beat my canon-drum, once again, like it or not, it
>>>IS a canonical word.
>>It's canonical *Star Trek*. It's not canonical tlhIngan Hol,
>
>No. There is NO difference. The distinction is an invented one.
>Really. tlhIngan Hol is a subset of Trek, not vice versa.
Yes, but the Klingon *language* was created and developed and is STILL
managed by Okrand. *HE* is the only canon source, because, well, he just
plain invented it. It may be copyrighted to Paramount, but Okrand is the one
who runs the show (or, rather, language).
We have accepted before that some of the Klingon on Star Trek is plain just
not right. What you're saying is that we should accept the Klingon phrases
uttered by Worf, Dax, and Quark as canon? I haven't dissected them but I am
sure that they are chock-full of bad grammar. Should we start speaking the
Klingon language like that? God forbid.
What they are doing is mangling the language, but it's their show -- they do
what they want. But the Klingon language belongs to Okrand and has BECOME A
SEPARATE ENTITY from Star Trek. It is still associated with it, but some
interest in it by people is generated by the fact that it is a HUMAN-MADE
LANGUAGE.
Besides, the people who write the episodes most of the time can't even say
"What do you want?" in Klingon -- "nuqneH" -- the most famous Klingon line
(it seems that way).
>This is more than a little different. We HAVE independant
>sources of scientific knowledge. There isn't ANY
>independant source of tlhIngan Hol. There aren't any
>(okay, maybe one) native speakers of tlhIngan Hol, EXCEPT
>as portrayed on film.
^^^^^^^^^
Portrayed -- not STATED. Not dictated. Some artists portray people in
abstract forms on canvas. But they certainly don't look like that in real life.
>> Like it or
>>not, tlhIngan Hol as a real constructed language exists with or
>>without Star Trek to support it -- or to interfere with it, as the
>>case may be.
>
>Well, no, it doesn't.
Star Trek doesn't support the Klingon language (well, maybe in the weakest
of forms -- example "bet'leth" or however they spell it). It caused a chain
reaction: They wanted a real language for ST III, they got it in the form of
Marc Okrand, and then they threw it out the window and Okrand was the one to
carry it on -- he created the Klingon Dictionary. He was the one to support
it, not Star Trek. They just use it for its convenience (and not very
convenient at that.)
--Dark Viper-----------------------------
vuvnISqu'lu'
tlhIngan De' chu'vaD:
http://www.spectranet.ca/~dviper/tlhIngan
(rInHa')
-----------------------------------------