tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 26 15:53:18 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: De'wI' mu'mey
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 [email protected] wrote:
> i really don't understand your hostility to trying to say things in
> klingon using klingon words. if i wanted to use english words to say
> something, i wouldn't spend time learning how NOT to use those english
> words. you latched onto one thing, namely that i was talking about
> non-canon usages, and then closed the issue with a single word. the
> answer isn't "no", and the issue isn't going away. lay'tel SIvten
It's rare that I come to SuStel's defense on this measure, because I tend
towards one of those people who really does want to push the language as
far as we can bend it, who likes the idea of seeing the language truly
evolve rather than the "spurts" we get from Okrand on occasion.
However, for background, there are definitely two (maybe three) camps of
thought on this subject. SuStel is definitely in the "canonical camp" --
the theory is that the language is only what we know of it, and if it
didn't come from Okrand, or it's not in perfect accordance with the
grammer laid out in the books, it's not "real". And this is not such a
bad thing.
There is another camp that desperately wants the language to move "into
the public domain", where the language can be extended to incorporate new
concepts, vocabulary, and to a lesser degree, grammar. You don't find
many of those types here (we've scared most of them off ;).
The third camp, I think where I fall in personally, is in the middle.
This camp likes to think up new ways to put the grammar together to fill
some of the gaps -- stretching things ever so slightly, but trying to
remain as "in the lines" as possible. Our conversation about using /pagh/
in a similar way as /Hoch/ appeared in the last HolQeD (I couldn't believe
it, I practically got an entire page to myself ;) is pretty indicative of
where this camp tends to be... Captain Krankor is another person who I
often see really trying to push the limits of the language, straddling
that line.
In short, though, the list in general tries to stick more towards canon as
much as possible. The reason is simple -- if it doesn't show up in
HolQeD, if it doesn't show up in an Okrand book, it's not Klingon. Taken
to the extreme, imagine if we all came up with brand new vocabulary
everytime we wanted something that wasn't already covered, someone brand
new to the language, armed with only the books and the new words list on
kli.org, they would have zero clue what we were talking about, confusion
would reign, cats and dogs, living in harmony...
Well, it quite possibly wouldn't be that bad. But it is a perfectly good
reason behind sticking as closely as possible to the published material.
The other reason is one of Anglification... For example, in computer
science, there's a data structure known as a "list" (often a "linked
list"). I had posited that I could refer to that data structure as a
/tetlh/ ("roll, scroll, list"). The problem is -- would the Klingons
actually have evolved the same data structure? Even if they did, would
they call it a /tetlh/? Perhaps they would've made the metaphor with
/mIr/ "chain" instead... We simply don't know.
Of course, I had proposed writing a Comp Sci text in Klingon, where I
could define these things "with creative license", but it was frowned
upon, for the previously stated reasons -- it wouldn't be canon, and could
thus be confusing.
I'm still of two minds on the issue. On the one hand, I think the
language could be well served by a more ready influx of new ideas, shaped
by the community. On the other hand, who's to say which ideas are
"right"?
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"We must become the change we want to see" -- Mahatma Gandhi
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}