tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 18 12:50:33 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: parmaq (par'mach) - oh, it *IS* canon, eh?
From: Joel Peter Anderson <[email protected]>
> mayq ghItlhta':
>
> At 02:25 PM 12/17/96 -0800, Joel Anderson wrote:
>
> >I never addressed the spelling, using it as given, since we don't know
> >from what Klingon dialect it comes (although I speculated on its
> >origin as being made up of par and mach). ...
>
> And that's why you think because YOU said it was a canonical word, that
> YOU were right. You were not. First off, you can't make a compound
> word out of verbs. And "small" being a noun is just not done. Same with
> "dislike". So it can't be a compound word.
>
> *sigh*
>
> I am sorry if I was unclear. 1) I pointed out it was a canonical word
> because it occured within "canonical" Star Trek. 2) I speculated,
> but did not insist on, the odd compound. Natural languages (which
> tlhIngan Hol pretends to be) often include words that don't follow
> the rules.
>
> All Dr. Okrand's doing is "covering Paramount's ass". Just
> because a Paramount writer throwing pencils at the roof thought of a
> new Klingon word, doesn't mean it's canon. NOW it's canon because Mr.
> Okrand said so.
>
> Someday the Klingon language community will grow up and drop this childish
> hostility toward Paramount's scriptwriters. I doubt there is anyone here
> capable of what they do. I certainly couldn't, and *I* have a degree in
> theater (including courses in scriptwriting).
>
If an outsider could step in a moment, I think the root of the problem
is, just what is tlhIngan Hol? I see at least three definitions:
a) The purists: it's what Marc Okrand has sanctioned, nothing more.
b) The Trek fans: it's whatever has appeared in an official Star Trek
epsiode/movie/book.
c) The hobbyists: it's based on Okrand, but it's OK to stretch it if
you find it hard to translate certain ideas.
The KLI clearly falls in category a). You seem to fall into b). I've
seen those who fall into c), but they don't tend to stay on this list
very long.
Now, these are all legitimate ways of looking at the language
(although Paramount's legal department might not feel this way) and
which one is best depends on what you want to do with the language.
Someone who falls in one category shouldn't think that someone from
the other category is stupid, mean, beats his dog, or other nasty
things like that.
BUT.
The KLI belongs in the purist category, and this list is maintained by
the KLI. It's charter as I read it is to explore the "pure"
language. If this is too aggravating for you, perhaps you should start
a separate list or newsgroup. I don't mean this sarcastically, or that
you should stop contributing to this list. But perhaps if there were a
good outlet for the "non-purists" to explore their vision of Klingon
there would be less friction on this list.
Personally, I like the KLI's stance. For one thing, I'm mostly
interested in the linguistics of tlhIngan Hol. I like the challenge of
working in the limits of what's been revealed. I've never been very
interested in Klingons or their culture, and don't even watch Star
Trek much anymore. Also, it's clear that Paramount doesn't give a fig
for Klingon syntax and is only slightly more careful about its
vocabulary. To me, the fact that millions of people have heard the
word <parmaq> "defined" is about as relevant to real Klingon as the
fact that millions have heard transporters "explained" is relevant to
real physics.
I admit I too get annoyed when people say something must be valid
because they heard Worf say it, or because it works that way in
Albanian. But I try to remember that the problem isn't that they want
to cheat at the game, but that they've wandered on to the wrong
playing field.
My two cents.
Chris Hoffmann
--
Chris Hoffmann DataViews Corporation
[email protected] 47 Pleasant St. Northampton MA 01060
GCS d H s+: g+ ?p a w v+ C+$ US+ P++(++++) L E+(+++) N++ K W--->-- M+
V- po- Y+ t+ 5+(+++) Jx R G tv b+++ D+ B-() e+++ u++ h---- f r+++ n--- y++++