tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 18 15:37:34 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
valid Klingon (was something about <parmaq>)
- From: "Andrew 'Ska' Netherton" <[email protected]>
- Subject: valid Klingon (was something about <parmaq>)
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:39:16 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> It says: "Despite the inherent arbitrariness involved
> in this artificial language, the KLI position has to be that if it hasn't
> come down to us from Paramount or Marc Okrand, or if it can't be logically
> derived from these materials, it just ain't Klingon."
This just doesn't sit well with me. I can easily believe that
whatever Okrand says in canon - he invented this language. Ditto for
whatever can be derived from what Okrand has bestowed unto us at this
point.
But that's where I draw the line. If the Paramount writers can't
spare the time to buy TKD (or fill out the expense form for it), let alone
consult it, why on earth should be consider their random gurglings canon?
I'll buy that they use clipped Klingon, I'll buy the "distant dialect"
bit, too. But everything in moderation - if they don't follow the syntax,
grammer, and all the other rules, why should we have to validate it?
I'm not saying that <tlhIngan Hol> can't grow and expand, and even
open up a new boundary or two. However, I'll feel a lot better if it's
Okrand opening up those boundaries, and not a writer who doesn't have the
appreciation for the language that a lot of us do.
vuDmey jIH.
_______________________________________
/ _ \ \ ** Andrew Netherton **
\__)| "VENI, VIDI VINNIE" \ __ jo'Sqa, tlhIngan SuvwI'
\ I came, I saw my cousin. |(_ \ Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
\___________________________________\___/ (519) 885-2717