tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 19 07:58:20 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: parmaq (par'mach) - oh, it *IS* canon, eh?

Okay, once again the evil that is <<parmqa>> rears its head and once more
the noise about canon is heard across the land.

While I can appreciate that Joel enjoys a rousing game of "Bait the
Klingon" (three tries for a quarter!), let me again draw the distinction I
have made in the past regarding the KLI's position concerning canonical
Klingon.

Eric Zay takes me to task (deliberately or otherwise) by quoting my
editorial in HolQeD,2:2:

          "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."

While I steal stand behind this, earlier this year on the mailing list I
elaborated on this a bit, providing a distinction between canonical
"Klingon" and canonical "tlhIngan Hol."  Let's go through this again.

Canonical Klingon indeed refers to material from the films, the television
shows, and the mind of Marc Okrand.  Canonical tlhIngan Hol is the subset
of this which is limited to Okrand, and being a subset must perforce also
automatically be canonical Klingon.  Which means, yes, I believe that
"par'Mach" is indeed canonical Klingon, but not canoncial tlhIngan Hol
(similarly, the rest of the mangled Hol in that episode is canonical
Klingon, but not canonical tlhIngan Hol), whereas <<parmaq>> is canonical
tlhIngan Hol.

In response to the remark made on the list that the KLI's position is a
"purer" one, well, perhaps.  I perfer to think of it as simply the more
conservative position, as well as the most pragmatic one given our desire
to study and use the language.  Attempting to incorrect lexical items that
are canonical Klingon but not canonical tlhIngan Hol (by the definitions
described above) seems destined to lead only to confusion for newcomers to
the language.  It is both kinder and more effective to invoke the fiction
that "oh, those words are from another dialect/older form/whatever" than to
worry about them when the newcomer could be learning something useful.
Later on (say some time after the age of inclusion?), they'll realize the
truth of it all.  Kind of like telling children where babies come from.  ;)

I also have no problem with Okrand coming along, taking a piece of
canonical Klingon, and with a wave of his hand making it canonical tlhIngan
Hol.  We've seen this a lot, for example <<HolQeD>>, <<yejHaD>>, and
recently at the <<qep'a' wejDIch>> when a word from this list, <<'I'>> was
canonized.  Sure it's arbitrary, but that's the way it works.


Let me also say, I see little point to this sort of bickering about who
lined up on which camp first, why, when, or where.  If we're going to
disagree and argue on this list, I would much rather see it be over
substantive grammatical issues.

And finally, there's an article in the December issue of <<HolQeD>>(going
to press tomorrow) which contains all the canonical Klingon from the script
of "Looking For Par'Mach In All The Wrong Places."  If you're this worked
up about one word, you'll love seeing all the text.

Lawrence



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Dr Lawrence M Schoen, Director   :: The KLI is a nonprofit ::
:: The Klingon Language Institute   :: tax exempt corporation ::
:: POB 634, Flourtown, PA 19031 USA :: DaH HuchlIj'e' ghonob  ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::  [email protected]  :: http://www.kli.org ::  215/836-4955  ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Back to archive top level