tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 21 20:03:12 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: parmaq (par'mach) - oh, it *IS* canon, eh?
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: parmaq (par'mach) - oh, it *IS* canon, eh?
- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 23:03:47 -0500
Joel Anderson wrote:
>[...]
>Someday the Klingon language community will grow up and drop this childish
>hostility toward Paramount's scriptwriters.
Whoa, there. I don't see a lot of *hostile* feelings, just some justified
frustration. Someone at Paramount went to the trouble of having something
like a language created for Klingons to use in a Star Trek movie. Then it
got expanded into a true language, with a widely documented vocabulary and
grammar, and a lot of people who speak it well and a *bunch* of people who
like it a lot. It's really a shame that the writers don't want to take it
seriously, but I don't think anyone's being hostile.
>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).
That's fine...but writers are paid to *write stories*. Nobody expects the
writers to light the sets or make the costumes. We *don't* fault them for
composing the music badly, because they don't try to compose music. But I
*do* curse the fact that we have to deal with pseudo-words that don't seem
to have anything to with Paramount's established language for Klingons. A
lack of consistency with "the real world" doesn't seem to bother producers
of Star Trek anyway, so why should we expect them to follow the artificial
rules of an invented language? :-(
pItlh.
-- ghunchu'wI'