tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 17 08:53:22 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "canon" (was Re: Words for "God")
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 06:22:20 -0700
>From: [email protected] (Joel Peter Anderson)
>[email protected] writes:
> > In conlcusion, since only MO sources are canon, joH'a' and qa' work fine for
> > me.
>neH rejmorgh jIH, 'ach jIQochqu'
"rejmorgh neH jIH"; "neH" follows the noun.
>Its only because I'm a worrywart, but I really disagree.
And I with you.
>On two points:
>1) joH'a' for the divine name is not from Okrand, it is a KLI member's
> invention (And a good one - no question).
True; I think peHruS never disputed that. But it (unlike some
non-Okrandian possibilities) is sanctioned by Okrand's grammar and existing
vocabulary, at least as far as structure is concerned.
>2) CANON is, and will always be a sticky thing, but Paramount ONLY defines
> canon, and Okrand as their hired gun does so. The ONLY
> final rule of "canon"icity is "what is from Paramount" (usually
> explicitly "what is filmed from *P*"). This has led to backfit
> words and such in the past and will in the future, with the
> eccentric and cavalier use of the language by the scriptwriters.
I disagree with you here; I think this may be a Star Trek Fan vs. Klingon
Linguist kind of thing. I like Trek, sure; I've watched most of the
episodes; I try not to miss it when it's on... and I liked it even before I
got into Klingon (though Klingon has made me more careful about watching
it). But I'm into Klingon because of the LANGUAGE aspect, as a constructed
language that someone invented that seems interesting, and which
coincidentally also happens to be used in Paramount's little shows. I am
primarily a student of linguistics studying Klingon, and only secondarily
someone who watches the show for which it was created. To me, Klingon is a
language created by and maintained by Marc Okrand, and occasionally
(mis)used by a film company. I am not concerned with Star Trek canon; I
don't lose sleep over the fact that there's no way to make Stardates come
out to any sensible unit of time, or that Klingons developed forehead
ridges between series, or a million other little inconsistencies that worry
Trek fandom. To me, what Paramount does to Klingon is more like what it
does to physics. It uses it and misuses it and bends it to its needs (and
not always the same way every time). I don't feel I have to reconcile Star
Trek's version of science with known scientific facts/theories, nor to
reconcile known facts/theories with Star Trek. From my standpoint, I
couldn't care less what Paramount's writers claim is or isn't in Klingon;
it's OKRAND's language.
I realize this position is probably a bit extreme (can you be a bit
extreme?) I KNOW quite a few people here will disagree with me, and
probably a lot will disagree both with me and with Joel. Likely the
consensus is somewhere in between. There are also likely even more extreme
positions than mine or Joel's. Obviously Okrand doesn't feel a total
independence of Paramount, since he DOES try to backfit into some (not all)
of their mistakes. But that's his prerogative; to me he doesn't HAVE to do
that, and when he doesn't I don't miss it.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMe0MRcppGeTJXWZ9AQGLYgL/QEL5wBNeYwEMFr75D+m5q7u89MHD7Jrm
sBSKHBZR7jqC18OmqCjIORcIqK7e8mknSfFMkhfB9Tj5c2sbARdIyPwKj33CgBGv
oy2WiZXa7sXX1LH+uIuNkICO7LUcLxmg
=C8Dh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----