tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 22 12:04:20 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 13:21:19 -0700
>From: [email protected] (Joel Peter Anderson)
>gharghmey ngaSwI'vam vIpoSta' 'e' vIHechbe'qu'
>'ach gharghmey wImuSHa'....
>I really didn't mean to open this can of worms.... but we do love worms....
poSmoH, not poS. "poS" is "be open"; to open something needs "poSmoH."
Also, gharghmey *DI*muSHa'.
> > >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
> >
> > I disagree with you here;
>No, I don't think so.
>Actually, for the most part, I DON'T disagree with with you.
Then I must have misunderstood you.
> > 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).
> o Well, there I'll disagree:
> - I'm not a slavish Trek fan, and I don't feel any particular
> loyalty to Paramount - I'm sure not going to sign up
> on MSN to get to *their* website.
That, at least, is certainly a sane and praiseworthy attitude.
> I only MEANT to say that when people HAVE to start drawing the line over
> what IS canon, The only UNQUESTIONED rule is what is
> derived from Paramount; i.e. what is filmed.
Well, isn't this where we disagree? I say, when it comes down to drawing
the line between canon and non-canon *when it comes to the Klingon
Language*, to me that line is drawn by what Marc Okrand says, the butchers
at Paramount notwithstanding. Paramount is no more the arbiter of Klingon,
to *ME*, than it is the arbiter of physics/sociology/xenobiology because
they show that on the show as well.
> > 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.
> o Rather than being a language buff, I'm an SF buff, including
> Trek. For me, the appeal of the Klingon language,
> and of Trek in general is that there is SUCH
> an extent of cultures, information and speculation around -
> INCLUDING LANGUAGES - from 'ZINES, "journals" and other sources.
> o Anyway, when I look at this stuff I think the BROADEST
> canon is far more fun than the narrowest, here probably because
> I'm not so obsessed as to try to harmonize every inconsistency
> (and there are of course MANY).
Hmm. A good point. Because I DO worry about reconciling canon wrt the
Klingon language. I *would* like that to be somehow consistent.
Especially if we want it to be usable, there has to be some sort of
consistency in the language or else every fan's idiolect will be
unintelligible to others. If people disagree on how they view Paramount
canon wrt future history, or invented science, it won't hinder their
conversations or their enjoyment of discussing and "using" those opinion
(then again, how do you "use" knowledge of future fictional history? Or
xenobiology? I suppose by writing stories.) But inconsistencies in the
language can be devastating to its use: language must be understood to be
worth much, and if every Paramount scriptwriter re-writes it at whim
episode by episode, there won't be much left of the language before long.
Besides, part of what's fun is the nature of the Klingon language, how it
works. If some Paramount writer (or worse, several of them, each with his
own ideas and style) rejiggers it every episode, (a) how on Qo'noS can you
keep track of what that nature is from week to week, and (b) it will likely
be changed out of all recognition, and in all likelihood come to be more
and more, say English in structure. Certainly not like it started, like we
came to know and like it.
> o I'd guess that more people will be exposed to Friedman's Klingon in the
> next year than Okrand's. In my book it makes it just as "official"
> as what we have. Thats okay - we're better off telling
> people what odds and ends in Friedman-ese ARE like modern tlhIngan
> than we are if we rail against his failings. I've found people
> show more interest in real Okrand-ese tlhIngan when I show them
> my "speak Klingon badly" web page
> (http://pages.prodigy.com/mrklingon/bad.html) than if I just
> start explaining off how Klingon is SUPPOSED to be... and
> how BAD Paramount does it...
I'd think people would show more interest in speaking bad Klingon than in
"true Okrandese." Again, it's likely an extreme (and elitist) position,
but I think I'd rather see people leave Klingon alone if they're not at
least going to realize that they're doing it wrong, much less make SOME
effort to do it right. I know your page DOES point out that the results
are lousy Klingon; that's good.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMfPQoMppGeTJXWZ9AQGMagL/UXSOF5W8mLvb0xn81kzemr7y6An4Ah3s
FR54Avi/8SFKaZMnPqLDzZzqIe0V8J+XU8O/4bUAP4DUd945lHX/Cw+uMi5OblPM
+2O7FHaOIKXXTu+ne+L9IrfhYnD2e4os
=Foa5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----