tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 23 12:32:34 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: Way of the Warrior

jatlh Joel Peter Anderson:

> On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, David Trimboli wrote:
> 
> > jatlh qul lung:
> > 
> > > I read a novelization of the DS9 episode "Way of the Warrior" and came
> > > accross a quote "Cheghchu DjajVam DjajKak!" which was given as "Today is 
a
> > > good day to die." In The Klingon Way, this same phrase is given as
> > > "Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam." Obviously, the Way of the Warrior version is
> > > terribly wrong, but what exactly is wrong with it?
> 
> > What's wrong is the same thing that goes wrong with most Klingon you hear 
on 
> > DS9: someone didn't do their homework.
> 
> Not really.  Actually - if it was SAID that way on the show, it would be
> a canonical example of a variant dialect.

Not really.  Actually - if it was SAID that way on the show, it would be a 
canonical example of nonsense.

Look, as this is a KLBC question, I feel it's important to remember: there's 
{tlhIngan Hol}, and there's the drivel which comes out of actors' mouths 
without coaching.  You can call it a dialect, you can call it Clipped Klingon, 
you can call it mispronunciation due to stress, anything.  What it comes down 
to is that an actor blew his line, or the scriptwriter blew the line, and it's 
worthless.

The novelization is worse.  From what qul lung told us, I believe that the 
writer listened to O'Reilly speak this -- line -- and transcribed it as best 
he could.  In other words, it's a line from someone who doesn't know anything 
about {tlhIngan Hol}, copied from a line from someone who has only the 
slightest inklings about {tlhIngan Hol}.

I'd love to see Mr. Anderson's documented dialect.  Obviously, he can speak 
it.  If he couldn't, calling it a dialect would be a useless gesture.  You may 
as well just call it nonsense.  Hey, he can probably explain the whole Kahless 
and Lukara "dialect" to us!  Unless that's yet *another* dialect which he 
*doesn't know* . . . in which case, we're back to calling it nonsense, right?

> Novels, on the
> other hand are *NOT* sources of any canonical material (they may USE
> canonical stuff, though).

*sigh* What is this obsession of the '90s for "canon," anyway?  If you can 
honestly make something out of "Cheghchu DjajVam DjajKak," have fun, but don't 
try speaking that way to me.  I'd just as soon gut you with a {betleH}.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97149.1

Back to archive top level