tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 10 09:24:02 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: language vs. culture (was Re: Teaching Klingon)

ja' "marian danzig" <[email protected]>:
>i don't think i've ever heard such a detached and clinical portrayal of
>interest in klingons, ever.

I don't really *have* an interest in Klingons.  I'm not really that
strong a Trekkie these days -- I don't even know when Voyager is on
anymore, and I missed most of the last season of DS9.  I'm here for
the language and the company of other interesting people.

>again, do the 'interactions between real people'
>(especially at a qep'a') and the 'scripted on-screen portrayals of a
>fictional race' need to be mutually exclusive?

I'm not intentionally keeping them separate.  I just tend to ignore
the tv show when deciding how I want to act.

> keep in mind thgat you owe
>the whole tlhIngan Hol language experience (as well as the qep'a' experience
>and everything associated with it) to this 'fictional race'.

I am constantly aware of it, and it's a minor irritation constantly
to have to try to explain to people that my interest in the language
doesn't mean that I want to go around acting like a turtle-headed
extraterrestrial with an attitude.

>...is developing the culture of
>the klingons any different (or less interesting) than developing the
>language?

It's completely different!  And for me, at least, the culture is much
less interesting than the language.  One cannot easily enjoy a culture
without actually *having* that culture around to physically be a part
of it.  But this mailing list and other avenues permit people to share
the language interactively, independent of the way they choose to live
their lives or play their games.

>does an interest in other aspects of klingon culture have to have these
>kinds of ulterior motives?

It does for me, because otherwise I have *no* motives for such interest.

>why can the culture, like the language, not be
>enjoyed on its own terms, outside human experience (fictional nature aside)?

It *can* be enjoyed for what it is, but *I* don't enjoy it that way.

>don't forget that on a fundamental level the language is fictional too.

Here I disagree strongly.  The "history" of the language is fictional,
but the language itself is fundamentally similar to every other spoken
language in the world.  It is no more "fictional" than Esperanto, with
the added wrinkle of being influenced by persons who do not speak it.
Its origin as a "prop" for a science fiction movie shouldn't change the
fact that it's an expressive language on its own terms.

>here's something to think about: if more than two people speaking a language
>elevates it from its fictional status, then does more than two people
>dressing up as aliens elevate their appearance above a fictional status?

Even one person speaking a language can make it "real".  Languages do
not change from "fictional" to "real" because of the number of speakers.
They become real by virtue of having vocabulary and grammar that lets a
number of concepts be expressed.

>naturally i'm not trying to push my views onto anyone, i'm just voicing an
>opinion. but well . . .

And my opinion is, I hope, clear.

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level