Re: Klingonase vs. tlhIngan Hol

[Alan Anderson <aranders@netusa1.net>]

ja' "T. J. Harrington" <t_anna_kirk@yahoo.com>:
>... Now if we want to be technical, correct me
>if I'm wrong, but anything written in books is
>considered non-cannon.  Anything produced on t.v. or
>in the movies is considered cannon.

The distinction many people make between "Star Trek" canon and "Klingon
language" canon has been pointed out already.  For some of us, Star Trek
itself isn't terribly relevant to our study and use of the Klingon language.

>If the former is
>correct, then anything written by Ford would be
>non-cannon.  To be exact so is the Klingon Dictionary.

They are of similar status, as information on both Klingonaase and tlhIngan
Hol was published under license from Paramount.  Only tlhIngan Hol made it
to the screen, and the FASA licence under which the bulk of Ford's work was
widely distributed is no longer valid, so Okrand's language is definitely
"more" official in my view.

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh