tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 12 10:30:06 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIH vIchuHlu' - Words mentioned earlier but not in the
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: jIH vIchuHlu' - Words mentioned earlier but not in the
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:30:05 GMT
> ja' qe'San:
> >...I just wish people
> >couldn't get away with bending the truth the way Keith did.. He could have
> >just stopped at acknowledging advice from MO but saying the list was vetted
> >by Mo was what made me really wonder.
> The term "vetted" really doesn't mean "authorized" the way you seem to be
> taking it. It basically just means "examined". There's an implication of
> approval, but there's no special status granted to what has been examined.
While I'm far less certain of this looser definition of "vetted" than you are,
I can put that aside and say that a lot of the OTHER words in the posts about
that word list suggested heavily that Okrand was much more actively engaged in
that word list than he has subsequently revealed himself to have been. There
was definitely a pretentious air of presenting Okrand's words to us, previously
unrevealed by other sources. The expectation was that we would leap to this new
canonqoq and embrace it, thanking those who brought these words to us.
It's not the first time this has happened. It won't be the last. Some people
really like drawing new cards, even if they never learn to play the game, and
they don't understand that this is disrespectful of the game.
> I think that's the root of your continued nagging about whether the D.I.
> glossary is canon, even after getting strongly worded opinions about how
> many (most?) of us count only "official" work by Marc Okrand in that
I got the sense that the argument was never, "This isn't quite from Okrand, but
is it canon?" The argument seemed to be, "This is from Okrand, but you guys
don't seem to recognize it as canon. What's wrong?"
> -- ghunchu'wI'