tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 24 22:24:55 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: That's not canon

De'vID jonwI' ([email protected]) 

De'vID:
>>You're probably right.  But since the .wav file was never
>>actually used, it's not canon.  I was just considering other
>>ways of interpreting the sentence than as a headless <-bogh>
>>clause.  (To use the Klingon expression, I was "playing
>>Fek'lhr's advocate".)

SuStel:
>Can someone explain to me why Okrand seeing rain outside at a convention 
>and
>saying /SIS/ is canon, why Okrand writing a Klingon language e-mail message
>to me is canon, why words in some novel that Okrand MAY have vetted are
>canon, and why Okrand saying /Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'/ on the Language Lab CD
>is NOT canon?
>
>Exactly what authority do the first three contain that the last one does
>not?
>
>Hmm?

In the case of <SIS>, it comes from TKD I believe, so if Okrand
sees rain and says <SIS> he's not establishing a new word.  If
he goes outside in the rain and sneezes *<'achu>, we wouldn't
suppose that *<'achu> was a new word for rain.

I suppose that if Okrand e-mailed someone and used a new word,
and he explained the usage of the word, that would be canon.
This has happened several times I believe.  But if he makes a
typo, or a mistake, I don't think that establishes a canonical
usage.  (Unless he jokingly canonizes his mistake which he
has sometimes done.)

Are Klingon words used in Trek novels considered canon?  If we
*know* that Okrand supplied the word, then I'd consider that
canon.  If someone just made it up, then it's not Okrandian
canon, though it might be Trek-book canon.  (Of course Trek fans
will disagree among themselves whether only the shows are canon
or whether books are canon as well, or a different type of
canon.)  Often, though, Okrand will retroactively canonize
words used in the shows and sometimes the books through HolQeD.

In the case of <Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'>, I think an argument can
be made either way.  On the one hand, Okrand said it.  On the
other hand, it's not in the final version, and it's *possible*
that the reason it isn't is because Okrand changed his mind.
I don't have the KCD with me so I can't determine where that
sentence was supposed to be said or whether it has been replaced
by something else.

I don't really have any objection to it, and if someone said
<Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'> I'd understand it.  I'm just erring on
the side of caution in saying it's not canon (i.e. I personally
don't consider it so) because it isn't in the final product.
Suppose we had access to earlier drafts of the Klingon dictionary
or Star Trek scripts showing something Okrand wrote, but for
which he has since changed his mind.  In fact, we have something
like that in <ma'> (v) "accomodate", which originally meant
"tell" (or "command"?).  If we had access to an earlier version of
Star Trek III, and we saw Okrand write /ma' = tell/, we wouldn't
consider that canon because we know Okrand has since changed his
mind, and canonically <ma'> means "accommodate".  In the case
of the KCD, some programmer kept around an unused file that
might have been an earlier rejected draft, and I'd tend to see
it the same way as if I saw some Klingon in an early draft of
a Star Trek script.  Okay, it's more authoritative than something
some writer at Paramount just made up (from an Okrandian-only
canon point of view), but isn't it somehow less authoritative
than if it appeared in print or in a finalized product?  Is
it as "canonical" as <Qa'Hom> or whatever new words were
introduced in KCD?

Anyways, different people have different standards about what
constitutes "canon" usage, and this is a greyish case.

Why are headless <-bogh> clauses controversial?  Are there rules
which can be interpreted as allowing/forbidding them?  In
saying that I didn't consider <Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'> to be
canon, I wasn't implying by any means that I thought headless
<-bogh> clauses were illegal.  I tried writing a few headless
<-bogh> clauses and they do look odd to me, but that's probably
just because they aren't used much or I haven't seen many of
them.

--
De'vID

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Back to archive top level