tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 25 13:45:50 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:
>>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.

SuStel:
>/SIS/ is in TKD, but information on how to use it is not.  Okrand's *use* 
>of
>/SIS/ was canonized by someone's report of it at a convention.

Oh, I see.  I didn't know this.  What usage information was
added to the definition of <SIS> (v) "rain" by Okrand's act?
Was it that <SIS> didn't take a subject?

De'vID:
>>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.)

SuStel:
>Who determines when what Okrand writes is a mistake?

There have been occasions where the wrong prefix is used or
a <l> is mistyped for an <I> (although in this case it's the
typesetter's or printer's fault), and I don't think any
reasonable person would claim that Okrand was changing the
meaning of the prefix or adding a new letter/sound to the
language.  I guess the "body of competent speakers of Klingon"
determines if Okrand makes a mistake, based on contradiction
with prior canon.  But all such judgments must be tentative.
For example, putting the verb with <-jaj> last (even if there
is a subject) *looked* like a mistake, until we learned that
this is the grammar for toasts and such.

De'vID:
>>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.

SuStel:
>Okay, so it's your *personal* opinion.  That's fine.  That's also not what
>was indicated originally.

Aren't all claims about what is or isn't canon "personal"?  I
don't think anyone can say what is "objectively" canon, other
than Marc Okrand (or maybe Paramount's lawyers!).  There's a
large chunk of Klingon that any reasonable person would consider
canon, such as TKD (minus the obvious typos), TKW (ditto), the
tapes (minus a few mistakes such as <cha'maH wa'vatlh rep>),
and what MO writes in HolQeD.  There's another large chunk that
most would also consider canon, such as some Trek items translated
by MO (cards, books, etc.), what MO says in interviews, etc.

As for what MO writes on a napkin during a qep'a', what he
writes in e-mail, etc., that's probably a grey area for most
people.  If it doesn't contradict any prior canon, and introduces
nothing new, I think that most people would consider it a
"canon example".  But if he introduces a new word or uses odd
grammar, we don't know until it's clarified (through HolQeD
or however) whether he slipped up (which, being human, he
occasionally does) or if he's revealing something to us (from
Maltz, of course).  Or if a group of witnesses report it in
HolQeD (I believe this was how <'I'> "armpit" was canonized?).

SuStel:
>There is this constant impression that Okrand writes his own material.
>Okrand typically TRANSLATES material written by others (e.g., Power Klingon
>was written by Barry Levine).  If in the course of revision the script is
>changed, Okrand may need to change his translation.  He changes his mind
>about the Klingon in order to accommodate the script.  This is a change to
>Klingon.

Yes, you're right, of course.  MO didn't write the material for
KCD, he only translated.

SuStel:
>Is it possible that the /Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'/ phrase in KCD was dropped by
>Okrand?  Yes, but it is far, far, FAR more likely that it was dropped by
>someone else, someone involved in the operation of the program.  Comparing
>this to a changed script is not valid: there is no change, there is only a
>deletion.  There is no reason for Okrand to say, "The Klingon cannot be 
>this
>now."

The change to KCD was probably made by someone else other than
Okrand.  But nevertheless, it was a change.  I have no idea how
the KCD was put together.  Was all of MO's material recorded in
one sitting?  Or did he have a chance to revise things, like
what happened with Trek scripts when the scriptwriters changed
the lines?  Maybe he was rushed for this particular line, which
is why it had odd grammar, but then it was decided (by whomever)
that it wasn't needed in the final product, so he didn't bother
or need to re-record the line (or change the grammar to make it
fit).  Like I said, I'm just erring on the side of caution.

SuStel:
>Do I claim that /Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'/ is a definitely-correct Klingon
>sentence?  Not at all.  I just see no reason to casually drop it from
>consideration as a canonical sentence, primarily because it's got icky
>grammar.

Okay, it's *possible* canon then.  I (personally) wouldn't consider
it to have the same status as stuff that appear in finished products,
but it's a potential canon example for a headless <-bogh> clause.
We don't know until its status is clarified by Okrand.

De'vID:
>>Why are headless <-bogh> clauses controversial?  Are there rules
>>which can be interpreted as allowing/forbidding them? ...

SuStel:
>They're controversial because there's no way in Klingon for a verb to be 
>the
>object of a sentence, yet that's what you've got here.  There's no other
>example of eliding a key noun like this.  And finally, it seems pretty
>obvious that /Dajatlhbogh/ was Okrand's translation of "what you said," and
>he just stuck it together like the English sentence: "I don't understand
>what you said," /Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'/.  It's showing its English basis.

Ah, right.  That's why it looks odd, because even with <-bogh> a
verb is still a verb.  Also, doesn't TKD's description of <-bogh>
make references to its "head noun" without considering the case
where there is no such head noun?

The expression that I always thought showed a blatant English bias
was <taD> meaning "cease moving".  "Freeze" only has that idiomatic
meaning in English.  I guess Okrand was rushed for all his lines
in KCD.

--
De'vID

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium 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