tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 23 15:29:57 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon orthography

David Trimboli ( [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

Michael Everson wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2009, at 20:56, David Trimboli wrote:
>>> Of course he can! He could, for instance, implement a spelling reform
>>> and publish a third edition of his dictionary. Heck, I'd be happy to
>>> typeset it for him.
>> I would be the first in line to buy it, but I know it's just not up to
>> Marc Okrand to decide this; it's up to Paramount.
> An author can write whatever books he wants. Who owns the word  
> "Qapla'"? Okrand? Paramount? I know that Paramount owns Klingons.  
> Language is something else.

Certainly. And even though that battle has not yet been brought to 
court, I believe that a language cannot be owned.

However, any such book could not be called THE KLINGON DICTIONARY, or 
refer to Klingons, as Paramount owns the trademark. That makes any 
non-licensed publication extremely unlikely.

>> And they're never going to do another one, not unless Klingons  
>> become really, really popular again.
> Paramount didn't write the Klingon Dictionary. Okrand did. Maybe they  
> paid him to. Maybe he did it on his own and they get a cut. I don't  
> know what the arrangements were. It was most likely Simon and Schuster  
> ponied up to publish the actual book. Or?

Okrand was paid to do it. He had invented part of the language for STAR 
TREK III, and I believe they asked him to make a whole book out of it. I 
imagine Simon and Schuster were licensed by Paramount to publish the book.

>> (If another Abrams TREK features Klingons speaking true Okrandian  
>> Klingon, maybe it would happen. Otherwise, no.)
> I can hardly imagine Paramount forbidding a publication if it didn't  
> cost them anything and if the usual arrangements were made.

"The usual arrangements" would have to be "be licensed to do it," and 
that's not so easy with Paramount. The publisher would have to see a 
profit in it, and without some new film or TV inspiration, I don't see 
how it could be considered profitable.

Remember, the second edition of TKD came out after the beginning of the 
wildly successful STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION. There was a good 
reason to expect profits.

> So that's not a reason not to at least look at good vs. bad options  
> for spelling reform.

I didn't say it was. I simply point out the various hurdles you'd have 
to go over to get it done (and we haven't even mentioned the debate of 
WHICH changes would be acceptable by whom).

Stardate 9478.2

tlhIngan Hol MUSH:

Back to archive top level