[99087] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] friend of Maltz
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh)
Sun Jun 29 09:35:45 2014
From: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53AEEFF0.8060204@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:35:29 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org"
<tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
In agreement completely with this post, I=92ll add that only a minority of =
the people here are intensely into the Star Trek Universe and have adopted =
the Klingon language as an extension of that interest. It=92s a valid minor=
ity, deserving respect, but there=92s a problem with too much purity with t=
hat focus:
The 21st century corporation that owns the rights to the Star Trek Universe=
has less interest in keeping the product consistent than the fan base. Any=
time they find it in their business interest to make radical change, they =
do it, as the original post here points out. So, with a flick of the magic =
wand that says, =93We=92re on a new time line now,=94 our entire canon base=
could be wiped out, and to be pure, we should start over.
Meanwhile, there are a remarkable number of people here who are interested =
in the language because it is an interesting language. We love the obscure =
puns in the vocabulary (which have nothing to do with pure Star Trek story =
canon, and plant elements of the language to the name of one of Okrand=92s =
neighbors, or to the two character names of one actor in a play within a pl=
ay by Shakespeare). We love the stories about how words were created becaus=
e of production problems during the moviemaking process. We love the story =
of {=91I=92}.
We love the grammatical rules and their exceptions. We love that such a sma=
ll vocabulary and unusual, but relatively simple grammar can be so useful f=
or expressing such a wide range of ideas.
In other words, we are as engaged in Marc Okrand=92s Universe as we are in =
Star Trek=92s Universe. If the real-world corporation behind Star Trek were=
to completely invalidate everything about what we know as the Klingon lang=
uage, most of us would keep it as is with modifications as Okrand comes up =
with them, because over so many years, this has become our language. Yeah, =
the corporation owns it, but they don=92t understand it. They don=92t under=
stand how it works, what it can do, or why we are interested in it.
So, we let them own our language, so long as they don=92t get too stupid ab=
out it. For instance, presenting gibberish on-screen, "written Klingon" and=
then declaring that nobody can use pIqaD to actually SAY anything was corp=
orate political thuggery to serve the preference of an artist who wanted to=
show Klingon writing without having to be responsible for making it actual=
ly say anything meaningful.
Fans of the language came up with a character set that does allow writing f=
orbidden by this edict, and eventually, the corporation came around, realiz=
ing that fewer people would buy their SkyBox cards if the pIqaD presented o=
n them didn=92t have meaning. So, the corporation now has a split reality, =
where they sell product with fan invented pIqaD writing meaningful text, wh=
ile the movies continue to show Greeked characters pretending to be written=
Klingon, designed for artistic appearance without any language-related mea=
ning.
There are many splits in the Star Trek Universe. Purity is impossible, but =
if seeking it fascinates you, go for it. The Force at the heart of IDIC is =
quite powerful. Your contributions will likely enrich it.
Or not.
It=92s only fiction, after all. Even if bits of it make more sense than Rea=
lity, and at times, it seems like a better place to live.
lojmIt tI=92wI=92 nuv =91utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably
On Jun 28, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 28.06.2014 18:11, schrieb BT Yahoo!:
>> This seems to be a case of an established fanon being contradicted by la=
ter new canon.
> [...]
>> How does Tlhingan-hol email group accomodate that?
> =
> Well, depending on who you ask, there is no problem of canonicity. There =
are many people (like on Memory Alpha) who only accept "canon" as what is s=
een on screen, and TKD is "only" considered background artwork, just like m=
any other books. So from their point of view, Maltz has definitely been cap=
tured by Kirk, but nobody has ever said that it was him who tought Klingon =
to the federation.
> =
> Even ging a step further, we have no evidence that Okrand is talking abou=
t that specific same Maltz (although it should be obvious)
> =
> Anyway, I think I can speak for the entire group when I say that we have =
no problem with this being canon or not; Maltz is a synonym for Marc Okrand=
, who created the Klingon language, wrote it down in his TKD and that's the=
language we are learning. In this group of people, it's an agreement to on=
ly accept words from Okrand.
> =
> -- =
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka Quvar valer 'utlh
> http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
> http://wiki.qepHom.de/En/Maltz
> =
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
