[tlhIngan Hol] Is Star Trek: Discovery a new canon category?

[nIqolay Q]

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:

> Am 11.08.2017 um 04:28 schrieb nIqolay Q:
>
>> One of the major differences between Discovery and Klingon Hamlet is that
>> Discovery is going to be Actual Star Trek Canon.
>>
>
> There's the point: it's "Star Trek" canon, but still not pour Okrandian
> canon. Remember all the gibberish we'se seen on Deep Space nine? That
> certainly is canon, but wo don't even understand a word from it.
>

The argument I'm making is that the reason we don't understand the
gibberish from DS9 and elsewhere is because it is supposed to be considered
canonically *no' Hol*, even the stuff that (coincidentally, I'm sure)
sounds like someone doing a bad phonetic reading of modern Klingon words.
The section on *no' Hol* (KGT p. 11-14) is written as if it's trying to
reassure the reader that even if a Klingon says something that sounds like
gibberish, it's actually perfectly acceptible as a contemporary use of
ancient language. Okrand doesn't mention many examples of TV show gibberish
specifically (though *mova' 'aqI' ruStaq* (KGT p. 13) is a line from
"Looking For Par'Mach in All The Wrong Places" (DS9)), but it seems clear
to me in retrospect that the digression on *no' Hol *was intended as a way
to include all the TV gibberish in the canonical linguistic history without
having to really make sense of it. Which is why I said earlier that all the
stuff we've seen on TV and film has been incorporated into canonical
Klingon, even if just as a more ancient form of the language.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170811/d23970e3/attachment-0017.htm>