<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/21/2019 11:21 PM, De'vID wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmN7VVmUtsXPfNSyoBhbLZcAdwR_QgD99KDihFn+PdDrtg@mail.gmail.com">I've
written before about the importance of keeping track of what comes
from Okrand, but I think there's a useful difference between, say,
Okrandian canon (comes from Okrand) and Okrandian Klingon canon
(Star Trek canon which uses Okrand's Klingon).
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Okrand himself specifies the rules for generating noun-noun
constructions and compound nouns, for example, in TKD. Since
{poH qut} has been used in Star Trek now, and its meaning is
fairly unambiguous from the components, I see no reason not to
accept this as the "canon" way to say "time crystals".</div>
</blockquote>
<p>There is, as you say, a <i>difference</i> between Okrandian
canon and Star Trek canon. If <b>poH qut</b> appears on a Star
Trek show but wasn't written or approved by Okrand, it is Star
Trek canon, not Okrandian canon. On this list, <i>canon</i>
means, first and foremost, Okrandian canon.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmN7VVmUtsXPfNSyoBhbLZcAdwR_QgD99KDihFn+PdDrtg@mail.gmail.com">
<div> (TKD even allows such words to be written without a space,
like *{poHqut}.) I'm much more likely to use {poH qut} than
{jolvoy'} (since Discovery is currently on-air), and also be
likelier to be understood. {poH qut} is Okrandian Klingon canon,
even if it isn't Okrandian canon.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>"Okrandian Klingon canon" isn't a thing. If someone uses
grammatically correct Klingon on Star Trek, that doesn't make it
closer to Okrandian canon than if someone gets it wrong.</p>
<p>While most episodes of <i>Star Trek: The Next Generation</i>
feature Klingon that the writers just made up, some of them give
us Klingon that was obviously taken from <i>The Klingon
Dictionary.</i> We don't call these Okrandian canon. Okrand
usually backfit most of their errors into the language by giving
us new canon, but the original lines still aren't Okrandian canon.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmN7VVmUtsXPfNSyoBhbLZcAdwR_QgD99KDihFn+PdDrtg@mail.gmail.com">I
can virtually guarantee that if someone were to show that line to
Okrand with the explanation that L'Rell spoke it on Discovery,
he'll confirm that it is correct. Again, it's fine to distinguish
between "it comes from Okrand" and "it was approved by Okrand" (as
some of K.R.A. DeCandido's words are), and it's fine to wait until
he does confirm it and not just assume he would (though he has a
lot of things to do, and I've never known him to contradict
on-screen Star Trek canon). But I think there's also a danger, in
absolutely refusing to interpret a word in any way except as
illustrated by an existing canon example, of being more Klingon
than Kahless (I think the Earth expression is "being more Catholic
than the Pope"). </blockquote>
<p>I think you've constructed a straw man argument here. Nobody has
demanded rigid adherence to the exact words Okrand gave us
regarding <b>SIch.</b> Some have probed the limits of what he
said, and I, for one, have said "the jury is out." I'm not going
to complain if someone uses <b>SIch</b> in a way that matches
what L'Rell says, and I can't imagine anyone else will either. We
simply have what Okrand has said about <b>SIch</b> on the one
hand ("canon") and what has appeared on Star Trek on the other.
They're not the same thing. When trying to draw conclusions about
what bits of Klingon that appear on Star Trek, we don't get to
pick and choose which bits count as canon and which don't.</p>
<p>The definition of canon is not "what we imagine Okrand would
say." At the same time, when speaking or writing Klingon, one is
not obligated to obey all conclusions drawn from canon. You just
have to be willing to agree that what you said is not supported,
or not clearly supported, by canon.</p>
<p>As an example: for years this list used the word <b>pabpo'</b>
to refer to grammarians. Not canonical. But no one ever claimed it
<i>was</i> canonical.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>