On 4/24/2019 10:58 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Apr 24, 2019, at 09:32, Lieven L. Litaer<levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Although I sometimes have had weird and strong arguments and discussions with SuStel, I am thankful for him sometimes being so strict on some rules, and I agree with him here. Our first rule is "Canon = Okrand". There really is no need to change that. Is anybody disputing this?
The closest thing I can find is that De'vID is suggesting that we can consider Klingon that has been used on screen, but which is not Okrandian canon, to be a separate category to Klingon that is not Okrandian canon and has not been used on screen. That seems like a useful distinction to make for its own sake; what people choose to do with the different categories after making such a distinction is up to them. That he uses the word “canon” in the names of categories that are something other than proper Okrandian canon might be a little confusing and perhaps controversial, but I really don’t think he’s disputing that Okrand is the sole source of Okrandian canon.
What he's disputing is what determines "correct" Klingon. If he just wants to label a new category that combines what Okrand says with what /Discovery/ says, that's just a label, no problem. He just needs a better name than Okrandian Klingon canon, as it's not obvious at first glance how it differs from Okrandian canon. But he's not just advocating for a new category. He's arguing Okrand's retirement and ratios of on-screen Klingon to written Klingon. He's talking about people who "adhere strictly only to Klingon which comes from Okrand as canon" which is, I believe, a straw-man argument, since the real issue is identifying what's "correct" Klingon, not enforcing correct Klingon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name