Vostroyan language

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**KamikazeCanuck**

@Petrial
Keep in mind that BL is cannon. So if they have a different language in Rebel Winter they are probably a bilingual people.

**chaos0xomega**

KamikazeCanuck wrote:BL is cannon

No its not.

**Cheesecat**

High Gothic and Low Gothic aren't English or Latin they've been translated as such for the convenience of the readers and writers.

**KamikazeCanuck**

Lynata wrote:
Farseer Petriel wrote:But the Vostroyan dictionary is canon because these words appear in the Rebel Winter which is a BL novel.
Keep in mind that BL novels or other licensed products are not "canon". In most cases I would say we should be glad they aren't; I'm sure we could all do without backflipping Terminators, Multilaser-Marines, flirting Sisters and other such shenanigans. ADB, by now a rather accomplished BL author, actually wrote a pretty interesting blog post regarding this that you can find here, if you're interested.
As said, I would adopt that author's stance into my personal interpretation - but as it's just another novel there really is no "right" or "wrong" on this topic.

Farseer Petriel wrote:Modern languages have many loanwords, especially with Greek and Latin roots. Even in Russian "Император" is derived from the Latin "Imperator" which means the Emperor.
It's quite fascinating how it all ties together, isn't it?

Lynata have you read that blog? It says Black Library is canon. That was the point of it.

**Lynata**

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Lynata have you read that blog? It says Black Library is canon. That was the point of it.

Errh, no, I recommend you give it another read.

He weasels around the issue a little at first (likely because he is an author and he fears it could "devalue" his own works), but he also gives us sentences like this:
"I’ve read 40K novels that categorically violate my opinions and perceptions of how 40K works, and I have no trouble ignoring them afterwards."
Which confirms what George Mann supposedly said during the 2008 General Meeting. Further down in the comments section, he even gives us an example where and why he ignored Codex fluff.

So, when BL authors are not required to adhere to what other BL authors write in their books, and when they occasionally even ignore what GW writes ... how could you consider them canon? You'd have to re-evaluate your stance on the entire setting with every single book!

See also this comment from Andy Hoare, posted further below in the very same blog:

"It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."

**Psienesis**

BL novels are, basically, licensed fan-fics. Dan Abnett even hints at this in the foreword to the Eisenhorn Omnibus, when he goes into detail about "his" version of the 40k universe, which is called, he says, "the Daniverse" around the GW and BL offices and such.

BL novels simply cannot be canon, they contain too many conflicting points and descriptions.

**KamikazeCanuck**

Lynata wrote:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Lynata have you read that blog? It says Black Library is canon. That was the point of it.
Errh, no, I recommend you give it another read.

He weasels around the issue a little at first (likely because he is an author and he fears it could "devalue" his own works), but he also gives us sentences like this:
"I’ve read 40K novels that categorically violate my opinions and perceptions of how 40K works, and I have no trouble ignoring them afterwards."
Which confirms what George Mann supposedly said during the 2008 General Meeting. Further down in the comments section, he even gives us an example where and why he ignored Codex fluff.

So, when BL authors are not required to adhere to what other BL authors write in their books, and when they occasionally even ignore what GW writes ... how could you consider them canon? You'd have to re-evaluate your stance on the entire setting with every single book!

See also this comment from Andy Hoare, posted further below in the very same blog:

"It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."

He says: "In short, the belief is usually that the design studio has precedence, and everything else isn’t canon. That’s actually wrong, but several aspects reinforce the misjudgement, not least that a few top brass quotes have been poorly phrased or taken out of context"

and: “It’s all real, and none of it’s real.”

And to put your citation back into context: "I’ve read 40K novels that categorically violate my opinions and perceptions of how 40K works, and I have no trouble ignoring them afterwards. Similarly with some design studio sourcebooks, if I come across an idea that I find patently, uh, “in conflict” with my views (there’s some diplomacy for you), I’ll just ignore it and try not to write about it."

His central point is that "the official line is that there are three factions empowered to “create IP” (an exact quote), and that’s GW, BL and FW. Given that the 40K RPG is mostly made by folks working in or around the main three companies, I think it’s fair to say that its lore counts as canon, too."

Finally Star Wars' tiered canon system is given as an example of how 40K doesn't work.

**Farseer Petriel**

This is not a thread about considering BL canon or not. I have only pointed out that the given Vostroyan dictionary has two real Russian words and many fictional with Slavic look and gave some Cyrillic phrases to continue the Russian cultural reference further.
P.S. And yes, shiny is an English word.

**Iracundus**

chaos0xomega wrote:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I think that when we read english in the background we are in fact reading low gothic that has been translated for us. When we read High Gothic we are actually reading High Gothic. That would be stuff like Adeptus Ministorum and stuff like that.

This. Take Badab War 2 for example. Carcharadons Astra is the stated High Gothic name of a Space Marine chapter there. Carcharadons Astra, not 'Chiang-Kai Shu Mei' or some other non-latin sounding thing. Its stated, flat out, the low Gothic translation is "Space Sharks". Nowhere have I ever seen any indication (I haven't found anything in Rogue Trader which states it btw, would have been real nice to ACTUALLY cite a page in the article...) that this 'Low Gothic' English is actually translated from another language for convenience sake.

As always, one should go to the original source and cite it instead of relying on third party paraphrases.
Rogue Trader p. 267:

The common language of the Imperium is represented in the book by English. Proper names have been rendered in an anglicised form. Many of the titles of ancient institutions and organisations arep resented as Latinised English (such as the Adeptus Terra). This represents an older tongue, itself a development of Twentieth Century languages, not necessarily Latin as such.

This older tongue is known in the Imperium as 'Tech', being a version of the language in which technical manuals and ancient works are recorded. This language developed during the Dark Age of Technology (in fact a golden age from the point of view of science - it is only dark in the minds of the men who now fear it). It derives from the common tongue of the time, an assimilation of English, European, and Pacific languages which developed over many centuries in the American/Pacific region. This was the universal medium of written record until the Age of Strife, and was spoken as a first language by many and as a second language by almost everyone. Its idioms and vocabulary now appear archaic and mystic, many of its words have acquired religious significance over the years. It is the language of the Tech-priests and of forbidden books.

The common tongue of the Age of the Imperium is spoken as a first language on almost all civilised planets, and is accepted as a second language on planets within Imperial control with the exception of some medieval and feral worlds. It is a bastardised version of Tech, combining additional elements from several of the oriental languages of ancient Earth. Over the millenia it has changed greatly, and now bears no resemblance to the tongues from which it derived. Although a common language, it varies from planet to planet (and even from region to region), so that it is not always easy for two characters to communicate if they are from different worlds.

"Tech" is essentially High Gothic and its bastardized form Low Gothic. In the current 40K, the Tech Priests have an additional language that sounds like machine noise or electronic noise to human ears.

The use of Latin and English as stated above is purely to establish an analogous relation for modern English speaking people: a modern language based on an older now dead language only used by officials and priests. If we were all Chinese speaking readers, a similar analogous example of such a relationship would be use of modern Chinese vs. classical Chinese.

**Lynata**

KamikazeCanuck wrote:He says: "In short, the belief is usually that the design studio has precedence, and everything else isn’t canon. That’s actually wrong, but several aspects reinforce the misjudgement, not least that a few top brass quotes have been poorly phrased or taken out of context"

So where and why exactly is it wrong? This is something he does not address at all.

As I said, he weasels around the issue, but the one and only other way to interpret his text would be that nothing is canon, not even GW itself. That certainly is one way to deal with it, too, but in terms of BL novels, the end result would still be the same: they do not matter at all.

And to reiterate, how could licensed material be "canon" if other authors of licensed material are allowed to ignore it? That's not how canon works and goes against the very definition of the term. Literature canon is a set of rules for the background. Rules have to be enforced. When BL authors are allowed to ignore each other, then so are you as their reader.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Finally Star Wars' tiered canon system is given as an example of how 40K doesn't work.

Precisely. Because in Star Wars, *everything* is indeed canon. In 40k, GW simply does not care what some mercenary writer comes up with in his licensed product.

See also Gav Thorpe here:
"If the developers and other creative folks believe a contribution by an author fits the bill and has an appeal to the audience, why not fold it back into the ‘game’ world – such as Gaunt’s Ghosts or characters from the Gotrek and Felix series. On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books."
^ tl;dr: Nothing from some licensed product has any relevance until GW specifically sanctions it by putting it in their books.

Sorry Petriel, I know it's not quite the topic of your thread, but it is relevant to what you proposed. I do, however, suggest that we could "detach" the canon debate from this thread and move over to this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/387647.page ?

**KamikazeCanuck**

Lynata the point is he does not think studio material is of a higher level of canon. In fact, sometimes they are the worst offenders. He calls its early days a bunch of self referential in-jokes. Space-dwarves battled the founding legion Crimson Fists back then.
Absolutely, the take away point of that essay was that GW, BL, FW (and soon to be FFG) are all canon (and not canon).

**Lynata**

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Lynata the point is he does not think studio material is of a higher level of canon. In fact, sometimes they are the worst offenders. He calls its early days a bunch of self referential in-jokes. Space-dwarves battled the founding legion Crimson Fists back then.
Absolutely, the take away point of that essay was that GW, BL, FW (and soon to be FFG) are all canon (and not canon).

Again, it cannot all be canon if people are allowed to ignore it. This is just not how it works. Please, read through the quotes assembled in the thread I linked. And/or explain to me how you are bringing this in line. What is your interpretation that you avoid the conflicts I pointed out?

The way I see it: Marines toting multilasers as standard weapons are not canon. Terminators backflipping because their armour is apparently so light is not canon either. And neither is penitent and zealous Sisters supposedly being perfectly free to flirt around with people.
Those are just a few examples of direct contradictions to core material from GW books, and ADB is contradicting some things as well. Have you noticed Andy Hoare's comment? Have you read what Gav Thorpe wrote?

It cannot "all be canon and not canon". It either does constitute a rule to adhere to, or it doesn't. It's that simple.

But again, perhaps we should move this to the other thread?

**KamikazeCanuck**

Ya, we've completely derailed this one so: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/396643.page