Re: VL - Vulcan in Vulcan
Adam Ophir Shapira 
Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:03:21 +0100

At 10:39 AM -0500 10/18/97, McReynolds wrote:
>I was just wondering why the name of Vulcan given in novels and other Trek
>guides was abandoned in favor of W~L'q'n.  There are many references to
>"novel Vulcan" throughout the lexicon, and it seems to be an integral part.
>For example, t'hy'la is included, as well as words from "Spock's World."
>Outside of the Vulcan Language being developed here, Vulcan was always
>called T'Khasi by the natives.
>
[snip]
>In other words, I would prefer to see the planet called something alien
>(T'Khasi works fine for me) and just say that humans called it "Vulcan"
>before meeting the inhabitants than having such a glaring backfit.

I tend to agree.

I don't think that we should treat references to Vulcan as
being said as "W~L'q'n" in the Vulcan language ... because
those references are way too corny.

Chances are, the English word for "Vulcan" would neither be
derived nor similar to the Vulcan word for "Vulcan". If you
understand Human nature, they probably picked the English
word for "Vulcan" without even asking Vulcans what they
thought.

My guess ... a Human must have stepped foot on a Vulcan
vessel, and found that their climate control was set to a
very high temperature, and immediately assumed that these
creatures were clones of Vulcan, the Roman equivalent of
Hepheastus.

The authors of the books provide us with a lot of good
information, yet they still need to be taken with a
critical eye, and "W~L'q'n" will not hold up to even
a *remotely* critical eye.