Talk:Darmok (episode)

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

Contents 1 Episode talk page 1.1 Maintenance links 2 Shaka, and Casey, at Memory Alpha 3 Linguistic Errors 4 No linguists on the Enterprise? 5 Teachers 6 List of the metaphors 7 End of episode 8 Firing Phasers through the Torpedo Bay? 9 "Darmok" in syndication

[edit] Shaka, and Casey, at Memory Alpha

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I've removed the following line from the Background section:

The quote "Shaka, when the walls fell" has a direct English translation: "Casey, at the bat"

Not because I don't think it's true - I've followed the link and I see the connection. I just don't really think it qualifies as a 'direct English translation' for precisely the reason that the Tamarian metaphors caused problems. It's dependent on the culture of the person reading it. Granted, most 'western' English-speaking people could probably hazard a guess from 'at the bat' that Casey is something to do with baseball. But it might not necessarily have the immediate resonance in other English-speaking cultures that it does in America. Perhaps someone could suggest a more globally-understood reference? - Kaitiaki 20:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic Errors

This episode is sometimes used by linguistics teachers to aid in students' understanding of how languages work and evolve.

I wonder where this information comes from. I discussed the episode with some friends, who study linguistics. They considered it poorly thought-out. It seems like the author of the episode understood little about linguistics in general. Here are some of the problems:

It seems like only Humans are willing to take an effort to understand the other one. The Tamarians don't seem to be interested at all in understanding how human language works. Understanding each other is always a mutual intellectual effort and requires both sides to be willing to change their perspective or at least 'digest' their language for the other party. Isn't there such thing as a tamarian linguist? It is unlikely that there is no precedent in tamarian history for the misunderstanding portrayed here.

The biggest error is that it would be impossible for tamarians to teach the language to their offspring without using some kind of intermediate language. How would Tamarian babies learn the language? What would be the first metaphor a Tamarian baby would utter? What is the the Tamarian equivalent for mama? In such a society, there must have been certainly be some kind of children language, which works wihout the refrence to mythological concepts, so little children with yet no knowledge of history can talk with their parents. In that case, this language would be perfectly suitable for communication with foreign cultures.

While I don't agree with your reasoning, you are correct that this statement needs a citation. -- Jaz ^talk 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this will suffice as a citation: Karen Landahl, Linguist, 1951-2003, University of Chicago - Intricated ^{talk page} 19:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You assume they must teach their children language. If they had an inherited, genetic memory they would completely lack the need to communicate in a simple, child-like manner. In fact, as I see it, if they had a genetic memory, then this is exactly the sort of language that would evolve. We tell stories and use analogies as a method of presenting not only facts, but the feelings and complex human experience associated with life. The Tamarian language operates at this level and if you had a complete, built-in English language and mythos, speaking in metaphor would be advantagous. Similar to how you might speak to your immediate family members—your shared history makes explaining your feelings and positions on even a moderately complex subject as simple as a look. With a more general shared history, you, of course, have to give a bit more than a look. Certainly not canon, but interesting nonetheless, I think. —BradleyEE 03:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the statement following "It seems like only Humans [as opposed to Tamarians] are willing to take an effort to understand the other one. [...]" - to me it seems to be a clever way of pointing at a real-world issue: A large number of US citizens travels abroad knowing nothing but English, and expecting everybody else to learn a sufficient amount of English to be able to communicate with them - an attitude considered arrogant and lazy ("why bother, everybody speaks English, right?") by most of the locals. This episode plays on that theme, with the "lazy" ("why bother, there's an universal translator, right?") members of the UFP being forced to learn the foreign language.
84.56.179.183 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the same applies to ANY foreigners entering a foreign country; a certain precentage of them are unwilling to learn the culture and the language (or at least realize that their language won't be spoken there). It has nothing to do with the fact that the foreigner is American or not. To which, I have no issue with "It seems like only Humans [as opposed to Tamarians] are willing to take an effort to understand the other one. [...]"; unless it's the Tamarian way to assume that the other side's just gonna do all the work, I doubt a peaceful, diplomatic liaison would have sent someone out who is unwilling to learn more about the other side. .... I also agree that, while this is a pretty creative language, it's rather inefficient. I mean, let's assume that Tamarians have genetic memory (said above) or some sort of linked mind system that allows every Tamarian to know what even they're talking about. Despite that, events are pretty subjective; "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!" could also mean "two jerks came along and killed me, the beast of Tanagra". What about a human metaphor like "Shigemitsu and MacArthur on the USS Missouri": does that mean "victory" or "defeat/surrender"? How can a language flourish if the same story can have multiple different meanings? -- 66.92.0.61 05:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at their metaphors, they are derived from their own ancient history, mythology, and works of literature. These would typically have a defined interpretation. Consider the wonderful scene in First Contact where Picard and Lily are arguing in the Ready Room. Lily says, "Captain Ahab has to go hunt his whale!" We the audience, as well as Picard, knows exactly what she means. A language built around metaphors would use ones that have a direct and clear meaning. Of course if I said, "The Boy who Cried Wolf" to Garak, then there might be a bit of a confusion, but that's unavoidable for any language. Or not, since I know his character. As for both sides' actions, it does seem odd that neither seemed to study the other's language at all before meeting, seeing as the UFP and the Tamarians have had "seven previous encounters" over the past 100 years, according to Data. Then again, I guess if they had thought to study, the episode would be a lot less engaging. Ddeschw 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is that the Tamarian language would seem to be inherently clumsy. Using an entire phrase to convey the meaning of a single word or concept may work as a plot device, but it would hardly make sense as the basis of an actual language. If saying "Shaka, when the walls fell" is necessary to convey a meaning of failure or danger, imagine how cumbersome it would be for a Tamarian to say something like, "we will need to work together to defeat that creature". Indeed, we never really hear what would amount to an actual Tamarian sentence, only a few words that, to the human ear, sound like phrases. This brings up a related point. When the Tamarian captain and his subordinate get into an argument over what plan of action to take, they repeat several phrases back and forth and, as the exchange grows more heated, the phrases become clipped until Dathon finally ends it with one word ("DARMOK!", if memory serves). If "Darmok" can convey the same meaning as "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra", it would make no sense to speak the entire phrase. The same would be true of the other Tamarian "words".207.200.116.66 08:22, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No linguists on the Enterprise?

There are over 1000 people on the Enterprise and they have not one linguist on board? Whoever at Starfleet selected Enterprise personal certainly sucks and should be fired. --84.149.255.55 05:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

they normally don't need one because 99% of all translations can be handled by the computer. in this case the translation was only partially complete, the words were translated but not the context.

[edit] Teachers

This episode is sometimes used by linguistics teachers to aid in students' understanding of how languages work and evolve.

Can we cite that with some examples of teachers, or something? For 8 months we have not had a citation, I am removing it until we can provide one. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 06:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of the metaphors

Would it be relevant to have a list of the metaphors used by Dathon and the other Tamarians? Interpretation would have to be quoted from the episode (e.g., "Picard inferred that he meant...."), naturally. -- Kojiro Vance | Talk 16:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is this. --Jayunderscorezero 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] End of episode

The episode ends with Picard in his Ready Room reading Homeric epics pondering whether he would have sacrificed his life in hope of communication.

No, it doesn't. The episode ends with Picard paying homage to Dathon's religious or cultural beliefs by mimicking his gesture of touching the knife and then touching the forehead. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.151.241 (talk).

Then be bold and fix it. This is a wiki.– Cleanse 03:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Firing Phasers through the Torpedo Bay?

Anyone know why this took place? Any in-script reason? Any other reason? Satyrquaze 18:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Scimitar hasn't been active lately, too bad, he added it March 25 2005, we could have asked him what the heck. As far as I can tell, it didn't happen. Maybe Scimitar thought he saw the phaser beam coming out a torpedo door. What really happened according to the script and transcript is that Worf and Geordi "selectively target[ed] the amplification pathways around the [heavily shielded] [polarity coil] generator [aft of their warp drive]", by "adjust[ing] the prefire chambers. That'll give us the focus we need". --TribbleFurSuit 20:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if you take a look at the pictures http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s5/5x02/darmok273.jpg (copy link into address bar), then you might agree that he might not be the only one who 'thought he saw the phaser beam coming out a torpedo door.' --Alan 21:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap... that's a focused, selectively targeted phaser? Looks like they adjusted the prefire chambers to just asplode! Welp, that settles it. Anyway the answer to the question seems to be that there's no explanation whatsoever for why this didn't just fire from a regular phaser emitter. --TribbleFurSuit 21:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. It's just written off as a goof in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion.– Cleanse 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, it may be a homage to TOS. After all, they never could figure out where the phasers and photons were coming from, I seem to remember a variety where a given weapon emanated from. I'm sure this though will have been fixed by the remastering. -- Kooky 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Darmok" in syndication

So, I've been watching TNG on WGN in the United States. They aired "Darmok" after "In Theory" and before "Redemption I and II." Everything from the stardate to the production code place it squarely after "Redemption II" and "Ensign Ro." It's the first episode where Picard wears the suede-jacket uniform. So, why is it aired in season 4 in syndication?

I thought it was a fluke, but Sci Fi (or Syfy, if you prefer -- I don't) aired it the same way. Does anyone know why this is? I know sometimes shows get aired in production order rather than original air order when they're syndicated (or re-syndicated, in this case), but there doesn't seem to be a reason for this... and now two different networks who have nothing to do with each other aired them the same way.

Please, shed some light. I dare you. :)

--Ipsilon

Such a challenge :P

Most of the time, the two part episodes will be rearranged so that they can be shown together -- if they had shown Redemption I after In Theory, viewers would not be able to watch Redemption II immediately afterwards, as Redemption I would have been the final episode in the 'marathon block' on Monday on Syfy -- and viewers would not know when to return to complete the cliffhanger, since some might assume the next week at the same time, when the marathon blocks might place Redemption II much earlier in the evening at the beginning of the block. Other syndications would avoid leaving the cliffhanger at the end of a week, or possibly make a special event out of showing the two-parter together.

Anyway, hope this cleared this up for you. -- Captain MKB 02:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, actually. And, now I can't remember if Darmok aired at the end of the week, or not, on WGN. I should've thought of that. Thanks! :) -Ip.