Talk:Mando'a/Legends

Was Mando'a the language Jango spoke to Boba in Episode II -- SFH 19:11, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) It has been requested that this article be alphabetized for easier finding. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:37, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:37, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * No, at least according to Boba Fett: The Fight to Survive, it was Huttese. --Azizlight 04:55, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Damn Tatooinian influences. Doesn't the galaxy get any bigger? -- Riffsyphon1024 04:58, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course not, we're talking about George Lucas here ;-) --Azizlight 05:09, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Huttese is more of a Nal Hutta influence, and since Boba had no association with the Mandalorians until adulthood, there's no reason for him to speak Mando'a. QuentinGeorge 05:58, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that his father had previously been Mandalore.


 * Jango does indeed speak Huttese to Boba. And it doesn't appear that he taught the kid Mando'a. You can be Mandalore without it...but the more traditional Mando'ade disapprove.  KarenTraviss 15:01, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

fanon
Warning put because of fan-made words
 * Since we've decided to deal in only canon here, any fanon words should be taken off the page totally. Can someone familiar with this do so? QuentinGeorge 00:16, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Um... Karen Traviss herself? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:31, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that may be a bad idea: "I can't endorse anything. Technically and legally, the work I'm doing belongs to LFL. If I added this on a Wiki (as distinct from putting in a disclaimer about it, for example) then I'm going to run into trouble. There's a fine dividing line for me between editing a statement that anything that appears on the Wiki is not official, and actually breaching my contract with LFL by publishing what I've done. I hope you don't think I'm being awkward, but if I start getting too involved with this on a non-LFL site before the information is made public via LFL, then I'm in trouble. So...unless it's already been done (I haven't looked at the page yet) I would prefer a blanket statement that none of it's offical. Does that make sense?" The best thing to do would be to wait for an official release, then edit it all from there. Xilentshadow900 01:21, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, fully understood. We wouldn't want her to lose her job now would we? -- Riffsyphon1024 02:41, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, which is why I've been maintaining the Mando'a page. Xilentshadow900 02:43, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Should we go ahead and and delete the fanon section? I'm itching to do so. Xilentshadow900 19:05, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New wiki?
Would it be useful to have a separate non-canon Star Wars Wikicity? There is a non-canon Star Trek one in addition to Memory Alpha. Either that, or perhaps there might even be enough interest for a Mando'a-specific wiki? I'd appreciate any comments on this. Angela (talk) 07:53, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * New wiki? By all means, go ahead. Xilentshadow900 12:50, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * The thing is, Star Trek has a lot of licensed, non-canon material which the makers of the TV series and movies completely ignore. In Star Wars, everything in the Expanded Universe outside of the movies is still supposed to be 100% compatible.  Even though Lucas was free to overwrite any EU material he wanted in the prequel trilogy, and may do so with the rumoured/planned TV series, old EU lore was actually incorporated into the movies (Coruscant, Lorrdians, etc.). The non-canon ST wiki seems to focus on their EU, while Memory Alpha is the equivalent of a SW wiki which only covers the six films.  &mdash; Silly Dan  13:10, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think a new wiki is really needed. I say we remove the fanon words and just keep the ones we know, and then when the dictionary comes out, we add all the words and info to the article. --24.247.124.158 14:18, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * In answer to the question someone asked me about separate or non-separate - not my call! KarenTraviss 15:01, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * An OOU page that combined that canon and fanon Mando'a words could be interesting (citing the locations of work and collaboration across message boards), while the IU page would contain exclusively canon words. --SparqMan 00:49, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Dar'jetii
Are we sure this is a translation of Sith, especially since Siit means Sith? Wouldn't Dark Jedi be more accurate? -- SFH 21:11, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, You can trust anything you see on this page. Dar means no longer, and Jetii means jedi. Dar'jetii means no longer a jedi. Ms. traivss and mr. kaufman themselves made em up. My (and Tracyn's) sources are only the best. Xilentshadow900 21:25, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * But doesn't that meaning better translate as "Dark Jedi"? QuentinGeorge 21:35, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning sources here. I realize that Dar'jetii means no longer a Jedi, but I'm asking if it should be considered Dark Jedi instead of Sith. Remember, just because a Sith is a Dark Jedi, a Dark Jedi is not necessarily a Sith. -- SFH 21:31, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * "I was debating what the Mando'ade would call a Sith - siit (because there's no real th sound in Mando'a - funny, it just didn't crop up at all) or dar'jetii - "no longer a Jedi". I tried it on Ryan and we kicked it around for a while. Dar'jetii won in the end, because it's actually pragmatically descriptive, and also suitably couldn't-care-less about hurting Sith feelings. But I also think they'd use siit as a neutral term." -Karen Traviss, on her blog. While "Dark Jedi" would make more sense, technically all sith are jedi anyway, because they're an off-shoot of the jedi. The Mandalorians would have been around long enough to know that. Xilentshadow900 22:00, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. QuentinGeorge 22:07, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Its a retcon, but whatever. Xilentshadow900 22:09, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

updates
Please, when updating the Mando'a page, tell what you added so I or Tracyn can double-check it. Xilentshadow900 20:26, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Tat
According to the Guide to the Grand Army, "Tat" is the Concord Dawn dialect of Vod, which means "brother". -- Riffsyphon1024 19:38, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * and Karen Traviss has said somewhere on this forum that Tat is from the Concord Dawn dialect. Therefore it is not Mando'a, and shouldn't be on the Mando'a page. Sith Lord 19:46, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, tat belongs on a concord dawn dialect page, because it isn't really mando'a.--Xilentshadow900 20:00, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hettir
Do you guys think that Hettir could be used as a curse, like "Blast it!"? -Master Dominus 10:04, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

OOU vs. Behind the Scenes stuff
Okay, it looks like should try to update the OOU part; do we want to put it in a Behind the Scenes section at the bottom? I think that'd probably be the easiest, and if we flag it as "Important Info" or something like that it'll show up as such on the contents page... Keralys 19:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I really think it'd be best to make an exception and keep Karen's disclaimer at the top of the page until such point as it's no longer necessary (when Triple Zero comes out, hopefully). She's got enough issues with wikis already without us taking the risk of passing off her conjecture as canon. CooperTFN 21:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely understand that, and largely agree with it. Perhaps there's a way to put that information/disclaimer up at the top of the page before the article itself starts, so that the article itself in more "in-universe"?  I am overall quite inclined to agree with Karen's perspective; that blog was a very good example of why I like her thinking: because she's right about this kind of stuff.  I would say that if we incorporate the disclaimer in the top of the page (prior to the table of contents) it will (1) then conform to the standards more properly and (2) probably be even more readily noticed, as it'll be part of the first thing people see.Keralys
 * That sounds like it would work, but I was thinking: does this really need to be in-universe at all? A language page isn't really precedented here, I don't think, so maybe it'd make more sense to do the whole thing OOU. Especially since it's a work in progress; either that or we'd have to say something cheesy like "much of the Mandalorian language has been lost, but more words are being discovered all the time". CooperTFN 22:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, granted that it's not exactly the same. Who should we direct that kind of query to, then?  I personally like the idea of having the article itself be in-universe, with only the external qualifiers.  Among other things, it actually makes some parts of the article easier to deal with (like the kriff substitution I used in my edit earlier).  And most of the "work in progress" state of things will disappear, in large part at least, once Triple Zero is out, meaning it should be able to not have that qualifier at that point.  Nor should it need the larger note, then, either, I suppose.  Hmm...  Keralys 22:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just think there's more to say about it from an OOU perspective, goven all the history behind its development. CooperTFN 00:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Censorship?/Use of Profanity
Why censor words? Because some people don't like it? I think not. Censorship in this case is silly. It hurts no one to read these things. They know what it is anyway. What's the point? Adamwankenobi 02:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your input. Several of us had already discussed that change, and there are a number of reasons for it.  First, this database is accessed by a very wide variety of persons, including those who are fairly young.  As such, it is an overall policy to keep things fairly clean on this site.  No swearing, etc.  Plenty of people do not know what the other is a stand-in for.  Trust me.  Second, with the idea of having the discussion of at least the language itself be in-universe, the other term is used in universe, whereas your "real-world" version is not.  Thanks for the opinion, but in my opinion (and that of many others), it does hurt some people to read that word.  Let's try to keep it civil and clean, please. :) Keralys 05:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the same note, if we're going to do that for "kriff," we should do it for any such instances (we currently have ****-head), and an in-universe substitute would be much better in that particular place. Thoughts? Keralys 06:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry, just looked at the history. We need to decide either way.  Plenty of people know what "kriff" is; my opinion is that it should stay that way.  Tracyn agreed with me in our earlier discussion of this on the boards.  I personally think it's a bit more tasteful.  It certainly needs to be censored, either way.  And I personally feel that, in the vein of the whole "kids reading this thing," the usage of the in-universe word is much better. Keralys 06:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, the fact that kriff has appeared in the EU a couple times doesn't mean it's the definitive replacement for the F-word. Second, like I said above, I think the article should be written OOU altogether, so kriff would have no place (see List of phrases and slang). Third, in my opinion, anyone old enough to be researching the Mandalorian language on the internet can handle seeing the F-word in an encyclopedic capacity. CooperTFN 06:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The goal of an encyclopedia should be accuracy. Censoring it reduces that.  A person reading this wanting to know what di'kutla means is going to see the made-up word kriff, which may very well be meaningless to them.  "Fuck", on the other hand, is completely accurate; that's just what the word means.  If you're translating Mando'a, or writing a dictionary (which a lexicon basically is), that's how you're going to translate di'kutla.  As precedent, list of phrases and slang contains the full form of profane words, and actually has edits from admins to specifically spell out the meaning of certain profanity . It's not prurient, it's simply in the name of encyclopedia accuracy. - Lord Hydronium 06:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Language in and of itself is not harmful. It is the context in which it is used that makes it harmful. An encyclopedia does not censor to conform to social norms. An encyclopedia presents things as they are, not how people want them to be. However, I do agree that we should refrain from placing OOU material in an in-universe article. So, I agree that "fuck" and "fucking" should be removed from that section for that reason, and the statement of "what we would call..." should be removed as well. However, this would fit OK in a BTS section at the bottom. Adamwankenobi 08:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then how would you have those words be translated? CooperTFN 08:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case... we should use the most well known translation. So we would have to use "fuck" and "fucking." But we could not have the part about "what we would call." Just have it as a straight translation, like everything else. Adamwankenobi 08:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed shabla, but after looking at it, I think maybe Di'kutla is better off just being translated as "foolish, useless". You wouldn't say "check out this fuck guy over here!" The closest translation, if anything, might even be "shitty". CooperTFN 08:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what list of phrases and slang puts it under, and it makes more sense. I didn't really check that example before I used it.  Although di'kut seems like it has a stronger connotation than "fool", but that could be because it sounds remarkably similar to an English epithet. - Lord Hydronium 08:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The connotation is certainly comparable to fuck in terms of severity, but for the sake of translation I think it's best to go with the closest grammatical comparison. Di'kut is fool, Di'kutla is foolish. CooperTFN 08:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. You've a valid point regarding the encyclopaedic nature of this.  CooperTFN: if we're going to do this thing OOU, that's fine by me; we just need to let somebody know that and we can take out that silly "Incorrect OOU info" tag.  As for di'kut and so forth, we can perhaps do something do indicate the severity?  Because that's an important part of what Karen has communicated. Keralys 22:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of it later tonight. I agree about di'kut, but I can't think of a gramatically appropriate word that would be that severe. Any suggestions? As politically incorrect as it is, maybe "retard"? CooperTFN 00:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe just "highly offensive insult (literally translates to idiot, fool.)" &mdash; Silly Dan 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That could work. Possible "most offensive insult known" or "on the order of..." or what have you... Just a thought. Keralys 00:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There; I've done my piece. The final version, aside from innumerable edits for perspective, grammar, and (especially) consistency, contains one use of the F-word and one of the S-word, and I've added an obscenity notice at the top. Xilent, if this is patently unacceptable to you, you're still welcome to argue your case. The article could always be reverted. CooperTFN 04:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about cooperTFN? Nothing here is decided on. For the definition of "shabla," I'm removing the unnnecessary stuff that was put in. it isn't part of the definition, therefore not belonging there.--Xilentshadow900 01:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote we go for the full, uncensored, uncut definition. If that means using words that would get us in trouble with the FCC if we said them over a broadcast radio station, big deal. Thanos6 01:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a total conversion to OOU as we speak, and it will thus appear uncensored. I'm requesting admin help in dealing with Xilent's...persistence. CooperTFN 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why can't you leave it as is? what am I doing wrong? It was fine before you came in and started acting like you were the boss of things. Even Karen Traviss said it herself that Tracyn and I were the best at doing this.--Xilentshadow900 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't read the preceding conversation, it was decided (in a debate that you could have taken part in, but didn't until a couple hours ago) that it would be best to write the article from an out-of-universe perspective, since there's more to say about Mando'a as a work in progress than as an in-universe language. In keeping with that, and in an effort to provide the most accurate translations possible in light of the unoffical nature of the list, translations will also be written OOU, and thus, real-life obscenities will be used when necessary. If you object that strongly to this decision, make your point here, instead of just re-editing the page over and over. CooperTFN 03:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I admit, although I don't like it, there are numerous improvements. A few things do still irk me. One thing that bugs me: "but once again, only the forthcoming official glossary can be relied upon for 100% canon 'Mando'a'." It's most likely that not all words will be included in the Glossary, so when it does come out, we shouldn't go about deleting words. That being said, me and Tracyn have gone through every post in her blog and on the SW message boards to get every word accurately, and double check ed for definition. Even Ywingempress has triple checked all of them. I can understand concerns about fanon words, but you don't need to worry about them here.--Xilentshadow900 11:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I gotta second Silent here. There are lots of improvements, but still, there's nothing about our list that is/was actually incorrect or wrong. We just put new words in as they came by Karen Traviss herself. When she posts a new word, I always ask her for the direct translation of things, and I don't make my own stuff up. The changes are okay, but some things are no longer "quotes" of Karen Traviss herself. But, I think we should settle this debate and wait for the official online resource - what should be available in late February. --Tracyn 13:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)