Wednesday started out chaotic good then fell apart. If STARFLEET ACADEMY avoids it good enough.
Early Criticism: What’s Unfounded and What Isn’t
- Thread starter trekfan_1
- Start date
Did it become Chaotic Neutral?
Yes, and I became uninterested.
Enlisted do not go to Academys.
And the Great Bird himself originally said that everyone in Starfleet is an officer.
And then promptly introduced them in the first pilot.
Last edited:
Yes, which means the ships probably have many people who didn't go to the Academy.
The Great Bird changed his mind many times.
Agreed. Like the whole "Bro" thing. Its been very popular in the last few years. Language changes overtime. Even generation which is about every 20 years. I really find it hard to believe that peoole will be talking exactky like us in 1100 years using the exact same slang. TOS and the Berman era treks did a good job at minimizing slang and no swearing. I really liked it much better.
Nope. No way it was used as slang like today. The F word has its origins centuries ago but it wasnt used like today. Sorry.
That is a complete load of hogwash. Starfleet consists of numerous races across the galaxy. They have starbases across the entire federation. Staffing with the best the galaxy has to offer would not be a problem. You are just making excuses for weak story telling, bad characterization and complete ignorance of what Starfleet is.
That may or may not have been true in the 24th century, but this is a completely different set of circumstances.
Incorrect.
The F word was used as slang, primarily due to being Anglo-Saxon vs. the more noble language of French.
Bro was used, more for actual relations, and then, like most words, was expanded. So, the idea that this word would somehow disappear out use, just like fuck, is laughable from an etymological basis.
I think you're having trouble understanding modern day slang or what slang is. Facts are facts people won't be talking like gen z in 1100 years with all the current slang.
I understand slang just fine. I understand that words also expand, and take on new meaning throughout. Bro being a short hand for brother attested to the 1600s and then expanding in use is how language works.
Two, as previously discussed, Star Trek is not written as future prediction. It is written for contemporary audiences. TOS had contemporary language of the 60s.
ETA: Never mind the use of "Yeah, brother" from TOS. I guess they didn't get the future speak memo either.
We do not reach. But, I got a clean bill of health from Dr. McCoy. Very 23rd century English.
Last edited:
TOS kept things pretty bland. There weren't any groovies in their for instance. The crew spoke mostly proper English. That show was only 300 years in the future. But this show is nearly 1200.years from our time and the laguage, slang and swearing are definitely from our time.
Language change - Wikipedia
I cited examples of slang phrases from the 60s in TOS. At this point this is just circular argumentation.
You have your reality and I have mine. May you find yours as pleasant.
...Friday I'm in love
To go past the superficiality of the argument of modern language versus archaic, it's to the core argument that the Federation was meant to seem slightly different from the Modern Era. Not so much we couldn't understand who these people are and their motivations (there's a reason Roddenberry's New Humans have never shown up in canon) but at least as a fig leaf that humanity has evolved. It was mostly in TNG and Voyager but that was because the idea was TNG was different from the TOS eras.
The 32nd century should be different in its own ways.
The 32nd century should be different in its own ways.
I would love to see the 32nd be different in its own ways. Language is not one of those ways I am concerned over. They should be changing due to the lives and background technology they have, not how they talk to one another.
But, I'll be credits to navy beans that the drama is more important to the writers.
Similar threads
- Poll
