Talk:Vulcan (Star Trek)/Archive 2

pon farr (Spock/Saavic)

There is, for example, no canonical reference to Spock
ever experiencing pon farr again after the events of
"Amok Time".

IIRC, Saavic had to take care for the pon farr of the "new Spock" in Star Trek III.

Please sign comments with four ~ symbols. Anyway, that doesn't really count has Spock was essentially reliving his life over again. 23skidoo 30 June 2005 23:07 (UTC)

OK, that's true, he lived through his life fast-forward. I'll try that with the four tildes, but I'm not registered anyway. 84.179.229.32 1 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)

In “Amok Time”, Spock says that he had hoped he would be spared this (pon farr), because of his human heritage. This strongly suggests that was the first time he experienced it. 206.53.197.12 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible rewording

From the Emotion and maturity section:

The speed at which a Vulcan matures "emotionally" (for lack of a better term) seems to vary.

Would "psychologically" or "developmentally" be a better choice, maybe? --David Wahler (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Developmentally suggests the body. Psychologically? Maybe ... though that too has different connotations other than a Vulcan's ability to keep his or her emotions in check. 23skidoo 02:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Vulcan maturity seems to involve finding a stable balance between emotion and intellect. Still can't think of a word for it though. - Eyeresist 08:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Telepathy

In The Immunity Syndrome (TOS episode) Spock senses the deaths of the Vulcans on board the other ship. Can anyone integrate and confirm this? Its some kind of telepathy then, like the 'commonality' of vulcans? thanks Pydos 12:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Live long &?

Is there canon on what the correct response is? I've gotten the impression the common is a repeat, but "Peace & long life" I also recall. 2 possibilities occur to me: LL&P is p2p, P&LL is either "extra polite" or non-p2p. Comment? (Cf Memory Alpha?) Trekphiler 14:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Peace and long life" sounds right. The article [[Vulcan salute]] at Memory Alpha calls this a precedent rather than a response, though. It also lists some episodes we could watch with an ear tuned for the greeting and its response: TOS: "Amok Time", "Is There in Truth No Beauty?"; TNG: "Sarek", "Unification, Part I", "Unification, Part II". ShutterBugTrekker 18:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Does it HAVE to be analyzed as statement/response? Can't "Live long and prosper" and "Peace and long life" simply be considered different forms of Vulcan farewell? Just as English has "Goodbye", "So long", "See you around" and "Smell you later", all different ways of expressing the same concept, with no formal order in mind. One uses the form one likes the best. At the very least, I don't recall any canon sources saying otherwise. Bryan Ekers (using work computer at lunch, hence no Sign in) 131.137.245.200 17:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I read an article many, many years ago which quoted D. C. Fontana during the time of production of the Original Series that when a Vulcan greeted one with "Live long and prosper," the proper response from another Vulcan was also "Live long and prosper," while the proper response from a non-Vulcan was "Peace and long life." This was also supposed to be true if the greeting was initiated by the non-Vulcan: the proper form for the non-Vulcan was still "Peace and long life," while the Vulcan was to respond with "Live long and prosper."

Even though it quoted Ms Fontana while she was part of the Star Trek writing staff, it was still a fanzine article (possibly in the early Trekzines Spockanalia or T-Negative -- my memory is not certain). It was probably considered "canon" at the time it was published (I remember taking it as such), although under modern standards it would be relegated to "fanon".

Davidkevin 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

what's with the reverts?

BC vs. BCE

• Wiki policy says that all articles ust retain their origional BC/BCE version, based on origional author preference, instead of reverting me, why don't you help build consensus--Caligulavator 02:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • BC is more common useage than BCE which is thus far only been used by academia. As far as I understand, the rule of thumb is to use BC/AD unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise. However as no BC/AD equivalent has to my knowledge been introduced into canon for Vulcan, we therefore use the commonly used earth equivalent, which is BC. There is a number of people who are starting to use BCE/CE because they want to remove religion references from dates, however this is one occasion where public use is simply overpowering. I'd like to see someone try and rejig the calendar so it is no longer tied to the (approximate) birth of Christ. That'll be fun to see! 23skidoo 04:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Starfleet Academy

There's a line in the article that troubles me: "Spock was not even the first to attend Starfleet Academy, since during the time of The Original Series, an entire Federation starship of Vulcans, the Intrepid, was destroyed."

Just because a Federation starship manned by Vulcans exists, that's not an indication that any of them attended the Academy (and there's plenty of precedent throughout the franchise to suggest Academy attendance is not mandatory for starship/Starfleet service (i.e. half the crew of Voyager). To my knowledge there's nothing to suggest one way or the other that Spock was the first (or not the first) to attend. Unless a line of dialogue in canon can be located, I suggest this sentence be revised since we also don't know when Intrepid was commissioned ... it might have been after Spock served with Pike, meaning any or all of its crew could have joined Starfleet after Spock. None of this contradicts T'Pol being first at the starting gate, but we should watch out for such speculation. 23skidoo 07:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish priests

Quote: (Many Jewish priests agree that Lenord Nemoy should never have seen the hand gesture for two theological reasons: First he wasn't going to become a priest and Second he was supposed to be concentrating on the prayer.)

Do we have a source for this? I'd be very surprised if we did, because there have been no Jewish priests since the first century AD. TharkunColl 00:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You should tell the kohanim in my synagogue, who go up during the morning prayers to bless the congregation with the Priestly Benediction. I'm a Levite; I wash their hands in preparation Yehuda Falk 14:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That said, the statement is guilty of using "weasel words" and it's rather irrelevant because Nimoy has made it clear he "snuck a peek" when he was a child. You tell me of any kids who always obey the rules. I'm actually going to delete the sentence as speculative POV. (Oops, someone beat me to it; I did notice that a source for the original statement is missing so I'll add that instead). 23skidoo 15:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not like the hand gesture is a secret; it is used as a symbol of kohanim in art. There are mystical reasons why one is not supposed to look, but (speaking as a religious Jew) I think it is a bit harsh to fault a young Leonard Nimoy for peeking. I was just reacting to the comment about how there haven't been any Jewish priests since the first century CE. Their role has been much reduced since then (in the absence of the Temple) but they certainly still exist. One of my best friends ....... Yehuda Falk 09:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler

I took of the spoiler, as I don't believe it is neccessary...or even true. I also reworded the caption under Spock to be less wordy. Chuck 04:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible reason for mind-meld reluctance

"It is possible that Spock initially considered the mind-meld dangerous because he was, at the time, inexperienced in the technique."

I don't think that that's really appropriate, unless of course there is a source for it, in which case I'll be happy for you to put it back in. Thanks. --Chuck 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

True, this rationalizaton was original, and therefore not appropriate. However, the article explains the change by saying "...this detail was quickly forgotten...," also without citing a source. A continuity error is as good an explanation as any, although the writers may simply have decided not to use air time making the same point over and over. It is also possible that pointing out the riskiness of an action that is invariably successful would start to sound hollow. Perhaps the writing team intended to show Spock's increased skill (with accompanying decrease in risk), but never said so. I would like to change the quoted phrase to "...the element of risk was no longer mentioned..." as a simple description of what was portrayed in the series without an implied explanation. Comments? Larry660 08:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds good to me, thanks for the comment. Chuck 08:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Names

• An apparent inconsistency exists regarding the nomenclature of married Vulcan females (or more precisely, females who marry Vulcans): in "Journey to Babel" Amanda Grayson demurs at being called "Mrs. Sarek"; but in "Amok Time" T'Pring tells Spock that had he chosen to marry her, "I would have your name and your property". It is possible, of course, that T'Pring was speaking only figuratively. As of 2006 there has been no further canonical discussion of married nomenclature even though the franchise has featured several married Vulcan women (including T'Pol and her mother, T'Les; there's no indication that T'Pol changed her name when she married Kos).

Amanda Grayson demurs at being called "Mrs. Sarek" because Sarek is not her husband's last name. She states that McCoy could not prounce the family name, although she has learned to do so after a fashion and after many years. If the Vulcan naming customs are similar to human ones (as indicated by Amanda Grayson in Journey to Babel), the female's first name would not change, and the last name is not normally used in conversation with humans. Larry660 11:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

Two questions/comments:

• The picture illustrating the Jewish blessing gesture (which presumably has a name) shows the thumbs held to the side of the palm, whereas Vulcans, as I recall, extend the thumb out to the side. Is this difference worth mentioning in the article?
• I think it may be incorrect to say that Romulan ale has been shown to be alcoholic - it is known to be intoxicating, but is the effect necessarily due to alcohol? - Eyeresist 08:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the placement of the thumb has ever actually been officially defined in any sort of "how to do the Vulcan salute". I think it depended on the actor, so I think it might be speculation to suggest there was any intentional difference. As far as Romulan ale, the very use of the word "ale" was meant to suggest that it is alcoholic in nature (as that's the general use of the term in British English anyway, with "ginger ale" being I believe one of the only exceptions to the rule). 23skidoo 11:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Romulan "ale" doesn't seem to be carbonated and is usually drunk from wine glasses, which is a bit confusing. It's just one of those things, I guess. Maybe there is a Romulan word "ale" which has a slightly different meaning? - Eyeresist 02:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Vulcans/Romulans = Brits/Americans

Who was it who proposed this analogy? Was it from an official source? It makes a great deal of sense, anyway. TharkunColl 11:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I also see parallels between Tolkien's legendarium with the Elves/Men as an analogue to Vulcans/Humans. Sort of a custodial relationship in which one slowly fosters the abilities of the other. --Frenkmelk 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Failure

Well, let me introduce you to a good friend of mine, WP:CITE. Get some of them and Fair Use Rationale for your Fair Use images. Needs work (but at least it was quick!) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments added by 68.225.241.56

"The kahs-wan was first introduced in the animated series episode "Yesteryear" in which Spock's experience as a child was detailed; however, as the animated series is not considered canon, it has yet to be "officially" stated that Spock experienced the ritual."

The novel "Vulcan's Glory" mentions Spock completeing this ritual as well. Also detailing that his pet sehlat was killed by a wild beast's venom after trying to follow Spock into the wild. I'm not expert in this area so I leave this change to someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.241.56 (talk • contribs) (moved here by) Chuck^(contrib) 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Neuropressure

I was wondering about the ability of Tripp to apparently perform neuropressure on his own to the MACO crewman. How was it that he was imbued to perform this process on his own? Did his interactions with T'Pol give him some sort of autonomous ability to perform such manipulations? Or can just anyone do it? If so, then why haven't humans discovered it on "accident" long ago? Seems a bit fishy to me. --Frenkmelk 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Neuropressure is a learned technique, and T'Pol was teaching him. He had only been practicing with T'Pol for a short time, and therefore caused (presumably minor and temporary) pain to the MACO, as described in the episode. Presumably anyone with appropriate physiology can do it, if they are properly trained. I suppose humans have not discovered it on "accident" for the same reason the Romans didn't discover CPR on "accident." The technique is developed through knowledge. Massage and accupressure are steps humans are taking in that direction. Larry660 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Cuisine heading

The last part said that it's not been officially established that Vulcans can get drunk from chocolate. In the book Star Trek 4, Spock did seem intoxicated after eating chocolate, but the movie didn't show this. Was the book considered separate from the movie or complementary with it (as in the book adaptation of a movie instead of the more traditional movie adaptation of a book)? I figure that this query should be an easy one for any TRUE "Trekkie"!! -- Jlujan69 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Books are not authoritative. Only what is shown onscreen is canon. -- StAkAr Karnak 15:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

vulcan posterior

is there really any need for the picture of the convieniantly attractive naked female vulcan? Adamshappy 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)