posted
No, no, no...explorer, scout, etc. have nothing to do with naval designations like frigate, cruiser, etc. The two systems are separate from each other.
------------------ Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!
posted
Is it not possible Frank that the terms Frigate and Cruiser could mean a ships operating range and not its firepower? Is it possible that ships capable of long interstellar travel are all classified as cruisers of one kind or another, and in fact isn't this what the DS9 tech states. The scenes that I have seen and the canon information that I have read seem to point to a simplified arrangement of designations. The fact that ship classes are more widely known than any military designation leads me to believe that ships are differentiated more by their class than any military designation.
I am sick of this thread, and it obviously is not being read by anyone with any other opinion than frank, so I move that the thread be closed.
posted
Frank: You seem to think that the names of ship classifications has always been and always will be. That's just plain bullsh*t. Defintions change; words are invented; terms are dropped. Just look at when the different classifications were invented:
battleship: 1794 battlecruiser: 1911 cruiser: 1695 destroyer: 1300s destroyer escort: 1924 ship of the line: 1706 frigate: 1583 corvette: 1636 sloop of war: 1706
Those terms don't all mean the same thing they did when they were created, and some aren't even used at all anymore. So what makes you think the scheme you're using now is somehow the ultimateone that will be used from now until eternity?
------------------ "Maybe they're trying to breed them..." -guy in my math class, suggesting a reason for there being two overhead projectors in the classroom
posted
I can't help but sit back and laugh at the chaos I've caused with this thread
What makes you guys think that Starfleet must use traditional naval classification terms? Also, the Starfleet classification types refer to overall ship purpose - not their size or weapons, specifically. A scout doesn't have to be a small vessel and a warship doesn't have to be massive.
Can everyone please calm down? After all, Trek is meant to be entertainment to be enjoyed (not war)
------------------ "Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, DS9 'Tears of the Prophets') Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
Don't take it personally, Daxxy. The majority of us know that the most likely explanation is that they use a mix of terminologies. But we're arguing against Frank, who has never once in his life admitted he might be wrong. That kind of certainty is actually bloody scary, but strangely compelling to observe. 8)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Bear: A system where everything is a "cruiser" is not viable. And just because you're tired of a thread doesn't mean anyone else is.
TSN: Haven't you read the thread? Naval classificiations are still part of the English language, today's version of which is used on Trek. And thanks to information-distribution systems like the Internet and lack of wars, I doubt the naval classification system will change much in quite a while anyway.
Dax: Exactly. Ships of any size can be scouts, explorers, etc.
Lee: Of course I could be wrong, but I wouldn't argue for something unless I were pretty certain I were right.
------------------ Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!
posted
Gene Roddenberry used to say that everyone's TV had a built-in universal translator, making it so what we heard was in English (no subtitles!) and translated into modern-day English. Frank is getting at the fact that what we see on Trek is in our version of English, no matter whether or not the definitions will change over the next few hundred years.
I think.
------------------ Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
posted
Exactly. And even if Sony and Zenith did manufacture universal translators and forget to mention it, we'd still be hearing late 20th-century English on TV anyway.
"In English, Data!" - Picard
------------------ Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!
[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited September 11, 1999).]
posted
"I doubt the naval classification system will change much in quite a while anyway."
Hmm, well, you DOUBT it? Does it mean it IS going to happen that way? I mean, people doubted if supersonic flight is possible, but, well, you know the answer to that. Things change. They will change. It may not be immediate, but I think 400 years is long enough for there to be some major changes
posted
In 400 years, language will probably be different in several ways, yes. But, that's irrelevant, since they speak late 20th-century English on Trek.
------------------ Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!
posted
Frank: You are splitting hairs. If the only reason StarTrek appeals to you is because of the military aspect than I feel you are missing the whole point of Trek."nasty remarks.................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................."
My new designation
Cool Cruiser Ugly Cruiser Small Cruiser Very small Cruiser Slow Surveyor Fast Scout Huge Explorer Funny Frigate KISS Cruiser
posted
What does the "military aspect" of Trek have to do anything? (Although I suppose I should mention that DS9 was largely about a war, and Starfleet is almost constantly at war).
------------------ Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!
posted
Frank: They do not speak solely in twentieth-century English on Trek. If they did, words like "warp drive", "phaser", and "starship" would all refer to nonexistent objects. However, in the Trek universe, these things are quite existent.
Or, perhaps this is a better example... Remember the tie Worf referred to the debris of some ship as "flotsam"? Well, these days, "flotsam" specifically refers to debris that is floating on water. If all Trek words mean exactly what they mean today, then Worf must have actually been referring to some ship whose pieces were down on a planet somewhere, not the stuff up in space...
------------------ "Maybe they're trying to breed them..." -guy in my math class, suggesting a reason for there being two overhead projectors in the classroom
Printer-friendly view of this topic
