The recent release of “Dune: Part One” has sparked a debate among fans and critics regarding the linguistic choices made by the filmmakers. In Frank Herbert’s original novel, the language used by the characters in the far-future world of “Dune” was intended to bridge the gap between our world and theirs, some 20,000 years in the future.
Herbert believed that by using familiar language from our time in the distant future setting of his novels, he could create a sense of connection for readers. However, critics have pointed out that the filmmakers, including the Petersons who worked on the latest adaptation, chose to alter some of the linguistic elements from the book.
For example, in the novel, the Fremen rebellion is referred to as a “jihad,” while in the movie it is called a “holy war.” Some argue that this decision dilutes Herbert’s original anti-imperialist vision, while others believe that the world of “Dune” should not be completely sealed off from our own.
David Peterson, the linguist responsible for constructing the Fremen language for the film, defended the decision to create a new, coherent language rather than directly importing modern-day resonances. He argued that languages evolve over time and that a language 20,000 years in the future would not retain substantial touches of a contemporary tongue.
As the debate continues, fans and critics alike are left to ponder the role of language in creating immersive fictional worlds and the balance between staying true to the source material and adapting it for a new medium.
