tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 28 10:34:09 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Correct me if I'm wrong but..

According to Joel Peter Anderson:
> 
> On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Ron Van Gurp wrote:
> 
> > According to 'the book' (TDK) the use of -lI'(and similar possessive
> > suffixes) is restricted to beings 'capable of speech'. Similar as for the
> 
> (While I can at times admire the devotion that some have to pursuing the
> Klingon language, "the book" is a far loftier designation than I'd grant
> the TDK... nor (as is obvious to many, I'm sure) do I dissect it with the
> burning zeal that some do... :) 
> 
> I think the *point* of "capable of speech" is sentience.  Warriors who are
> injured and incapable of speech are still a SuvI'pu'. 

I'm tempted to agree up to a point, but then I believe that
Okrand was quite capable of saying "sentient" when he said,
"capable of speech".  English speakers have gender depending
upon whether beings are male, female or neuter. Danish, as I'm
learning, has gender based upon whether nouns are "common" or
"uncommon" assigned by no known algorhythm, but simply
something to be memorized word by word.  In French, every noun
is male or female with what English speakers consider to be
arbitrary assignments for what we'd call "neuter" beings.
German gets even more interesting in its gender assignments.

I believe that Klingon's only symptom of "gender" is this line
between beings capable of using language, body parts and
everything else.  Usually, this line is drawn along what we
consider to be scentient beings, but now always. I take Okrand
at his word. If I'm thinking of a mute warrior as a warrior --
a member of a class of individuals capable of language -- I
will use the "capable of language" version of the suffix. If I
am making a specific point about that same warrior not being
able to talk, I will use the OTHER version of the suffix.

I think that "sentience" was an arbitrary choice of someone on
this list who wasn't quite listening to Okrand and that
person's voice was accepted as resonating with similar ideas
among others here, but I don't think it is valid. I think
Okrand said, "capable of using language" and I think he meant
it. The point is that gender is an arbitrary differentiation in
language and I think he intentionally chose a "filter" to
differentiate {-pu'} from {-mey} as one of his intentionally
alien features of the langauge. I doubt there is a human
language that uses this line to separate gender. If there is,
it is likely an obscure one.

> > -pu'/-mey pluralization suffix. 'Sentient' does not seem to be the
> > issue, or am I missing something? This raises an interesting question
> > (to me at least :-)): would the computer voice of e.g. Enterprise be
> > addressed as /ghoghlI'/ or /ghoghlIj/ in a sentence like: De'wI',
> > ghoghlI'/ghoghlIj chu'Ha'lu'pu'? 

I think you are right. Sentience is not the issue. The ability
to use langauge. So, instead of wrestling with an arbitrary,
vague line between beings that are sentient and those that are
not, we are left to deal with the arbitrary, vague line between
beings that are capable of using langauge and those that are
not.

> I think it is a judgement call, and that was my point.  The decision to
> use lI'/lIj pu'/mey are yours to make, and while often obvious, your
> decision is part of what you communicate. 

jIQochbe'chu'.

>    joel anderson * http://members.aol.com/JPKlingon * [email protected]
>  **mIghghachvo' yImej 'ej yIQaQ; roj yInej 'ej Dochvam yItlha'**
>      **Depart from evil, and do good; Seek peace, and pursue it**

charghwI'

Back to archive top level