tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 30 18:45:27 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..

From: Qov <[email protected]>


>p 22 TKD: "This suffix [-pu'] can be used to indicate plurality for
>Klingons, Terrans, Romulans, Vulcans and so on, but not for lower animals
of
>any kind, plants, inanimate objects, electromagnetic or other beams or
>waves, etc."

Notably, this particular selection does *not* use the phrase "beings capable
of using language."  It *does*, however, indicate that choice of noun suffix
is not left to the judgement of the speaker, but is assigned to the noun
based on what it is.  It just so happens that the criteria for the {-pu'}
assignation seems to be that the noun must represent a living, intelligent,
reasoning being.

>Okrand repeatedly and consistently uses the phrase "beings capable of using
>language" in TKD.  I'm don't believe he uses the word sentient anywhere in
>the text.

That's not really the point here.  Okrand doesn't say that targs can't fly,
but we can probably make that assumption.  Strict interpretation like you're
doing would indicate that my home PC, when running Star Trek: Klingon's
Language Lab, is a "being capable of using language" (I speak to it, and it
speaks back), and more than one of them would get {-pu'}.  I don't think
you'd agree with that.

If you look at the examples and descriptive text, you are forced to come to
a better understanding of exactly what "being capable of using language"
means.  A parrot does not "use" language, in that it simply repeats vocal
sounds it hears.  A computer might be considered to "use" language, in that
if you make an inquiry it can answer you, and many computers can do this
with language software.  Is it a "being capable of using language"?  No.
Why not?  Because it doesn't fit in with the critera listed above, and
because it's not a *reasoning* thing.  It computes, it doesn't reason.  It
has no free will.

I really am surprised by this particular conversation; I feel that the
choice of {-pu'} vs. {-mey} or other, similar choices is a terribly obvious
one.  I also find it rather clear that a word is stuck with a particular set
of suffixes, and if that word is temporarily used to represent something in
a different situation, for instance, "elbows" used to refer to a pot handle,
it keeps its pre-assigned suffixes, despite being used in the wrong
situation.

>*You* are outright wrong, and furthermore look like an incredible
>idiot or someone who has never read TKD when you declare that anything
other
>than the capability of using language is the criterion.

Then you must also call *me* an idiot.  I agree that "beings capable of
using language" is the criterion, but I don't agree that sentience has
nothing to do with it.  Let's drop the word "sentience" from this
discussion, because as I found in my dictionary before, the closest synonym
is "consciousness."  Cats are conscious, but they do not get the
language-using suffixes.  Instead, let's use the term "reasoning."
Something which gets these suffixes must be (a) capable of reasoning (*not*
only computing), and (b) of a class of things which is capable of speech.
("Of a class," because a mute Klingon is still part of that class, and gets
the {-pu'} suffix, etc.)

>I'm sick of you
>fighting to defend your bizarre grammar, but at least on this occasion you
>haven't hidden your errors in an explanation too convoluted to refute.
>Anyone with TKD can see that you're wrong. Get a clue and a bucket to carry
>it in before you post again.

As charghwI' pointed out earlier, we don't need this kind of thing here.
When you read something posted by peHruS that you don't like, wait at least
24 hours before responding to it.  It'll give you time to cool off.

SuStel
Stardate 98329.0

Back to archive top level