tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 15 11:03:56 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: leng SajwIj
- From: "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: leng SajwIj
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 14:20:44 -0500
ghItlh SuStel:
>From: Andeen, Eric <[email protected]>
>>SKI: pagh's pet CAN speak, at least a little bit. One specimen of the
>>species can certainly speak and understand English. I've written about
>>this before, and won't go into a rant on it again.
>Not to try to make you rant again, but I have problems with this
>interpretation.
>
>I don't believe the "beings capable of using language" refers to a physical
>capacity. If the noun in question can be thought of as a PERSON, of
>whatever species, then the noun may be referred to with {ghaH} or {-wI'},
>etc. The choice of {'oH} or {ghaH} is not an evaluation by the speaker of
>the noun's capacity for language, it is much more general, applied to
>particular nouns regularly. Only in the most extreme cases will a Klingon
>intentionally go against the norm. A particularly verobse parrot is not
>extreme enough.
maQochbe'. To be capable of using language does not mean to be able to
'parrot' words, but to be able to communicate a broad range of concepts and
ideas through language - that's how languages are used. Even parrots which
can match particular 'words' to specific things can do so only after
rigorous training and certainly won't be able to express what size
cuttlebone they'd prefer or if their mirror is dirty.
If someone on this list is not using the Klingon language well (e.g. they
cannot grasp grammar or syntax, they know very limited vocab which is too
often mispelled, etc.), they cannot express their true feelings, their real
concerns. They can 'parrot' stock phrases after some exposure to them, but
no 'meaningful communication' occurs. Short of their native language
fluency, they might be referred to individually as <'oH>. (Way too far of a
stretch, actually. But where is the line drawn?)
Again, as this has been discussed before, as a newborn is not capable yet of
communicationg with language, is it/he/she <'oH>? Or is the genetic
predisposition for language enough to qualify one for <ghaH>? I would assume
a Klingon would view an individual in a vegetative state, incapable of
communicationg with anyone, as <'oH>. (Or perhaps <vIHoH>.)
Perhaps <ghaH> and <'oH> are merely in the eyes of the beholder...
Qermaq