tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 15 14:00:10 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: leng SajwIj
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: leng SajwIj
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 16:46:31 -0500
From: Qermaq <[email protected]>
>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, in general, a human is a being capable of using language, so EVERY
human, whether individually capable of it or not, is referenced with {ghaH}.
It doesn't matter what language the human speaks. Someone who does not
speak English, Spanish, or Klingon is not an {'oH} to me.
>Again, as this has been discussed before, as a newborn is not capable yet
of
>communicationg with language, is it/he/she <'oH>?
No way. A baby human is still a human, and humans are referenced with
{ghaH}. It's not an individual call, it's more general than that.
>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>.)
Not literally. One might use {'oH} specifically discussing that person's
vegetative state, but in general the person would still be called {ghaH}.
>Perhaps <ghaH> and <'oH> are merely in the eyes of the beholder...
My whole point is that they are NOT. Any human (or other "sentient"
life-form) is {ghaH}, even if currently unable to use language. Likewise,
any animal of less-than-human intelligence is {'oH}, even if it is taught to
respond verbally in some way. Consider the word "sentient" as it's used on
Star Trek. There is the line you seek.
Once again, this is my opinion, but I'm pretty convinced I'm right on this.
SuStel
Stardate 98127.0