tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 16 14:08:48 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: leng SajwIj
According to David Trimboli:
>
> 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.
We don't have all that much canon to work out the finer details
on this. I know some people think it has to do with sentience,
but I take it at face value: the ability to use language.
I think some cases are clear and others are fuzzy. When
fuzziness happens, I really don't care much which kind of
pronoun you use. Life is fragile and these days "entertainment
value" is a high priority and this particular question has
limited entertainment value potential.
> And before anyone jumps up and down crying sacrilege and assult, these are
> my opinions only.
I'm not jumping or screaming. Just adding another opinion.
> SuStel
> Stardate 98126.3
charghwI'