tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 01 09:48:07 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 David Trimboli:
> 
> 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.

It also seems to be that of nouns capable of using language.
Note that he does not say that electronic devices (if animate,
and arguably using language is a form of animation) would not
use {-pu'}. It almost appears as if he does, but he is talking
about beams. Electromagnetic beams. And lower animals would
not, by Klingon standards, use langauge.

> >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.

The reason we would not agree with it is that we would not
agree that the computer is actually using language. Its use of
language is not exactly advanced. Just ask it for its name. Ask
it what time it is. The computer certainly "knows" what time it
is, but you won't get that answer by running the KCD language
lab. The context for language use with modern PCs is incredibly
narrow, even with the most sophisticated software we now have.
The computer is not actually using language. It is merely
responding to sounds in a preprogrammed manner. All the
processing power is going into recognizing sounds and
performing specific, limited functions once it recognizes a
sound.

It can't really even recognize an error. It fakes recognizing
an error by comparing what you say to a set of correct sounds
and to a larger set of incorrect sounds. If what you say sounds
more like one of the incorrect sounds, you get a correction. If
what you say doesn't sound like any of its preset sounds, it
can't give a correction, even if you were making an honest,
incorrect attempt at saying what you were told to say.

> 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.

This is all wholly made up by you with a reasoning process that
is unrelated to anything Okrand wrote. You are focusing on one
portion of one paragraph and ignoring the repeated statements
in TKD that the criterion is "beings capable of using
language". Your interpretation of that one portion of one
paragraph makes sense to you, but that does not make it
accurate.

Furthermore, in the vast majority of cases, your personal
criterion will yield the same results as the criterion Okrand
very clearly gave us: "Beings capable of using language". We
don't have any examples given which would prove your
interpretation right and the stated "beings capable of using
language" wrong. Still, you use rather strong language stating
your certainty that taking Okrand at is word is wrong. I
suggest that we all agree that when Okrand says, "beings
capable of using language", he actually means, "beings capable
of using language" until he explains otherwise (which I fully
credit him with the ability to do) or until he offers us at
least one example of {-pu'} used on a noun which is sentient
but not able to use langauge, or {-mey} on a noun which is
capable of using language, but not sentient.

If you'd care to point out any such example, I'll take your
opinion on this much more seriously. I don't think your one
paragraph fragment stated above quite qualifies. He merely
listed some beings capable of using language and then listed
some things not capable of using language. We may argue about
some of those "lower animals" perhaps being able to use
language, but then we could have the same arguments about
whether or not they are sentient. It is all a matter of
arbitrary threshold. I personally think that lower animals ARE
sentient and DO use language, though their thoughts and their
expressions are perhaps alien to ours. Meanwhile, for the sake
of using these suffixes, I accept the arbitrary threshold of
language use that Okrand describes. Sentience is not a factor.
If it were, I strongly suspect Okrand would have used the word.
He can speak and write rather clearly, after all.

> 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.

Well, "terribly obvious" works in most cases, though in the
exceptional cases, like many factors in language, it is
arbitrary. We learn the way it is done because it is done that
way. Ultimately, we must realize that the rules are made to
describe the way things are done. Things are not done a certain
way in order to fulfill the rules. Look at the way {-moH}
behaves with transitive verbs. It was a new useage and we had
to change a few rules to explain it.

> >*You* are outright wrong, and furthermore ...

> 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."

Or, we could just use the terms Okrand gave us repeatedly. I do
not believe you are an idiot, but I do believe you are being
very stubborn over an extremely weak argument. You seem
determined to decide whether a noun gets {-pu'} or {-mey} by
ANY description OTHER than "nouns capable of using language" so
that it chooses the same set of beings. What is your point? The
only reason to adopt some other description than "beings
capable of using language" is so we could explain exceptional
cases that don't fit that criterion. Well, we don't HAVE any
exceptional cases. So why are you so fixated on this?

> 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.)

Well, that is nicely stated, but you made it up all by yourself
and it does not, so far as we can tell, have anything to do
with the Klingon langauge. We could just as well drop (a)
altogether and just take (b). We can then define valid use of
speech to include what you want to call "reasoning". Why do you
need for it to be separately stated?

We could just as easily split out any other aspect of the
ability to use langauge and add it to the list. Perhaps we want
to say that the communication must be through sound? We don't
have any exceptional cases where the beings in question don't
use sound to convey language. We may at some point in the
future, but we don't yet. So, should we get in a heated
argument about whether or not a being has to use sound in order
to get {-pu'} used on it when it is plural?

Well, we'd be a little bit silly to worry about that at this
point. Until we get some examples that are exceptional from the
simple definition "beings capable of using language" I suspect
we are best served by using that definition alone. We can then
reserve our arguments over where the threshold lies between
being able to use langauge and not being able to use langauge.
That should keep us active for a few years...

> >I'm sick of you
> >fighting to defend your bizarre grammar, ...

> 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.

I don't feel like lecturing Qov too much about this. I have
certainly gone off like a hot rocket in response to this sort
of thing, as have you and most other people here who care about
the langauge. I often regret my own outbursts here and am
trying to improve my temperment on this list. I do encourage
others toward that same goal, but do not do so with a critical
edge.

It just feels odd to come off with, "You are acting like an
idiot when you insult people's intelligence." It feels a lot
like, "WILL YOU PLEASE CALM DOWN AND STOP RESPONDING WITH SUCH
PASSION!" Or how about, "I'm far too superior to stoop to the
depths of dealing with your arrogance!"

In the arena of strong words, I have certainly been a sinner
and I am sincerely trying to improve myself (while still being
able to make my point in a good argument). I don't want to get
too harsh with others for doing what I have done far too many
times, myself.

I don't even want to get too harsh with you, SuStel, for being
too harsh on Qov for being too harsh on peHruS for being too
harsh on me. {{:)>

> SuStel
> Stardate 98329.0

charghwI'

Back to archive top level