tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 01 20:22:42 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong but..
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong but..
- Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:51:19 -0400
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>According to David Trimboli:
>> 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.
Okrand said "Klingon has two special pronouns, {'e'} and {net}, which refer
to the previous sentence as a whole." (TKD 65) Nowhere, ever, does he say
"and the first sentence may not be a question." Yet many of us take great
exception to trying to do a "question as object" construction, and I believe
you are one of them. Okrand never ever says you can't do it, so are you
prepared to agree that when Okrand says "refer to the previous sentence" he
actually means "refer to the previous sentence"? Okrand If so, start making
up those QAO's!
No, those of us who agree that QAO is just plain wrong have done so because
we've reasoned that it doesn't make much sense. Those who don't agree that
QAO is wrong say we're making it up and just to take Okrand at face value.
This is exactly the same argument, and now you're arguing on the other side
of the fence.
> I accept the arbitrary threshold of
>language use that Okrand describes.
So do I. I just think he described it incompletely. Much of his writing
leaves many unanswered questions.
>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 think it's entirely possible that he simply didn't consider the word, or
considered it too general and imprecise for his purposes. I think the
phrase he chose leaves too many questions, too.
>> 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.
I said *I* feel that the choice is "terribly obvious," not that everyone
else should find it so.
>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.
The way {-moH} works with transitive verbs is *far* from solved, in my
opinion. I know you feel it's solved, period, but I don't.
>> >*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.
Repeating a phrase does not give it meaning. It is the meaning of this
phrase which I call into question.
>I do
>not believe you are an idiot, but I do believe you are being
>very stubborn over an extremely weak argument.
*shrug* I feel exactly the same way about you! :)
> 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.
Not at all. If "capable of using language" were an unambiguous phrase, I'd
have no problems. But it isn't. There's plenty of question, and this
thread, which pops up now and again, is evidence of that.
> What is your point? The
>only reason to adopt some other description than "beings
>capable of using language"
I don't want to adopt a new definition, I want to examine the phrase itself
and determine exactly what it means.
> 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?
It takes two to tango. Or is that, {mI'meH cha' poQlu'.} (Or does that
need a prefix, also?)
>> 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?
Well, to first take (b) and then to define it using (a) still requires those
two, separate points, doesn't it?
>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?
Because I don't see any other valid aspects. Use of sound is *not* required
in using language. If it were, then sign language would not be "using
language," which it most definitely is. And in a science-fiction setting,
which is where Klingon resides, how about telepathy? No sound, but it is
language.
>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.
You've never heard of sign language? :)
>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?
If you believe that people using sign language do not get {-pu'}, then I
sure am going to argue! No, I don't think you mean that, but that's because
your suggested "split" was invalid. I can see only one way to explain "use
language," and that's capable of "speech" (not sound, necessarily, but some
method of interfacing with another "being capable of using language"), and
"reasoning." With these two *qualifiers*, you can RETURN to "beings capable
of using language," and be more certain about the borderline cases, like
computer programs which simulate a conversation. (A well-known test of
artificial intelligence is this: have a person typing on two computers, each
of which is connected to computers in another room. On one of these second
computers is a real person talking to the first guy through a chat program,
on the other is an artificial intelligence program which talks to the first
guy through the same means. The test of intelligence is this: if the first
guy can't tell which is the real person and which is the AI, then the AI is
intelligent. Not everyone agrees with this test, of course, but that's
exactly why there's so much question on this point. Would you give {-pu'}
to AIs which pass this test?)
>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...
Since this question has surfaced before, I'd say there's enough question as
to exactly what "beings capable of using language" means to show that the
definition given by Okrand is not sufficient in all cases.
SuStel
Stardate 98332.1