tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 04 12:35:20 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong but..
According to David Trimboli:
>
> From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>
> >According to David Trimboli:
>
> >> ... 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...
> >
> >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...
>
> 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!
SAO is a far more complex grammatical issue than the dividing
point between using {-pu'} or {-mey} on any given noun to make
it plural. Okrand gave us repeated refereces in TKD using this
criterion to differentiate between {-pu'} and {-mey}, between
{-wI'} and {-wIj}, between {-lI'} and {-lIj}, between {-ma'}
and {-maj}, and between {-ra'} and {-raj}. This point of
judgement is completely arbitrary. It could have been that
everything {SuD} uses {-mey} and everything {Doq} uses {-pu'},
and then we could have fought over what things were which color.
Instead, he chose as his completely arbitrary threshold
dividing the use of these two groups of suffixes "beings
capable of using language". Do you really think that if you
walk up to Okrand and say, "Dr. Okrand, when in TKD you
repeatedly said, 'beings capable of using language', didn't you
really mean 'beings capable of reasoning?' that Okrand will
slap his forehead and say, 'By golly, you are RIGHT! Why didn't
*I* think of that? I don't have any idea why I made four
different references to 'beings capable of langauge' plus the
descriptions in the suffix tables, instead of saying, 'beings
capable of reasoning'. Thanks. When we put out the third
edition of TKD, I'll make sure we fix that wording."
> 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.
That argument may simply be right to apply to one context and
wrong to apply to another. QAO is a dubious construction and
even its supporters (except Krankor) typically begin with a
slightly sheepish confession that their theory about this has
no canon to back it up.
QAO doesn't quite make sense. The question can't really act as
the object of the first sentence. It's answer acts as the
object. So, the theory that QAO is valid doesn't quite work.
Meanwhile, there no such broken element in the theory that we
use {-pu'} as the plural suffix for beings capable of using
langauge. It simply works. There is no setting offered to us so
far that causes this theory to fail.
> > 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.
Show me the place where this description proves itself to be
incomplete. When he says {tlhInganpu'} he is referring to
beings capable of language. Where does he use {-pu'} on beings
not capable of using language? Where does he use {-mey} on
beings capable of using language?
> >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'm still waiting for you to provide a single instance where
your definition will actually help us choose which nouns get
{-pu'} and which ones get {-mey} better than Okrand's simple
and effectively stated criterion: beings capable of using
language. Just give me one instance. You've written pages of
text on this and never once provided an actual example to back
up your personal need to rewrite an explicit and clear
definition.
> >> 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...
> >
> >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.
Well, I find it "terribly obvious" that the criterion "beings
capable of using language" is clear to just about everybody
except you, that it works fine and that we don't need any
additions or corrections to that definition in order to
determine which suffix to use on a plural noun.
> >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.
So, why don't we argue about THAT instead of THIS? This
argument is starving for a reason to continue. I keep asking
for an example to give us a reason for reworking Okrand's
definition and you keep writing lots of opinion and explanation
and no examples. Until you can produce an example, we can just
keep repeating ourselves and continue to not feel heard.
Please provide an example of a noun that needs {-pu'} when it
is not a "being capable of using langauge" or one that needs
{-mey} for a noun which is a being capable of using langauge. I
only ask that you provide examples that others will agree
should be used as you feel they should be used.
> >> 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.
Repeatedly. :)
> >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! :)
Let me get this straight. Okrand says, "beings capable of using
language" in the text of TKD and in the tables of suffixes and
all of canon works fine with this definition and I agree with
this definition and you consider this to be a weak argument.
Right?
> > 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.
"Beings capable of reasoning" is less ambiguous than "beings
capable of language"? Interesting perspective.
> > 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.
Maybe we should do a survey to find out how many other people
think the phrase is not self-explanatory.
> > 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?)
Well, you latched onto "So why are you so fixated on this?" but
you failed to address "Well, we don't HAVE any exceptional
cases. Would you mind bringing up some exceptional cases where
your definition works better than Okrand's?
> >> 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?
Not really. The line between being able to use language or not
is very clear in most cases and vague in a few exceptional
cases. The same is true for the ability to reason. If one
believes that the ability to reason is implied in any true
ability to use language, then that implication negates any need
to mention the ability to reason.
If I say that all light colors use {-pu'} and all dark colors
use {-mey}, we can fight all we want about the murky middle
colors, but it is not really accurate to change "light colors"
to "colors using yellow". After all, yellow is a light color,
and it is involved in most light colors. The point is, when I
say "light colors" I don't mean "yellowish colors". I just mean
"light colors". It is arbitrary. For that matter, yellowness is
arbitrary. You don't gain anything by replacing one arbitrary
standard with another just because, in most cases, one works as
well as the other.
If they mean the same thing, there is nothing gained by
replacing a canon definition with a non-canon definition. If
they don't mean the same thing, then please show us the
exceptional case where Okrand's definition fails and yours
succeeds. If you can't face that challenge, then please give
this one up. I don't hear people lining up to agree with you at
this point, and until Okrand became one of them, I still would
not be impressed. Okrand has clearly expressed himself in
published text. Why can't you deal with that?
> >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.
Fine. My replacing Okrand's clear description of "beings
capable of langauge" with "beings using sound to make language"
doesn't work. I completely agree. Okrand's definition works
well enough for YOU to understand why my definition was not as
good. So, why do you think your definition is more
authoratative than mine? Yours and mine agree with his most of
the time. You rightfully invalidated mine by showing an example
where I violated Okrand's more righteous definition. Now,
please provide an example where you can be equally rightious
while proving Okrand's definition is inadequate. Of course,
that may be difficult, since you used Okrand's definition to
prove MY "sound" argument was wrong. It may be difficult for
you to similarly use Okrand's definition to prove that Okrand's
definition is wrong...
> >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? :)
I've heard of it, but we don't have any references to it in
canon. So far as we know from canon, sign langauge may not be
considered use of language any more than crows cawing to each
other from branches in trees (which I certainly suspect is a
valid use of language, but I do not suspect Klingons would
think so). Similarly, we have no references in canon for
telepathy, so that might not qualify a species for credit as
beings capable of using language. I have personally experienced
telepathy and do not consider it to be language related. For
me, it was definitely a pre-lingual communication of thought
and feelings that had no recognizable medium to convey it.
> >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."
In other words, we have to ignore Okrand's terms and use yours
instead, even though you can't produce any exceptional cases
that show your definition to function better than his when
determining whether a noun should get {-pu'} or {-mey}. Please
straighten me out if I have that wrong.
> 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?)
This test has exactly the same problem as any vague case. You
treat it as if there were a yes/no answer for whether such a
program succeeds, and there isn't. Sit two different people
down in the judge postion and one will easily discover which is
the program and which is the person. A different person may
fail to reveal which is which. You might also be comparing an
excellent AI program with a person who can't type very well or
otherwise is less skilled with langauge or is just plain having
a bad day:
"Who is the manager of the Celtics?"
"I don't know."
"You must be the AI, then."
"Actually, I'm just a housewife from Appalachia. We don't own a
TV."
> >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.
I think that as a guideline for when to use {-pu'} and when to
use {-mey} for the full range of settings we've seen in canon,
the definition "beings capable of using language" works well.
We have some definitions, like {taH} = "be at a negative
angle", which we may legitimately challenge. "Beings capable of
using langauge" is not in that class. It is a relatively clear,
functional definition. You have not begun to prove why you
think others should believe it to be inadequate.
> SuStel
> Stardate 98332.1
charghwI'