tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 04 21:19:12 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
"capable of using language" (Was: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong but..)
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: "capable of using language" (Was: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong but..)
- Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 21:16:14 -0700
At 10:01 98-05-01 -0700, charghwI' wrote:
}According to David Trimboli:
}>
}> From: Qov <[email protected]>
[edited here and there for brevity]
}> >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.
I'm sure a review of my postings will show that I have manytimes used the
word "sentient" in chiding people for using the wrong possessive suffix or
plural. It's shorter than "beings capable of using language," is popularly
used with a similar meaning, and gets the point across to people who have
just made a slip.
It would be useful to know what Klingons consider "capable of using
language." Humans are still arguing about it, quite outside the context of
Klingon suffixes, so I hardly expect we'll solve it here.
}> 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.
Personally, I don't think a computer ould take {-pu'}, unless it has crossed
that science fictional threshold into self-awareness, like Hal in 2001, the
Pathfinders in Memory Prime, or Jane in Speaker for the Dead. But my
interpretation of the words "being capable of using language" don't affect
their presence in TKD.
As for me, I was not agreeing or disagreeing with the various
interpretations of "beings capable of using language." The posting I
responded to stated that someone who was quoting directly from TKD was
"outright wrong." Whatever "beings capable of using language" means, that
>IS< the criterion, and I stand by my assertion that anyone who disagrees
that that is the criterion looks like an idiot to anyone who has a copy of
TKD. It's like stating that {bI-} is not the second person singular subject
no object prefix.
} 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 used to think he left it out to simplify the vocabulary of the book. Now
... um ... do I think anymore, or do I just react? Hol lo'laH'a' BG?
Qovraj yIvulHa'moH.
}> >*You* are outright wrong, and furthermore ...
}
}> Then you must also call *me* an idiot.
If you think that anyone is outright wrong for stating that the real
criterion for a language decision is the one specified in TKD, then yeah, I
think that makes you look like an idiot or somone who has not read TKD, too.
}> >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."
The vehement contradiction of what is in TKD triggered that, not any insults.
}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. {{:)>
Stack overflow error. Qov restarted for next post.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian