tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 05 09:03:35 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..

From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>


>According to David Trimboli:
>>
>> 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.

Can YOU explain exactly what is meant by "capable of using language" in a
way which everyone will accept?  I don't question that that's the correct
critera.  I guarantee that not everyone will agree on exactly what that
means.  And if not everyone agrees on what it means, then it's obviously not
quite as clear as you are making it out to be.

>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.

But that's the whole point which you are not getting.  The very definition
you are defending DOES have the vagueness which prevents an accurate
assignation in all cases.

"Please provide an example of a noun that needs {-pu'} when it is not a
"being capable of using language."

Two Klingons in comas.

I say they get the {-pu'} suffix, yet there is no way that they can "use
language."  On the other hand, I also say that "capable of using language"
is too vague.  Capable of using it in their current state?  Or capable of
using it in an abstract sort of way, having the potential of using it when
they wake up from their comas?  There is no way that these Klingons can use
language, yet I think we'd both still use {-pu'} there.

This is not an example where I'm trying to show the exact boundaries of
language use or not.  ALL I'M DOING IS SHOWING THAT "CAPABLE OF USING
LANGUAGE" IS NOT NEARLY AS CLEAR-CUT AS YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT OUT TO BE.
That's all I'm saying.  That's it.  I'm not providing examples, because my
very argument says that the definition is too vague in these borderline
cases.  I then suggested that reasoning, or sentience, is actually what is
being looked at here, because all creatures which are "capable of using
language" AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT PHRASE are actually creatures capable of
reasoning.  A computer CAN use language, if it's programmed to, but it
doesn't reason, and it also doesn't happen to get {-pu'}.

I'd say it's up to YOU to provide examples of how some of these borderline
cases can be solved with the single, undeveloped definition of "capable of
using language."  What about that language-using computer?  What about a
dolphin?  What about an android?  What about a gorrilla?  Please tell me
which suffixes YOU think these get, and exactly why.  Please do not use any
critera other than "capable of using language."

And here's the nub of the matter.  We DO have a little evidence that nouns
have accepted suffixes, and that it's not a matter of judgement on the part
of the speaker (DeSqIvDu').  *If* this is correct (and this was the origin
of the whole thing to begin with), then we have to figure out the correct
suffixes for these borderline cases before we can use them correctly.  If it
is not correct, then go and be vague with "capable of using language" as
much as you want, but before you go and do this, please show me the evidence
you have that it is NOT correct.  If you can convince me that suffixes are a
matter of judgement call and not inherent to the noun, then I'll have no
choice but to agree that "capable of using language" MIGHT in fact be all
the Klingons use to place suffixes, vagueness being in the realm of
judgement.

>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.

Aha!  You DO see the connection!  If you accept that you need to reason to
use language, then you DO agree that you need to reason to get {-pu'}.
Whether Okrand used the term or not is irrelevant.  If "use language" means
"use language with reasoning behind it" instead of "produce speech" or "make
signs" or some other thing like this, then you're essentially saying that
"can use language" = "can reason and communicate it."  The only difference
between "produce speech" and "use (verbal) language" is the reasoning behind
the language.

And here it is.  In those weird cases, it's essential to understand exactly
what "capable of using language" MEANS, because the concept of "producing
speech," which is what most people think of when they hear "capable of using
language" is NOT what we're talking about.  It's not the speech that's
relevant, it's the reasoning behind the speech.  You can't assign a suffix
properly if you don't really understand what the critera means.

>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".

No, but it would be entirely in order to talk about exactly what "light
colors" means.  If you can work that out, then what you work out will be
much more useful in those middle colors than simply repeating "light
colors."

>After all, yellow is a light color,

Sure, but can you tell me HOW YOU KNOW it is a light color?  Similarly, can
you tell me exactly what "capable of using language" means, without simply
repeating the phrase?

>> >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).

Here it is again.  I, for one, believe firmly that sign language is quite
definitely language use, and crows cawing is quite definitely NOT language.
If anyone disagrees with me, we're BOTH pointing to "capable of using
language" as our criteria, but I think most people would agree that crows
get {-pu'}.  This is not about showing that my crow-assignation is right,
it's about showing that the "capable of using language" phrase was
insufficient to solve the problem.

>> 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.

See above.

>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."

If the participant made this assumption based on this one question, I'd
assume the PARTIPANT was the non-intelligent one.

You're making this out as if I'm doing something counter to the Law of TKD.
If I may say so, I'd like to point out that TKD never claims that this is an
absolute definition.  The repetition is not indicative of correctness, it's
simply indicative of repetition.  TKD itself admits that it only provides
general rules to speak in a somewhat brutish manner; I find it hard to
believe that "capable of using language" is the one, true, unbreakable,
absolute, isn't this nice and dandy, correct critera.  I think's it's vague
in certain areas, and these areas should be explored, not slapped back with
"Okrand says 'capable of using language,' and that's it, so shut up!"  We
need to UNDERSTAND these phrases we throw around.

SuStel
Stardate 98340.5

Back to archive top level