tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 05 11:11:24 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong but..
According to David Trimboli:
>
...
> 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.
Simple: Beings capable of langauge in the Star Trek Universe
are those for whom the Universal Translator will translate
their communication into English^h^h^h^h^h^h^hFederation
Standard. While telepathic communications don't fall into this
category, it doesn't matter because in the Star Trek universe,
all telepathic species also communicate verbally.
> >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."
I doubt they are more capable of reasoning than they are
capable of using language. This example does not work.
> 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.
So, in what sense are they capable of reasoning yet not capable
of using language? You speak as if it were clear that they can
reason, yet can't use language. I don't think of a person in a
coma as capable of reasoning any more than they are capable of
using language.
> 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.
Yet you seem to believe that capable of reasoning has some
clearer boundary. This is the part that very much confuses me.
You want to replace one vague boundary which Okrand provided
with your own vague boundary which does nothing to improve our
ability to resolve marginal cases.
I'm content to accept that there will be rare marginal cases.
The vast majority of the time, there is no confusion. Beings
capable of language are commonly recognizeable in most
instances.
> 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.
"Beings capable of reasoning", as we understand THAT phrase.
> 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've never seen a computer use language. I've seen it recognize
and respond to sounds in pre-programmed ways. I've seen it
analyze written text, reorder words and add a few canned
phrases in order to simulate the use of language, but none of
this comes close to using language.
The computers shown in the Star Trek world do use language. We
can't make our computers act the way theirs do. Likely, someday
we will. At that point, computers will use language and
Klingons would have to use {-pu'} to pluralize them.
> 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?
If such a beast exists, I'd use {-pu'} to describe two of them
and I would not lose any sleep over it.
> 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."
In all these cases I see only two unresolved issues and they
don't bother me very much. First, do we make exceptional
references to exceptional cases? Some gorillas do use language
in a way that humans generally recognize, and one presumes a
Klingon would similarly recognize a gorilla who speaks sign
langauge as being capable of using langauge.
We may not recognize the native language of gorillas in
general, so when speaking of two gorillas who do use sign
langauge, do we use {-pu'} because they use sign language, or
do we use {-mey} because gorillas in general don't use a
humanly (or Klingonly) recognized language? And what would we
use if speaking of a group of gorillas whose population is
mixed - some that can speak and others that cannot?
The second issue is actually also being address above: What
constitutes the use of langauge?
Meanwhile, exactly the same problems exist for your preferred
definition of "capable of reasoning". Nothing is gained by that
definition. Nothing. Please provide a case where it adds any
clarity. Klingons in comas do not show themselves any more
capable of reasoning than they do capable of using langauge.
Gorillas similarly may be discounted as non-reasoning, or
respected as reasoning, depending on who is doing the
evaluation. Androids and linguistically talented computers
similarly may be judged differently depending upon who is doing
the evaluation.
> 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.
That has nothing to do with {-pu'} and {-mey}. Instead, it has
to do with what it considered a body part, and by that, what is
considered a body. Okrand said, "body part". He did not say,
"organic body part" or "living body part" or "animal body
part". He just said "body part". Klingons may anthropomorphize
objects as much as we do.
We know certainly that the boundary between bodies which have
parts designated by {-Du'} and things which are not bodies do
not align with {-mey} and {-pu'} boundaries. {'uSDu'} are legs,
whether they are the legs of a warrior or of a targ. {DeSqIvDu'}
similarly are body parts, be they of the body of a warrior, a
mugato, or apparently the body of a piece of pottery. It is
still a body part. The ability to use language has nothing to
do with it.
> 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.
Well, the evidence that the presumption that Okrand really
meant "beings capable of reasoning" when he said "beings
capable of langauge" is that Okrand said "beings capable of
langauge" a lot of times and never once said "beings capable of
reasoning".
English has a gender difference between masculine, feminine and
neuter. There are cases where these classifications are vague,
like hermorphedites and unsexed living things, or beings like
frogs which are capable in some cases of changing between
states of being masculine or feminine (as was referenced in
Jurassic Park). There are also transsexuals to deal with. It
gets messy, but we seem to cope with it rather well.
Were you to combine masculine and feminine into one gender and
differentiate it from neuter, you could be dividing nouns that
live vs. those that don't. This would clear up those vague
cases of hermorphedites, assexuals and transsexuals, but the
line would still be arbitrary and there would be some vague
cases. Are viruses alive? How about amino acids and complex
proteins? There would not be a perfect line between the genders.
Now, move the line to beings capable of reasoning. You can chop
out viruses and amino acids, but insects become a real problem.
They have behavior that is difficult to explain if you don't
give them credit for rudimentary reasoning capability. Of
course, the same can be said for language abilities. The line
is, and will always be, arbitrary.
My point is that nothing is gained by moving the line between
"beings capable of using langauge" to "beings capable of
reasoning", but one thing is lost in the process. We lose the
authority of Okrand's explicit and repeated description. We
forfeit that for an immeasurably small gain in the ability to
differentiate between rare vague cases.
In fact, I don't think we diminish the number of vague cases at
all if we adopt your personal definition and abandon that of
the man who created this langauge. I cannot see where you get
the idea that anything is gained by this. You have not begun to
make that clear to me at all. You seem to feel certain that you
can do a better job of differentiating between beings capable
of reasoning than you can differentiate between beings capable
of using language, yet you have done nothing to reveal why you
believe this to be the case.
> 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.
This is exactly as true for "ability to reason" as it is for
"ability to use language". Why do you believe that is not the
case?
> >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'}.
A falling man grasps at straws, but far too few to build wings.
For the sake of deciding which suffix is appropriate for a
given noun, I don't care whether or not reasoning is involved,
unless it can substantially clarify cases where that decision
is difficult IN THE SAME WAY THAT A NATIVE KLINGON SPEAKER
WOULD DECIDE. Remember that rules are built to explain useage
and useage does not have to follow rules. Okrand provides us
with rules to explain the useage in Klingon langauge as he has
observed it and as Maltz explains it. Why are you convinced
that you are a better judge of this than Okrand and Maltz?
Where are the exceptional cases where their description fails
and yours succeeds?
> 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.
I never said that. Okrand never said that. Maltz never said
that. You said that. Passionately, but inaccurately.
What I intended to convey is that if the ability to use
langauge always implies the ability to reason, and we have a
definition to differentiate between appropriate use for two
noun suffixes, and that differentiation is based upon the
ability to use langauge, then concerning yourself with the
ability to reason is irrellevant because when you divide those
who can reason from those who can't, you will have collected
the exact same groups that you would have collected had you
divided them by those able to use language and those who
cannot. In that case, bothering us with the argument that we
should be using "beings capable of reasoning" is little more
than just bothering us. It produces no benefit.
If, indeed, these criteria produce DIFFERENT groups, then I
suggest that your chosen grouping is wrong because it differs
from that clearly described to us by the man who created the
language. Your criterion has no authority behind it. It has
nothing to do with the language. It may be the way you would
personally like to slice gender, but it is not Klingon.
> 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.
We could easily get just as arbitrary about the line between
"beings able to reason" and those not able to do so. Can an ant
reason? I've watched ant behavior and I honestly believe they
can. You probably disagree. Meanwhile, whether or not they
reason, I feel relatively certain Klingons would place {-mey}
after their word for "ant" were they to develop one. I suspect
you would agree.
We just have to learn where, by example, Klingon draws the line
between beings capable of using language and those not capable
of using language, just like we would have to learn where, by
example, Klingons would judge that beings are capable of
reasoning or not. By either definition, there are vague
examples where arbitrary decisions must be made. We can choose
your arbitrary criterion or Okrands. Guess who wins?
> >> >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.
I think you made a boo-boo. By your own argument, crows would
get {-mey}, but I won't leap in with any "aha!" statements
here.
Meanwhile, I don't see where you think your criterion is "more
sufficient" than Okrand's. Both are arbitrary. Both are clear
in most cases and agree with each other in most cases. Both are
vague in some cases; typically in the SAME cases. Nothing is
gained by adopting your personally selected, non-canon
definition.
> >> 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.
Umm. Where, exactly? I never saw you make that point.
> >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.
I just don't see where your arbitrary choice to add a very
nearly parallel definition to his explicit one accomplishes
anything at all. If we had canon examples of Klingon useage
which followed your rule better than it followed Okrand's rule,
I'd take you seriously.
We don't.
Not one.
There are exactly ZERO reasons to conclude that Okrand's
explicit definition of this rule is an inaccurate map to the
way Klingons decide whether to use {-mey} or {-pu'} when
pluralizing a noun. Given that there are zero reasons to
conclude this, there are zero reasons to make up new
definitions to improve a map which already works in all cases
offered by canon.
You want to claim that determining whether or not a being is
capable of reasoning is somehow helpful when trying to
determine whether or not a being is capable of lanuage. I
counter that there are two problems with your assumption:
1. Determining whether or not a being is capable of reasoning
is in no way easier or clearer than determining whether or not
that being is capable of using langauge.
2. In typical useage, Klingons select whether to use {-mey} or
{-pu'} in a way that fits Okrand's rule at least as well as
yours. We do not improve our ability to predict which way a
Klingon would choose between these suffixes if we abandon
Okrand's rule and adopt yours.
Would you mind addressing these two points? You have not done
so yet.
> SuStel
> Stardate 98340.5
charghwI'