tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 05 20:12:00 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

...beings capable of using language...

Here's my pass on this:

LANGUAGE: A body of words and a system for their use, to paraphrase my
dictionary. (Other broader definitions exist for language, including animal
calls, and mention is even made of the 'language of love' - for this
argument, it is wisest to use the most restrictive definition and only
expand it if it is absolutely necessary.) A 'word' is "a unit of
language...typically thought of as representing an indivisible concept,
action or feeling or as having a single referent..." This means Klingon is a
language, and so is English/FedStd, ASL, Yiddish, Latin, Russian, etc. etc.
It would seem to exclude animal communication, since the definitions of
'language' and 'word' imply an ability to communicate with sharp focus, and
it is yet unproven that any non-human(oid) creature can express itself so
eloquently using the natural sounds they do. I feel that a crow has no
'language' for the purposes of this argument.

USING LANGUAGE: A computer or tape player can emit sounds that are lingual,
and a sheet of paper can communicate visual language. But are these things
'using' a language, or are they simply displaying someone's words? A talking
robot might be able to ask questions of a passerby (What is your name? What
is your quest?) but these words and phrases were preprogrammed - the robot
is 'parrotting', not using. If the robot begins to reorganize words in new
ways to communicate ideas unpredicted by the programmer, then a case may be
made for the robot 'using language'. If I shook my Magic 8-Ball and asked,
"What shall I invest in tomorrow?" and the answer came up "Sell IBM and buy
Converse and Pepsico," I would think it would be fair to state that the
device 'used' language.

CAPABLE OF:  If I do not communicate for a week (a vow of silence, perhaps)
I am not no longer <-pu'> - I am still 'capable' of using language. But is a
comatose Klingon capable of using language? It seems fitting that a Klingon
would not acknowledge a comatose Klingon as <-pu'> - in fact, I doubt any
Klingon would remain comatose for long; either they would recover, or
receive an honorable death. Terran sympathetic tendencies make it likely
that a human would still refer to a comatose individual otherwise capable of
language use as <-pu'>, but I doubt that a Klingon would. However, if a
Klingon is sleeping, he/she is still capable of using language - to prove
this, simply wake the Klingon for no reason. The last thing you will hear
will be a Klingon capable of using language.

Newborns are presumed to be capable of maturing to such a point that they
will begin language use. Therefore they are also capable of using language,
although they do not yet.

BEING: The language-use-capable subject must be a 'being'. This is rather
trivial at this point; in fact, most would agree that an entity which is
capable of using a language as I have defined it would be fairly referred to
as a 'being'.

Therefore, 'capable of using language' only requires a few considerations -
does the being in question employ a true language, and is this language
actually used?

This analysis is based purely on the terms set forth in TKD and I have taken
great pains to not even directly consider sentience or reasoning, since they
are not what Marc Okrand wrote. If anyone has comments I would be EXTREMELY
happy to read them.

Qermaq

Back to archive top level