tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 06 08:10:35 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: ...beings capable of using language...

I too shall summarize, because I have no further desire to discuss this
topic.

Someone started by using the word "sentient" or "sentience" in relation to
the {-pu'} suffix.  Someone else complained that "sentience" has nothing to
do with the assignation of {-pu'} or {-mey}.  I believe I replied that it
may not actually be such a bad choice of words.  Since sentience and being
capable of using language seem to go very much hand in hand, I still believe
this.

Despite what charghwI' keeps saying, I have never advocated a replacement of
the words "beings capable of using language."  I am not using the word
"sentient" to define anything at all.  I simply maintain that one can talk
about {-pu'} in terms of whether the noun is sentient, and be more or less
talking about the right thing.  In some cases, I find that the word actually
brings us closer to the correct assignation than "capable of using
language."  Not in all cases, not even in most cases.  Just a few.  It is
not a replacement for anything.  Please do not accuse me again of trying to
replace something.  It is something to look at to help us understand what
we're talking about.  It is not a formal definition, it is not meant as one,
and I wish you would stop saying that I'm trying to make one.

jIjatlh rIntaH.  Dochvam vIqelqangbe'qa'.  maQoch net chaw'.

SuStel
Stardate 98344.2

Back to archive top level