tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 09 20:39:32 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...

> Date:          Tue, 5 May 1998 20:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
> Reply-to:      [email protected]
> From:          "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Subject:       ...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'.
> 

This is interesting.., no one has emphasised this word before, and it 
may make a difference...surely no one would accuse a robot or a 
computer of fullfilling the requirements for the word 'being'. Would 
(for example,) Data be considered a being???  I feel that we should 
examine this word....

> 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
> 

One other point that I would like to make is:    On one of the tapes 
or books, it states quite clearly that the rules mentioned in the 
book are what klingon gramerians agree is the best klingon, and the 
rules are often broken...(etc).

This is also a good excuse to stop hassling the poor actors, (who 
probably have lives, and therefore not much time to learn 'perfect 
klingon')as obviously only scholars, and the occasional 'wants to do 
everything right' type person would bother making the effort...

tlhIngan maH.
maSuv.

Back to archive top level