tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 12 20:31:17 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: bIQDep / bIQ Ha'DIbaH

ja' 'oghwI':
>Would Klingons think of fish as beings rather than animals?  I would have
>thought that beings are capable of language and animals as not, so fish
>should not be beings.

There's no reason to assume a being must be capable of language.  In
fact, we quite definitely know that it isn't; the two qualifications
for getting a {-wI'} or {-lI'} or {-ma'} or {-ra'} possessive suffix
are 1: "being", and 2: "capable of language".

I don't see a distinction between beings and animals.  The distinction
you're making is merely between capable of language and not.  Consider
that Klingon vocabulary also includes a word for {HosDo'} "energy beings".
Apparently a being doesn't even have to be a physical thing.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level