tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 19 20:38:01 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC: jInIDqa'
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:38:23 -0500 David Yeung
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> pagh:
> >Okrand has specifically said that these pronouns and suffixes do not apply
> >to computers or animals, no matter how clever they seem to be. I am sure
> >there is probably occasional confusion and debate among Klingon
> >xenobiologists or computer researchers about whether the latest discovery
> is
> >an <'oH> or a <ghaH>, but the average Klingon rarely needs to make this
> >distinction, if ever.
>
> I'll ask the obvious Star Trek question (my apologies
> if this has made the rounds before, which it likely
> has): What about Mr. Data? Is he a /ghaH/ or an
> /'oH/?
>
> --
> De'vID
Mr. Data is a special case, since he has passed a trial in
which it was determined that he is a sentient being and so
has all the legal rights of a citizen of the Federation.
Add that Worf considers him a personal friend. Mr. Data is
in many ways not easily classified as a computer. He has a
computer just as I have a brain, but I am not a brain and
he is not a computer.
A computer is not a being capable of using language because
it is not a being. I'd argue as well that a brain is {'oH}
and not {ghaH} for this same reason.
charghwI'