tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 24 07:55:42 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: De'wI'wIj vIngu'; pagh vIngu''a'? (Re: Skype

MorphemeAddict ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol taghwI']

In a message dated 2004-09-24 10:28:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> > jatlhlaHqu'bej puqbe'wI', 'ach jatlhlaHbe'chugh, {-wI'} vIlo' vIneH.
> 
> jIyajbe'.
> Are you saying that if she would not be able to speak, you'd use {-wI'} 
> anyway?
> That's a good point. {-wIj} is used for things only. Computers and vIlInHoD 
> do speak to, but they are not "able to speak".
> 

jIQIjtaHvIS DIvI' Hol vIlo':  Basically, yes, that's what I mean.  I take a 
broad view of the comment "capable of using language":  not only do I use it 
for all forms of sentient beings who can (and do) use language, but I also use 
it for all of those beings who belong to groups who *normally* or *typically* 
can speak, thus including deaf/mute people, mentally retarded people, babies 
and infants, the ghosts of dead people (but not usually their corpses). This 
does not normally include any animals, birds, or computers or other sound 
recording/playback devices (telephones?).  It could include an intelligent (i.e., 
sentient/self-willed) computer.  I would definitely refer to Data as >{ghaH< (>
jupwI' ghaH <Data>'e'<}, were that the case), despite his (!) being obviously 
and definitely a machine.  And I'm sure there are some fuzzy areas in which 
either would be appropriate, depending on the situation.

lay'tel SIvten

Back to archive top level