Kesvirit posted on 2-8-2003 at 07:29 PM
Curiosity, communication channels, sapience, morphemes, furryfen...
You know, you ought to be collecting your longer posts/essays/explanations for inclusion on your own "Intro to Whatsis Page: Apprentice Thought Master Klythe's Electronic Reader on Everything You Never Knew You Wanted to Know". }}:-D
quoth Kesv Does this mean that those who can be taught to speak klingonaase (or even Rihannsu, or dare I say it... FedStandard?) but not tlhIngan Hol are non-sentient?
quoth Klythe No. It means exactly what it says. That is why I said it... Most likely we will see if such an animal can be taught tlhIngan Hol, and if I can not perhaps we could learn it's language, or it could learn another language known to Klingons. Does it not make sense that we would perfer to use our own tongue?
Which is exactly why I asked. To many Klingons, tlhIngan Hol is the only language worthy of being spoken, and those who speak anything else are by definition inferior. Such an attitude would definitely influence the decision as to whether or not the animal in question was worth testing.
quoth Kesv
But this does not preclude the possibility of a Klingon scientist investigating different modes of communication (or any other endeavor, really) out of sheer curiosity, should such an opportunity arise... but it is not totally outside the realm of the Klingon "mindset" to be curious as to how the universe works, and desire to persue knowlege for knowlege's sake.
quoth Klythe
As much curiousity as I have... I do not attribute that trait to Klingons, I would say that yes, it is beyond thier mindset. There does not seem to be a concern for the sake of knowledge itself. Only because knowledge is power is knowledge pursued. Knowledge is only as valuable as you can expect to apply it, so wasting your time testing animals brings no glory unless you expect to achieve an insight that will improve your position in the Komerex Zha.
No. No no no no. (urghl...I'm making myself dizzy . If I shake my head any harder it will come off.) Curiosity and investigation are never wasted for the very reason you site. One never knows when some seemingly random or useless piece of information will prove to be the factor that ultimately wins a battle... or takes down a questionable superior. One doesn't always know when a particular piece of information will be useful, but what Klingon would turn down the chance to add such ammunition to one's personal arsenal? Particularly if it were a potential weapon that few others had, or knew how to use.
Not everyone subscribes to the Khomerex Zha. Klingon scientists have to get their start somewhere, even if it is as a small child who turns over rocks to see what wriggles underneath and wonders, "Will it continue to wriggle when picked up?" As Klingons are largely olfactory (smell) oriented, the child probably investigated further by sniffing at the wriggler, and, being a humanoid, put the wriggler in its mouth. Yum! And thus was gagh discovered and a major cultural contribution made, all out of curiosity for curiosity's sake.
You should see some of the web reviews we get. 'Weird' comes off as high praise. }}:-D 'Delightful' is almost too high of praise, like epetai-zana... But it really doesn't matter what is said about TFC. Either you are interested in Furries, Star Trek and Star Wars, or you are not.
I didn't say that I understood it, merely that I enjoyed it.
Perhaps sometime when you are feeling bored you can explain the unique intricacies and appeal of the Furry concept.
In rereading my descriotion I see just how much I wrote it for me instead of anyone else... So I'll have to rewrite it and add a lot more detail. If nothing else I'll post a link... If youu think it is appropriate for the science section and you wish it, I can post it there.
As it would build upon our knowlege of Klingon culture, I would very much like that.
quoth Kesv For a while I've been working on a quasi-sentient(?) game species from the fringes of the Empire...
quoth Klythe yeah, I had trouble with describing the border condition between animals and people. Sentient seems to be going back to it's orginal meaning of "capable of feeling" due to the efforts of Animal rights activists. }};-P Intellegence is a spectrum, so saying "semi-intellegent life" doesn't say how intellegent. The other popular standard of humanity is "self awareness" but that is really hard to measure without actually reading the mind of the critter involved.
As Klingons tend toward low psi levels (or do they?) and are understandably paranoid about such things, I don't think they would go for that last criterion.
Intelligence isn't merely a spectrum, but is specific to the task involved. African Wild Dogs (as in the species
Lycaon pictus, not wild or feral true dogs) are regarded as extremely intelligent when it comes to hunting, while raccoons are extremely intelligent when it comes to getting into "raccoon-proof" garbage cans. If one were to reverse the tasks, neither would score as high on the intelligence scale. Intelligence has a lot to do with how successfully a given organism fits its niche. Raccoons can't run down large game, and L. pictus lacks the climbing ability, nimble paws and tiny teeth necessary to get at the really *good* garbage.
I've taken to using the word "sapient"...
Sentient, sapient, sophont... There seems to be a lot of overlap between these concepts. I wish I could draw venn diagrams on this thing. At what point are they separate qualities and at what point is one splitting hairs? <shrug> Perhaps I should be asking how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin... Whatever. "Sapient" works for me. Even if it doesn't necessarily apply to me.
quoth Kesv communicate with one another via some sort of subvocal? para-psychic? process that involves images and emotions, along with a very nuanced, detailed body language and a range of vocalizations. Judging from what I've seen of it in action I think it must also sense and operate on intent.
quoth Klythe How very redundant! }};-D
Um, yeah. Now that I read it, it does seem repetitive. It's not what I meant to say but I can't come up with a better way to put what I'm trying to get at, except to say that it can tell if someone is planning harm to one of its (twolegger) friends but is often unsure how to react. <sigh...>
How many times must I tell you, listen to what I meant, not what I wrote!
The catch, though, is that the vast majority of Klingons wouldn't be "listening" for or able to receive in any meaningful way the critter's transmitted images and emotions, and very few would be observant enough to pick up on the subtleties of its body language and gesturings. I suppose this brings us around full circle: unless/until someone notices a reason for further evaluation, the creature in question will remain -mey no matter how sapient it is or how intricate its language is.
The psychic portion could technically be sent any distance(depending on how you set it up), body language and vocalization work with sight and sound each of which have thier own ranges... How very interesting... You you might want to decide what information goes over each channels, for example the Saurials in the Forgotten Realms "Curse of the Asurebonds" trilogy, spoke using clicks, but thier emotions and emphasis was communicated entirely through scent.
All I know is that it "speaks" through images and emotions,
(Moderator's note: The rest of this page was eaten by hungry spiderbots.)
(Edit -- due to the problem of chronological entry described in the second post
here, I've entered an entire rediscovered page onto the end of the post it should have followed. The participants' post counts have been adjusted accordingly.)
and expresses the degree/intensity of these through movement and vocalization. This makes it tend to come across as some sort of genius Lassie and made one nervous security officer mutter "I swear that wretched beast can see right through my eyes..." (the unspoken corollary being "and into my brain"), which in turn earned him a dressing down from a superior.
The use of different channels of communication is where I'm running into difficulties (one place of many...). So far only one of these organisms has shown up in my fic. It started out as a plot device, but I liked it so much that I started developing it as a character. But because it has spent its entire life among Klingons and has never met any of its own people its intraspecies communication systems never really came up. Now that I'm having to be specific about some of that it is difficult to put together a coherent system without contradicting what I've written so far. Klingon scientists may be able to study its anatomy and reactions, but cannot study its social system with only one specimen to go by -- there is no larger societal context to put it into.
It's also one thing to describe a communications system, and another to show or demonstrate it within the confines of a story. :-/
Kesvirit: So...only if it requires the intermediary step of abstract symbols is it considered a true language? Even if the communication is more precise and nuanced without it? That seems counterintuitive and counter-productive.
Klythe: But to reiterate, I'm adament about the fact that language must be abstract and give raise to abstract thought and intellegence. It is possible to trancend language and communicate in raw ideas and images but that isn't language because there is no morphemes. There is no concept of a stick. Only this stick and that stick, and the other stick. Without language each stick is unique and not related to any other stick or object, it is represented by your perception of it only. There is no motive to think about what makes a stick a stick rather than a say a twig, you don't need to create patterns to store your perceptions beyond the time you communication about the object is finished. When you communicate in images you don't need to analyse your environment so much, because you don't need to decide if they fit into an abstract concept or require a new concept to communicate an important distinction.
Using this line of reasoning, do the Saurials'communicating different aspects over different "channels" count as morphemes? For example,
"stick" = (click)
"twig" = (click) + modifier for 'small'(scent)
"tree" = (click) + modifier for 'big'(different scent)
"forest" = (click) + modifier(s) for 'lots big'(same scent used for "tree", but much stronger)
Before you burst out laughing, remember that this comes from someone who knows nothing of syntax, never learned grammar in English, and wouldn't know an Object Oriented programming language if it bit her on the a$$.
Klythe: As far as communicating with concrete images, I'm mostly working off an old dos game I played a while back called Gateway 2:Homeworld.... Anyway in the game, when you show or attempt to give a particular type of item to them, they transmitted dream like images that told the story of that item or showed what to do wuth it. They would also transmit images of things they would like to happen, like you going up the mountain to get another spaceship to be able to leave thier planet. The images were concrete, but obviously there was some abstract thinking going on in order to show images of concrete object taking actions that they have not yet done.
But how was this abstract thinking shown/portrayed? By your own arguement, this is the "still-hot disruptor" that proves or disproves their sapience. Without it all you have are slithering rocks that would make for good target practice.
Klythe It's abandonware so I could send you a copy with a walkthough so you can see how they worked for yourself.
That would be very much appreciated! Would you U2U me with the systems requirements/specs so that I can try to determine whether or not it will play in Peoria (aka my Macintoy, for you cephalocoders out there).
============================================================
Klythe posted on 8-2-2003 at 23:12Kesvirit: RE: Sapir-Whorf
Yes, but I'm not sure how far I buy into it.
Niether am I. Obviously, where exactly the middle ground is will be hard to find... And it probably changes drastically from population to population based on how well the society deals with it's deviants(those who deviate beyond the bounds of society, not just perverts). A more free society would likely be less bound to being locked into a common mind set.
*scanning back to try to find out what the point of this is...* oh, yeah, well... I like language. Seems a silly point now...
Kesvirit: Speech center? As I understand it, there is no one "speech center" of the brain. Rather it is a group effort of several distinct anatomical units. The thoughts form in the frontal lobes, the desire to express them comes from the limbic system (specifically the amygdala?), the translation from abstract idea to words takes place in the Wernicke's area, and the words-to-mouth process is directed by the Broca's area. I may be missing steps in the process, and am hoping someone will correct me if I'm wrong. If anyone knows what they are, speak up!
Ah! so you know more about this than I do... Okay, then I accept that there is no single central speech center, but I still seem do most of my thinking in the same abstract symbols that I convieniently have morphemes to express. Rarely do I have to create a new morpheme. }}:-D
Kesvirit: Kesviritologists -- Seriously-Warped
Great cartoon! I especially like the literal translation of Worf as being a "something". (I know I always thought of him as more of a something than a someone...) Troi the Elder got it right when she kept addressing him as "Mr. Woof", even if she was only doing so to tweak his ridges.
Yeah, I can see how it is nice to have a separate concept for someone and something, but it isn't essential and can be picked up from context easily enough. There isn't that distinction in Lojban/Loglan.
As for Wor'Iv... I've never cared for him either. And I like him less and less all the time. Most recently he's little more than a running joke on human ma-cheese-mo, than any attempt at a likable character. But he's always been a no-good feddy.
Kesvirit: You must impliment some sort of priority-response indication system.
If I must I must... How about a five star system. The more stars the more important the point is to me. Everything above this is polite banter, one star stuff. This paragraph, however is a direct response to a request, so warrents a four star rating. ****
Kesvirit: You know, you ought to be collecting your longer posts/essays/explanations for inclusion on your own "Intro to Whatsis Page: Apprentice Thought Master Klythe's Electronic Reader on Everything You Never Knew You Wanted to Know". }}:-D
It all comes from the same source. Should I be asked again, I'd just have to think about it again, and come up with much the same, but perhaps with something new to add... I don't get asked intellegent questions often enough that I'd need to save time this way... But if I do, I'll generally remember where I had discussed it previously, and look it up. *
Kesvirit: Which is exactly why I asked. To many Klingons, tlhingan Hol is the only language worthy of being spoken, and those who speak anything else are by definition inferior. Such an attitude would definitely influence the decision as to whether or not the animal in question was worth testing.
Influence yes,, but you seemed to be talking as if it would be a hard rule. I think we both agee there would be a bias, but not a rule, especially if the creature did appear to have something valuable to communicate or to be communicated to. Agreed (*) Disagreed(***).
Kesvirit: One never knows when some seemingly random or useless piece of information will prove to be the factor that ultimately wins a battle...
True, but if you wish to succeed you will go after the information that is likely to be useful first, and only 'grasp at straws' as a last resort.
Kesvirit: Not everyone subscribes to the Khomerex Zha.
Not everyone believes they act according to the Komerex Zha, but the Komerex Zha still describes the actions of every Klingon. Open Source Sfotware writers may not actively think in terms of RMS's "Cathedral and the Bazaar" but it is an accurate model of the Open Source Hacker society. It is the same with any definative sociological study. Individuals act to promote thier own goals regardless of which society they are in. Society helps to set those goals, but everyone human, Klingon or Romulan act to promote thier personal values (which generally include the public good as well). I do not know if this applies to kuve races or not. I imagine that it does, and that the kuve are kuve because they value life over freedom. (****)
Kesvirit: even if it is as a small child who turns over rocks to see what wriggles underneath and wonders
Childhood is a luxury in short supply. Oldschool style Klingons have been reported fighting and killing adult opponents in the year games at age 8. Even the fortunate children have to be prepared to 'hold thier own' in combat in order to fight for their position at the academy they chose. After childhood is over, seldom to you find the oppotunity to wander aimlessly mapping what random data you come acrossed. What we are talking about requires more study than normal observation in the course of executing you other duties often allows. (***)
As far as gagh, couldn't that discovery just as likely have been driven by anadult seeking a solution to a real need of hunger? (**)
Kesvirit: I didn't say that I understood it, merely that I enjoyed it. }}:-) Perhaps sometime when are feeling bored you can explain the unique intricacies and appeal of the Furry concept...
Perhaps. On a personal level, I would say that mapping personality aspects to animals is something engrained in our culture, and furries allow a better reason to write characters with obvious biases in thier personalities. Which is a common tactic I think writers tend to use to help the reader relate to a character. I cannot speak for others on this though, but I'm thinking on some level it does help everyone realte to the emotions and personality traits society associates with that animal.
I can't deny that it's also really convienent that it allows me to create different furry races of Klingons, rather than limiting myself to a single klingon race. (*)
Kesvirit: As Klingons tend toward low psi levels (or do they?) and are understandably paranoid about such things, I don't think they would go for that last criterion.
Yep. I don't think that would be too popular... ()
Kesvirit: Intelligence has a lot to do with how successfully a given organism fits its niche. Raccoons can't run down large game, and L. pictus lacks the climbing ability, nimble paws and tiny teeth necessary to get at the really *good* garbage.
And intellegence is often misused as a term. I woul not consider that correct usage. Intellegence does not include instict, therefore it must be challenge with an new problem that has not been solved. Such as a crow dropping pebbles in a bucket to raise the water level to allow him to drink, or a rat itrying to navigate a maze. These are intellegence testing tasks. Anyway,we agree that "Intellegent life" isn't a good term, so this gets a (*) unless you are also interested in discussing the nature of intellegence in the context of language, then set your own priority here...
Kesvirit: Um, yeah. Now that I read it, it does seem repetitive.
Uh, no... This actually was me getting excited about your idea... I was talking about the multiple channels, allowing redundant methods of transfering the message. If line of sight is blocked, but smell and psi get through, you still have enough to understand the message. This is a feature sometimes new language designers forget to add into a language. Y** c*n st*ll *nd*rst*nd *ngl*sh w*th**t th* v*w*ls. At least I hope you can understand that. Natural languages usually have plenty of redundancy to allow understanding in less than optimal environments.
Kesvirit: The catch, though, is that the vast majority of Klingons wouldn't be "listening" for or able to receive in any meaningful way the critter's transmitted images...
Yep. That's why I decided to rely on observed behavior rather than any attempt to differentiate between mindless animal grunts and language in the early stages of evolution. Klingons would not waste the kind of resources we do on studying dolphins. (*)
Kesvirit: All I know is that it "speaks" through images and emotions, and expresses the degree/intensity of these through movement and vocalization. This makes it tend to come across as some sort of genius Lassie and made one nervous security officer mutter "I swear that wretched beast can see right through my eyes..." (the unspoken corollary being "and into my brain"), which in turn earned him a dressing down from a superior.
Hmmm... Sounds like they really do communicate above language. If they transmit feelings(emotions) directly, like I can feel your hard speed up as if it were my own, so I understand your most visceal emotions because I either genuinely feel the emotion with you, or I just think that I do... There is no abstraction there... Images can be real or abstract. Actually, if you are having them communicate about sticks they way you describe, that is certainly abstract language... Very interesting combination... (*)
Kesvirit: It's also one thing to describe a communications system, and another to show or demonstrate it within the confines of a story. :-/
Maybe you shuld read the first and the 3rd books of the Azure Bonds trilogy. Because the author does tackle this exact problem. The Saurials do have a full language, and are completel understandable by magical translation. But otherwise... You can read how they are feeling by thier scent... And that's about all you can get. Communicating that is fairly easy. Define a situation where the obvious thing the character would be feeling, and have a Klingon pick up the smell coming from the critter. Later in the story when anyone notices the smell around the critter, they know what it is feeling. The same could be done with body language, or also my matching it's motions to body language readers already understand... Obviously the psionic band is not detected and understtod by Klingons... I hope this helps (***)
Kesvirit: Using this line of reasoning, do the Saurials'communicating different aspects over different "channels" count as morphemes? For example,
"stick" = (click)
"twig" = (click) + modifier for 'small'(scent)
"tree" = (click) + modifier for 'big'(different scent)
"forest" = (click) + modifier(s) for 'lots big'(same scent used for "tree", but much stronger)
From what I understood the morphemes, the actual abstract symbols were all communicated with sub-sonic clicks and such. It would translate to monotone vocal usage. The scent glands showed emotion, emphasis and connotative cues, basically everything we communicate with shifting vocal tones and body language.
Now if we are talking about other creatures talking like that... Then the full morpheme would contain a verbal component as well as the scent track, as both would be required to get the meaning...
Kesvirit: But how was this abstract thinking shown/portrayed?
Klythe Like I said, it was portrayed by concrete images of things that haven't happened yet(and narative that said something like "This hasn't happened yet, maybe they want you to do this." )
Because of these limitations and other cues in the game, I woud say they are sub-sapient. Although they were very very cute.
I'll start trying to dig it up... If the program doesn't run on your mac the walkthrough might still be useful to you.
============================================================
Klythe posted on 16-2-2003 at 01:06Okay, I found something( see section 3.3.4)... I think what I saw before was much longer... but this confirms my points (but doesn't quite prove them unless I can find the Original Okrandian quote)
Quoted below for convience...
A "being capable of using language" must be a true living being (not a talking computer, for example) and must have an inherent capacity for speech (which may not be manifested, in the case of infants or someone who has lost the power of speech). [KLI: S. Boozer, 7/12/98, "Anecdotal Okrand"]
============================================================
qurgh posted on 3-3-2003 at 11:03My couple of cents on this would be that Klingons would only use -pu' on life-forms that THEY think can use language and that they can communicate with. If they can't communicate with a creature using a language they know, then they would most likely not use -pu'.
If a Klingon met a lifeform that they couldn't communicate with they would use -mey but if, at a later date, another Klingon discovered they could communicate with them then they would switch to using -pu'. For example if it was a non-verbal language that someone had to sit down and learn and then could be passed onto others.
Personally I think it could also come down to what the individual belives. If someone uses -pu' on a lifeform and others disagreed the -pu' user would most likely have to explain their reason for using -pu'. If the others agreed the reason was just then -pu' would be used, and would slowly spread throught the Klingon society.
Thats how languages grow and change. Use what you think is the best one, -pu' or -mey, and others will ask how you got to that conclusion, if it is not obvious, and maybe they will agree and maybe they won't. Some people think they can converse with their pets, and might use -pu' on that animal... I on the other hand will never say dogpu'
As for the whole sociological aspects that have popped up in this thread, I'm not going to even bother commenting, not because I can't but because I don't feel like typing a 1000 word essay on it.
============================================================
Kesvirit posted on 16-3-2003 at 04:17Klythe: Okay, then I accept that there is no single central speech center, but I still seem do most of my thinking in the same abstract symbols that I convieniently have morphemes to express. Rarely do I have to create a new morpheme. }}:-D
Everyone is "wired" slightly differently. You may well do an unusually large portion of your thinking with your Wernicke's. I seem to do to much of mine with my visual cortex. You can see (ha!) how this can be a decided disadvantage in a culture/species where spoken communication is the default. :-/
How does one "create" a new morpheme for an existing language? As morphemes are the smallest units of language on which communications are built, don't they have to be in place before a language is fully functional and ready for use?
Klythe:[/i] As for Wor'Iv... I've never cared for him either. And I like him less and less all the time. Most recently he's little more than a running joke on human ma-cheese-mo, than any attempt at a likable character. But he's always been a no-good feddy.
Agreed. With emphasis on the cheese. A regular mon-mineraloid, lactose-and-sausage Horta. Just goes to prove that forehead ridges and bragadccio do not a true Klingon make.
quoth Kesv: You know, you ought to be collecting your longer posts/essays/explanations for inclusion on your own "Intro to Whatsis Page: Apprentice Thought Master Klythe's Electronic Reader on Everything You Never Knew You Wanted to Know".
Klythe:: It all comes from the same source.
Which is?
Kesvirit: To many Klingons, tlhingan Hol is the only language worthy of being spoken, and those who speak anything else are by definition inferior. Such an attitude would definitely influence the decision as to whether or not the animal in question was worth testing.
Klythe: Influence yes,, but you seemed to be talking as if it would be a hard rule. I think we both agee there would be a bias, but not a rule, especially if the creature did appear to have something valuable to communicate or to be communicated to. Agreed (*) Disagreed(***).
Agreed, mostly. I also think that the potential degree of usefulness would factor in. A passing interest would rate a mere interrogation in tlhingan Hol, but if a creature was seen as holding the possible key to galactic conquest Klingon scientists might even go as far as to try to decipher its language in order to communicate with it.
Kesvirit: even if it is as a small child who turns over rocks to see what wriggles underneath and wonders
Klythe: Childhood is a luxury in short supply.... After childhood is over, seldom to you find the oppotunity to wander aimlessly mapping what random data you come acrossed. What we are talking about requires more study than normal observation in the course of executing you other duties often allows.(***)
Often, but not always. Amagh had his fireblossoms, and apparently had enough interest and oppportunity to become quite an authority on them. Kethas was an expert on many different types of zha, an understandable pursuit. (And whorf had his identity crises). But Kethas also searched far and wide to collect sets. How many sets of each variety does one need to learn and play that variety, and how much time do you think he spent over the years tracking them down?
*sigh* I think those are also influenced by the RHIP (Rank Has Its Priviliges) Principle. The powerful are allowed more leeway in idiosincratic behavior than those who actually do the work.
Curiosity for curiosity's sake can also be expressed in the form of "specialist drift". There is a tendency to enjoy what one is good at and to be skilled at things one enjoys; some skills are built up through sheer repitition. One who was assigned to an astrophysics position but who desires to advance in the Imperial Navy could apply for a transfer to a lesser navigational position. There one would share more bridge time with senior officers and have more opportunities to impress them with one's skills. The requisite knowlege would transfer relatively easily. After all, what is navigation but applied astrophysics -- the knowlege of how different things move through space? Thus an initial childhood interest in how to more effectively move a rock could end up advancing one's professinal atanding and political career.
Klythe: As far as gagh, couldn't that discovery just as likely have been driven by an adult seeking a solution to a real need of hunger? (**)
Of course it could. I'm reasonably sure the origins of that particular delicacy are lost to the mists of time. But mine seems as likely a scenario as any, and was put forth as a possible reason for curiosity as a trait to be selected for.
Klythe: I would say that mapping personality aspects to animals is something engrained in our culture, and furries allow a better reason to write characters with obvious biases in thier personalities. Which is a common tactic I think writers tend to use to help the reader relate to a character. I cannot speak for others on this though, but I'm thinking on some level it does help everyone realte to the emotions and personality traits society associates with that animal.
Unfortunately I think that many of these associated emotions and personality traits are inaccurate and negative stereotypes that get perpetuated along with the authors' biases. Based on my web-based investigations I think there may be a "kink" component as well for many afficianados. Exaggerating certain characteristics at the expense of others is a safe, one-step-removed way in which to explore certain personal interests that are considered unacceptable by mainstream society ("if you know what I mean and I think you do." -- Joe Bob Briggs)
Klythe: I can't deny that it's also really convienent that it allows me to create different furry races of Klingons, rather than limiting myself to a single klingon race. (*)
Fun, ain't it.
I wish more would take up the challenge. Aside from my t'ruiluai my attempts have been limited to a variety of fusions.
Kesvirit: Intelligence has a lot to do with how successfully a given organism fits its niche. Raccoons can't run down large game, and L. pictus lacks the climbing ability, nimble paws and tiny teeth necessary to get at the really *good* garbage.
Klythe: And intellegence is often misused as a term. I woul not consider that correct usage. Intellegence does not include instict, therefore it must be challenge with an new problem that has not been solved. Trying to satisfy hunger may be instinct, but many organisms have to learn how to do so effectively from others or starve.
I'm guessing that furries are by definition mammalian as only mammals have fur. On the whole there is much more maternal investment in mammalian young than in the other vertebrate orders. They learn from their mothers, and in many cases from other members of the family/"society".
L. pictus pups spend several years learning hunting skills and strategies, and it takes the entire pack to teack them. Raccoon cubs often spend two winters learning to find and procure little protein crunchies and wigglers, learning which plants are poisonous -- and at what time of year, and how to process them, and just how long garbage and carrion can sit before going toxic. It takes chimps years to learn to make and work a termite stick, the source of much of their caloric intake in the dry season. (I've seen film of Humans trying to do it. It was hilarious. The sort of thing that belongs on the "Sapients' Goodie Reel".) Thus each meal is a problem which must be solved. I think that these would qualify as intelligence testing tasks.
Klythe: I was talking about the multiple channels, allowing redundant methods of transfering the message. If line of sight is blocked, but smell and psi get through, you still have enough to understand the message. This is a feature sometimes new language designers forget to add into a language. Y** c*n st*ll *nd*rst*nd *ngl*sh w*th**t th* v*w*ls.
Have you been reading
The Wounded Sky? K't'lk (sp?) tsays about pronouncing her name something like "As long as you get the consonants right, the vowels will settle into place and take care of themselves."
But yes, that's an excellent analogy. I once had it explained to me how bar codes work in a similar fashion, though I've since forgotten the specifics.
Klythe: That's why I decided to rely on observed behavior rather than any attempt to differentiate between mindless animal grunts and language in the early stages of evolution. Klingons would not waste the kind of resources we do on studying dolphins. (*)
They would if they thought the dolphins could be of use to them by delivering/evading mines and attaching bombs to enemy vessels.
Kesvirit: All I know is that it "speaks" through images and emotions, and expresses the degree/intensity of these through movement and vocalization. This makes it tend to come across as some sort of genius Lassie and made one nervous security officer mutter "I swear that wretched beast can see right through my eyes..." (the unspoken corollary being "and into my brain"), which in turn earned him a dressing down from a superior.
Klythe: Hmmm... Sounds like they really do communicate above language. If they transmit feelings(emotions) directly, like I can feel your hard speed up as if it were my own, so I understand your most visceal emotions because I either genuinely feel the emotion with you, or I just think that I do... There is no abstraction there... Images can be real or abstract.
Rereading what I have so far, I would have to agree. The one I have also seems fuzzy (if not Furry) on the earlier mentioned Linguistic Universal of Displacement. It remembers the past in fairly good order but seems hazy on distinguishing "happening" vs "will happen" and may vs. will happen. Its Klingon alpha sometimes has success in using very simple examples, but often falls back on the classic "take my word for it", "trust me on this", or "just humor me!"
I'm not trying to push them in the direction of {-pu'} or {-mey}, but am trying to get a better understanding of the issues involved and how they manifest themselves when Klingons are confronted with new peoples and populations.
Klythe: Actually, if you are having them communicate about sticks they way you describe, that is certainly abstract language... Very interesting combination... (*)
You mean:
"stick" = (click)
"twig" = (click) + modifier for 'small'(scent)
"tree" = (click) + modifier for 'big'(different scent)
"forest" = (click) + modifier(s) for 'lots big'(same scent used for "tree", but much stronger)
?
No, I was asking if that is an example of "multi-channel" language based on what you wrote about the Saurials from the Azure Bonds trilogy.
Klythe: I'll start trying to dig it up... If the program doesn't run on your mac the walkthrough might still be useful to you.
Thank you!
As for "Not everyone believes they act according to the Komerex Zha, but the Komerex Zha still describes the actions of every Klingon"... There is something very wrong with this assertion (I am still working on the "Cathedral and the Bazaar" analogy). If and when I figure out what it is I will let you know, probably in the "Religions and Beliefs" section as it has nothing to do with the question that started all this...
-Kesvirit
============================================================
qaS posted on 6-6-2003 at 00:25 I don't wanna sound like a ghuv, but TKD says that -pu' is used for "beings capable of using language"...now, we've established that ASL counts as a language according to the scope of this thread, so technically a mute would take -pu', right? unless s/he has had both hands amputated, said mute is *capable* of using a language (ASL, Auslan, BSL, etc.) whether or not s/he actually does is a completely different point, as is whether or not s/he takes the time to learn a language as such. as long as the mental capacity of some form of language exists, said being should take -pu'.
=============================================================
qurgh posted on 6-6-2003 at 05:56Yeah. -pu' is used if a creature has the ability or the capacity to use language. A baby uses -pu', even though it cannot talk, it still has the capacity to learn a language. Mutes still have the capacity to use a language. They can understand what you say to them, they just cannot use create the sounds.
I watched a show on TV last night about Feral Children, that grow up with animals and because of that they loose the ability to ever learn a language. Even these would be -pu' because they did have the capacity at some point to learn a language.
If a creature is from a race which is known to use language, it would be -pu'. So if it ends with ngan, it's probably a -pu' word. Other creatures, ones that most people would think of as animals, would be -mey. yIHmey, ghewmey, targhmey.
Remember, -pu' is a plural, so unless you have a race of mutes, your never going to come across this problem. I think the only grey area is when you find creatures like the big rock monster or the salt sucking creature, but it's still just common sense.
But, just remember, if you get it wrong, they will correct you
=============================================================
Kesvirit posted on 8-6-2003 at 19:38Hortas, Excalbians, and, uh, M113 natives are {pu'}
qurgh: I think the only grey area is when you find creatures like the big rock monster or the salt sucking creature, but it's still just common sense.
"Common sense" is in the eye of the beholder and the ultimate in non-objective criteria :rolleyes:.
But neither area is gray at all. Both are quite saturated.
To which big rock monster do you refer? Yarnek from "The Savage Curtain"? The mother horta? There may be others with which I am not familiar...
The question I originally asked was what constitutes language, and whether or not empathy and telepathy qualify. As I re-read the thread, it seems that telepathy does but that empathy doesn not due to the abstract/representational requirement. Yarnek qualifies as a language user; regardless of the mechanisms or channels by which it communicated, the humanoids all heard and understood it clearly.
Klythe: The -pu' suffix applies to individuals who are of species know with the capability of using language, regardless of whether that particular individual has the capacity. This is Okrandian canon.
And no one is as dedicated to Okrandian canon as you, zan qurgh.
The horta are clearly language users. As his mother's hatchling, Nahrat was a member of the same species and spoke flawless fedegonaase through a voder. How the voder worked was never explained, but as long as he could use it to aurally communicate with his crewmates the exact process does not matter.
The mother horta's syntax of "No Kill I" is ambiguous: it could mean "Do not kill me", "I will not kill", or "I will not kill you". But she made very complex and meaningful conversation with Spock. Because it was achieved telepathically, we only heard his translation of her thoughts and feelings. Yet he was able to get information from her as well as convey it, in effect acting as a translator or an "organic voder".
The Great Salt Vampire never spoke in its original/"default" form; we never found out if it couldn't or didn't. I suspect that by the time we saw it in its original form it may have been to weakened to communicate much of anything. But it did whenever it took on a Human guise. Indeed, it did so well enough to fool its prey and lure them into its trap.
qurgh: But, just remember, if you get it wrong, they will correct you
Only if they can generate speech in a language form that the Klingon(s) in question can perceive and understand. Thus the burden of both proof and definition falls upon the creature, and it is the Klingon who decides whether or not the creature is capable of language.
- Kesvirit
Klingon Imperial Forums
Author
