Plurals, -mey vs. -pu', and language

[SoplaHtaHwI']

I don't think -pu' should be used based on the intelligence of the creature, simply whether or not a Klingon could communicate with it.

Hitting a dog for not doing what you want after which it then does do what you want (or more likely, stops doing what you don't want it to do) is communication too... 8-)

[elninjo]

Is there a defined entry in the Klingon dictionary “lower animal”? I’m almost certain there must be considering this topic. What is the definition?
Communicate and the ability to construct a language are two different things, as SoplaHtaHwI' has just pointed out.

When you say

Quoted Soy 08/23/2006 8.40 “whether or not a Klingon could communicate with it”

I was assuming you were talking about language here. But what language? English or the Klingon tongue? Or is it simply communicate and to what level of communication?

Quoted Soy 08/23/2006 8.40 I don't think -pu' should be used based on the intelligence of the creature, simply whether or not a Klingon could communicate with it.

Quoted Soy 08/20/2006 16.50 Even if you teach an ape language, it's still a a lower animal, and wouldn't get -pu'.

Quoted Soy 08/23/2006 8.40 If Klingons had met them simply as energy beings, and couldn't find a way to communicate with them, then I believe they would have ended up being -mey animals in the eyes of the Klingons.

A little ambiguous don't you think? I'm confused.

Sorry about the quotes. Will do it properly in the future



Cheers

[Kesvirit]

When quoting others in a thread, would you be sure to specify to whom you attribute a given passage? Unless the passage(s) in question come from the post immediately proceeding yours, it can be difficult to determine who wrote what.

Thanks,
-=- Kesvirit

[qoSagh]

I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner. Would not the main criteria for capability of using language be Hol (in a collective sense)? Since this definition was likely part of Klingon culture before first contact, it would simply be a case of those who talk and those who do not talk, meaning at the time tlhIngan Hol and/or klingonasse (and I suppose any other yet unknown languages). Over the years it was probably applied to different languages as different races were encountered, thus Humans and Ferengi got in on the pu' side, but I am sure that Horses and dogs did not.

[Klythe]

The proper plural tends to be defined by the word itself, not by the actual person/thing referred to by the word. People in general speak, and whether or not a given individual actually speaks is not as important.

For a strong example, the V-shaped handles of a nevDagh (a kind of pot used for preparing food) are called DeSqIvDu' elbows. This uses the plural for a body part even though handles are not literally body parts. Similarly, when the word Ho' tooth is used in its slang sense of hero, it too is pluralized with the -Du' suffix for body parts.

     I am just going to repeat this because it is such a very good point.  The plural form is attached to the word-as-a-dictionary-entry and not the speaker's meaning in context.         Very powerful and compelling point that requires a change in how we think about how Klingons use language.

    Furthermore, Klingons might not even consciously think about the difference between -pu', -Du' and -mey, they probably just blurt out what they are used to saying.  A Klingon would only change the plural if the one was explicitly making a point about the noun they were pluralizing.  Imagine a colony life form that spoke different voices from different parts.   If faced with the Three headed Knight (A single connected organism like a large person with three separate heads, each with separate personalities, as the would sometimes bicker amongst themselves), a Klingon would probably bellow to the others that they are going to cut of the heads(using -Du', but later telling the story that same Klingon would for dramatic purposes make a point to remind the listeners that each head was a different personality, so the storytelly would potentially use heads with a -pu suffix.   This follows the say precedent as poetically using tlhonmey, nostrils scattered about the place.

Is there a defined entry in the Klingon dictionary “lower animal”? I’m almost certain there must be considering this topic. What is the definition?

    HaDI'baH is obviously derogatory when applied to language users so we can be safe that it means animal in the common sense, the "lower animal", not the scientific meaning of animal, which isn't much of an insult.   "Yes of course, I do move under my own power...   Uh, thank you for noticing?"

Quoted Soy 08/20/2006 16.50 Even if you teach an ape language, it's still a a lower animal, and wouldn't get -pu'.

    This is a potential source of contention.   As sharp as we think the line is drawn there are grey areas.  Technically, all Okrand said was that language use was required, not mastery or fluency.   It's pretty clear it's neutral to which language, but I think it's very fuzzy as to how well one must use the language.   Klingons being the way that they are, are happy to leave points of contention open so they can continue to contend with them.   I imagine somewhere in the vast Empire a room full of Klingon scholars arguing whether Xenaurs, Apes, Dolphins, Ngatha or Thraui..  thra... (Kesvirit's beasties, sorry their name isn't sticking to my brains very well) are advanced enough that they should theoretically be treated as people. 

     Now the question is,how much better to Klingons treat people who are just barely capable of language use, but are without formidable intellect, culture, weapons or tools?  Well, without the strength to resist the Klingon's will they would almost assuredly be treated as kuve...  So probably the biggest difference is that Klingons would stop eating them and start putting them to work.  Kuve have more atheln than animals, that is they have a higher calling, a greater purpose in the galaxy.  Their duties move from being yummy and nutritious, and potentially a source of companionship to being useful at menial labour.   I get the feeling that some species might not perfer their new higher status over their old...


    Yes, and I can explain why I linked to a Furry drawing of the three headed knight.  I could have linked to an actual screengrab from the movie, but the only one I found was so small, this was much clearer.

[Kash]

I admit to only scanning this topic, but it is a very interesting one to me, as I consider myself a philologist and philosopher of sorts.

Is a being capable of speech the same thing as a being capable of using language? I would think that speech would be a subset of language but not the same thing. Klingon prejudice aside, one could be a mute and still be a prolific author, and thus a being capable of using language...

From a religious and mystical standpoint, language can be seen as a tool or weapon with which one has the power to carve thoughts out of nothing, and shape the world around one. This is the reason most cultures see curses (and their opposite) as such powerful things. The Christian scripture refers to the "power of life and death being in the tongue" (in language and its usage), and the Abrahamic religions speak of the manner in which a Supreme Being spoke the world into existence with His mere words. Similar stories are shared among a great many religions, where actions that shape the universe are spoken into fact. Even fictional literature (Tolkein uses this a lot) holds that words have a special power linked to the foundations of existence. In fact, the elves of Tolkien's Middle-Earth first called themselves "the Quendi, signifying those that speak with voices; for as yet they had met no other living things that spoke or sang." (Of the Coming of the Elves, The Silmarillion). Secularly, "bad words" can wound people emotionally, and powerful ones can rally a group to commit heroic or horrid acts.

In this way, we can see language as a weapon, and those that use it {-pu'} as lingual warriors. Klingon tradition holds a boy is considered a man the first day he can hold a blade; perhaps they see species of beings in similar fashion? Perhaps they hold that the hallmark of a truly sentient race is a method of communication, no matter what that language may be. Klingons don't differentiate between warriors that use {betleHmey}, phasers, slingshots, or the pen of a scribe; they're all {SuvwI'pu'}. No matter which linguistic weapon a species chooses to "war" with, they are still considered {-pu'} because of their capability to hold and use that weapon. If this were the case, I could definately see the insult in using {-mey} about a group of people if context didn't specify the "scattered all about" meaning.

My thoughts, at least.

[SoplaHtaHwI']

After reading TFR again, I think there might be a further dimension to -pu and -mey.
Even when a species can use language/speak, a weak race which does not "fight back" might still get the -mey suffix, similar to the "kuve" of klingonaase.

[Klythe]

    I don't think they would... The dictionary is specific that -mey is not normally used for language using creatures.   If -pu' was instead reserved for races who fight, then that is what it would have said.   -mey is used for animals, objects and other non-sentient things.  I don't see Klingons using this to demean the servitor races, as there is no point if they are filling their role as servants well...  Kuve species probably don't get the best treatment, but I don't accept that they would be treated as animals.   

Slaves perhaps might need to be broken down and demeaned, but even this seems a little bit further than necessary, unless part of their punisment is that they should not speak at all as a slave.   



(Warning spoilers below.  Proceed with caution of you have not read "The Final Reflection".   And If you haven't, stop, find a copy (I suggest a used books store or online from KLI.org), read it now.  Some (including me) consider it the best Klingon book ever written.  You won't regret it.)





  Neither Kethas and Krenn treated Tirian or Odiese(sp?) as animals.  They treats them as people, as servants, but they would be thought of as scattered randomly like wild animals.  Tirian's death, while gruesome was an execution, and not a slaughter.  He wasn't just killed on the spot...  Odiese's may have been more mere slaughter... Perhaps due to the fact she did not use verbal language, though she seemed to understand it just fine.