[tlhIngan Hol] can we apply {ngagh} to humans ?

[qurgh lungqIj]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:44 PM SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote

> So no, *capable of using language* is not identical to *person,* but
> neither is it very far away. It's certainly close enough to recognize that
> saying that "Humans and Klingons are animals" doesn't really address the
> question raised. WE are the ones who brought up the person-vs-animal
> argument of *ngagh/nga'chuq *as pure speculation; if you'd rather frame
> it as capable-of-using-language-vs-not-capable-of-using-language argument
> of *ngagh/nga'chuq,* then do so
>
I'd rather not frame it either way. I'd rather use the words to describe
actions regardless of what my cultural or linguistic biases might try to
dictate about those actions.

I gave my opinion on the difference between the two words, but you ignored
that part.


> At this point you seem to be questioning the meaning of the word *people.*
>
>
At this point I question everything.

qurgh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20191218/6dd0195c/attachment-0015.htm>