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

qurgh lungqIj qurgh at wizage.net
Wed Dec 18 12:45:44 PST 2019

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20191218/6dd0195c/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list