<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div><br></div><div><br>On Sep 10, 2018, at 11:09, Lawrence M. Schoen <<a href="mailto:klingonguy@gmail.com">klingonguy@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:50 AM David Holt <<a href="mailto:kenjutsuka@live.com">kenjutsuka@live.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="m_-508585592745394563divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br></p><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-508585592745394563x_WordSection1"><p class="m_-508585592745394563x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">Right you are! I had this filed in my brain as a discussion of how to determine what is "language using" and what is "not language using", but Okrand is also clearly indicating that the difference between {'oH} and {ghaH} is the abillity
to communicate and not whether or not it is animate.</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div></div></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small"><div style="text-align:left">Not to put too fine a point on it, but Okrand is actually indicating that the difference is a function of whether the speaker BELIEVES the other party can communicate. <br><br>Now, with that in mind, we can move the argument to whether "communicate" is the same as "uses language." Because based on the qurgh's statement, when I talk to my targ, we're communicating, and thus he merits {ghaH} and not {'oH}. No disrespect to my targ, but I'm not changing his pronoun based on this.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Indeed, the distinction between “communicate” and “use language”, if any, is an interesting one. Furthermore, does that mean that {bIH}/{chaH} is really about ability to communicate (not necessarily using language)? Can the speaker decide, based on his or her own judgement, whether to apply the language-capable possessive suffixes to a being that the speaker believes to be capable of (potentially non-linguistic) communication?</div><div><br></div><div>QumlaHbej targhwI', 'a QumDI' Hol lo'be' ghaH.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>tlhIngan-Hol mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>