On Sep 10, 2018, at 11:09, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:50 AM David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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?

QumlaHbej targhwI', 'a QumDI' Hol lo'be' ghaH.

_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org