On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:44 PM SuStel <sustel@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