Re: How to name the languages of sentient beings?
|From:||Aaron Grahn <aaron@...>|
|Date:||Friday, December 2, 2005, 1:40|
Elms can't communicate? Some of my best conversations have been with
>On 11/30/05, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@n...> wrote:
>>What's a good word for the set of languages, nat and con, that are
>>meant for communication between sentient beings -- i.e. excluding
>>computer programming languages, data modelling languages, and so
>>on, >but including languages for aliens, and unusually smart
>>hamsters, >and what-have-you? "Human" languages is wrong, as
>is "natural". I'm >rather at a loss.
>I don't believe that any form of "sentient" is adequate. It seems
>to me that, in any given conculture, some sentient beings speak and
>some don't. "Sentient," after all, has nothing to do with the
>ability to speak, but the ability to feel.
>What is needed is a word (an adjective, it appears) that includes
>all the species that can communicate. Since anything is possible in
>a conculture, that could very well include animal as well as plant
>life (or any other form imagined). And the word has to distinguish
>between forms that can communicate and those that can't, _e.g._,
>oaks can communicate but elms can not. I don't believe there is
>such a word, at least in English.
>I found in the OED the word "loquent" meaning having the ability to
>speak, and that's the word I use in my conculture for the dragons
>and the six human-like races that can speak, the other life forms
>being merely sentient. I call these the loquent peoples or races or