| From: | Gurth <gurth@******.NL> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Optional Metatypes, part 3: Sasquatch |
| Date: | Fri, 11 Jul 1997 12:04:17 +0100 |
> I agree with Bull. I have always thought due to their vocal cords' make
> up that they were not able to speak any complicated languages.
Yet they can reproduce sounds of cars, dog,s aircraft, horses, etc.
without any problem? This has always appeared a bit strange to me...
> Take a look at dogs they can be taught single syllable words and their
> meaning. Yet they cannot speak our language.
They can only be taught them because you have to say the same word over
and over again, and reward them if they do what you want. Once they know
that if you say "sit" they have to sit, they'll do it. However, all
they're doing is responding to the specific sound of the word "sit," not
to its meaning. That's the difference between understanding a language and
knowing command words.
Sasquatches are supposed to have a language of their own, but it hasn't
been interpreted by (meta)humans yet, and the P-A sign language only
allows limited communication; however, both these indicate sasquatches
understand the meaning of words rather than responding to commands they've
been taught (as they should, if they're a sentient species).
--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Forget about the ones who "have it all."
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
