No. There's been plenty of valid and reasonable counterarguments. The base arguments all rely on mental retardation in one form or another to explain it.

Look at it from another point of view. Say you're a Human (a stretch for most posters here, myself included). Now thanks to a sheltered upbringing let's assume that not a day in your life have you ever seen or even heard of someone using their hands to communicate with. Then, suddenly, you one day find yourself in Sasquatchopia and everyone around you is communicating with sign language. Now your hands are very dexterous. You can make every single gesture they're making. But because your primary mode of communication is speech, it is completely and 100% impossible for you to learn this or any other form of sign language. I mean, you're already older than 13, so your ability to learn anything is completely and utterly destroyed, and whatever other silly comments have been made in this thread in that regard. And there's doubtlessly plenty of examples of Humans who were born with a deforminity in their hands, had them cut off, or suffered some rare nerve disorder as they matured. So, clearly, it makes perfect sense that neither you nor any other Human in the entirity of existance can learn a sign language. Even though you have the physical ability to do so, the mental capacity to learn what those symbols mean, the mental capacity to associate them with concepts, and the intuition to learn when and how to use it. But you can't. Even if you were born and raised in Sasquatchopia simple because of that one Sasquatch that one time who was born with a clubbed hand, thus proving that even a Sasquatch couldn't learn to communicate through hand gestures. And here's the best reason of all: Because that's just the way it is.

That's how absolutely ridiculous most if not all of the arguments have been.

Magic. You win. They don't get to argue, why? Cause, you wrote it, they can't do it.

You can argue too. I am an equal-opportunity executioner.


This is, in fact, the crux of the issue we've been arguing about.

What are those Sasquatch Logic, Charisma, and Intuition minimum/maximums again? And what's that one silly (non-)critter power they have that starts with an S and rhymes with Hapience? And that other one that starts with an M and rhymes with Fimicry? I just can't seem to remember...

As mentioned before, at least Naga have a genuine physical handicap to explain why they can't learn a sign language (nevermind that there's no mention that they can't learn a sign language which makes the whole Sasquatch restriction even more asinine).

And again, if they lack the ability to associate sounds with concepts, what exactly can they use Mimicry for? Absolutely nothing but being a random noise generator.

How about this Funk. Sasquatch brains are weird, in that they seem to have all the reasoning and such of a normal metahuman, but NO MATTER what tests/trials have been done, can't be made to communicate via speech.

Or written language, apparently. So they can't associate symbols with concepts, either. Unless they're hand gestures. They have no problem with symbols made out of hands. Just everything else? Sorry, my suspension of disbelief doesn't go that far even in a science fantasy game.

Ok, so magical dragons that are extremely old and powerful and magical who can be smarter than the smartest man, yet can't speak are ok. But bigfoot not being able to figure it out isn't?

Ooooooooooooooooooooooook.

AH has already said that he'll gladly support any stupidity that exists in the current tuleset and make sure it stays thee at least until the next edition. We'll never get past his 'mental retardation' as he calls it for sasquatch - he just can't follow our language and instead just 'apes' it on the keyboard randomly.

More of his crap makes sense seen that way...

What the hell? You're bitching because I'm trying to keep a coherent ruleset and setting?

So, just to clarify, they could use a linguasoft and DNI/simmodule interface to be able to seem as if they can speak? Even if they're mentally signing to the soft and mimicing out what it plays for them, and then watching the softs signing translation from what they hear?

Keeping something that is poorly thought out just because it was there from earlier editions - or even in the 'early SR4' materials - is not a boon.

They can't speak for physical reasons. They can still communicate, including reading/writing, just fine. And guess what, they do it through a critter power (much like what Mimicry is). There's also no actual rule saying that a dragon who assumes a metahuman shape is restricted from learning a spoken language (and if there were, it'd be just as stupid as this sasquatch one is). Most if not all simply don't (telepathy > speech > sign language) because they don't need or want to.

It'd also be kind of easy to find a dragon in metahuman form if they weren't able to speak. Unless they're just truly fantastic mimes.

Like I said early in the thread, IF a sasquatch had a legitimate reason for not being able to speak a language, I wouldn't have an issue with it. But they don't.

They're magic. Give me a legitimate reason for dragons to have telepathy.

A Naga could, potentially, get a drone with hands, or a pair of drone hands, with which they could use sign language.

That's why they piss high-grade petrol too, right. Handwavium for the win...

At this point I'm practically willing to keep it just to spite you. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't reasonable or realistic in the context of the game. With current technology it isn't even a severe character flaw - you're much more likely to be Shot While Bring Meta by your local Lonestar officer than be without your commlink in SR4.

I hate to point this out, actually I love to point this out, but reading is not associating symbols with concepts. Reading is associating groups of symbols with words. The difference is astounding.

It is possible to lose the ability to read words while retaining the ability to understand gross symbols.

Reading, writing, speaking, and understanding spoken words are processes that use areas of the brain which are totally different from those areas involved in singing and route repetition, so the mimicry power can be totally severed from the ability to speak.





I would also like to point out that retardation has a very specific meaning within the mental health field which is very different from aphasia, which is what a person who is physically incapable of using or understanding language but is otherwise perfectly normal and intelligent would be suffering from

Can we get an Admin in here?

Or some adult supervision? Because this arguement just appears to be starting to get childish.

Is it so amazing that they cannot learn a language? And, if so, why has this arguement not been made way back in First/Second Edition when they were introduced?

And why aren't we putting our energies towards more important things? Like where Maria Mercurial is in 4th Edition?

I don't see anything in the above that says such an individual is capable of using sign language, let alone knowing when, how, and where to exactly duplicate words and phrases without... uhm, knowing when, how, or where to exactly duplicate words and phrases.

Childish? Hyz made a great post I think. Dumpshock is fairly self-policing, we don't need to go crying for an admin just because someone is being stubborn.

OK, just felt that it was going a bit far. I shall sit corrected, and apologise.

*Grumbles* Still want to know where Maria Mercurial is.

I don't see anything in the above that says they can't use sign language. It all references speech and written communication. So its equally valid to argue that they could or could not sign.

There was no indication they were taught or even attempted to use sign language to get around it. It's an impairment of "both understanding and expression of language." Not "...of spoken language."

Nothing says they can't walk, have difficulty moving, or anything else. I would be surprised if they could sign, but the wording doesn't support it either way.

http://deafness.about.com/b/2007/06/03/sig...and-aphasia.htm
http://deafness.about.com/cs/signfeats1/a/nonverbal.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptive_aphasia

so basically when reading one do this chain?

symbols -> sounds -> words -> concepts

thats quite impressive given how short a time it will take.

im guessing that someone that learns a second language late in life goes something like this:

symbols -> sounds -> second language words -> first language words -> concepts

while someone that grows up or learn a second language early basically pulls the first chain on both languages and can then start matching concepts across languages.

it also gives rise to a second tought about sasquatches, that they go like this for sounds:

sounds -> concepts

as in, they have so broad a vocalization that each sound covers its own concept, kinda like how the classical chinese "alphabet" have a concept for each sign. something that can throw a user of the "roman" alphabet for a loop as the chinese dont really need to slice a line into words, they can just put one sign after another and then mark of the end of a line.

so basically, my thinking is that the saquatch hears all the sounds of human speech, but cant combine the individual sounds into words, and from there make the jump to concepts. the sign languages on the other hand works more like how the saquatch are used to do it, giving each concept its own sign.

this will also make them able to deal with pictograms and similar, but can again throw them for a loop when it comes to most kinds of written texts.

The ever-continuing major problem with your theory is that Sasquatches do, in fact, communicate vocally. In fact, they use it as an "extremely expressive form of communication."

Wow, I get to use my professional knowledge for an obscure Shadowrun topic!(Working on my PHD in cognitive linguistics).

I actually think most of you have tried to make this issue overly complicated in regards to sasquatches. It has nothing to do with strange linguistics, weird neuroscience, etc. In-fact it's easily covered by two of the 7 underlying basics of linguistics(as presented by Hackett). Interchangeability and productivity.

In order for something to be classified as a language(or for a creature to have the ability to participate in said language) it must possess interchangeability, which is the ability to both send and receive. AH has established that sasquatches do not naturally have speech language centers, since they cannot receive *they cannot send* no matter how intelligent they are.

The confusion I see is the assumption that because sasquatches can participate in a language(and maybe not even that, well this fictional sign "language" max be afairly complex communication system, it may in-fact not qualify as a language), that they have the cognitive ability to perceive all language. It is entirely possible to be able to understand a visual language well being unable to understand a spoken language *despite your ability to listen and create sound*.

This comes to the concept of productivity, and the parrot is a good example of this. A parrot can learn sounds, they can even learn to use sounds and phrases intelligently for different purposes. But they lack productivity.

Productivity is the ability to form a (near)infinite amount of words and sentences out of phonemes(the smallest unit of sound) by combining them using functions hard-wired into your brain. It is not a learned ability, it is an inate biological ability.

A sasquatch can in theory communicate using sound, but they *cannot form new sentences* because they lack productivity, they can only repeat sentences verbatim they have already heard, and this is where I diverge a bit from Ancient History(I believe). A highly educated/well exposed sasquatch could in theory be able to communicate effectively on a day to day level by having learned thousands of common phrases and associated them in proper context. There may be ONE if that, in 2071 who could actually do this.

However, this would be at the level of an adult English speaker being 100% fluent in traditional Chinese reading, tens of thousands of characters , and that's an undersimplified comparison, and once again, it's important to remember despite that *possibility* the sasquatch does NOT understand the grammar of what they're "saying" because again, they lack productivity.

In conclusion: The fact is the ability to process spoken language is hard-wired into humans, despite that, we still have to learn it. I believe this to be the underlying misconception that many of the posters do not quite understand. Well it may seem logical that since we still have to learn language, a comparatively intelligent creature should also be able to, it is infact not logical, and a creature who can do that is by far and away an exception(none exist in the modern world). The other logical flaw is that because the sasquatch can understand one type of language, and it is highly intelligent, it must possess the ability to process all language, when again, this is not true.

You can read some of Noam Chomsky to get a better understanding of this.


Edit: Just realized Hobgoblin above said something very close he basically got it right minus some technical linguist jargon

Edit2: Replaced every instance of duality with productivity, was tired when I posted!

and they would do so using this theory. only that while we humans use a collection of sounds within a limited range in near infinite combinations to define different concepts, the sasquatch would be using singular sound pr concept, to the point where their brain cant pick up the idea of a specific sequence of sounds being a single concept rather then a series of concept.

so while the g u n sounds would to a human mean a gun, the sasquatch could see each of those as a whole word or concept, maybe a series of concepts that to them would be basically nonsense...

HappyDaze, your being that guy.

That guy I don't want to even discuss things with.

Your sarcasm is not welcoming, it actually repels me.
Here's a little news for you, something for you to mull over.

Just because you might be able to regurgitate (mimic) a language, does not
mean you understand it. It applies to Sasquatchs, Trolls, Orcs, Elves, Humans & even some
players.

I don't have the time to read 8 pages of posts, I shouldn't have to, I should be able to join in civil
discussion with fellow human beings without having sarcasm thrown my way.

If you are not going to bother to read the thread before jumping in then I don't rreally give a shit what you have to say. The "participation" that you mention has a bit of an entry prerequisite in my eyes - and you admit you have failed at making the grade. With that, yes I'll give you scorn and even sarcasm - it really is the way of your fellow human beings, so learn to love it.

Even this is a compromise compared to the total block that AH supports. I would argue that due to Mimicry, the numbers that cold do this form of communicating would FAR exceed one. I would also say that the Liguistics power sould be enough to allow them to jump the hurdle of productivity.

Grunts and growls can be an expressive form of communication, but they don't make a language.

As soon as you learn the full traditional written chinese alphabet, get back to me, because thats probably a minimum of phrases they'd have to learn and memorize and be able to call up AT WILL, to get by using mimicry and their memory of words.

Or, they could just use AR to translate for them, and mimic what AR plays for them, without having to bother learning and memorizing all that shit. Sure, they need to wear some trodes (like anyone will see 'em under all that fur) and mimic a lot. Still beats memorizing a few thousand-hundred thousand words/sentences/phrases.

If they had a datajack or wore trodes the mimicry seems like an un-needed extra step. I'd assume they'd just go all Stephen Hawking and have the computer that's interpreting their brain signals do the vocalization for them. It'd be faster and sound more natural.

Because the way you put it they'd need to "think" what they want to communicate, the computer would interpret it, it would have to play the sound, and then the sasquatch would mimic it. Despite it being fast, this would be very unnatural and would slow down all communication time by seconds.

If the computer is capable of interpreting his thoughts than a voice module could just speak for him and skip all the other steps.

More natural in that he does the speaking, instead of you listening to his words from a speaker on his chest or something. It would give humans talking to him the illusion that he could speak.

I think some posters in this thread are actually turning into a pretty good example of how the ability to form words does not actually necessitate intelligent discourse.

That said, I think so much has been covered, the only thing left for me to do is (a) reveal that Aunty History really is wrong! And (b) reveal the original source of the Shadowrun sasquatch.

For the first, there is a cannon example of a sasquatch using language to communicate. I refer you to the original Secrets of Power trilogy, first book ("Never Deal With a Dragon") in which Sam Werner passes a "pan-handling sasquatch" that has learnt to say "chaaange?" to passers by.

(okay - it's not much, but when you see an opportunity to catch AH out, you take it! )

More importantly however, is the movie Earth Girls Are Easy. Released in 1989, that places it at the same time period as the release of Shadowrun 1st edition. It features extremely hairy aliens who can imitate sounds they hear. Blatantly, they are the inspiration for the SR Sasquatch.

I'll second this. Please note that these creatures do learn to talk...

Canon - and the sasquatch might have just been mimicking!

That's not an example of using spoken language, that's an example of spoken communication. "Language" has a very specific definition in the linguistic world, and the ability to speak or even communicate complex ideas intelligently with sounds(ex: Dolphins and Whales) does not constitute use of *language* if it does not meet all 7 criteria of language. Duality, Interchangeability, Cultural Transmission((Another one where sasquatch fails the test)), Productivity, Displacement, Specialization, and Arbitrariness((another one they fail when using mimiced words)).

I know it's getting technical but there's a lot of confusion, and if you go by what we define as language, sasquatch clearly lacks the ability to use a spoken one(though they can still use a visual one).

Gah! I'm not coming in on the side of Sasquatches being able to learn to talk! I'm happy with the neurological inability argument and I like them as they are. Don't argue with me!

But the implication in the book is that the sasquatch has learnt to make the sound to get money out of people. It may not understand the sound to be a word or what it's supposed to mean, but it understands that it is communicating something to people via a sound, and that undermines some of the neurological inability argument in a slippery slope sort of way. Anyway, I just like poking tiny holes in AH's otherwise encyclopedic knowledge of canon material. The Earth Girls Are Easy link I posted is the more significant one, I think!

K.

I think a few people here need to chill out a little bit.

Try to remember, it's only a game. And some of you are getting (or have been) pretty snippy and argumentative over some minor bit of fluff that's been in said game for almost 20 years now.

Out of curiosity when did it become canon that sasquatches could not learn spoken languages?

Paterson's Field Guide to the Awakened, Volume 23, circa 2050 (as excerpted in SR1, SR2, and summarized in Critters):
The sasquatch can mimic a variety of sounds, including the hunting calls of other creatures. The sasquatch was recognized by the United Nations in 2042 as a sentient species, despite its lack of a material culture and the inability of scientists to decipher its language. Development of the Perkins-Athapaskan sign language has allowed limited communication with sasquatches.

Shadowrun: Fourth Edition:
...several sasquatches have migrated to the cities, where their gift of sound mimicry allows them to make a lucrative living in the entertainment industry.

Note that none of the above (including SR4) list any Weaknesses for sasquatches, and that is the sum total I could find on sasquatch communication.

So in the eight years between being recognized as sentient, and the publication of Paterson's guide, no sasquatch is known to have used a recognizable spoken language, and they were basically ignored by all sourcebooks since then.

Then in Runner's Companion they get the Uneducated Weakness, and all the detail on their linguistic difficulties.


P.S. Is the sasquatch taxonomy properly spelled Pesvastus pilosis (SR1 & SR2) or Pesevastus pilosis (RC) ? and should the second word be spelled pilosus ? (my knowledge of Latin extends only to using online dictionaries, either way I like the meaning implied)

You know, I hadn't read through this thread... But... Yeah. It was my understanding that Sasquatches could learn spoken languages just fine. They were just incapable of actually speaking them for whatever reason. I always looked at it as the something was wired differently in their brains, and it worked like a very severe form of Dyslexia or Tourette's.

I'm suspecting that there's simply a mix up with the Sasquatch description in Runner's Companion, as that's the first place that has ever said they couldn't comprehend languages rather than that they couldn't speak them.

Bull

For the record one source I know of is: Never Deal with a Dragon where Sam "Twist" confronts a S-K Wendigo posing as a Sasquatch and inquires as to how she is able to speak. She points to a fake implant and explains it away.

Though whether either party is being honest (the Wendigo definitely isn't) is questionable in the exchange.

I'm also curious about how they have spoken names, such as Sacnoth (RC p. 43) or (as he identified himself using magic, though no exceptions in the rules exist for this) the Meh-Teh Lama. Sacnoth in particular. As opposed to, say, using <car horn, thunder crash, two cardinals singing> as a name.

And how exactly do they sign things like "I need to get some more APDS ammo" or, when they meet someone who doesn't know much about guns, explains "APDS stands for Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot." Or pretty much anything else that requires understanding spoken/written languages even in sign language. Including names like Sacnoth.

And why wouldn't a Mnemonic Ehancer or gene therapy be of any use? Apparently "magic" works but, as mentioned, there's no rule allowing this bit of fluff. The restriction is 100% complete and total.

Simple. If it's complex, they spell it out. Very slowly.

Sign Language, from my understanding, has a lot of "Words", and an "Alphabet". The words are used to express things quickly, but, when you hit something that doesn't have a pre-determined word, then you have to spell it out.

Kind of like using little words on people while performing Tech Support:

That said, Sasquatches probably have more than one name they use. A name they use with other Sasquatches, a "Signed Name" (The hand symbol that refers to them), and a "Spoken Name" for those funny noise-making people to use for them. All of which can be as accurate or inaccurate as appropriate.

I mean, we could be talking about "He who sings in the moonlight like a wolf pack", the sign for "Wolf", and "Fuzzy" ends up being the spoken name despite arguements to the contrary.

Remember, you don't always get to pick your "Street Name". In fact, you rarely do.

Yes. It's the hunting call of the bum!

It's unforunate, then, that they can't spell any more than they can speak by the rules (both require the same skill, and everything indicates they need written languages translated as much as spoken ones). Or, more importantly, by the brunt of people in this thread. Or at least their weak explanations for why it's completely plausible.

Wait... so the guy working towards his PhD dealing specifically with this topic was a "weak explanation" Hmm... K