When it ignores everything else, yes. For example, ignoring that sasquatches do communicate through speech, including having spoken names, and their spoken language is extremely expressive. One so complex that even apparently "superior" linguists like Humans haven't been able to crack it after a brief exposure to it. But in order for Explanation X to work (let's say DarusGrey's relatively recent example), you have to ignore that. Then when that's brought up, Explanation Y is thrown at you which ignores other factors about sasquatches (and often Explanation X at the same time).

So, yes. There's not a single explanation in this thread that covers every facet of sasquatches.

Rule #1029 of Internet Discussion: If I haven't the credentials to understand what you're talking about your explanation is "weak."

No, again, ignoring aspects of the discussion and writing them off is what makes them weak.

At best, you get examples of things like parrots. Yes, they can mimick a few words and phrases. But do they have a complex, expressive form of language amongst themselves (which is apparently far and away better at communicating with one another as they don't use a sign language amongst themselves)? Do they communicate freely and openly with other species using multiple different sign languages? Do they have names of their own creation? Do they function with humans on a daily basis? No, they don't. Sasquatches aren't parrots. It's not even remotely close. Which is why explanations that revolve around them are weak.

But no example is going to be good enough. Because there is no example in the animal kingdom that you'll except because there are no intelligent (on the level of humans) animals. There are no examples among humans because any example that can be pointed to must have some sort of deficiency because they are different, so that is not good enough. There can be no fictional example because that is what you have a problem with in the first place.

So unless someone knows a bunch of extraterrestrials that are like this then really, can there be any point in keeping this going. As far as Dr. Funkenstein goes, he has put himself in a position where he cannot except any counter arguments. It must be nice to be so right...

I agree with him and, yes, it does feel pretty good.

Dr. Funk, heres my arguement, which you have yet to refute. They have come into being because of MAGIC, and thus, don't always follow the rules of logic. Because of MAGIC they are unable to speak or learn spoken/written language.

Hell, I refute that argument. Waving your hand and saying "magic did it" works for big flying lizards, but a child of four could see through that one.

The only way you could give a better example of the linguistics of mimicry without using the parrot as an example would be to make up another detailed mythological creature, and then we'd be having another discussion about that.

In the runners companion it does not say the Sasquatch has a "complex, expressive form of language amongst themselves".

It says, verbatim
"Sasquatches possess an unusual paranatural mimicry ability which serves as an extremely expressive form of communication"

No where does it say this is a *language*. Insects can use odor as an "extremely expressive form of communication" amongst themselves. I'm fully aware you may think that is "weak" or being very nit picky, but in the field of linguistics it is a hard line that separates many animals from humans.

What about dolphins? they use sound, are as intelligent as humans, it is *theorized* that dolphins may in-fact meet all 7 qualifications of language(it's kind of hard to prove they use displacement and productivity when we don't understand them ourselves), and despite this, they can neither understand nor use human language. Assuming the example of dolphins is true, *what about HUMANS?*, we don't understand them either, we could in theory mimic their sounds with our vocals, but we never can understand them except through the possibility of technology.

Since we've established there's no canon source saying this communication system of sasquatches is anything but a communication system, since in-fact the RC specifically uses the term communication and not language (google communication system vs language for a plethora of information).
Thus there's no logical reason to conclude they can use or understand spoken language at a biological level *even amongst themselves*. And this is perfectly plausible in the real world today(ex: Parrots, whether you like it or not).

Now why they can use sign language is the real mystery....

Wow, you guys sure can argue about a pretty non-sensical topic for a long time. From my point of view its pretty simple.

In real life. Sasquatches do not exists. The are entirely fictional creature created for the world of Shadowrun. Thus everything about them falls into the realms of "Making Shit Up."

Thus it is perfectly logical for a Sasquatch to be able to mimic and learn sign language, but not speak. Why? Because it is an entirely fictional creature for which all facets of its reality are based primarily upon what its creators decide to make up for it. You can make up whatever psudo-biopsychological reason for it suits your fancy (the authors have kindly left that open to you). But don't get confused here. Sasquatches are firmly in the realms of "Making Shit Up" not reality. Any explanation for their abilities must be based upon the design choices its creators, and not real world logic. As again, we are in the realms of "Making Shit Up."

Making comparisons to humans, or dolphins, or parrots, or any other real-life creature is pointless. A Sasquatch is not any of those, or a real life creature at all. It is, again, a complete fictional creature with little to no basis in reality. Since you have no real-life examples of Sasquatch to draw your conclusions off of, your attempts to use relations to real world creatures when dealing with this ENTIRELY FICTIONAL CREATURE, are bound to fail. Being fictional you can make no rational assumptions about how its brain and language skills might work. Because, again, its FICTION.

This seems to be enough refutation in and of itself. There seems to be some disdain for 'handwavium' as to why a Sasquatch can not talk. Which, of course, ignores the fact that without 'handwavium' the Sasquatch, a fictional creature, would not exist. You might as well be arguing that it is impossible for a dragon to fly. Arguing that a fictional creature is inconsistent with reality seems silly, because obviously by its very nature as a fictional creature any consistency is thrown out the window, as we are in the realms of "Making Shit Up."

But even if we grant your rather silly demand and force a fictional creature to conform more closely with our reality, your arguments are still lacking.

Essentially what you seem to be claiming here is that is entirely impossible for a creature like a Sasquatch to exist. Which is just plain silly. Even more so when taken in context of the Shadowrun universe which has dragons flying around and people spontaneously unknown genetic expressions occurring. Your examples based upon the language usage of Parrots and Humans because, of course, a Sasquatch is not either of those things. Indeed, it is unclear in Shadowrun weather Sasquatches have always been in existance on Earth, or have come into existence during this mana upswing. In either case they are only very distantly related to the Homo-sapiens (and our meta-human cousins). Perhaps no more so than the other great apes. They certainly are not close enough relatives to qualify as member of our genus, homo. Your willingness then to make sweeping generalizations about what is, essential, an alien species is baffling to me.

I beg to differ. Sasquatches may or may not be exist. Their status remains unconfirmed. I'm not sure if real Sasquaches have perfect mimicry ability, though

Well, my limited knowledge would rule it like this.

First of all Sasquatches are a very, very small minority and their exposure to modern society is limited at best, and their exposure to modern technology even rarer.

Due to the effects of the points mentioned above no-one have put a serious effort between their discovery from 2050-ish to 2070 to actually expose them to modern AR learning tools. Earlier technology like linguasoft didn't have the full range of abilities like an AR teaching tools has. Nor have anyone tried combining the teaching with technology in an actual noticeable effort since the base amount of sasquatches available in modern society and willing to move from their homes have been too few to make it worth their while or make money for the corporation.

Remember, most science, especially in 2070 would require a profit...teaching the abominable snowman to speak might not be one of them.

So, in effect, yes, with the right tools they can learn the laguage due to several factors:

Sapience
Mimicry
Language Ability (Sign language & Native Language)
Toolmakers
Can live in metahuman modern society

Their native language might on the other hand be incredible more complex so that they view metahuman language as very slow and crude and by THAT angle they might simply choose not to learn the primitive human tounge as their superior organs for making sound can create a far more elegant language.

Would YOU start talking to people with a "Ugh, Tharg make fire.." when you could say "I'll put a few more logs on the fire..."

Why are there orks? Magic. Why do orks have tusks? Magic. Why are there sasquatch? Magic. Why can't sasquatch talk? Magic.


What is the problem here?

"It's Magic" barely works, but Max's "It's fiction" is just a cop out. I hate when people pull that.

It doesn't have to be magic. Writing it off as magic is wallowing in blissful ignorance, when some other clever fellow figures out what the issue is and works their way around the problem. If you're going to use magic as an excuse, you might as well say your toaster works by magic because you don't know shite about electricity. There does come a point where you have to go "Science be damned - this is magic!" but that's usually when you've run out of science first.

Ok, scientifically why do naga exist? Scientifically why are all sapient critters magical? Scientifically how does a dragon fly?

Its fairly obvious science can't explain entirely why they are able to mimic, and use sign language, but not learn how to use spoken language.

Naga exist because the mana level rose and activated latent metagenes in a snake species, or opened a hole to the metaplane where they've been chilling for the last couple thousand years, or awakened them from their low-mana hibernation. Not all sapient critters need be magical, but the ones we've encountered happen to be - maybe we killed all the others off in prehistory. Dragons fly by an innate levitation ability derived from their particular interaction with the gaiasphere combined with big honkin' wings.

See, in Shadowrun magic is science, at least to a degree, and you can work explanations off that using logic. Trying not to is lazy.


It's only obvious if you're close-minded and ignored all the reasonable and possible scientific explanations already offered, such as the fact that their brains are built different and they have trouble with metahuman spoken languages.

But why are their brains built different? Magic/handwavium/because you said so/whatever you wanna call it.

Well, if you want to get down to "because I said so" - you're right! Because I wrote 'em up.

It's not handwavium, though. There is precedent in-game - the previous depictions of sasquatch - and there is precedent in out-of-game - various conditions that afflict humans in real life. Hell, look at how big the differences are between humans and chimpanzees, and we share almost the entirely same DNA; sasquatch are second cousins twice removed (but they came back) by comparison. From a metagame perspective, it is a useful trait to distinguish sasquatch from metahumans and from the other sapient critters, it highlights some particular aspects of commlinks and linguasofts that might be developed further in the future, and it furthers my own personal interest in different types of intelligence.

So it is not handwavium, and neither do we just say "Magic!" and leave it at that.

Honestly, I didn't get this much guff for the gorilla that spoke Arabic.

<wrong post>

Same reason a dolphin's brain is different from any terrestrial mammal: As current science understands it, brain development in species is determined by environment and random mutation.

Sasquatches are not furry metahumans. Sapient, yes. Metahuman, no.

It is handwavium, you said so. There is some backing to humans who can't speak either, but they also don't say that those humans could communicate with sign language. Also, theres no basis for them being able to learn sign language, but not a spoken language.

Sure there is, right in Shadowrun First Edition. Check out Sprawl Sites' list of NPC contacts. All of the sasquatch entertainer's "quotes" are in sign language.

I meant scientific basis, that wasn't from "because someone said so". Since there is basis for humans not being able to speak, but from whats been thrown in the thread there hasn't been anything that said they could sign but not speak. So, scientifically, there is not an explanation that fully covers the extents of sasquatches language issues.

Koko the Sign-Language-Using Gorilla not a good example?

Not nearly as good as the Mimicry-using aliens from Earth Girls Are Easy.

The most likely reason she can't speak, is because she can't make the sounds needed. Not to mention I don't think shes been declared sentient. And probably doesn't have the intelligence needed for it either.

What about hyzmarca's references to people who couldn't speak even though they could sign and or repeat song lyrics?

"[...]patients with no prior knowledge of sign language were able to acquire competency in aspects of American Sign Language (ASL) lexicon and finger spelling, in contrast to a near complete inability to speak the English counterparts of these visuo-gestural signs."

and

"The ability to understand and repeat songs is usually unaffected, as these are processed by the opposite hemisphere."

I don't see how the singing is relevant, but I must have missed that part of his post. Heres the next question, could they still understand spoken english?

Ok, this is fairly pointless. 278 posts, and the thread has been "You're wrong!" "No, you're wrong!" for the last 150+.

Closing her down. Feel free to start it back up, but unless there's a valid, relevant point to be made, and you're willing to at least look the other person's POV, don't bother.