Description/Reason:
when two things occur together with statistical significance, when knowing one thing allows you to infer with higher probability about the other
Comment below with feedback and suggestions.
Responses
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Isn't this mey(chuq)?
meybe'… maybe. I don't know.
{mey} is used for things that physically match. I don't think it applies to events that correlate unless we are told otherwise.
But what's wrong with using {mey}, when numbers are described as with {mob} "alone", {boq} "form an alliance" and {mIvwa'mey} "scars"?
{mob}, {boq} and {mIvwa'mey} are canonical, {mey} is not. These are mathematical concepts with specific definitions. If I say {mob}, people understand what I'm talking about because they have already associated that word with the mathematical definition. If I say {mey}, I don't think anyone is going to understand me without very clear context or a long explanation (both of which are difficult as there is not much statistics vocabulary that could be used to set context or explain a word).
I'm not saying it's bad as a suggestion for Okrand, but unless it's canonical it's of no use.
I've just given you three instances of mathematical phenomena described by physical metaphors. Klingons are clearly capable of reasoning this way. It's obtuse to assume that they aren't. Another example is the verb {rarchuq} "be related [conceptually]." An abstract connection suggested by a physical one. Four examples. Requesting another word for this is a waste of time and resources.
You didn't understand me fully. I'm not saying that this couldn't be a metaphor word. What I want is that Okrand gives us a canonical word, either a new word or an existing word that can have this meaning. I would be perfectly happy with Okrand saying that {mey} is the correct word for this. But until that happens, {mey} doesn't mean "be correlated" and people won't understand it. If they won't understand it, I can't use it. Your suggestions are useless until they are canonized. They are fine suggestions for Okrand, but not for us.
Or nel.
That's obvious "bijection", not "correlation".
*obviously
Also, my wink emoji was deleted when I posted the comment. 🙁
Given the formal mathematical definition of bijection, I would have to agree. Perhaps mey combined with the suggested word tendency would work.
Two correlating events often occur at the same time, ie. {pIj quq wanI'meyvam}. It only works for correlation in the time dimension though.