tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 28 08:59:59 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Klingon UI Questions

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Klingon UI Questions
• Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:16:06 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>

ja' [email protected]:
>What do people conjecture the Klingon UI model of choice would be?  Would
>they see computers as a tool (and hence, they would refer to computer
>operations as something *the operator* was doing?)  Or would they see
>computers as a subordinate, that they would command (lending credence to
>the imperative wordsmithing)...?

valQIS mu'tlhegh vIqel: <HablI' Su' labbeH.>  vang De'wI'.  ra' lo'wI'.



My view is based on the line spoken by Valkris in Star Trek III:

  HablI', Su': labbeH!

[The punctuation is mine, and is admittedly speculative.]  Ignoring for a
moment the subtitle which accompanied the line, it's plainly a command for
the transceiver to configure itself for transmission.  It follows the
pattern of a "pet command", with the attention-getting word {Su'} and use
of clipped Klingon.

The model used by Valkris is that computers are things to be commanded, not
merely passive tools to be wielded.  It is the computer which acts, not the
operator.  However, it seems clear to me that clipped grammar is preferable
to fully specified imperative.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• Prev by Date: Klingon WOTD: ngu' (v)
• Next by Date: Re: MOST terminology
• Prev by thread: Re: Klingon UI Questions (off-topic)
• Next by thread: Re: Klingon UI Questions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level