tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 24 09:37:36 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mughwI'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: mughwI'
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 94 12:37:32 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Joel Anderson" at Nov 23, 94 7:41 pm
According to Joel Anderson:
>
> "William H. Martin" writes:
> > According to [email protected]:
> > ..
> > > mughwI''e' lo'taHbogh Paul vISovbe', 'ach <ftp-site>Daq ghunghachmey
> > > law' tu'lu'. <pojwI'30.zip> vIghunta'. latlh puS tu'lu'.
> > ..
> > > --Holtej
> >
> > Does anybody like the idea of the word {De'wI'He} as a possible
> > substitute for {ghunghach}?
>
> Why not simply De'He?
I see your point, though for me, it seems more that a program
is a course followed by the computer, not by the data.
> De'wI'He sounds more like a LAN to me. [And we
> info-superhighway-types are on the De'wI'He'a', lugh'a'?]
I guess I'd probably see that more as a {De'He}, since the data
follows the course of the LAN, though the computers on a LAN
don't really go anywhere in the physical relm, where the LAN
lives. The computers are only following planned courses
prescribed by programs...
~mark will probably call BOTH of these terms retro-. Looking
back, we can see how we got them, but if the my word seems
wrong to you and your word seems wrong to me, then neither of
them is worth dirt.
> Perhaps the "program" as a noun is unnecessary? As computers become
> more common (and in Trek-times they are as common as dirt) we may not
> need to distinguish "translator programs" from translators, "game
> programs" from games and so on ..
>
> De'wI'vaD mughwI'mey - translator's for computers
> De'wI'vaD Qujmey - games for computers
> De'wI'vaD paqmey - books for computers
qay'be'.
> Maybe (no doubt) there is better way to phrase that, but if someone
> programs a translator for a computer you can say:
>
> De'wI'vaD mughwI'na' vIghunta', jatlh Holtej
maj.
> It should be clear that a 'program' is involved. Maybe this is one of
> those goofy Klingon things, that they assume you are smart enough to
> know what goes *in* a computer.
Also, a "program" is supposed to be a noun, though in fact, it
is an abstract. You can't touch it or see it or smell it. There
is no guarantee that Klingons would make the leap to consider
the product of the action of programming to be a named thing
unto itself. As you have suggested, we might very well approach
the problem of talking about programs through other linguistic
devices than nouns. There are also options like
{ra'ta'ghachtlhegh}. (Eeeeeew!)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [email protected] | Apertus Technologies | GEnie:j.anderson71
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |