tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 06 07:33:07 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Computer Vocabulary again
- From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
- Subject: Computer Vocabulary again
- Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1996 00:28:19 +1000
- Organization: University of Melbourne,Dept. of Linguistics & Applied Linguistics
Klingonists! Before I left for Queensland, I proposed a list of computer terms;
here's my response to subsequent discussion.
Abbreviations: PB - Perry Brulotte; AA - Alan Anderson (ghunchu'wI'); DT - D.
Trimboli (SuStel); MR - Mark Reed (marqoS)
>save pol
Seems to have been uncontroversial
>page nav 'ay'
PB: nav
The distinction I wanted to make was between a physical sheet of paper and a
page-ful within a document. nav 'ay' is probably a confusing way of rendering
this anyway, so I'll go with nav.
>clipboard *jolpa'
AA: Daq ru', De' ru'
Maybe even De'Daq ru'? I'll suggest the transporter metaphor only as an
alternative to the KLT folk.
>eject ghupHa'
AA: ("wierd")
Oh, I don't know about that. Would lel be better?
>disk (floppy) qawHaqHom; qawHaq teqlu'bogh
PB: teqbogh qawHaqHom
>disk (hard) qawHaq; qawHaq ru'be'
PB: qawHaq
AA: I don't like these much. I think of disks as physical objects, and memory
banks as logical structures (a "filesystem"). I'd call a storage device
{qawHaq ngaSwI'}, and the actual directories and files on the device would
be {qawHaq}. The term "disk" is a physical description of the object, with
no bearing on its function; a colloquial translation might be {ghobeQ}.
Some hard disks are removable, and the data on a floppy certainly ought to
be (relatively) permanent! If you're going to key off "floppy" and "hard",
you might as well use {tun} and {let}. For a CD-ROM: {choHlu'be'bogh}.
I agree that qawHaq should be a logical rather than physical structure. I don't
think qawHaq ngaSwI' is a usable rendering of 'disk'. Would De'gho (De'gho tun/
De'gho let, or De'ghoHom/De'gho'a') be acceptable?
>RAM (De'wI') yab
AA: The CPU does the "thinking", not the RAM. What about {qawHaq ru'}?
MR: How about {qawHaq ru'}? Fits nicely with the {qawHaq ru'be'}
for HD.
qawHaq ru' it is. An alternative is 'working memory', which would be something
like mIw qawHaq or Qu' qawHaq.
>icon ('oSbogh) Degh
AA: Degh
OK.
>click (v) *rIH
AA: Hot
MR: yuv
rIH would have to be abandoned here in favour of its transporter-metaphor use
for 'copy' anyway. I wouldn't mind chu' here...
>type (v) ghItlh
>text mu' De'
AA: mu', mu'mey
>graphics HaSta De'
>document ghItlh
AA: De' ngaSwI'
>file De' 'ay'; *De' mo'
PB: De'mey
AA: De'
MR: De'ghom
>folder De' buv; *De' bIghHa'
PB: De'ngaSwI'
AA: De'ghom
MR: De'ghom ngaSwI'
Lots of contradiction here. I interpret 'document' to refer to a file used by
intelligent programs, with some human content; given the clashes with 'file',
I'd really rather keep it as ghItlh. For file, how about De'tlhoQ? (ghom is
very vague for how individual pieces of information constitute a file, and De'
is probably confusing, being more akin to ngoD.) This would leave De'(tlhoQ)
ghom or De'(tlhoQ) ngaSwI' for 'folder'.
I forget who thought the prison metaphor was cute, but thank you!
>edit choH
>cut teq
AA: nge'
MR: Qol
I'll keep the transporter terms as an alternative; thanks marqoS! nge' is in
fact the right term.
>copy latlh chenmoH; chelqa'beH; chelqa'meH qaw
AA: qaw; nge'law'; woH
MR: rIH
qaw is right for this context, as ghunchu'wI' pointed out.
>paste chel
AA: chagh; roQ
MR: jol
chagh is probably clearer than chel.
>clear (De') Qaw'
AA: chImmoH
Yes.
>font pIqaD
PB: pIqaD buv
AA: pIqaD mut, pIqaD buv
DT: I've often wondered: is {pIqaD} a word which means any old Klingon writing
system, or is it a proper noun referring to THE Klingon writing system?
MR: I don't like this. I think it's pretty clear that {pIqaD}
is a proper noun, or at least a specific one, and not just a word
meaning "writing system". How about {Deghghom}?
But Degh is already going to end up more like 'icon'. Since, furthermore, we
can exploit some notion of the Klingon OS being in Klingon pIqaD anyway, and
lots of pIqaD fonts becoming available (as Lawrence and I are conspiring
towards), pIqaD mut is a way to go.
>bold ror
>italic SIH
AA: taH
Yes, I know he wasn't being serious... :)
>underline bIng tlhegh
>outline Dech tlhegh
AA: Hur tlhegh (for parallelism with bIng tlhegh)
Cool!
>shadow QIb
>condensed qev
>extended qevHa'
>version choH
AA: Ugh. There has to be something better... there *must* be... maybe {ta}?
DT: What about {mI'}? Or, since you're talking about an operating system, how
about {pat mI'}?
I have no major problem with choH; I use it for 'revision' on my Web page
(which will shortly reappear on a new machine.) Incidentally, I think the
actual context was version of file, not of OS, so choH (used flexibly) is still
attractive to me.
>button leQ
>scroll HaSta tlhe'moH
AA: vIHmoH
OK
>desktop yaH
AA: wIy
Yes, much better.
>window HaSta
AA: {HaSta} is "*visual* display" as opposed to {wIy} "*tactical* display".
Maybe {jIHHom} would work better.
I'm even tempted towards wIyHom, but Ok, jIHHom it is. I guess this means HaSta
is limited to picture and animation windows?
>monitor; display jIH
>untitled per Hutlh
AA: perbe'lu'; pongbe'lu'
Sure, them too.
--
NON ME TENENT VINCVLA NON ME TENET CLAVIS STETIT PVELLA RVFA TVNICA SIQVIS
Nick Nicholas http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~nsn Linguistics
QVAERO MEI SIMILES ET ADIVNGOR PRAVIS EAM TETIGIT TVNICA CREPVIT EIA
[email protected] University of Melbourne
ARCHIPOETAE CONFESSIO E CARMINIBVS BVRANIS