tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 07 20:11:38 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: mu'ghomwIj



On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 18:34:31 -0700 (PDT)  "Andeen, Eric" 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I am currently in the process of creating a personal dictionary, and   
> would appreciate some (constructive) feedback on the design. The data   
> will be stored in an Access database, and the interface will be a VB   
> application. My primary focus now is the Klingon word list; if I get   
> ambitious later, I will add an English keyword list and a canon database,   
> complete with a parser to add references to the wordlist.
> 
> My current wordlist table has all the basics:
> 
> Word
> Definition
> Part of speech
> Source
> Qualifiers (regional, slang)
> Notes

This pretty much reflects my own Access database, though I use 
the Notes field primarily to quote canon use of verbs, primarily 
toward the end of understanding whether they are intransitive or 
if transitive, what sort of noun serves as direct object.

I also have each word entered in three fields. First is a 
pseudo-sort there I spell {Qu'vatlh} as q2zvat2 so it will sort 
properly. For this, the entries different from the normal 
alphabet are:

c=ch
g=gh
n1=n
n2=ng
q1=q
q2=Q
t1=t
t2=tlh
z='

Having this in a field and building a querry sorting the 
database by this field makes things appear in the correct order.

The other two entries use my modified version of Lawrence's 
pIqaD font and my own ligature font which uses the same 
keymapping as Lawrence's font, so when I type "x" it shows as 
"tlh". In other words, the "x" character in this font looks like 
the three letters "tlh".

Related tables contain the parts of speech and the sources. I 
started doing a canon table to relate to the rest of it, but 
that project never made it. Instead, I've noted canon useage in 
the notes field, which is a memo field so I don't have to worry 
about field length.
 
> Both the part of speech and the source are coded into several fields so   
> that I can generate such things as jatlh: verb: transitive & speaking, or   
> maH: noun: quantitative: number forming element (or chuvmey: pronoun).

I don't think I understand this. If you are saying you have 
multiple fields for the same thing, like multiple part of speech 
fields, there are more efficient ways to do this. You don't want 
a lot of empty fields per average record. Instead, it is better 
to have multiple entries of the same word, like {neH} with each 
having a different definition and part of speech, much as they 
appear in the paper dictionary. Similarly, you save space by 
pulling out fields with a few very repeated values, like part of 
speech and source, and making them related tables.
 
> I am also considering adding related words. For example, <Qub> could have   
> links to <Sov>, <Har>, <Hon>, etc., thus adding something resembling a   
> thesaurus to the dictionary.

The trick there is again, how do you avoid multiple fields per 
entry, since that leads to a lot of empty fields in an average 
record, and some word that will have too many synonyms to fit in 
your multiple fields.

The trick is an intermediate related table. Relate a "synonym" 
table to the word list table so that you pair synonyms. One pair 
is one record. A word with multiple synonyms gets multiple 
records. You can build a sorting querry based on the first field 
and build a report on that querry so that it breaks on the first 
field, creating a thesaurus.

In theory. I have not done it yet. I'm not finished entering the 
damned words yet.
 
> pagh

charghwI'





Back to archive top level