tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 07 20:11:38 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mu'ghomwIj
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: mu'ghomwIj
- Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 23:11:57 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
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'