tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 02 12:29:07 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: math questions / speculations (longish)
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: math questions / speculations (longish)
- Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 14:28:50 CDT
I don't really want to get into this order of arguments
discussion. But on the topic of "chaining" operators:
x + y + z
has been translated as
x boq y. mI'vam boq z.
(where I've replaced actual values by placeholders)
my question is, what is this "mI'vam" you're referring to?
the only ones mentioned so far are "x" and "y" but I can't
tell which one you want (of course I *do* know that in fact
you don't want either of them... just for the argument's
sake)... so, I believe you'd have to say:
x boq y. chenbogh mI' boq z.
and I don't see an easy way to abbreviate this.
this also takes care of how I view
x * (y + z)
I'd write
y boq z. chenbogh mI'logh boq'egh x.
(or if there was a given value instead of only placeholders
x-logh boq'egh chenbogh mI'. because in that case x-logh would
definitely be a valid construction, wheras mI'logh is somewhat
doubtful.)
another topic: how would you "translate" 3 + x = 7 as a
problem. my suggestion:
chenmeH Soch, wej boqnIs 'ar?
comments?
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]