tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 29 21:18:37 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
No Subject
I stand by my statement that /cha' boq wa'. mI'vam boq wej./
represents 3 + (1 + 2).
> I think you'd better slow down and reread the descriptions in HolQeD. If
> by "addend" you mean the number that's there to begin with, and
> by "augend"
> you mean the amount by which the "addend" is being increased, then it's
> quite obvious to me that you're interpreting the Klingon pattern
> backwards.
I might have possibly mixed up the terms "addend" and "augend". It's
been a while since I've had to use such terminology. Nevertheless,
my point stands that the Klingon is backwards from the English.
I suggest you pay attention to the given examples.
> Look at {cha' boq wa'} "one allies with two". "Two" is already there.
> "One" allies with it, increasing the value. Using what I think is your
> terminology, {*addend* boq *augend*}.
MO himself gives "2 + 1" as an example; it is /wa' boq cha'/.
/cha' boq wa'/ would therefore be "1 + 2". Yes, /cha' boq wa'/
means "one allies with two"; but "one" is already there, and
then it allies with "two" (which joins it) -- not the other way
around. You're getting mixed up because you expect the thing
that is the subject of /boq/ to be the one that "joins" the
equation, i.e. at the right. This is what you would expect in
"English" mathematics. But it's precisely the other way around
in Klingon; the thing doing the "allying" is already there, and
is joined by its ally. The order of operation is backwards.
That's what I'm pointing out.
> But when talking about addition, there is no relevant distinction between
> the two roles; everything is an "addend". Let's try subtraction instead,
> where the order *does* make a difference.
(The order of addition does matter in some algebras. Okay, not
that we're likely to be doing advanced mathematics in Klingon any
time soon. But I would love to. {{=) )
> {wej boqHa' cha'} "Two dis-allies from three." "Three" is there. "Two"
> takes away from it, decreasing the value. The second number is the
> "subtrahend", if I have the terminology correct.
You're right. I agree with you. My whole point is that the order of
listing the operands is switched between addition and subtraction,
and between multiplication and division.
HQ 9.3:
--- begin quote ---
"4 - 3 = 1" would be /loS boqHa' wej; chen wa'/ (literally, "three
dissociates from four, one forms"
--- end quote ---
Look what we have here:
A - B = C --> A boqHa' B; chen C
ex.
4 - 3 = 1 --> 4 boqHa' 3; chen 1
Now compare to:
A + B = C --> B boq A; chen C
The order of the operands is different.
> {loS boqHa' cha'. mI'vam boqHa' wa'.) "Two dis-allies from four. One
> dis-allies from this number." I can interpret this only as (4 - 2) - 1.
Now try: /loS boq cha'. mI'vam boq wa'./ Applying the definition
of addition given in HQ, this is 1 + (2 + 4). This is backwards
from the order for subtraction. I'm not trying to be purposely
difficult or inconsistent; I'm just following the rules as laid out.
> >If there were a way to chain multiple additions (e.g. as in
> >English "one plus two plus three..."), I was speculating
> >that the grammar might be */wej boq cha' boq wa'/. I'm
> >probably wrong about this.
>
> You're almost certainly wrong.
You're right. I concede this.
> What is it that turns things around in your head to put the "1" at the
> beginning when the "one" starts out at the end? It looks like you're
> assuming "one plus two" maps directly to {cha' boq wa'},
I'm not *assuming* that; I'm starting with the *given* in HQ that
/wa' boq cha'/ is "2 + 1". What turns things around in my head to
put the "1" at the beginning is the same bleddy thing that turned
things around in MO's head to put the "1" at the end of "2 + 1"
for /wa' boq cha'/. Don't blame me; I didn't make up the rule.
> but that attempted
> mapping completely misses the fact that "plus" is not a verb in English,
> thus "one" is not the subject and "two" is not the object. Based on the
> meaning "allies with" and the order of things when subtracting, I'd say
> that the actual numbers end up going in the same order in Klingon as they
> do in English.
I would agree, except that the actual examples that are given by
MO contradict this. "4 + 3" is rendered by MO as /wej boq loS/.
> I fail to see the relevance of prefix or postfix notation here. We're not
> talking about mathematical notations at all; we're talking about the way
> the language talks about the operations. And Klingon's grammar
> is at least as "infix" as English is here.
Except that for addition and division, the order of the operands
are reversed from English. Okay, maybe Polish notation was a bad
example. It's more like writing "B + A" for "Aey plus Bee".
> >I could, I suppose, say /cha' boq wa'. wej boq mI'vam./
> >to specify (1 + 2) + 3.
>
> Now I'm really confused. If you're going to make a distinction based on
> the position of the numbers in addition, you really ought to do it in such
> a way as to make the same distinction work for subtraction as well.
Except that I'm not the one who decided on the order of the operands.
MO decided that, and I'm just following the recipe. If you read the
article carefully and look at the given examples, you'll see that I'm
being very consistent with MO's examples. The same distinction doesn't
work for subtraction, because the order of the operands is flipped
between addition and subtraction.
> Since
> your understanding of addition in Klingon seems at odds what I think is
> blindingly obvious, I don't think I'll have much useful to say about your
> interpretations of multiplication or division in Klingon
Again, I would agree with you that your way *would* be blindingly
obvious, and that's how I would have done things if I had the
choice. But MO evidently didn't feel like doing things the
blindingly obvious way. Just look at his examples.
> >I'm not sure if MO intended this, but the order of specifying
> >the operators is quite mixed up when compared to English.
[...]
> I think you have the Klingon labels reversed. [...]
> You definitely have the *English* labels reversed. [...]
Okay, forget the English labels. I'm going to use letters.
Examples given in HQ:
"4 + 3" /wej boq loS/
"2 + 1" /wa' boq cha'/
"4 - 3" /loS boqHa' wej/
"3 - 4" /wej boqHa' loS/
"2 x 3" /cha'logh boq'egh wej/
"3 x 2" /wejlogh boq'egh cha'/
"6 / 3" /wejlogh boqHa''egh jav/
"3 / 6" /javlogh boqHa''egh wej/
The rules derived from above are:
A + B --> B boq A
A - B --> A boqHa' B
A x B --> A-logh boq'egh B
A / B --> B-logh boqHa''egh A
As you can see, the operands for addition and division are
actually reversed from how you would list them in English.
If you go back and read my previous post, keeping this in mind,
it'll make a lot more sense. The reason that I wasn't consistent
with the order of operation between addition and subtraction is
because, well, that's how Klingon works.
> This isn't bad at all. By my understanding of what the {boq} verb does,
> sentences involving addition and subtraction end up with the numbers in
> essentially the same order as the customary Terran mathematical notation.
maHvaD chovnatlhmey nunobpu' *matlh. chovnatlhmeyvam yIqImqa'qu'!
> I see the whole thing as entirely consistent. Which I actually
> find rather surprising. :-)
You see the whole thing as entirely consistent because you're
reading your Terran expectations back into it! {{=)
--
De'vID
--
tlhIngan-Hol FAQ and unsubscribe instructions:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to [email protected]
-------------------------------
Beam to http://www.StarTrek.com
The official site of the Star Trek universe