tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 14 15:01:17 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Comp Sci Theory in Klingon...
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Steven Boozer wrote:
> ...Paul wrote:
> >Good point, although that's exactly why I was looking for a good way to
> >describe it without jargon. I think something such as { wa'DIch 'oHmeH
> >DalannIS } is just as good (if that's legal ;), if not as succinct, but
> >avoids the whole jargon concept.
>
> "First in order for you need to put it"?? "You need to put it
> first"?? I'm not sure what {'oHmeH DalannIS} means.
{ Doch wa'DIch 'oHmeH } is the subordinate clause, { DalanniS } is the
main. "You need to place it" "In order for it to be the first thing."
> {-meH} is a verb suffix and, although {'oH} can sometimes act as a verb
> (the so-called "pronoun-as-verb"), it doesn't do so here. The verb in this
> sentence is {lan} "place, put". Also, {wa'DIch} "first" is not an
> adverbial in Klingon; it has to refer to a noun: i.e. {X wa'DIch} "the
> first X".
Why doesn't it "do so here"? -meH is a purpose clause marker, it goes on
verbs. Perhaps it would've been more clear to say { Doch wa'DIch 'oHmeH
Dochvam DalannIS } "You need to place this thing for it to be the first
thing." You can most definitely use verb suffixes on pronouns in the "to
be" construction, it's stated clearly in the TKD, p.68 "Again, pronouns
are used, followed, where appropriate, by verbal suffixes."
[ Deleted bit from KGT about the zeroth thing ]
> Using this as a model, you could say
>
> mIw wa'DIch Data'meH, naDev X DalannIS
> mIw cha'DIch Data'meH, pa' Y DalannIS
>
> To accomplish the first step, you need to put X here.
> To accomplish the second step, you need to put Y there.
The problem is that I'm not referring to a sequence of events, I'm
referring to a sequence of objects. I don't think it's illegal/unusual to
use ordinals to refer to position or relation. We have, after all, "first
officer" { yaS wa'DIch } and "second officer" { yaS cha'DIch }, which use
ordinals to refer to a sequence of rank, not a sequence of events.
If you have three items in a sequence, like Pez in a Pez dispenser, and
you wanted to reorder them, how would you say it? For example, you have a
generator { lIngwI' } and two redundant backups. You need to reorder them
so that the { lIngwI' cha'DIch } becomes the { lIngwI' wa'DIch }. What
command would you issue? Even if you used { lIngwI' cha'DIch yIchoH }
"Change the second generator", how would you express the desired outcome?
The only thing I can think of is { lIngwI' wa'DIch 'oHmeH, lIngwI'
cha'DIch yIchoH } "Change the second generator so that it is the first
generator." (perhaps even { 'oHchoHmeH })...
> *{tutHom} might work for "stack". You can also use the noun {'op} "some,
> an unknown or unspecified quantity". E.g.:
{ tut } is a good one, thanks for pointing that out.
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"It's kind of fun to do the impossible." -- Walt Disney