tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 16 02:57:17 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

QeD De'wI' ngermey

jIjatlhHa'chugh HIlughmoH:

chay' QeD De'wI' ngermey vIDellaH?  mu'mey chu' vIchenmoH vIneHbe'
'ach qechvam vIQIjmeH mu'mey ngo' vIlo' net chaw'a'? ('e'
vIjatlhta'DI' bIlugh'a'? :)

vI'agh 'e' yIchaw':

rarchuqbogh De' vIDelmeH <<ghom chong>> vIjatlh net chaw'a'?
ghunta'ghach maja'chuqtaHvIS <<mIw>> <<nab>> qoj vIlo' net chaw'a'?

***

Wow, that was rough.  :)  Here's what I was trying to say:

Correct me if I'm wrong:

How can I describe comp sci theory?  I don't want to create new
words but am I allowed to use existing words to explain these ideas?
(Did I actually say that properly? :)

Let me demonstrate:

May I say "vertical group" (stack?) to describe interconnected data?
May I use <<mIw>> or <<nab>> (procedures, functions?) while discussing
software?

***

Basically, making up new words is generally bad.  We're not allowed.
Making compound nouns is bad.  We're not allowed to do that, either.
But are we allowed to start building our own idiomatic speech?  Most
of the English terms used in computer science are effectively
idiomatic uses of existing words:  procedure, function, pointer,
stack, queue, list, reference, counter, object, class, structure,
union...  Really, there are very few additions to the language.  Since
Klingons obviously have computers, and obviously they're advanced,
it seems like we should be able to discuss computer science using the
language.  While I suppose it's possible Klingons could've invented
a completely new word for "virtual class", isn't it just as likely
they would've just started using existing language constructs and
words to describe such concepts?

...Paul

 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
                "That's not a bug, it's a feature!"

Back to archive top level