tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 16 13:10:16 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: QeD De'wI' ngermey

On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Volker Tanger wrote:
> > May I say "vertical group" (stack?) to describe interconnected data?
> A "vertical group" does not describe a first-in-first-out data store.
> A "group" does not include the strict access method from above only.
> Following the *FIFO* first-in/first-out picture, you could spell it as
> <<'el-lel>> (go-in/take-out) though this could be mistaken as brand
> for a take-away restaurant. Alternate possibility would be to describe
> it as <<roQ-woH>> (put-down/pick-up).

Right, but of course, a FIFO structure is not a stack, it's a list.  :)  A
stack is first-in, last-out, FILO.  Just like a stack of plates (which is
why we call a stack in English.  :)

Question is, does "vertical group" adequately describe a "stack"?

> The idea is not to simply translate the terran picture, but to
> describe what it does. As an "automobile" should not be translated
> into <<vIH'eghwI'>> (that moves itself), but into something like
> <<ghor Duj>> (surface vessel).

Right, but the theory here is that Comp Sci theory is already pretty
generalized; the question is, am I allowed to define idiomatic uses of
existing words to represent comp sci ideas, like "stack", "list",
"function", "variable", etc?  These concepts must be present in Klingon,
as we know they have software engineering capabilities (cf. { ghun }).  My
posit is that they would have appropriated existing words for use in
idiomatic ways specific to the topic, much as how English has overloaded
the definition of "stack" to describe a FILO data structure.


 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide **
           "Hell, there are no rules here -- we're trying
             to accomplish something." -- Thomas Edison

Back to archive top level