tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 16 13:27:03 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, DloraH wrote:
> As already stated, most of the terminology used in programming are idiomatic
> expressions.  Because of this we have no way of knowing the thought
> processes of the first klingons to coin such phrases.  Even here on earth,
> if different humans were involved with the groups that first coined such
> phrases, we could have stuff that is completely different.  Instead of
> "push", maybe they "jump".
> We can go along with almost any words/phrases, as long as we remember that
> they are OUR words/phrases.

Yeah, after sleeping on it, I realized it really is still a case of
creating new idiomatic expressions, even if there are words that are
perfectly suited for overloading the concepts like { mIw tetlh je } etc.

Ultimately, I think the question is much larger at its core.  Okrand
continues to release little bits on a semi-regular basis (Yay Marc!) but I
guess I wonder if this limited evolution of the language isn't just a bit
too constrained.  Not that I advocate making up bogus words or sentence
structures -- I don't, that would be much too confusing.  But I seriously
doubt Okrand is going to ever be able to give us a full dictionary of
words to canonically use to describe comp sci theory...  So if we are to
grow the language to support that kind of discussion, how do we go about

So now if I want to discuss the intricacies of software design in Klingon,
I'm limited to either constantly redescribing these concepts,
appropriating some words for idiomatic purposes, but constnatly marking
them as Englishisms, or by constantly quoting English phrases in my
Klingon.  Since software engineering is what I do, it makes it a little
frustrating; what's the point in crafting a large composition about
software if 50% of the words aren't even in the language?

Question -- How did we get all the words relating to aircraft terminology?
They appear to have come from Okrand all at once, did someone petition him
to canonize most of the important concepts?  Is there an acceptable method
for evolving the language to cover concepts Okrand is not likely to ever
spontaneously canonize?


PS>  Any non-English software engineers out there?  How do French
engineers refer to the idea of a "stack"?  How do Russian engineers refer
to a "queue"?  I'd be interested to know if those languages use the
English ad hoc, or if they just translated the English word into a similar
word in their own language...

 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide **
   "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
                         -- Albert Einstein

Back to archive top level