tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 17 23:19:26 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: QeD De'wI' ngermey

DaHjaj Paul QIn vIHev.  latlh vIjangpa' QInvam vIleghpu'be'.

Paul's note beginning this thread was apparently sent nearly two days ago,
but it just arrived on my computer.

ja' "...Paul" <>:
>jIjatlhHa'chugh HIlughmoH:


>chay' QeD De'wI' ngermey vIDellaH?

ghaytan bIjatlhHa'ta'.  <De' QeD> DaDel DaneHlaw'.

Did you really intend to ask about "science computer theories"?  Or, as I
suspect, did you mean information science?

>mu'mey chu' vIchenmoH vIneHbe'
>'ach qechvam vIQIjmeH mu'mey ngo' vIlo' net chaw'a'?

qatlh bIghelnIS?  Sengqoq vIyajbe'.  mu'mey ngo' Dalo' net chaw'ba'qu'.
ngo' Hoch mu'mey DIlo'bogh qar'a'?  lo'lIj DaQIjchugh, 'ej pabchugh lo'lIj,
qay' nuq?  qech DapongDI', pong Dalo'laHba'.

> ('e' vIjatlhta'DI' bIlugh'a'? :)

bIjatlhDI' SoH, chay' jIlughlaH jIH?

{jatlh} isn't used with {'e'}.  A sentence containing a verb of saying just
comes before or after a sentence being quoted.  But I don't think you're
trying to quote anything here; you just wanted to refer to the previous
sentence.  For that, try {mu'tlheghvam vIjatlhDI'...}

You probably meant {jIlugh'a'}, not {bI-}.

>vI'agh 'e' yIchaw':
>rarchuqbogh De' vIDelmeH <<ghom chong>> vIjatlh net chaw'a'?

chaw'law', 'ach yapbe'bej.  chay' De' Del pongvetlh puj?

{rarchuq} is a confusing construction.  We have canon indicating that the
object of {rar} is what gets connected, and the subject is what does the
connecting.  How does information connect itself, and to what?

{ghom chong} "vertical group" is rather meaningless as an explanation.  It
obviously requires some explanation itself in order to be useful. :-)

>ghunta'ghach maja'chuqtaHvIS <<mIw>> <<nab>> qoj vIlo' net chaw'a'?

chaq Qap mu'meyvam, 'ach nuq luDel DaneH?  bIvang 'e' DaHech 'e' Dellaw'
<nab>.  ngoQHom Dellaw' <mIw>.

{maja'chuqtaHvIS} has a type 1 suffix, so it can't have an object other
than {maH}.  Is {ghunta'ghach} supposed to be an introductory "Having
programmed," or is it an attempt to talk about the collection of
instructions we call a computer program?

>I don't want to create new
>words but am I allowed to use existing words to explain these ideas?

How else is there to explain ideas but to use existing words?  If you make
up words for an explanation, nobody will understand, making the label
"explanation" rather inappropriate.  Your question makes no sense.

>May I say "vertical group" (stack?) to describe interconnected data?

You may try, but "vertical group" is devoid of useful meaning.  (So is
"stack", for that matter, except in a specific context where it's been
defined to refer to a last-in, first-out storage scheme.)

>May I use <<mIw>> or <<nab>> (procedures, functions?) while discussing

Sure, but make sure you use them for what they mean, and not what you
*want* them to mean.  {mIw} is a specific step in a process; {nab} is an
entire plan or procedure.  If you want to talk about the sorts of things
listed by the Unix 'ps' command, I don't think either is quite right.  If
you want to speak of subroutines a la BASIC, {mIw} might work, but it could
just as easily refer to a single line of source code.

>Basically, making up new words is generally bad.  We're not allowed.

I would hope you understand *why* making up words is not a good thing.

>Making compound nouns is bad.  We're not allowed to do that, either.

I don't think a blanket restriction on them is warranted.  In an
appropriate context, they're quite useful.  But I also don't think
springing a "novel" compound on your audience is a good thing; if you
intend to do so without warning, you have to have a reasonable expectation
that they will know what you mean immediately.

>But are we allowed to start building our own idiomatic speech?

Much as we'd like to avoid it, such things happen.  We don't really do it
on purpose, but as a somewhat close-knit group, certain usages tend to get
standardized.  {chovnatlh} "specimen" seems to have picked up the default
connotation of something worthy of emulation, or at least of something
being held up as a standard of either good or bad usage.

>  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

Here's an observation for you:  all the terms you gave are nouns.  The one
obvious Klingon computer science term we have is a verb, and the term for
"computer" itself seems to be derived from an unknown or lost verb.  Don't
expect the best Klingon equivalent for "stack" or "object" to be a noun.

>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?

qechvaD mu' chu' 'oghlaHchugh Microsoft, qatlh raplaHbe' tlhIngan
ghunwI'pu'? :-P

The real issue isn't whether or not Klingon programmers' {tlhach mu'mey}
are "borrowed" from other usages.  Even we assume they are, the real issue
is that we don't know *which* words would be borrowed, or how.  [Microsoft
came up with networking terms which do not match the ones in use for
decades by Unix users, and their object-oriented terminology often uses
words to mean things quite different from the way Smalltalk and "computer
scientists" used them.  The point is that the choice of terms is not

So my advice is to go ahead and describe the ideas you need to.  Just don't
expect anyone to understand your usage unless you first explain it.  That's
normal procedure.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level