tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 18 00:26:12 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QeD De'wI' ngermey
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Alan Anderson wrote:
> >chay' QeD De'wI' ngermey vIDellaH?
>
> ghaytan bIjatlhHa'ta'. <De' QeD> DaDel DaneHlaw'.
HIja'. bong wa'DIch tlhopDaq mu' cha'DIch vIghItlh.
I think I was thinking "of all the sciences, the one that deals with
computers", and then "of that, the theories". Actually... Hmm, I wonder
if that word order wasn't right to begin with?
> >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'.
chaq <<qechvam chu'>> vIjatlhnISpu'. jaS mu'meyvetlh vIlo'laH vIneH.
Maybe I should've said "these new ideas". I want to use existing words
for different things.
> > ('e' vIjatlhta'DI' bIlugh'a'? :)
>
> bIjatlhDI' SoH, chay' jIlughlaH jIH?
HIja'. <<v>> retlhDaq 'oH <<b>>
Sigh.
> {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'...}
Or perhaps "mu'tlheghvetlh"? :) I always forget that rule. :P
> >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?
Hmm. What if I said { De' rarchuqmoHlu'bogh }?
> {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?
The latter. Which gets to the root of my discussion, am I/are we allowed
to standardize on certain word constructions to mean particular things, or
to use existing words in subject-specific idiomatic ways?
> *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.
mIw is defined as "procedure, process" in the TKD, p 182. It does have
the additional context, but that only shows up later, in KGT. It is a
good point, though. Of course, the ultimate question is whether or not I
can appropriate either word for the purposes of discussing programming.
> > 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.
>
> 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.
Not all of them are, since I didn't give all possible examples. Consider
"compile", which now has a comp sci connotation of parsing source code and
generating machine code. I could use { gher } for that pretty nicely, but
it's still extending the original canon intention of the verb for a
purpose that is beyond the scope of the canon material.
> 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.
Well, that's not what I'm getting from the grammarians. :) Of course I
would explain it, that's the whole point of my exercise -- to extend and
adapt the language through the use of developed idioms. But there
definitely seems to be a conservative view on the topic (and has been for
years), which makes me wonder sometimes...
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"No matter where you go, there you are."