tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 18 00:26:12 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 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>>


> {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...


 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide **
              "No matter where you go, there you are."

Back to archive top level