[tlhIngan Hol] XQeD -> Xtej

[Will Martin]

I have a lot of respect for the aversion to carelessness being applied to these dictionaries. Over time, earlier mistakes come back to haunt you.

This is why I think that our dictionaries should either be mission centered, like the New Words List, or they should include annotations for the word’s source, or perhaps its method of construction.

If you know about the {QeD}/{tej} rule and you want to provide the service of the names of types of scientists that we know words for their science, then it’s worth noting that there is a rule and not an Okrandian lexicon entry for that word.

I’ve noticed that unlike many earlier dictionaries, boQwI’ has the facility to show notes about a word instead of just a definition. If it were my call, I’d suggest that you make the entries and note them as derived, rather than revealed. You can even mentions the rule from which it was derived.

charghwI’

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 26, 2019, at 11:22 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer at uchicago.edu> wrote:
> 
> As far as I know, the only Okrandian {tejpu’} are: 
> 
> Hovtej                  astronomer
> mI' tej                  mathematician
> quntej                  historian
> yuQtej                  geographer
> 'otlhtej                 someone who studies quantum mechanics.
>  
> … while there are many more official {QeDmey}:
> 
> HolQeD                linguistics 
> Hov leng QeD     “Treknology”
> HovQeD               astronomy
> HuchQeD            economics 
> nughQeD            sociology
> porghQeD           the scientific study of bodily functions
> DI'ruj QeD           metaphysics
> HapQeD              physics
> no'QeD                genealogy
> rayQeD                genetics
> roSqa'QeD          archaeology
> tamlerQeD          chemistry
> yuQQeD              geography
> 'otlhQeD             quantum mechanics,  quantum theory
>  
> So no, I see nothing wrong with deriving *{Xtej} from a known {XQeD}, or vice versa.  I do it myself regularly in my own dictionary but I always mark them with asterisks to show their non-official status. 
>  
> I’ve even added completely non-Okrandian sciences invented by myself or others on the mailing list – e.g. *{De'QeD} “cybernetics” and *{De'tej} “cyberneticist” – though I wouldn’t recommend doing it for the boQwI’ database since it is used extensively by others.
>  
> In fact, I just thought of a new one:  *{QeDQeD} for the history (i.e. study) of science, which would make someone who specializes in this field a *{QeDtej}!
>  
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>  
>  
>  
> From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of De'vID
> 
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 16:16, nIqolay Q <niqolay0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ghaytan mu' qID meqna' 'oHbe' meqvetlh'e'. Dochmey loS roSqa'tejpu' 'e' vIrIch neH vIneH.
>  
> Your use of {roSqa'tej} reminded me of something.
>  
> At the 2014 Saarbrücken {qepHom'a'} (and possibly on other occasions), Okrand made a remark along the lines that, generally, if there's a {QeD}, there's a corresponding {tej}. Sometimes he explicitly reveals a {tej} for a {QeD}, but sometimes he doesn't.
>  
> Do people who maintain lexicons for themselves generally add the corresponding {tej} when a {QeD} is revealed, for consistency and convenience? I'm in the unusual position* that I maintain a lexicon (the {boQwI'} database) which is used mostly by other people, so if I have an entry for "quantum physicist" (because Okrand revealed {'otlhQeD} and {'otlhtej} together), and an entry for {HapQeD} "physics" but *not* a corresponding entry for {Haptej} "physicist", it looks inconsistent.
>  
> "Physicist", "chemist", and "genealogist" are common enough words, and their Klingon etymology obvious enough, that I'm going to add entries for them. However, I'm hesitant to add "archaeologist" or "geneticist" since the {QeD} isn't attached to a known word in {roSqa'QeD} or {rayQeD}. Or would people accept {roSqa'tej} and {raytej} as legitimate "dictionary words" under the {XQeD} -> {Xtej} rule-of-thumb? 
>  
> (In the other direction: Is there anyone who would *not* accept {Haptej} for "physicist", simply because Okrand didn't *explicitly* write it out somewhere, despite the fact that Okrand explained the rule for deriving it, and explicitly revealed the pair {'otlhQeD}-{'otlhtej} for a *specific* type of physicist?)
>  
> I'm on the fence about  {DI'ruj tej}, which would be something like "metaphysicist" or "metaphysician", because it's kind of an obscure word in English. Should I add an entry for it?
>  
> --
> De'vID
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190726/939ff3e1/attachment-0003.htm>