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.

Don't worry how it looks. You're not in the business of filling in gaps in the given vocabulary, just reporting the given vocabulary.

We don't know that every QeD has a corresponding tej; just that they generally do. So if someone wants to coin roSqa'tej archaeologist on the assumption that we know roSqa'QeD is archaeology, well, they've got a pretty strong reason to do so, and I for one wouldn't complain. But we don't know that that's right, so it shouldn't be added to a dictionary that's trying to be accurate.

In other words, it's okay to leave out some stuff that we might think "well, obviously" when there's no actual proof of the obvious. You might even make a point in the roSqa'QeD entry that most sciences have a tej counterpart, and that roSqa'tej would be the obvious choice for archaeologist, but that this word has not been observed or confirmed.

This reasoning goes for your other questions.

Besides, since Okrand has been so accommodating in recent years, maybe someone can just ask him about roSqa' and roSqa'tej (and roSHa'moH, while they're at it).

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name