On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 16:16, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@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? I suppose I'm not completely consistent, because another productive rule is that any place name can have {ngan} attached. But I'm not adding terms for "Londoner", "Berliner" (the person, not the doughnut), etc., because they're both obvious and numerous. *Besides {boQwI'}, the only popular Klingon lexicons used by many people (which I'm aware of) are hol.kag.org and klingonska.org. The KLI new words list is different from these in that its mission is to document only new words revealed (explicitly) by Okrand, so it makes that that list would have {'otlhtej} but not {Haptej}, if Okrand revealed the former but not the latter. -- De'vID
On 7/26/2019 11:34 AM, De'vID wrote:
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
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@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of De'vID On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 16:16, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com<mailto:niqolay0@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
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@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@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of De'vID
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 16:16, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@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@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 at 18:36, Steven Boozer <sboozer@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
Your list appears to be missing {qunQeD}, revealed at the same time as {quntej}, and {mI'QeD}, which appeared in Klingon Blockly in 2014 and which Okrand approved. (The revelation of {mI' tej} assumes {mI'QeD}, although weirdly, {mI' tej} was written with a space despite {mI'QeD} not having one, and {'otlhtej} appears in the same booklet without a space as well.) -- De'vID
By the way, did you all notice the pun in {roSqa'QeD}? :D I haven't figured out what {rayQeD}'s pun is, though... Maybe through "Gene Roddenberry" > "Gene R." > R = {ray} in Klingon? At least it makes for a good mnemonic device... — André
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 8:26 AM André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't figured out what {rayQeD}'s pun is, though... Maybe through "Gene Roddenberry" > "Gene R." > R = {ray} in Klingon?
I thought of Gene Rayburn, but I don't believe it's an intentional reference. For what it's worth, Gene Ray is the creator of Time Cube.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 8:26 AM André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't figured out what {rayQeD}'s pun is, though... Maybe through "Gene Roddenberry" > "Gene R." > R = {ray} in Klingon?
*qID Dangu'bejta' 'e' vIQub. mu'qIDmey 'oghmeH Hov leng pongmey lo' 'e' parHa'law' 'oqranD.* As for the original question: I think it's fine to have "obvious" derivations included in boQwI', though with a note along the lines of "this wasn't used in a sentence, it's just extrapolated from words we already know". boQwI' is used by a lot of beginners, who might not be aware of the underlying vocabulary patterns that led to getting *roSqa'tej* from *roSqa'QeD*, so if they saw the former in the wild they might be confused.
Thanks for the corrections. I actually did have both of them listed as hypothetical forms (i.e. tagged with an asterisk) and didn’t know Maltz had vetted them. As for why {mI’ tej} appears with an anomalous space – or being Trek should I say a spatial anomaly? – while {mI’QeD} does not, my instincts tell me it’s probably a typo. The only other words with a space are {Hov leng QeD} “Treknology” and {DI'ruj QeD} “metaphysics”, perhaps because the former derives from a two word phrase {Hov leng} and the latter may not be considered a science in the modern technological sense but more a specialized field of study, rather like {Hov leng QeD} actually. Before the new vocabulary from qep’a’ 2019 I might have suggested {DI’ruj QeD} has a space because it’s derived from a two-syllable word {DI’ruj} “reality”, but {roSqa'QeD} and {tamlerQeD} put paid to that idea. BTW were there any other items from Klingon Blockly (which I don’t remember hearing before)? -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of De'vID On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 at 18:36, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu<mailto:sboozer@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 Your list appears to be missing {qunQeD}, revealed at the same time as {quntej}, and {mI'QeD}, which appeared in Klingon Blockly in 2014 and which Okrand approved. (The revelation of {mI' tej} assumes {mI'QeD}, although weirdly, {mI' tej} was written with a space despite {mI'QeD} not having one, and {'otlhtej} appears in the same booklet without a space as well.) -- De'vID
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 15:56, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
BTW were there any other items from Klingon Blockly (which I don’t remember hearing before)?
This was one of Google's April Fool's jokes in 2014: http://googleresearch.blogspot.ch/2014/04/making-blockly-universally-accessi... I gave a talk about Google's history with the Klingon language at the Saarbrücken qepHom'a' that year, which had some information about Blockly. While working on it, we emailed Okrand with requests and suggestions, and he'd reply with what Maltz thought. We'd shown a version of the Klingon demo to Okrand for him to try as well. The demo had this code snippet: teHchugh [So'wI' Dotlh] [So'wI' Dotlh] choH; teHbe'moH teHtaHvIS ([peng] >= 1) [peng] boq -1 maq: {Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam} (The program would uncloak the ship if it's cloaked, fire all torpedoes, then proclaim that "Today is a good day to die!") The one expression that Okrand volunteered without being asked was {ghunmeH ngogh} for "Blockly", the name of the language. We'd suggested {mI'QeD} for the "mathematics" menu (which allows the user to select a number of math operations), and asked for how to express the various mathematical operations and concepts under it (prime, even, odd, round [up/down], integer, mean, median mode). He approved of {mI'QeD}, and said Maltz needed to think some more about the other math concepts. (He's subsequently revealed some of those terms elsewhere, but since we needed to launch on April 1, Neil Fraser made up the missing translations, which can be found here: https://neil.fraser.name/news/2014/04/01/ ) Other than {meq} for the "logic" menu, the other translations were for things like UI elements or things very specific to programming. That is, they are technical uses of the words rather than everyday terms, so they probably have no bearing on how those words are used in everyday contexts. (So we can skip any debates about how official something is if Okrand just approves of a suggestion made by someone else.) The commands in the language were: teHchugh = if teHtaHvIS = while choH = change (alter the value of a variable) maq = proclaim (print or display a string) teHmoH = set a boolean variable to true teHbe'moH = set a boolean variable to false The variable types were: tetlh = list (a container of other variables, in some order) ghItlhHom = string (a small piece of text, stored as data) (We asked for but didn't get a word for integer.) Other programming concepts: QInHom = comment (a small piece of text, ignored by the computer, to document the code) vIHtaHbogh gho = loop (a section of program which repeats while or until some condition is satisfied) mIw = procedure (subroutine, a re-usable piece of frequently repeated code which performs some operation) lIw = variable (a symbolic identifier used to reference a piece of memory for storing data) For the "Ok" and "cancel" buttons, we used {ruch} and {qIl}, respectively. -- De'vID
If you decide to add {DI'ruj tej} (and mark it as derived, not revealed) I would definitely go with the English gloss of "metaphysicist" since that associates in the same way as "physicist", but very differently from the common understanding of "physician". Jeremy ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 10:34 AM To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] XQeD -> Xtej On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 16:16, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com<mailto:niqolay0@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? I suppose I'm not completely consistent, because another productive rule is that any place name can have {ngan} attached. But I'm not adding terms for "Londoner", "Berliner" (the person, not the doughnut), etc., because they're both obvious and numerous. *Besides {boQwI'}, the only popular Klingon lexicons used by many people (which I'm aware of) are hol.kag.org<http://hol.kag.org> and klingonska.org<http://klingonska.org>. The KLI new words list is different from these in that its mission is to document only new words revealed (explicitly) by Okrand, so it makes that that list would have {'otlhtej} but not {Haptej}, if Okrand revealed the former but not the latter. -- De'vID
participants (8)
-
Alan Anderson -
André Müller -
David Holt -
De'vID -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin