[109336] in tlhIngan-Hol
[tlhIngan Hol] Regularity, periodicity,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Sat Mar 25 11:42:32 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:36:07 +0000
In-Reply-To: <9504390.CNX25ds2Mh@localhost.localdomain>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============7300522380197474101==
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_149045616787581380kthse_"
--_000_149045616787581380kthse_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Since this is potentially quite a big discussion, I figured I'd separate it=
from the main wishlist thread. In any event, it's the sort of thing that p=
robably requires a fair bit of thought before submitting a wish; probably b=
etter to hold of for next year.
=3D=3D Regarding periods and regularity =3D=3D
Indeed, as Jeremy suggests, I don't think {roD} and {rut} cover the meaning=
s of "regularly" and "periodically" that I have in mind; I'm thinking in te=
rms of regular time intervals (i.e. "once every half-second") and periodic =
functions (i.e. f(x) =3D f(x + nT), where T is the length of one period and=
n is any integer).
=3D=3D do and undo =3D=3D
I do think {bagh; ghIq baghHa'} captures what I had in mind for "do and the=
n undo" quite well, although the slightly ambiguous meaning of -Ha':
Let's say I've coded a program which writes out a word and then deletes it.=
If I describe it using {mu' ghItlh nIqHom; ghIq ghItlhHa'.}, it could be i=
nterpreted as "It write a word, and then misspells it." I'll concede that I=
'm being extremely nitpicky, though, even by my usual standards.
Here one may also wish to introduce the distinction of undoing something ve=
rsus doing it backwards:
Instead of a program which writes out a word and then erases it, we might h=
ave one that writes out a word and then writes it backwards.
A process which goes back and forth might then be described using either:
{mIw ta'. ghIq ta'Ha'.}
or
{mIw ta'. ghIq *does it backwards*.}
which may or not be equivalent depending on the context.
=3D=3D ad infinitum =3D=3D
I think {reH} works quite well, and in most contexts it would be quite clea=
r. However, I'd like a way to disambiguate between "always" (which is cover=
ed very well by {reH} and {Hochlogh}) and "forever" (which I feel is a bit =
trickier):
My fire alarm is always on, but it will not not run forever (because some d=
ay it will break, even if that is a million years from now).
The Earth is always spinning, but it won't spin forever (because it's losin=
g angular momentum and also will eventually fall apart or be destroyed).
Black holes are constantly emitting radiation, but they can't go on doing s=
o forever (because, barring some extreme scenarios, they'll end up evaporat=
ing).
The function f(t) =3D t^2 defined on the interval 0 < t < 1 is monotonously=
decreasing, but it has a bounded domain.
This distinction is not very important in everyday conversations, but in th=
ose cases where it is important, it's worth being specific about it. As suc=
h, this might be an instance where {tlhach mu'mey} would come into play.
There is also a further distinction which is useful to make, which is infin=
ite in the sense of "repeating an infinite number of times" contrasted with=
the sense of "continuing for all time". Often, these two features go hand =
in hand, but there are exceptions.
The first sense could potentially be written using a word for "infinity", w=
hich you could then slap a -logh on.
The second sense could possibly be expressed using {jub} ("be immortal"). O=
ther alternatives might include {not mevchu'}, {not baqlu'chu'}, {not rInta=
H} or perhaps even {taHchu'}.
=3D=3D General =3D=3D
As Jeremy says, we'll need a structure which allows us to describe the mann=
er in which a process repeats itself. Since many of these distinctions are =
of most importance in technical scenarios, perhaps we should consider devia=
ting a bit from normal conversational sentence structures.
One possible structure might be:
1. Describe the layout of the process/experiment
2. Describe a single step
3. (optional) Describe additional features of this process, along with mode=
of repetition (if any)
4. (optional) Describe a final state
For example, perhaps an endless Carnot cycle could be described as such:
---------
1. ghu'vam yIjal:
SIp ngaSwI' tu'lu'. ngaSwI'vo' narghlaHbe'chu' SIp.
2. mIwvam *cyclic* yIjal:
Dotlh wa'DIch: *volume* wa' muq ngaSwI' 'ej Hat wa' *have a temperature of*=
SIp.
ghIq qaS mIwHom wa'DIch: choHbe'taHvIS Hat, ngaSwI' tInmoHlu'. *be reversib=
le* mIwHomvam.
qaStaHvIS mIwHomvam, tuj *absorb* SIp.
rInDI' mIwHom wa'DIch, *volume* cha' muq ngaSwI'.
ghIq qaS mIwHom cha'DIch: 'aplo' 'elbe'taHvIS tuj 'ej mejbe'taHvIS, ngaSwI'=
tInmoHlu'. *be reversible* mIwHomvam.
rInDI' mIwHom cha'DIch, *volume* wej muq ngaSwI' 'ej Hat cha' *have a tempe=
rature of* SIp.
ghIq qaS mIwHom wejDIch: choHbe'taHvIS Hat, ngaSwI' machmoHlu'. *be reversi=
ble* mIwHomvam.
qaStaHvIS mIwHomvam, tuj tlhuD SIp.
rInDI' mIwHom wejDIch, *volume* loS muq ngaSwI'.
ghIq qaS mIwHom loSDIch: 'aplo' 'elbe'taHvIS tuj 'ej mejbe'taHvIS, ngaSwI' =
machmoHlu'. *be reversible* mIwHomvam.
rInDI' mIwHom cha'DIch, *volume* wej muq ngaSwI' 'ej Hat cha' *have a tempe=
rature of* SIp.
mIwHom Qav 'oH mIwHom loSDIch. rInDI', qaSqa'taH Dotlh wa'DIch.
3. mIw tlhegh De':
*be continuous* mIwvam.
*be periodic* mIwvam. qaStaHvIS poH [variable name] taH.
taHchu' mIwvam. *infinity*logh qaS.
---------
A nice thing about this structure is that it allows us to talk about featur=
es like the ones described using verbs and nouns, which are a lot more flex=
ible than adverbs. It also helps us avoid long sentences.
________________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Jeremy=
Silver <jp.silver@tiscali.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 14:38
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] mu' chu' chabal tetlh!
On Friday 24 Mar 2017 20:12:00 SuStel wrote:
> On 3/24/2017 6:13 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
> > =3D=3D DISCUSSION ONLY: No new requests in this message. =3D=3D
> >
> >
> > Another thing that might be useful for discussing pumping is expression=
s
> > for describing repeated actions. Examples of useful distinctions might
> > include:
> >
> > repeatedly
> > do and then undo
>
> This is the sort of thing Klingon doesn't do generically, but it does
> well specifically. For instance, *bagh; ghIq baghHa'*/tie; then untie./
>
> > (ir)regularly
>
> I would expect *roD* /regularly /and **roDHa'* /irregularly /for this,
> though the latter is unattested.
>
> > periodically
>
> Either *roD* or *rut* will work for this, depending on which meaning of
> /periodically/ you mean.
>
> > cyclically
> > ad infinitum
> > with (increasing/decreasing/oscillating/unchanged) amplitude
> > with (increasing/decreasing/oscillating/unchanged) frequency
> >
> > For example, if we pretend that we have adverbs with these "definitions=
":
> >
> > {[irregularly] joqtaH tIqwIj.}
> > ("My heart is beating irregularly.")
>
> Right now we can say *roD joqtaHbe' tIqwIj,* though it would be nice if
> we knew we could say **roDHa' joqtaH tIqwIj.*
>
Trouble is, I'm not convinced this is quite the right meaning.
As {roD} seems to cover primarily what the usual/habitual action of somethi=
ng
is.
{roD joqtaHbe' tIqwIj} suggests I am an android or a member of the undead, =
or
maybe J-l Picard depending on the nature of his replacement - it is not
typical for the heart to beat as its usual action.
I think {roDHa'} is closer, but I don't believe it covers regularly spaced
periodic/cyclic actions changing that regularity.
I think our point is things like {bagh; ghIq baghHa'} work once. One
wavelength if you will. The {bagh; ghIq baghHa'} needs to be described as a
cycle which repeats continuously, to describe the ongoing waveform.
It is the concept of *repeating* we're after. The regularity is to do with =
the
fixed spacing of the repeats, not whether an action is habitual or not.
Now I'm thinking of it, using {joq} in the sense flapping/fluttering for a
heartbeat is entirely the wrong imagery. A flag flapping due to the vagarie=
s
of the wind, is as random and irregular as you can get. A fluttering heartb=
eat
is one you shouldn't have. A nice solid, regular, one is preferable.
But I'm guessing we're stuck with it now.
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--_000_149045616787581380kthse_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none"><!--P{margin-top:0;margin-b=
ottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#F=
FFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
Since this is potentially quite a big discussion, I figured I'd separate it=
from the main wishlist thread. In any event, it's the sort of thing that p=
robably requires a fair bit of thought before submitting a wish; probably b=
etter to hold of for next year.<br>
<br>
=3D=3D Regarding periods and regularity =3D=3D<br>
<br>
Indeed, as Jeremy suggests, I don't think {roD} and {rut} cover the meaning=
s of "regularly" and "periodically" that I have in mind=
; I'm thinking in terms of regular time intervals (i.e. "once every ha=
lf-second") and periodic functions (i.e. f(x) =3D f(x + nT),
where T is the length of one period and n is any integer).<br>
<br>
=3D=3D do and undo =3D=3D<br>
<br>
I do think {bagh; ghIq baghHa'} captures what I had in mind for "do an=
d then undo" quite well, although the slightly ambiguous meaning of -H=
a':<br>
Let's say I've coded a program which writes out a word and then deletes it.=
If I describe it using {mu' ghItlh nIqHom; ghIq ghItlhHa'.}, it could be i=
nterpreted as "It write a word, and then misspells it." I'll conc=
ede that I'm being extremely nitpicky, though,
even by my usual standards.<br>
<br>
Here one may also wish to introduce the distinction of undoing something ve=
rsus doing it backwards:<br>
Instead of a program which writes out a word and then erases it, we might h=
ave one that writes out a word and then writes it backwards.<br>
<br>
A process which goes back and forth might then be described using either:<b=
r>
<br>
{mIw ta'. ghIq ta'Ha'.}<br>
or<br>
{mIw ta'. ghIq *does it backwards*.}<br>
<br>
which may or not be equivalent depending on the context.<br>
<br>
=3D=3D ad infinitum =3D=3D<br>
I think {reH} works quite well, and in most contexts it would be quite clea=
r. However, I'd like a way to disambiguate between "always" (whic=
h is covered very well by {reH} and {Hochlogh}) and "forever" (wh=
ich I feel is a bit trickier):<br>
<br>
My fire alarm is always on, but it will not not run forever (because some d=
ay it will break, even if that is a million years from now).<br>
The Earth is always spinning, but it won't spin forever (because it's losin=
g angular momentum and also will eventually fall apart or be destroyed).<br=
>
Black holes are constantly emitting radiation, but they can't go on doing s=
o forever (because, barring some extreme scenarios, they'll end up evaporat=
ing).<br>
The function f(t) =3D t^2 defined on the interval 0 < t < 1 is monoto=
nously decreasing, but it has a bounded domain.<br>
<br>
This distinction is not very important in everyday conversations, but in th=
ose cases where it is important, it's worth being specific about it. As suc=
h, this might be an instance where {tlhach mu'mey} would come into play.<br=
>
<br>
There is also a further distinction which is useful to make, which is infin=
ite in the sense of "repeating an infinite number of times" contr=
asted with the sense of "continuing for all time". Often, these t=
wo features go hand in hand, but there are exceptions.<br>
<br>
The first sense could potentially be written using a word for "infinit=
y", which you could then slap a -logh on.<br>
<br>
The second sense could possibly be expressed using {jub} ("be immortal=
"). Other alternatives might include {not mevchu'}, {not baqlu'chu'}, =
{not rIntaH} or perhaps even {taHchu'}.<br>
<br>
=3D=3D General =3D=3D<br>
<br>
As Jeremy says, we'll need a structure which allows us to describe the mann=
er in which a process repeats itself. Since many of these distinctions are =
of most importance in technical scenarios, perhaps we should consider devia=
ting a bit from normal conversational
sentence structures. <br>
<br>
One possible structure might be:<br>
<br>
1. Describe the layout of the process/experiment<br>
2. Describe a single step<br>
3. (optional) Describe additional features of this process, along with mode=
of repetition (if any)<br>
4. (optional) Describe a final state<br>
<br>
For example, perhaps an endless Carnot cycle could be described as such:<br=
>
<br>
---------<br>
<strong><br>
1. ghu'vam yIjal:</strong><br>
<br>
SIp ngaSwI' tu'lu'. ngaSwI'vo' narghlaHbe'chu' SIp.<br>
<br>
<strong>2. mIwvam *cyclic* yIjal:</strong><br>
<br>
<strong>Dotlh wa'DIch:</strong> *volume* wa' muq ngaSwI' 'ej Hat wa' *have =
a temperature of* SIp.<br>
<strong>ghIq qaS mIwHom wa'DIch:</strong> choHbe'taHvIS Hat, ngaSwI' tInmoH=
lu'. *be reversible* mIwHomvam.<br>
qaStaHvIS mIwHomvam, tuj *absorb* SIp.<br>
rInDI' mIwHom wa'DIch, *volume* cha' muq ngaSwI'.<br>
<strong>ghIq qaS mIwHom cha'DIch: </strong>'aplo' 'elbe'taHvIS tuj 'ej=
mejbe'taHvIS, ngaSwI' tInmoHlu'. *be reversible* mIwHomvam.<br>
rInDI' mIwHom cha'DIch, *volume* wej muq ngaSwI' 'ej Hat cha' *have a tempe=
rature of* SIp.<br>
<strong>ghIq qaS mIwHom wejDIch:</strong> choHbe'taHvIS Hat, ngaSwI' machmo=
Hlu'. *be reversible* mIwHomvam.<br>
qaStaHvIS mIwHomvam, tuj tlhuD SIp.<br>
rInDI' mIwHom wejDIch, *volume* loS muq ngaSwI'.<br>
<strong>ghIq qaS mIwHom loSDIch: </strong>'aplo' 'elbe'taHvIS tuj 'ej =
mejbe'taHvIS, ngaSwI' machmoHlu'. *be reversible* mIwHomvam.<br>
rInDI' mIwHom cha'DIch, *volume* wej muq ngaSwI' 'ej Hat cha' *have a tempe=
rature of* SIp.<br>
mIwHom Qav 'oH mIwHom loSDIch. rInDI', qaSqa'taH Dotlh wa'DIch.<br>
<br>
<strong>3. mIw tlhegh De':</strong><br>
*be continuous* mIwvam.<br>
*be periodic* mIwvam. qaStaHvIS poH [variable name] taH.<br>
taHchu' mIwvam. *infinity*logh qaS.<br>
<br>
---------<br>
<br>
A nice thing about this structure is that it allows us to talk about featur=
es like the ones described using verbs and nouns, which are a lot more flex=
ible than adverbs. It also helps us avoid long sentences.<br>
<br>
________________________________________<br>
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of =
Jeremy Silver <jp.silver@tiscali.co.uk><br>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 14:38<br>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org<br>
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] mu' chu' chabal tetlh!<br>
<br>
On Friday 24 Mar 2017 20:12:00 SuStel wrote:<br>
> On 3/24/2017 6:13 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:<br>
> > =3D=3D DISCUSSION ONLY: No new requests in this message. =3D=3D<b=
r>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Another thing that might be useful for discussing pumping is expr=
essions<br>
> > for describing repeated actions. Examples of useful distinctions =
might<br>
> > include:<br>
> ><br>
> > repeatedly<br>
> > do and then undo<br>
><br>
> This is the sort of thing Klingon doesn't do generically, but it does<=
br>
> well specifically. For instance, *bagh; ghIq baghHa'*/tie; then untie.=
/<br>
><br>
> > (ir)regularly<br>
><br>
> I would expect *roD* /regularly /and **roDHa'* /irregularly /for this,=
<br>
> though the latter is unattested.<br>
><br>
> > periodically<br>
><br>
> Either *roD* or *rut* will work for this, depending on which meaning o=
f<br>
> /periodically/ you mean.<br>
><br>
> > cyclically<br>
> > ad infinitum<br>
> > with (increasing/decreasing/oscillating/unchanged) amplitude<br>
> > with (increasing/decreasing/oscillating/unchanged) frequency<br>
> ><br>
> > For example, if we pretend that we have adverbs with these "=
definitions":<br>
> ><br>
> > {[irregularly] joqtaH tIqwIj.}<br>
> > ("My heart is beating irregularly.")<br>
><br>
> Right now we can say *roD joqtaHbe' tIqwIj,* though it would be nice i=
f<br>
> we knew we could say **roDHa' joqtaH tIqwIj.*<br>
><br>
Trouble is, I'm not convinced this is quite the right meaning.<br>
<br>
As {roD} seems to cover primarily what the usual/habitual action of somethi=
ng<br>
is.<br>
<br>
{roD joqtaHbe' tIqwIj} suggests I am an android or a member of the undead, =
or<br>
maybe J-l Picard depending on the nature of his replacement - it is not<br>
typical for the heart to beat as its usual action.<br>
<br>
I think {roDHa'} is closer, but I don't believe it covers regularly spaced<=
br>
periodic/cyclic actions changing that regularity.<br>
<br>
I think our point is things like {bagh; ghIq baghHa'} work once. One<br>
wavelength if you will. The {bagh; ghIq baghHa'} needs to be described as a=
<br>
cycle which repeats continuously, to describe the ongoing waveform.<br>
It is the concept of *repeating* we're after. The regularity is to do with =
the<br>
fixed spacing of the repeats, not whether an action is habitual or not.<br>
<br>
Now I'm thinking of it, using {joq} in the sense flapping/fluttering for a<=
br>
heartbeat is entirely the wrong imagery. A flag flapping due to the vagarie=
s<br>
of the wind, is as random and irregular as you can get. A fluttering heartb=
eat<br>
is one you shouldn't have. A nice solid, regular, one is preferable.<br>
<br>
But I'm guessing we're stuck with it now.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" target=
=3D"_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</a><br>
</body>
</html>
--_000_149045616787581380kthse_--
--===============7300522380197474101==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============7300522380197474101==--
