Confirmation of translation? - "computer bug"

[Kesvirit]

Are there any {var'aqwI'pu'}*  or the like who can confirm or correct a cookbooked translation before I send it out?  I could not find a term for computer bug. I am looking for a slang/figurative/metaphorical term -- nothing as specific as  a computer virus or the actual moth found by Thought Master Hopper, but a general term for any unidentified computer problem.

My attempt:
De'wI' -- computer
pat -- system
-Daq -- locative (class 5 noun suffix)
ghew -- bug, cootie
{De'wI'patDaq ghew}

Would I do better to stick with {veqlargh}, as in "demon" and by extention "gremlins"? ("There's something on the wing of the plane!"  }}:  P )
Of course, if I use veqlargh that throws us back into the whole {-mey} vs. {-pu'} plural debate...

-=- Kesvirit

*{var'aq} language programmers

[ngabwI]

I don't think that {ghew} works here, simply because AFAIK, {ghew} hasn't been used to indicate a problem, except by extension from The Klingon Way:
{ghIlab ghewmey yIbuSQo'!}
"Pay no attention to glob flies"

But {veqlargh}, there's another idea altogether! From a proverb, we know that each person has her/his own Fek'lhr:
{veqlarghlI' yIbuS, 'ej veqlarghwI' vIbuS}
"You pay attention to your Fek'lhr, and I will pay attention to mine."

So I understand {veqlargh} representing problems, situations, etc. It's not a stretch to go from "personal problem" to "problem in general", IMHO.

As for the rest:
{De'wI' patDaq}

This feels wrong. I think it's because when you say, in English, "The bug in the computer system", you have a relative clause that lacks a verb, so it is assumed, "The bug which is in the computer system."

I would try to recast, and say "The devils which occupy the computer system":
{De'wI' pat luDanbogh veqlarghpu'}

And citing the proverb above, {veqlargh} would take {-pu'), but you don't even need it, because of the {lu-}, which implies a third person plural subject anyway.

My two cents worth

HovpoH 700793.4

[Kesvirit]

(This response has been sitting on my hard drive for a month. {HIvqa' veqlargh!} A {veqlargh} known as The Fruit-Crested Corporation, whose bitter yellow citrus of a machine has scrambled my files, leaving them intact but disorganized! I am still looking for certain data and contemplating a blood oath...  }}>:-E )

My two cents worth

I have further questions as to the reasoning behind your answer; not being Ferengi I am returning one of them.

I don't think that {ghew} works here, simply because AFAIK, {ghew} hasn't been used to indicate a problem, except by extension from The Klingon Way:
{ghIlab ghewmey yIbuSQo'!}
"Pay no attention to glob flies"

{ghIlab ghew} refers to a particular kind of fly -- the {ghIlab}.  My intent was to refer to a metaphorical, non-existant bug (as in the computer bug), not the "real live" glob fly.  So I used the definition from pp.182 and 187 of TKD Addendum of {ghew} as "bug, cootie (n)".

The other reason I chose {ghew} was because of its source. With the latter being out of print, TKD is much more accessable than "The Klingon Way". I also concluded that since TKD is the basic blueprint for the language that beginners would be more likely to pick up on the meaning. As opposed to the experts, who will know an inaccuracy when they see one. }}:  /    I admit to using questionable judgement.

This does, however, raise a valid question: When two canon sources give differing information, which source outranks the other? Or does the would-be translator go for the best equivalent meaning and hope for the best?

But {veqlargh}, there's another idea altogether!

Unfortunately it is not one of mine. Stealing is dishonorable. I believe I first heard it from Lady K'Zin, and duly credit her for the idea.

{De'wI' patDaq}

This feels wrong. I think it's because when you say, in English, "The bug in the computer system", you have a relative clause that lacks a verb, so it is assumed, "The bug which is in the computer system."

I would try to recast, and say "The devils which occupy the computer system":
{De'wI' pat luDanbogh veqlarghpu'}

Does the word "occupy" {Dan} makes the {-Daq} locative: a) redundant,  B) irrelevant, or c) what?

-=- Kesvirit

[Klythe]

I'm not sure why you want to be metaphorical when direct concrete terms are more than appropriate.  In the software industry, when words less informal than 'bug' are needed, the following are often used.   The first two work well I think, even when compounded with De'wI'.  The last one sounds more like an excuse than an explanation, "It's not my fault, I blame the computer"

a defect-> Duy'
an issue / problem -> The thing that is a hassle or a problem -> qay'wI'
a fault -> the fault/ blame -> pIch


Although we try not to say it directly because developers take it personally, Klingons probably would.

Programming Error -> The Programmer's error/mistake -> ghunwI' Qagh

    I'm not sure if a computer can Qagh as most literally it requires the subject to be able to make their own decisions, something only people would be capable of doing.   But, if you want to cross that metaphorical line and apply the blame(pIch) to  the computer you could.  But as the joke says you aren't supposed to anthropomorphize computers because they hate it.

    What I want to know is when you go about troubleshooting the issue, how you would distinguish between software and hardware defects.  

[Kesvirit]

quoth Klythe I'm not sure why you want to be metaphorical when direct concrete terms are more than appropriate.

To use "direct concrete terms" implies that I have narrowed down the problem to the extent of using these terms with any degee of certainty. To attempt to use them now would be random guesswork. It would be misinformative, hinder attempts to diagnose the problem, and make me look foolish. The first two are counterproductive and the third potentially fatal.

It also implies that I posess the terminology to describe what little I have determined. I do not. Threfore I want to keep my wording as general as possible. An inclusive metaphor seems like an acceptable solution when more specific skills are beyond my reach.

In the software industry, when words less informal than 'bug' are needed, the following are often used.

I am not a component of the software industry. I do not know when or how to assign less informal terms. Again, hence the search for a less specialized word with a wider recognition factor. A metaphor.

The first two work well I think, even when compounded with De'wI'. The last one sounds more like an excuse than an explanation, "It's not my fault, I blame the computer"

This is no excuse on my part. Building and maintaining a working computer are not my duties, but those of others -- who are shirking them. Until I have specific names and locations, it is these people I am casting in the role of veqlarghpu'. Metaphorically speaking.

a defect-> Duy'
an issue / problem -> The thing that is a hassle or a problem -> qay'wI'
a fault -> the fault/ blame -> pIch

Although we try not to say it directly because developers take it personally, Klingons probably would.

As I do not yet know the specifics of the problem, I do not know whom to threaten. Believe me, if I am ever able determine with whom the {pIch} (and the responsibility) lie, my anger and disgust will be directed very personally. *sound of a blade being sharpened in the background*

Programming Error -> The Programmer's error/mistake -> ghunwI' Qagh

I'm not sure if a computer can Qagh as most literally it requires the subject to be able to make their own decisions, something only people would be capable of doing. But, if you want to cross that metaphorical line and apply the blame(pIch) to the computer you could.

The point I am trying to get across is not that the computer is capable of making its own decisions, but that some malicious external force is interfering with its functioning.

But as the joke says you aren't supposed to anthropomorphize computers because they hate it.

You would assign sentiment to a tool?

Even were I to elevate it to such status as you suggest, it must earn my respect before I take its personal likes and dislikes into consideration. This one has not. All it has earned is a spot in my target-sights.

What I want to know is when you go about troubleshooting the issue, how you would distinguish between software and hardware defects.

I too would like to know this. }}>:-(  If I did, I would not be asking such questions.

-=- Kesvirit

[Klythe]

I think qay'wI' is more than general enough to cover all senses of 'bug'.   What ever the problem is, if it qay's you then it is a qay'wI'.  Duy' is more specific only in that you are ruling out the possibilty the pIch could be your own.

    They could be used by someone less poetic than yourself.  But, I agree that veqlargh is excellent for your purposes.

You would assign sentiment to a tool?

   No.  That is the joke.  Do not assign sentiment, because I have assigned the sentiment of thier hatred of being assigned sentiment...  Irony is a form of humour Klingons are reported to understand.  Such an obvious careless show of hypocracy, I would consider ironic.

     I see now where the joke fails to cross the social and political boundaries.  Klingons will not stop doing something just because it might make someone angry.  Perhaps if I said "Don't Anthropomorphize computers.  They will seek vengence"  that would work...    

    When I think about translating this joke, the second sentance is not needed at all.  Irony can be had much more economically.

nuv Da De'wI'pu'.  yIDabe' 'e'
people behave-as computers[plural suffix for people].   You[imperative]-behave-as-not [previous sentance]
Don't treat computers as people.  (They hate it)

What I want to know is when you go about troubleshooting the issue, how you would distinguish between software and hardware defects.

    Err...  I wrote this?  I wouldn't get far as a tester it this were true as I said it...  What I meant to say was that I do not know how I would express hardware and software in tlhIngan Hol.

    The easiest way to troubleshoot if it is a hardware issue is to have a second computer with all the same software, but different hardware.   If it works on one, but not another, odds are good it's a hardware issue.   Of course that is usually not an option for a lot of people...

[Kesvirit]

Irony, Sarcasm, and Syntax

When I think about translating this joke, the second sentance is not needed at all. Irony can be had much more economically.
nuv Da De'wI'pu'. yIDabe' 'e'
people behave-as computers[plural suffix for people]. You[imperative]-behave-as-not [previous sentance]
Don't treat computers as people. (They hate it)

I think this is too economical. The "(They hate it)" part is not readily evident, at least to my eyes.

Klingons will not stop doing something just because it might make someone angry. Perhaps if I said "Don't Anthropomorphize computers. They will seek vengence" that would work...

"If you treat computers as people, they will return the compliment by acting as erratically and treacherous as people." It is a self-fulfilling prophesy best not invited.

 

quoth Kesvirit You would assign sentiment to a tool?

quoth Klythe No. That is the joke. *** Irony is a form of humour Klingons are reported to understand.

So is sarcasm. Apparently such reports are exaggerated.

I see now where the joke fails to cross the social and political boundaries.

It does not fail to cross such boundaries. Much as this conclusion disturbs me, Klingon and Human computer scientists were thinking in parallel processes. The concept of the "bug in the computer" originated within the scientific and intelligence branch of a powerful Terran military force that was a precursor to Starfleet. Klingon scientists studying an image drained from the library files of an early captured vessel saw the same irony as their Terran counterparts: that such a single tiny and insignifigant insect could bring down a powerful, state-of-the-art calculating machine.

quoth Klythe What I want to know is when you go about troubleshooting the issue, how you would distinguish between software and hardware defects.

Then:

Err... I wrote this?

"Err" is an excellent choice of interjections, for that is exactly what you have done. You wrote the former in your previous posts to this thread on Jan 3 2004, 04:35 PM.

Go ahead. Scroll upward to confirm this. I will wait. *discreetly removes small throwing knife from the depths of bodice and begins to pare down nails*

What I meant to say was that I do not know how I would express hardware and software in tlhIngan Hol.

I searched through various {va'raq} pages looking for such basic terminology but could find none. My attempt:

hardware -- computer machinery
computer -- De'wI'
machinery -- jo'
{De'wI'jo'}

software -- exchangable commands for different tasks
tam -- (v) exchange, substitute
ra' -- (v) order, command
-meH -- for
pIm -- (v) be different
Qu'(mey) -- task+(plural for non-people) -- Qu'mey
{tamwI' ra'meH Qu'mey pIm}

If it is clear from context that one is talking about computers, "for different tasks"/{-meH Qu'mey pIm} can probably be omitted for its redundancy without changing the intended meaning.

I now await the application of a blowtorch to my deconstructions of computer terms by both the hardware and the software specialists. They have so few outlets for their frustraions and destructive tendencies... Grammarians, you will have to get in line and settle for the {chumvey}. Like the sharks you are. }}; P~~~

quoth ngabwI' I would try to recast, and say "The devils which occupy the computer system":
{De'wI' pat luDanbogh veqlarghpu'}

In the phrase {De'wI' pat luDanbogh veqlarghpu'}, why is the -Daq locative suffix dropped from {pat}?

quoth Klythe The easiest way to troubleshoot if it is a hardware issue is to have a second computer with all the same software, but different hardware. If it works on one, but not another, odds are good it's a hardware issue. Of course that is usually not an option for a lot of people...

Especially for us defectives relegated to Macintoys. They are not modular as PC clones are, have many fewer replacable parts, and cannot be constructed "from scratch".

 -=- Kesvirit

-=-=-=-=-=-=-
And the only thing the Borg left was this Macintosh...

[ngabwI]

quoth ngabwI' I would try to recast, and say "The devils which occupy the computer system":
{De'wI' pat luDanbogh veqlarghpu'}

In the phrase {De'wI' pat luDanbogh veqlarghpu'}, why is the -Daq locative suffix dropped from {pat}?

The {-Daq} is dropped because the object of {Dan} is the thing or place occupied.
In a weird way, the idea of {-Daq} is already included in the verb itself. If we were to say something like

{jagh waw'Daq wIDan}

it would mean something like "While we're at the enemy base, we occupy (something else)".
It would not necessarily mean that we are occupying the enemy base.
It simply states that the action of occupying is taking place in the vicinity of the enemy base, without saying what, exactly, we are occupying.

The sentence becomes clearer WRT the thing occupied when the {-Daq} is dropped:

{jagh waw' wIDan}
"We occupy the enemy base."

We could conceivably say:

{chalDaq jagh waw' wIDan}
"In the sky, we occupy the enemy base."

Saying that the action is taking place in the sky, but that it is still the enemy base (presumably on the ground) that we occupy.

I understand that this may or may not make sense.
(There are a couple of Japanese verbs that include the idea of grammatical markers. It took me a long time to completely grok that idea.)
If I haven't been clear, or you would like more examples, please post with questions, and I might be able to answer sometime this month. (RL sucks sometimes.) }}: )

HovpoH 701048.1