Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 11:46 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
can anybody tell me what the German translation of the word "kind" as used in type theory and especially in Haskell is?
Even Peter Thiemann in "Grundlagen der funktionalen Programmierung" (1994) did not translate "Kind",
This is very bad IMO because of the existence of the German word "Kind" which you also mention below which means child.
although he used "geschönfinkelt" for "curry" (honoring logicians Schönfinkel and Curry)
This is crazy! Someone who doesn't know Schönfinkel (as I did so far) may think that "schönfinkeln" (which would be the infinitive) is a combination of "schön" (nice) and a previously unknown word "finkeln" which is extremely similar to... Hmm, Germans will know which word I think of. :-) :-)
I'ld prefer "der Kind" (and avoid situtations that allowed confusion with "das Kind")
Cheers Christian
Best wishes, Wolfgang
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 11:46 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
can anybody tell me what the German translation of the word "kind" as used in type theory and especially in Haskell is?
Even Peter Thiemann in "Grundlagen der funktionalen Programmierung" (1994) did not translate "Kind",
This is very bad IMO because of the existence of the German word "Kind" which you also mention below which means child.
although he used "geschönfinkelt" for "curry" (honoring logicians Schönfinkel and Curry)
This is crazy! Someone who doesn't know Schönfinkel (as I did so far) may think that "schönfinkeln" (which would be the infinitive) is a combination of "schön" (nice) and a previously unknown word "finkeln" which is extremely similar to... Hmm, Germans will know which word I think of. :-) :-)
Oh my God! Don't you have other problems? "Typ" and "Modell" also have meanings in German that are quite different from their meanings in logic and cs ;-) Peter
Wolfgang Jeltsch <wolfgang@jeltsch.net> writes: | Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 11:46 schrieben Sie: | > Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: | > > can anybody tell me what the German translation of the word "kind" as | > > used in type theory and especially in Haskell is? | > | > Even Peter Thiemann in "Grundlagen der funktionalen Programmierung" | > (1994) did not translate "Kind", | | This is very bad IMO because of the existence of the German word "Kind" which | you also mention below which means child. well, my experience having to do with translating to French parts of ISO standards has been that those sorts of confusion are unavoidable. If you really want to avoid confusion, you end up inventing new words, which some people find worse than reusing existing words or not translating at all. The usual trick is to redefine from the outset what the words mean in the technical contexts. This is what is done, even in English! It is not like "constructor", "type" or "class" do not already have meanings. The example of Xmas tree constructors meeting kids can actually lead to pleasant programs to read ;-) -- Gaby
Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 16:36 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch <wolfgang@jeltsch.net> writes: [...]
This is very bad IMO because of the existence of the German word "Kind" which you also mention below which means child.
well, my experience having to do with translating to French parts of ISO standards has been that those sorts of confusion are unavoidable.
If you really want to avoid confusion, you end up inventing new words, which some people find worse than reusing existing words or not translating at all. The usual trick is to redefine from the outset what the words mean in the technical contexts. This is what is done, even in English! It is not like "constructor", "type" or "class" do not already have meanings. The example of Xmas tree constructors meeting kids can actually lead to pleasant programs to read ;-)
Of course, natural language is alway ambiguous as someone already mentioned. And we often have to reuse existing words like "constructor" or "type" for scientific purposes which forces us to declare what we mean with these words. However, just using "Kind" for "kind" in German texts is different. Here, we don't use an existing German word and define its meaning in scientific context. Instead we use an English word which by accident has the same spelling but a totally different meaning, probably a totally different etymological root and also a notably different pronouncation. So this is not like your "constructor" and "type" examples. Translating kind into "Sorte", "Art" or whatsever would correspond to these examples but just using the original English word is a totally different thing.
-- Gaby
Best wishes, Wolfgang
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:34:08PM +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 16:36 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch <wolfgang@jeltsch.net> writes: [...]
This is very bad IMO because of the existence of the German word "Kind" which you also mention below which means child.
well, my experience having to do with translating to French parts of ISO standards has been that those sorts of confusion are unavoidable.
If you really want to avoid confusion, you end up inventing new words, which some people find worse than reusing existing words or not translating at all. The usual trick is to redefine from the outset what the words mean in the technical contexts. This is what is done, even in English! It is not like "constructor", "type" or "class" do not already have meanings. The example of Xmas tree constructors meeting kids can actually lead to pleasant programs to read ;-)
Of course, natural language is alway ambiguous as someone already mentioned. And we often have to reuse existing words like "constructor" or "type" for scientific purposes which forces us to declare what we mean with these words.
I propose that all future haskell discussion take place in lojban. :) http://www.lojban.org/ I will start tranlating the jhc docs. (which is very easy as there arn't any) John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
participants (4)
-
Gabriel Dos Reis -
John Meacham -
Peter Padawitz -
Wolfgang Jeltsch