[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: way-OT: regularity of german v. english [was: Re: OT - Programming Languages w/o English Syntax]



On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 06:47:13PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> >on Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:38:45PM -0700, Erik Steffl insinuated:
> ...
> >> of course, you can create various complex and ambiguous sentences in 
> >>english, the point is that you can take few forms of sentences and
> >>have a working language (that's pretty much what BASIC (talking
> >>about programming language) is).
> >
> >you can do that in both languages.
> 
>   let's say you have a function called isRed(x) (returns true if x is 
> red). Now how would you call this function in german? it would never be 
> in agreement with all possible x (grammatically). not sure if this is 
> the best example - perhaps in this case it would be acceptable to use 
> istRot, regardless of gender of x. point is you would run into problems 
> like this trying to use german, you would very rarely come up with 
> problems of this nature in english...

Interesting. I *think* a correct declaration in Latin would be:

boolensis rufa_est(compages colori *index);

 (ie. bool is_red(struct [of] colour *pointer) )
 
index is 'common', ie. adopts the gender of what it is referring to.
Here that is 'compages', which is feminine, hence 'rufa'. But it would
have to change when you used it in code:

si (rufus_est(hic_color)) {
    scribef("Communistus est.\n");
}	

as 'color' is masculine.

But I think you'd be OK in German:

boolisch ist_rot(Farbesstruct *pointer); (shortcomings of the German
                                          dictionary I downloaded are
										  becoming apparent)
als ist_rot(die_Farbe) {
    schreibef("Kommunistich ist.\n");
}

als ist_rot(das_Blut) {
    schreibef("Kein Koenig ist.\n");
}	

-- 
Pigeon

Be kind to pigeons
Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x21C61F7F

Attachment: pgpSb8w6RICdQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: