[Haskell] translation of "kind"

Wolfgang Jeltsch wolfgang at jeltsch.net
Mon Jun 20 11:34:08 EDT 2005

Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 16:36 schrieben Sie:
> Wolfgang Jeltsch <wolfgang at 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,

More information about the Haskell mailing list