[Haskell] translation of "kind"

[John Meacham]

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 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.

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⑈