Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Terminologi: The State of ADP Terminology in Finland, by Ilmari Pietarinen
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
DATABEHANDLING 9/1967
25
the choice to do it alone in this case
by no means expresses opposition to
such efforts. On the contrary, it seems
probable that, at the present stage,
progress is better served by allowing
“hundred flowers to flourish” and many
schools of thought freely to contend
than by the premature adoption of a
partial standard.
The first edition of the Finnish
language Vocabulary of Data Processing
was published in September, 1967. It
is nothing but an English-Finnish word
list containing about 900 terms. Many
of them (perhaps 200 or so) do not
represent data processing concepts
proper but have been included as
aids for translation.
It took the Standards Committee over
a year to draw up a recommended list
of 900 terms and their translations. The
translation of an English language ADP
term into a Scandinavian language
often involves only transliteration,
cer-tain letter combinations are replaced
by others but the words remain similar.
In translating into Finnish, which is not
an Indo-European language, this
meth-od often does not yield a satisfactory
term considering the requirements
posed by the inflectional rules and
phonetic structure of the language. At
the outset, the Committee was
uncom-mitted between transliteration and
“complete” translation. Gradually, a
distinct preference for translation
emerged as it was discovered that the
Finnish language possesses a wealth
of resources for deriving new terms
from the existing set of words and
word roots. In the published version
of the Vocabulary, only about one out
of eight Finnish terms is a
transliteration.
Some of the innovations are intuitively
felicitous, while some others may not
so vividly evoke the concepts that they
represent. To mention a few
exam-ples, terms such as dump, inline,
com-piler language at first defied
translation but were eventually given apt
counterparts in Finnish. Record, label,
volume, re-entrant and indexed
se-quential were translated, though
perhaps not with equal success, and the
problem of translating data
management is still unsolved.
Opinions will naturally vary for many
of the Committee’s recommendations,
and revisions and improvements will
certainly be made. The important fact
is that there is now something to
re-vise, a foundation to build on.
It might be of interest to examine the
principal differences between the
IFIP-ICC and the Finnish vocabularies.
A comparison is presented in Figure
1 for eight gross subject groupings,
which are:
STACK
PUSWOW STACK P^O
STACKER VASTAANOTTOLOKERO
STANDARD STANDARDI» VAKIO
STANDARDIZE STANDARDOIOA» VAKI O IDA
STATE ^CA
PROBLEM STATE TEHTAVÄTILA
SOLID STATE PUOLIJQHDE-
STATEMENT LAUSE
STATION ASEMA» YKSIKKÖ
STATUS TI LA
5TEP ASKEL» VAIHE
STICKER TJÄRA
STORAGE 1 MUISTI
2 TALLETTAN!NEN
3ONTENT ADDRESSED STORAGE ASSOSIAATIOHUIST!
DATA CELL STORAGE KENNONUISTI
DIRECT ACCESS STORAGE SUORASAANTIMUISTI»
PQIMINTAMUISTI
FIXED STORAGE LIXWUI STI
INTERNAL STORAGE KESKUSNUISTI
MAGNETIC CORE STORAGE YDINMUISTI
HASS STORAGE SUURMUISTI
NON-ERASA8LE STORAGE LUKUMUIST!
PERMANENT STORAGE LUKUMUISTI
PUSHDOWN STORAGE PINOMUISTI
RANDOM ACCESS STORAGE HAJASAANTIMUISTI» POINTNTANUISTI
READ-ONLY STORAGE ’ LUKUMUISTI
WORKING STORAGE TYOALUE (COBOL)
STORAGE DUMP MUI STI N VEOOS
STORAGE PRINT MUISTIN LISTAUS
STORE (V) TALLETTAA
Figure 2. Sample word list.
1. General data processing concepts
IFIP-ICC sections A, B and D)
2. Data processing techniques
(F, G, H)
3. Engineering, hardware
(C, E, L, P, Q)
4. Storage (R, S, T)
5. Programmering (J, K)
6. System operation (M, N)
7. I/O equipment and media (U, V)
8. Applications
While it must be emphasized that the
comparison was made in a rather
su-perficial way and is therefore
approx-imate at best, it does reveal a few
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
