tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 20 08:23:43 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: cardinal directions

QInvam vIjangchoH 'ach jImev'eghmoH. You are off topic and not 
speaking Klingon. bIDalchoH je. SoHvaD neH bIjatlhtaH. 'IjtaH 
'Iv? jI'Ijbe' jIH.

jIghoHpu' 'e' vIpay. QInmeyvam vIjangDI' jabbI'IDvam vIDevHa'. 
SatlhIj.

charghwI'

On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:05:09 -0800 Ben Gibson 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> charghwI' wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:34:38 -0800 Ben Gibson
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I can guarantee you that while Okuda made this up while
> > designing the displays, he did not consult with Okrand, nor has
> > Okrand consulted with Okuda before coming up with his three
> > vector directional system. So, making presumptions based upon an
> > assumed coordination between two people who independently
> > developed ideas is probably a first mistake.
> 
> No. Actually I never thought about this until you brought it
> up. Why they did things the way they did, I don't care. They
> did it, and it either makes Klingons more or less realistic. 
> 
> > The compass is directly useful for this latter system of
> > measurement. Unfortunately, the map is really set up to use the
> > other measurement system. Orienteering is largely the skill of
> > finding landmarks on the map to correspond to landmarks you can
> > observe, then use the compass to measure directions to these
> > landmarks and relate those to the map to discover your viewpoint
> > on the map. There are other factors involved, but the point is
> > that the system the compass uses is very much NOT something you
> > can directly relate to the system the map uses.
> 
> Then you are left to explain why they would have two
> completely different and unrelated systems, when it would be
> far more efficient and easier to relate the two systems. It
> makes no sense to me to have them unrelated.
> 
> Also you are talking about relative vr. absolute
> coordinates. Even though they are different they are
> related.
> > 
> > Okrand has given us a system for the Klingon equivalent of a
> > compass. This has nothing to do with any system the Klingons
> > would use for maps. It is there that you are making huge,
> > presumptive leaps.
> 
> Well I disagree. The two pieces of evidence together show
> that there is a possible relationship. You are supposing
> that there is none, because none is specified.
> 
> There is no information either way. And that makes such
> speculation just as valid as anything else.
> > 
> > The cardinal system is quite complex with a lot of arbitrary
> > choices made. Simply because that is what you learned first, you
> > suffer from the illusion that this system is simple or natural.
> > It isn't. It is completely arbitrary, like placing the subject
> > first, then the verb, then the object. Klingon didn't follow
> > that "simple, natural" way of handling words. Why should it use
> > our system for laying out a map?
> 
> Sigh, there are physical laws in this universe, even in the
> fictional world of Star Trek. If you want to postulate a
> technically advanced species, that species is going to have
> to have a system of mathematics that allows it to describe
> such things as say, how a mirror reflects light, or the
> transfer of momentum. An ability to describe natural
> phenomena can be aided or hindered by whatever arbitrary
> coordinate system it uses. Each coordinate system has its
> strengths and weaknesses. 
> 
> The Cartesian system is very effective at describing such
> physical laws as above. I do not see a corresponding
> strength in the system that is apparent from the show and
> movies.
> 
> In the last Century, H.G. Wells wrote about a flight from
> the earth to the moon. His mode of transportation was a
> special paint, called Calvorite, which had antigravity
> properties. Today, it is highly unlikely that such a system
> is possible. So the story is hopelessly outdated, and to me,
> it loses some of its "magic". It is no longer science
> fiction, but fantasy. I see a danger of the same thing
> occurring with Klingons.
> 
> Whether Okrand and Okuda worked together is irrelevant, as
> is their motivations. They made statements or at least
> inferred that the Klingons used such a triangle based
> coordinate system. The use of such a system is going to have
> consequences, either make it easier or harder for the
> species to survive, especially against other technically
> advanced species. Some probably never imagined by Okrand and
> Okuda.
> 
> > > How would it affect their ability to do science,
> > > mathematics, etc.? How do they navigate on Qo'noS?
> > 
> > Again, you speak as if the people coming up with these fictional
> > systems somehow coordinated their efforts so that they would be
> > functional together. It never happened.
> 
> I KNOW that. It is obvious that they did not give it much
> thought. They wanted something odd and alien and do not care
> nor never bothered to think about whether it made any sense
> or not. So they thing apparently nonsensical. So what, it
> sells merchandise.
> 
> > WHAT whole system? THERE IS NO WHOLE SYSTEM. We don't even have
> > meaningful fragments of a system. So, what exactly are you
> > arguing about? You take a couple of shreds of evidence,
> > combining what one linguist and one set designer have given us
> > and you start building a navigating system out of it and then
> > start arguing about whether or not you think it is a very GOOD
> > navigating system?
> 
> Like I said before, it does not make much sense to me. If
> you do not want to ask the question, if you are perfectly
> happy not knowing these things, then fine, it is your right.
> I am not like that. I don't understand your hostility to the
> questions. 
> 
> You are right, there is no whole system here at all. There
> is a pile of disconnected fragments that make no sense, are
> growing more and more unrealistic. Imagine that all you had
> was a dictionary and a few scraps of dialog, wouldn't it
> bother you? Wouldn't you try to put the pieces together and
> figure out what how the language works? I am trying to do
> the same thing with other aspects. Or at least I would be if
> I didn't have to defend the right to even wonder about it.
> 
> > But this species is fictional. Its depiction is far from
> > complete and you are arguing about fine points that have never
> > been drawn.
> 
> I think the word you are looking for is fantastic. 
> > 
> > > Darwin works. both in the real world and supposedly in the
> > > world of Star Trek. It applies to cultures as well as to
> > > speices. Adapt or die is the only rule.
> > 
> > I think there are a few other rules, and a few other things to
> > do than adapt. Two warring civilizations are not adapting to one
> > another, and the one that conquers is not necessarily the one
> > that does the best job of adapting. Do you think China adapts
> > better than Tibet? Do you think that European settlers adapted
> > better than the Cherokee?
> 
> Yes.
> > 
> > I think your one rule requires so much clarification and
> > exception that it is not a very useful rule. The people captured
> > by the Borg adapt. You call that living?
> 
> First of all, it is not my rule. It is a rule I and you are
> stuck with in the universe we live in. Now you are free to
> postulate a universe where weak species thrive despite its
> weaknesses, where Darwin does not work. But it stops being
> something I am interested in.
> 
> Ben

charghwI'

Back to archive top level