tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 17 13:42:41 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: When writing Klingon fiction...

ro'Han:

: I find it *very* interesting that Klingon has a word for saccharin 
: <<Haqchor>> but not for sugar.

Voragh:

> 1. Perhaps {Haqchor} is actually used for both.

> 2. Perhaps Klingons just don't like sweets, for cultural or even 
> biochemical reasons (maybe Klingons can't digest them?).  Interestingly, 
> Okrand did provide a word for "be sour, be bitter, be tart" {wIb} but 
> not for "be sweet" - though many on this list use *{wIbHa'} for the 
> latter.

I've never liked <wIbHa'> for "be sweet".  Sweet things have a high sugar
content (or chemicals which masquerade as sugar). Sour things are acidic.
These factors are chemically unrelated, which is why things can be both
sweet and sour. Humans think of these as opposites, but there's no clear
reason to believe Klingons do too, so <wIbHa'> may not work.

I remember a bit from KGT (which I don't have with me) where Okrand
suggested the best description of sweet things might be <na'ran rur>, since
<na'ran> is one of the few sweet things Klingons eat. Since the na'ran is
said to resemble an orange, it is certainly acidic, so it must be at least a
little tart. How can something be both <wIb> and <wIbHa'>?

Chemically, the opposite of sour is *bitter*. The "be bitter" part of <wIb>
indicates that Klingons may view either extreme of the pH scale as the same
taste, possibly due to a difference in their taste biology.
 
> 3. Perhaps Klingons traditionally used some sort of natural sweetener 
> (the Klingon analog to honey or the sap or juice {vIychorgh} of some 
> sweet plant or fruit) and never processed the sugar separately and, 
> thus, never had a need for a special word -- at least until modern 
> chemists were able to synthesize saccharin {Haqchor}, perhaps in a 
> form Klingon digestive systems can handle (cf. point 2).

jIloyqangbe'.

pagh

Back to archive top level