Re: KLBC: Higher numbers

[willm@cstone.net]

I'm sensing a little discontent in SuStel's responses to my posts...

> From: <willm@cstone.net>
..
> > My suspicion is that a Klingon would never need such large numbers because
> > if the numbers start to get that big, a Klingon would just change to a unit
> > of measurement more appropriate to that scale of measurement. This would
> > explain why we don't have a relationship between a qelI'qam and an 'uj.
> 
> No, it's just that he hasn't defined a /qelI'qam/, and an /'uj/ isn't
> exactly clearly defined.  With both of those, we could work out the
> conversion ourselves.

I've explicitly asked Okrand if there was a specific number of 'uj in a 
qelI'qam, saying it was fine if he got back to us later on the number. I also 
suggested a number approaching an even number of one in the other that he might 
find acceptable. He didn't just say that he didn't know the number yet or 
choose to accept one. He explicitly said that Klingons don't think about 'uj 
and qelI'qam as different sizes of the same measurement. There are things they 
measure with qelI'qammey and things they measure with 'ujmey and they don't 
convert from one to the other. There is no conversion number between these two 
units of measure. Likely, there would be a fraction of an 'uj left at the end 
if someone were to actually measure one against the other, and even then, the 
margin of error would likely screw things up.

Yep. That's a weird idea, but that's how it was explained to me. I am 
paraphrasing, so maybe I got it wrong, or maybe he's changed his mind. I don't 
remember if the conversation was at a qep'a' or at the time of the HolQeD 
interview. I'd be as delighted as you if he gave us either a conversion number 
or more precise conversion numbers to metric or English standard, but it seems 
pretty clear that he's not interested in helping us out here. He doesn't want 
this to matter.

> SuStel
> Stardate 2194.9
 
Will