tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 13 17:47:04 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Higher numbers

Terran units of measure supporting the Klingon concept in Will's message.

I think the idea seems quite logical.. In UK we have things we measure in
pints and things we are forced to measure in Litres... Or should I say as an
example the EC dare not try to force Brits to go down the pub and ask for
fraction of a litre... They accept that a Pint is as much a title as it is a

Yes it is possible to convert but you get stupid figures so why bother...
When things like recipe books give ingredients in say grams and Ounces they
put in a warning that either can be used but they must not be mix grams of
one ingredient and Ounces of another as they are not direct conversions..

Yes there are 8 UK pints in a Gallon and people will compare 2pints to a 1
litre because and a producer will often use that approximation when
converting to Metric.  They are both measurements of volume but are not
readily comparable and a Gallon is no where near approximately 4 Litres.
The two are just different measurement types.

Just a last note: In the back of my Oxford Dictionary it states "1 litre is
almost exactly equivalent to 1,000 cubic centimetres." They don't bother
being exact. Both are a measure of capacity but one rooted in linear squared
measure often designating an empty containers capacity and the other used
typically for a volume or contained capacity of say a fluid.

As with anything there are always exceptions but I'm sure you see what I

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
> > From: <>
> ..
> > > My suspicion is that a Klingon would never need such large numbers
> > > if the numbers start to get that big, a Klingon would just change to a
> > > of measurement more appropriate to that scale of measurement. This
> > > explain why we don't have a relationship between a qelI'qam and an
> >
> > 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
> suggested a number approaching an even number of one in the other that he
> 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
> and qelI'qam as different sizes of the same measurement. There are things
> measure with qelI'qammey and things they measure with 'ujmey and they
> convert from one to the other. There is no conversion number between these
> units of measure. Likely, there would be a fraction of an 'uj left at the
> if someone were to actually measure one against the other, and even then,
> 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
> 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
> or more precise conversion numbers to metric or English standard, but it
> pretty clear that he's not interested in helping us out here. He doesn't
> this to matter.
> > SuStel
> > Stardate 2194.9
> Will

Back to archive top level