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

*From*: "qe'San \(temp ADSL email\)" <qeSan@btclick.com>*Subject*: Re: KLBC: Higher numbers*Date*: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:47:59 -0000*References*: <200203131600.g2DG0ww37929@mail.cho.cstone.net>

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 measure. 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 mean. qe'San ----- Original Message ----- From: <willm@cstone.net> > > 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 >

**References**:**Re: KLBC: Higher numbers***From:*willm@cstone.net

- Prev by Date:
**Re: god (was: Re: a word is needed?)** - Next by Date:
**Re: jIH vIchuHlu' - Words mentioned earlier but not in the** - Prev by thread:
**Re: KLBC: Higher numbers** - Next by thread:
**Re: KLBC: Higher numbers** - Index(es):