tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 24 14:03:22 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon orthography
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Michael Everson <[email protected]>wrote:
> >> They are a problem for data integrity. There is no question of this.
> >
> > The only explanation you give is that the distinction between {q}
> > and {Q} can be lost if you apply a case transformation.
>
> Incorrect. I gave other explanations.
>
You gave plenty of other reasons to prefer changing , but none of those
explanations seem relevant to the issue of data integrity. It's entirely
possible that the phrase "data integrity" is at the root of our
disagreement. I assume it means keeping the data from being changed so that
its meaning remains intact. If my assumption is incorrect, I'd appreciate a
definition that helps me figure out why our points of view seem so far
apart.
> I also indicate that searching
> may not be reliable because of the canonical equivalence of the two
> characters.
That does not have anything to do with keeping data from being changed. It's
something to bring up with the people implementing search algorithms, not
with the people encoding the text.
> Further, I also indicate that sorting operations are made more complex
> if you attempt to treat a casing pair as two separate entities.
That does not have anything to do with keeping data from being changed. It's
something to bring up with the people implementing sort algorigthms, not
with the people encoding the text. I'm going to have to disagree strongly
with it anyway. Sorting is made *less* complex if you don't try to treat
different characters as equivalent.
> Moreover, I outlined the political benefits of taking this data issue
> seriously in terms of an eventual re-try at encoding pIqaD.
That does not have anything to do with keeping data from being changed. It
doesn't have anything to do with the data at all.
> And I discussed some advantages (evident at least to some here, I have
> seen) of being able to enjoy a wider range of typographic options if
> Latin casing conventions can be employed
That does not have anything to do with keeping data from being changed.
> Your suggestion that I have given one explanation only is
> disingenuous.
I'm not suggesting it, I'm *counting* it. So far as I can see, you have
given exactly one explanation that addresses the contention that there is a
"data integrity" problem.
> I don't think your arguments are going very well, so
> you've tried to disparage my attempt at dialogue because I may not
> know as much Klingon as you do, even to the point of suggesting that
> if I would write 'Atrom my "understanding of Klingon orthography" must
> be "faulty" when in fact languages which do case personal names next
> to a glottal do so exactly as I indicated.
>
> Come on.
The example document you provided to show your point about casing and
glottal stops seemed to be saying exactly the opposite. I might not have
been reading the same part you did, but the stuff highlighted in red was
obviously intended to demonstrate that capitalizing the letter after the
glottal stop was the *wrong* thing to do in some situations and needed to be
changed.
> > You dismiss other lossy transformations because they're harder to do
> > "accidentally".
> I dismiss them because the cause of them is not the inherent and
> immutable canonical equivalence of the characters.
> [...]
> The apostrophe presents several problems but at LEAST one of them is
> not "it is equivalent to another character you want to use in the same
> orthography".
The letters {Q} and {q} are not equivalent in Klingon orthography. Can we at
least agree on that?
A lot of your enthusiasm for promoting changes seems to be based on your
desire to make a Klingon writing system that works like other writing
systems you're more familiar with. I hope that's not truly the case (!).
There's a strong tradition of intentionally *not* pushing Klingon to act
more like something else.
-- ghunchu'wI'