tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 24 16:48:27 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
- From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:46:51 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=h6eebKDElOsH6OA0n1XjRG4AmThGi8laQq6BkfMd7lA=; b=pKX0rOhEt/8+QcKvTWIdh+fXV+tqtSSBxRq2Npo/Qy89sfJ9wbjSelX6tcdvt9QULf udsQ0EQmN6eyJTvuxgbnNP+Pph2iJJ5KTZoEFgPI9x0TvU5i0fEk46L/K+wx+h6W3yqM 8omnq3Fe/21NgXQ46WulZcTODRisFlpe1fh1w=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=pRsw16lLqDcKyG9nJMZqdDiGdQa7xODSTgvFosPuGptrTI3OBnnJ+Ucl4lDqeMRz2d bhM4aCiRQgAaj6r4YIP1CyaMSJukIXRgHAa6HuJBoahFVk+tPjpIsUVPMZ9hL/HP4c5S SOjwV3bc//dlq/sl3KWX4ER2vL4BNbxK/dZts=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
First, I find the use of English-style capitalization quite
distracting. I'm used to reading {q} and {Q} as separate letters, so
have trouble recognizing {Qastahvis}.
I agree that there's room for improvement in the system, but I don't
necessarily agree that it's worth a reform effort.
Nevertheless, my thoughts follow.
> ===
> In IPA this is
>
> [a b tÊ É É É x É dÊ l m n Å o pÊ q qÏ r Ê tÊ tÉ u v w j Ê]
Though we would normally not transcribe things so narrowly as to
indicate the aspiration on the voiceless stops, as indeed you didn't
in your passage...
> A casing orthography would give:
Cased IPA: Just Say No. :)
> ===
> In Americanist-type transcription one might render these:
>
> a b Ä d e Ç h i j l m n Å o p q x r Å t Å w v w y Ê
I think that both [Å] for {tlh} and [x] for {Q} are counterintuitive;
you need some indication of the affrication. And my natural
inclination is to Ç as [dÊ] instead of [É].
> a b c d e g h i j l m n Å o p q ê r s t Å u v w y â
Yeah, the ê comes through as an empty box here.
> a b c á e Ç h i Ç l m n á o p k Ï r á Î tl u v w y â
If using <c> with no diacritic for {ch}, why do you need a diacritic
for your {D} replacement?
> a b c d e g h i j l m n á o p k Ï r s t tl u v w y â
Better. :)
If replacing {q} with <k>, why not use <q> for {Q}?
I could see Î for {tlh} - misleading though it is - but not for {t}.
The "aspirated t" meaning of Î is not exactly au courant. :)
Also, the dot over the n is too subtle in this font; barely
distinguishable from plain n.
My monographical suggestion would be this:
a b c d e g h i j l m n à o p k q r s t à u v w y â
Only two non-ASCII characters, both in Latin-1 and readily typed on
most systems' "international" keyboard. They even have uppercase
forms if you insist upon using case distinctions.
Or, if you're not averse to digraphs:
a b ch d e gh kh i j l m n ng o p q qh r s t th u v w y '
-
Mark J. Reed <[email protected]>