tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 18 05:12:08 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon and Unicode
- From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon and Unicode
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 02:10:45 -0700
>As I understand it, the denial of the Klingon "alphabet" as
>appropriate for being included in the Unicode standard explicitly
>acknowledges Klingon as a language. The reason it was denied is
>because of a policy of not including any "fantasy" scripts, in an
>apparent fear of setting a precedent and having every little private
>alphabet submitted for inclusion.
Somewhat more complicated than that; the Tolkien scripts are still in the
Unicode Roadmap, but Klingon has been taken off it, after much flaming. (In
fact, possibly in an act of defiance, the guy who had proposed Klingon for
the roadmap has substituted it with... a third Tolkien script.) There are
two reasons invoked for the anti-pIqaD sentiment: (1) "it's not real"
(natch), but (2) Klingonists are not using pIqaD to exchange information
in, anyway. Potentially circular, I know, but people really aren't writing
to each other in pIqaD, so there is no perceived demand. Of course, there
is a recommended mapping for pIqaD in the Private Use area of Unicode, and
I know several fonts are already putting it there. (Code2000, at least.)
I'm forwarding three postings from the Unicode List on the subject. No
hunting down the posters and flaming them, please; it'll hardly help.
(1)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:22:49 -0800 (GMT-0800)
Subject: Klingon silliness
That anyone could seriously consider adding the Klingon script to Unicode
seems preposterous. Even if someone were to provide an "accurate" script, a
sample font, etc that meets the general requirements of a proposal, the idea
is quite silly. I am surprised that the consortium hasn't simply refused it
with a polite suggestion to use the private use areas for those Klingon
speakers/readers/writers out there.
What is the rationale for allowing this proposal to see the light of another
day?
1) Certainly there can't be any political influence...a Klingon govt doesn't
exist. No Klingon has ever existed. Oops, I hope I haven't accidentally done
the equivalent of telling U.S. children that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
2) Is there an economic influence? How much money can the people at
www.klingon.org throw at this? Will the Unicode consortium benefit? Will any
reasonable number of people benefit financially from this? Will font makers
make any revenue from a Klingon font? Will book publishers?
3) Does a set of historical documents exist? How can there be? It's
fictional. Historical documents cannot exist if there is no history.
Documents that purport to be such are fictional entertainment at best. There
is no historical benefit of encoding the script.
4) Is there an academic benefit? What university or college has a Klingon
language, art, or history dept? Oh no! What have I found?
http://babel.uoregon.edu/yamada/guides/klingon.html
5) Is there a cultural benefit? O brother...
6) I can't even believe I'm trying to produce a rationale against
this...I've got to stop.
No practical reason for encoding this script exists. It's silliness.
Including it in the Unicode repertoire is like embedding "Easter Eggs" into
software products. Yes, people will find it, see it; some will smile at it,
maybe laugh; promoters will elbow each other and point out their
contribution; others will wonder why anyone wasted their time.
Put me in the last category,
(2)
To: "Unicode List" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:45:56 -0800 (GMT-0800)
>Well, if you have no cultural bias and you encode Klingon, you pretty well
>have to include anything.
>
Klingon is not likely to be encoded any time soon. The basic problem
here is that the Klingon Language Institute has shown little interest
in promoting it; indeed, all of their material is published in Latin
transcription. Bottom line: Nobody seems to want to interchange
data using it, so it's not moving forward.
IMHO *any* fictional script is a candidate for encoding if there is a
user community seeking to actively interchange data using it. Any
non-fictional script ditto.
(3)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:04:00 -0800 (GMT-0800)
Subject: Re: Klingon silliness
> If it were up to me alone, I would put that proposal in the bin of things
> that have been politely refused. The fact that it has not yet gone to the
> great bit-bucket in the sky probably reflects the general esteem in which
> the gentlebeing who proposed it is held.
Yes, I think we all highly regard the person who proposed it. So, please no
one should construe this as an attack upon a person.
Knowing that the proposal has been placed on the back burner, knowing that
it isn't really taken seriously any longer, in the true spirit of a Klingon,
let us now kill the proposal and thus leave it some dignity among its
supporters. Dragging it around in its weakened state, knowing that it will
not recover, is not honorable. It is disgraceful. Some Klingon next-of-kin
should step forward here...encourage the consortium to let the proposal die
with honor, with dignity. It's the Klingon way...
Appealing to Klingon ethics and sentiment,
Nick Nicholas, TLG, UCI, USA. [email protected] www.opoudjis.net
"Most Byzantine historians felt they knew enough to use the optatives
correctly; some of them were right." --- Harry Turtledove.