tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 23 16:42:43 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon orthography
Michael Everson (email@example.com)
On 23 Jun 2009, at 23:13, David Trimboli wrote:
> Aesthetics are the only reason I would consider spelling reform.
Typographic excellence is no bad thing.
> Like ghunchu'wI', I don't consider Google to be an appropriate
> standard of
> data processing to aim for.
It's not Google. It's the normative equivalence between Q and q in
many contexts that is the level of data processing that is the
problem. Google is just one obvious implementation of that.
> Of course, after all this time the goofy capitalization of the
> transcription system is one of the most recognized aspects of the
> If we were to have a transcription system with case, it could be as
> simple as this (showing the capital letters):
> A B CH D E GH H I J K L M N NG O P Q R S T TLH U V W Y '
So you use K/k for q and Q/q for Q.
> Tah pagh tahbe'. Dah mu'tlheghvam vikelnis.
> Kuv'a', yabdak san vaq cha, pu' je siqdi'?
> Pagh, seng biq'a'hey suvmeh nuhmey sukdi',
> 'ej, suvmo' rinmohdi'? Hegh. Qong -- qong neh --
> 'ej qongdi', tik 'oy', wa'sanid daw''e' je
> cho'nisbogh miwvam'e' wiruchkangbej
> Hegh. Qong. Qongdi' chaq naj. Toh, waqlaw' ghu'vam!
or with Q/q for q and X/x for Q
> Tah pagh tahbe'. Dah mu'tlheghvam viqelnis.
> Quv'a', yabdaq san vax cha, pu' je sixdi'?
> Pagh, seng bix'a'hey suvmeh nuhmey suqdi',
> 'ej, suvmo' rinmohdi'? Hegh. Xong -- xong neh --
> 'ej xongdi', tiq 'oy', wa'sanid daw''e' je
> cho'nisbogh miwvam'e' wiruchqangbej
> Hegh. Xong. Xongdi' chax naj. Toh, waxlaw' ghu'vam!
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/