tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 23 16:42:43 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Klingon orthography

Michael Everson (everson@evertype.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  
> language.

Really?

> 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/







Back to archive top level