tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 23 20:35:52 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')

ghunchu'wI' (qunchuy@alcaco.net)



On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Michael Everson wrote:

>> If you want it to be more "readable", I think you're trying to solve
>> something which is not a problem, and I think your proposed
>> solutions are counterproductive.
>
> "Counterproductive" to what?

Counterproductive to readability.  Using unfamiliar characters seems  
a lot more off-putting to most people than using familiar characters  
in novel arrangements.

> I will ask you again, however, to look at the different oiptions
> posted, and indicate which look "better" and which look "worse".

They all look "different".  The ones with lots of diacritic-style  
marks on the letters look unpalatable to me.  The ones that use the  
letters I see on my keyboard look much more approachable.

You didn't give any examples of *completely* different alphabets,  
such as Hebrew or Tengwar or the pseudo-pIqaD sometimes used for  
Klingon.  I'm not sure if that would change my opinion of the ones  
you did give.

>> I also strongly disagree with your statement that mutable case can
>> "make any text easier to read", though I don't consider it important
>> enough to debate.
>
> That's why all Latin orthographies make use of case. If it were not
> useful, it would be abandoned. I see that you use it when you write
> English.

I'm a great fan of lowercase.  I'm not a great fan of using uppercase  
willy-nilly.  I follow the standard usage, both in English and in  
{tlhIngan Hol}, though I'd have no problem if capital letters were to  
vanish from English.

-- ghunchu'wI'






Back to archive top level