tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 23 21:08:07 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 7:07 PM, Michael Everson wrote:

>> That's a shortcoming of Google, not of the underlying data.
>
> I don't believe that this is correct. Case-pairing is a normative
> element of the Unicode Standard, and the Unicode Standard is the basis
> for character encoding on all platforms now and for the future.

Case-pairing is by no means mandatory.  It's an extra step that can  
simply be left out.  That Google fails to give its users the option  
of doing so doesn't make it a fundamental impossibility.

>> If any nonreversible operation is accidentally applied to any data,
>> the original is lost. This is a consequence of the very nature of a
>> nonreversible operation, not a shortcoming of the data itself.
>
> Casing operations ARE reversible, if case-pairing equivalences are
> respected.

"Respecting case-pairing equivalences" is cheating, because it lets  
you claim that "S. Ewing MacHines" is equivalent to "sewing  
machines". :-)

Okay, maybe not, but it's still bringing in something extra that  
specifically supports your contention that there's something wrong  
with using {q} and {Q} as separate letters.  If you instead respect  
case *distinctions*, which is easier for a computer to do than to  
ignore them, the "problem" vanishes.

-- ghunchu'wI'






Back to archive top level