tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 24 01:26:40 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')

Michael Roney, Jr. (nahqun@gmail.com)



I am *so* glad that all of us are using Mac OS X. That seems to make things *much* easier.
And for those of us not on a Mac? Or a PC?

The moment your system takes over (which it won't), how do you expect EVERYONE to type it?

I can't even type Hawaiian properly at the moment.


~naHQun


-Michael Roney, Jr.
Professional Klingon translator
http://twitter.com/roneyii

--Sent from my Palm PreMichael Everson wrote:

On 23 Jun 2009, at 13:21, ghunchu'wI' wrote:

> On Jun 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> NuqneH
>
> It's hard for me to take a post on orthography seriously when it  
> begins by ignoring the standard orthography.

Had this complaint earlier.

> On 23 Jun 2009, at 10:12, Michael Roney, Jr. wrote:
>
>> First I find it amusing that a post about orthography starts with an
>> orthographic typo.
>
> Ah. Recte "nuqneH". See? I just can't STAND sentences that don't begin
> with capital letters. Nuqneh!

>> Is there scope for a spelling reform in the Latin orthography for  
>> Klingon?
>
> There might be, but your proposals don't look like Latin orthography  
> to me.

All of the characters use the Latin script.

> Where's the "dotless question mark" key on a Latin keyboard?

The glottal stop? On my keyboard I type shift-option-. and then space  
to get it. Ê?Ê?Ê?Ê?

> Your examples are full of untypeable characters, and a few  
> unprintable ones.

I typed nearly all of them with the Irish Extended keyboard that ships  
with Mac OS X. There are a few characters, like q-with-stroke, which  
are new to Unicode and have not made it into core font updates yet, it  
is true.

> If your goal is to make searches work better, there's already the  
> Unicode PUA mapping.

For what? For the pIqaD? That's orthogonal to the question of Q/q etc.

> 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?

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

> 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.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/









Back to archive top level