tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 24 02:22:07 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon orthography

Michael Everson (

On 24 Jun 2009, at 10:02, Michael Roney, Jr. wrote:

> Things that didn't make it into other messages.
> I think our current system *looks* just fine. It's pleasing to the  
> eye. My eye anyway.

I find it tiresome and think it would be advantageous to the language  
if the freedom to use more traditional typography were available. At   
minimum Q/q prevents that.

> I think the accepted pIqaD glyphs look fine too.

I haven't said anything about those.

> I feel that Tengwar is too unKlingon for my use.

I think Q should be represented by Tengwa 12 but the rest of the  
system was unobjectionable.

> Yes, when 3rd parties print Klingon in all caps, we lose the Q/q  
> distinction.

And that's a bad thing.

> Despite what Unicode might become, it's not yet universal.

Betcha a beer it's the character set in your Palm Pre.

> We need universal symbols/letters.

pIqaD isn't, since it's not encoded.

> The ones printed on our English keyboards should do fine.
> I fail to see a problem beyond Q/q. Therefore I fail to see why more  
> than that needs to change.

If Q/q is solved then "normal" casing is available for the rest of the  
orthography. There are valid questions that arise about the need for  
digraphs and trigraphs, though those are not harmful (although #ng-h#  
~ #n-gh# can be ambiguous at syllable boundary).

Michael Everson *

Back to archive top level