tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 24 04:18:20 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 11:46, ghunchu'wI' wrote:

> On Jun 24, 2009, at 4:51 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
>> You can't "delete" case equivalences from the Standard.
> But one is not required to convert "case-equivalent" letters to be  
> indistinguishable. Unicode does have "q" and "Q" as separate  
> letters, after all.

It is however an operation which can occur, for instance by accident  
-- and more easily than replacing all "o"s with "e"s as you mention  
below. And it affects sorting and (as discussed previously) searching.

> Your entire thesis seems to be based on losing information if you  
> choose to modify the case of letters.

My entire thesis is based on a suite of different things, some  
technical, some aesthetic. All have been proposed in good faith. I  
note that I am not the only person so far who has advocated the  
suggestion of entertaining the possibility of orthography reform for  

> So?  If I chose to replace all "o" characters with "e" characters,  
> that would lose information as well.  The proper response to both  
> "problems" is simple: choose not to do it.

"E" and "o" do not share canonical equivalence which is a different  
thing than what you are describing.

> Throwing out a quarter century of printed text and replacing it with  
> a bunch of Greek [sic] that nobody has on their keyboard

'Scuse me, but a variety of scenarios were proposed for discussion.  
And not all by me.

> is an  overreaction to something that is only an issue if you make  
> it one.

It is a data

> Unless you can give a better reason to make it an issue than "you  
> lose information if you apply a case change", I'm done with it.

That has not been the only reason I have given. Case change -- and not  
just for Q/q. Sorting. Searching. Legibility in a variety of  
typefaces. Allowing the language to conform to normal typographic  
practice in terms of casing (which mitigates for better legibility for  
anyone who reads the Latin script natively. And, on top of these,  
showing the Wide World that data integrity is important for  
Klingonists, which can assist in getting the Piqad taken (at least  
somewhat) seriously.

Okrandian orthography is less suited to a modern computing environment  
than something else might be. 1985 was a long time ago.

Michael Everson *

Back to archive top level