tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 24 08:14:46 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

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

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
• Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:10:47 EDT

In a message dated 6/24/2009 04:42:26 Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> Yet you said that the distinction is trivial, that you can read a text  
> which does not make the distinction very easily. In which case, why  
> bother to distinguish them, if it's more or less optional?
> 
> I also do not think it is optional, which is why I think Klingon would  
> benefit from a spelling reform.
> 

If an English text with upper and lowercase is made all upper or all 
lowercase, then information is lost which only *may* be partially recoverable 
based on rules of English requiring certain positions and kinds of words be 
capitalized.  Any nonstandard use of capitalization is lost.

The distinction between the letters <q> and <Q> is not trivial.  Recovering 
them from a modified text is usually not hard, because they can be 
recovered from a knowledge of Klingon.  For people who don't know Klingon, it's a 
lot harder.

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
    • From: Joel Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: pIqaD
• Next by Date: Re: pIqaD
• Previous by thread: Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
• Next by thread: Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level