[85785] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Roney, Jr.)
Tue Jun 23 05:15:01 2009
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:12:30 -0400
From: "Michael Roney, Jr." <nahqun@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <BA6D15DB-F9FE-4001-8441-5C396F7F0405@evertype.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
First I find it amusing that a post about orthography starts with an orthographic typo.
Second, tlhIngan Hol has survived and will continue to survive with it's current romanization.
I can read Klingon very easily just the way it is. I am a bit rusty with pIqaD, but I can pick it back up if it gains popularity.
I can even read pots formatted as XIFAN HOL.
That was THREE different systems.
That sounds like enough to me.
Third, I can view all of your nifty symbols *except* your suggestion for <Q>. Any symbol or character that isn't supported by default doesn't work.
That's why, among other reasons, pIqaD isn't used. Not everyone can view it.
But it does look like you put a lot of thought and effort into this. Good job.
~naHQun
-Michael Roney, Jr.
http://twitter.com/roneyii
--Sent from my Palm PreMichael Everson wrote:
On 22 Jun 2009, at 14:27, Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen wrote:
> Marc Okrand has just confirmed that, as he has so many times in the
> past, he'll be joining us at the qep'a' on Friday (likely some time
> in the evening), continuing on through Sunday morning.
NuqneH. It's been a long time. Alas I cannot attend the qep'a', but it
is nice to be back.
Over the years I have thought, and thought, and thought again about
the Latin orthography for Klingon. One reason I think about it is work
I did consulting on an orthography for Udi (a language of Azerbaijan)
and much (far too much) work in the Cornish Orthography Wars.
Can't we do something to improve it? I wonder if this could be raised
with Marc Okrand. WIth all respect to him, his orthography has several
rather serious shortcomings.
The first shortcoming is very serious indeed, in terms of data
integrity. Since "q" and "Q" are used as separate letters of the
alphabet, words cannot be distinguished in, for example, google
searches. If a casing operation is accidentally applied to a run of
Klingon text (say, upper-casing or lowercasing), the original text
cannot be reconstructed. Okrand had other considerations when he
designed Klingon orthography all those years ago, but now that we
manage Klingon as data, a reform should be considered.
The second shortcoming is practical. In many fonts, the letters "I"
and "l" are nearly identical. This can impede reading.
The third shortcoming is aesthetic. Because it eschews casing in
general, Klingon text cannot take advantage of ordinary typographic
conventions, which, in fairness, make any text easier to read.
I'm not the first to consider spelling reform. I don't know if it's
been discussed on this list, actually. I saw this discussion from 2004 http://sauvagenoble.blogspot.com/2004/06/klingon.html
and then (of course?) there was my own musing earlier this year at http://www.evertype.com/blog/2009/01/tlhingan-hol-yighitlh.html
.
The Klingon alphabet is:
a b ch D e gh H I j l m n ng o p q Q r S t tlh u v w y ’
qaStaHvIS Hoch DIS, loSlogh HolQeD chenmoH tlhIngan Hol yejHaD;
De’maj qengwI’ potlhqu’ ’oH. ghItlhmey le’, ghItlhmey motlh
je ngaS Hoch jabbI’ID, ’ej tlhIngan HolQeD, tlhIngan Hol, tlhIngan
nugh je qel. qechmey’e’ ngaSbogh nungbogh jabbI’ID nuDmeH ’ej
ghoHmeH nargh je laDwI’pu’ jabbI’IDHommey; mavuvchuqmeH ’ej
maja’chuqchu’meH nargh. HolQeD nIv law’, QonoS motlh nIv puS:
HaDchu’meH QonoS ’oH HolQeD’e’. ’oHDaq narghpa’ ghItlh,
’oH nuDchu’ latlh, ’ej ghItlh ghItlhwI’ Sovbe’. HolQeD jIH
»yejquv paqghom«, ’ej ’oH boS je »DaH Hol yejHaD«.
===
In IPA this is
[a b tʃ ɖ ɛ ɣ x ɪ dʒ l m n ŋ o pʰ q qχ r ʃ tʰ tɬ u v w j ʔ]
[qaʃtaxvɪʃ xotʃ ɖɪʃ, loʃloɣ xolqχɛɖ tʃɛnmox tɬɪŋan xol
jɛjxaɖ; ɖɛʔmaj qɛŋwɪʔ potɬquʔ ʔox. ɣɪtɬmɛj lɛʔ,
ɣɪtɬmɛj motɬ jɛ ŋaʃ xotʃ jabbɪʔɪɖ, ʔɛj tɬɪŋan
xolqχɛɖ, tɬɪŋan xol, tɬɪŋan nuɣ jɛ qɛl. qɛtʃmɛjʔɛʔ
ŋaʃboɣ nuŋboɣ jabbɪʔɪɖ nuɖmɛx ʔɛj ɣoxmɛx narɣ jɛ
laɖwɪʔpuʔ jabbɪʔɪɖxommɛj; mavuvtʃuqmɛx ʔɛj
majaʔtʃuqtʃuʔmɛx narɣ. xolqχɛɖ nɪv lawʔ, qχonoʃ motɬ nɪv
puʃ: xaɖtʃuʔmɛx qχonoʃ ʔox xolqχɛɖʔɛʔ. ʔoxɖaq narɣpaʔ
ɣɪtɬ, ʔox nuɖtʃuʔ latɬ, ʔɛj ɣɪtɬ ɣɪtɬwɪʔ ʃovbɛʔ.
xolqχɛɖ jɪx »jɛjquv paqɣom«, ʔɛj ʔox boʃ jɛ »ɖax xol
jɛjxaɖ«.]
A casing orthography would give:
Qaʃtaxvɪʃ xotʃ ɖɪʃ, loʃloɣ Xolqχɛɖ tʃɛnmox Tɬɪŋan Xol
Jɛjxaɖ; ɖɛʔmaj qɛŋwɪʔ potɬquʔ ʔox. Ɣɪtɬmɛj lɛʔ,
ɣɪtɬmɛj motɬ jɛ ŋaʃ xotʃ jabbɪʔɪɖ, ʔɛj Tɬɪŋan
xolqχɛɖ, Tɬɪŋan xol, Tɬɪŋan nuɣ jɛ qɛl. Qɛtʃmɛjʔɛʔ
ŋaʃboɣ nuŋboɣ jabbɪʔɪɖ nuɖmɛx ʔɛj ɣoxmɛx narɣ jɛ
laɖwɪʔpuʔ jabbɪʔɪɖxommɛj; mavuvtʃuqmɛx ʔɛj
majaʔtʃuqtʃuʔmɛx narɣ. Xolqχɛɖ nɪv lawʔ, qχonoʃ motɬ nɪv
puʃ: xaɖtʃuʔmɛx qχonoʃ ʔox xolqχɛɖʔɛʔ. ʔOxɖaq narɣpaʔ
ɣɪtɬ, ʔox nuɖtʃuʔ latɬ, ʔɛj ɣɪtɬ ɣɪtɬwɪʔ ʃovbɛʔ.
Xolqχɛɖ jɪx »jɛjquv paqɣom«, ʔɛj ʔox boʃ jɛ »ɖax xol
jɛjxaɖ«.]
===
In Americanist-type transcription one might render these:
a b č d e ǧ h i j l m n ŋ o p q x r š t ł w v w y ʔ
Qaštahviš hoč diš, lošloǧ Holxed čenmoh Łiŋan Hol Yejhad;
de’maj qeŋwi’ połqu’ ’oh. Ǧiłmey le’, ǧiłmey moł je
ŋaš hoč jabbi’id, ’ej Łiŋan holxed, Łiŋan hol, Łiŋan nuǧ
je qel. Qečmey’e’ ŋašboǧ nuŋboǧ jabbi’id nudmeh ’ej
ǧohmeh narǧ je ladwi’pu’ jabbi’idhommey; mavuvčuqmeh ’ej
maja’čuqču’meh narǧ. Holxed niv law’, xonoš moł niv puš:
hadču’meh xonoš ’oh Holxed’e’. ’Ohdaq narǧpa’ ǧił,
’oh nudču’ lał, ’ej ǧił ǧiłwi’ šovbe’. Holxed jih
»Yejquv Paqǧom«, ’ej ’oh boš je »Dah Hol Yejhad«.
or with casing glottals:
Qaštahviš hoč diš, lošloǧ Holxed čenmoh Łiŋan Hol Yejhad;
deɂmaj qeŋwiɂ połquɂ ɂoh. Ǧiłmey leɂ, ǧiłmey moł je ŋaš
hoč jabbiɂid, ɂej Łiŋan Holxed, Łiŋan hol, Łiŋan nuǧ je qel.
Qečmeyɂeɂ ŋašboǧ nuŋboǧ jabbiɂid nudmeh ɂej ǧohmeh narǧ je
ladwiɂpuɂ jabbiɂidhommey; mavuvčuqmeh ɂej majaɂčuqčuɂmeh
narǧ. Holxed niv lawɂ, xonoš moł niv puš: hadčuɂmeh xonoš ɂoh
holxedɂeɂ. Ɂohdaq narǧpaɂ ǧił, ɂoh nudčuɂ lał, ɂej ǧił
ǧiłwiɂ šovbeɂ. Holxed jih »Yejquv Paqǧom«, ɂej ɂoh boš je
»Dah Hol Yejhad«.
===
I had suggested:
a b c d e g h i j l m n ŋ o p q ꝗ r s t ł u v w y ’
Qastahvis hoc dis, loslog Holꝗed cenmoh Łiŋan Hol Yejhad; de’maj
qeŋwi’ połqu’ ’oh. Giłmey le’, giłmey moł je ŋas hoc
jabbi’id, ’ej Łiŋan holꝗed, Łiŋan hol, Łiŋan nug je qel.
Qecmey’e’ ŋasbog nuŋbog jabbi’id nudmeh ’ej gohmeh narg je
ladwi’pu’ jabbi’idhommey; mavuvcuqmeh ’ej maja’cuqcu’meh
narg. Holꝗed niv law’, ꝗonos moł niv pus: hadcu’meh ꝗonos
’oh Holꝗed’e’. ’Ohdaq nargpa’ gił, ’oh nudcu’ lał,
’ej gił giłwi’ sovbe’. Holꝗed jih »Yejquv Paqgom«, ’ej
’oh bos je »Dah Hol Yejhad«.
===
The noble savage gives a narrow option:
a b c ḍ e ǧ h i ǰ l m n ṅ o p k χ r ṣ θ tl u v w y ’
Kaṣθahviṣ hoc ḍiṣ, loṣloǧ Holχeḍ cenmoh Tliṅan Hol
Yeǰhaḍ; ḍe’maǰ keṅwi’ potlku’ ’oh. Ǧitlmey le’,
ǧitlmey motl ǰe ṅaṣ hoc ǰabbi’iḍ, ’eǰ Tliṅan holχeḍ,
Tliṅan hol, Tliṅan nuǧ ǰe kel. Kecmey’e’ ṅaṣboǧ
nuṅboǧ ǰabbi’iḍ nuḍmeh ’eǰ ǧohmeh narǧ ǰe
laḍwi’pu’ ǰabbi’iḍhommey; mavuvcukmeh ’eǰ
maǰa’cukcu’meh narǧ. Holχeḍ niv law’, χonoṣ motl niv
puṣ: haḍcu’meh χonoṣ ’oh Holχeḍ’e’. ’Ohḍak
narǧpa’ ǧitl, ’oh nuḍcu’ latl, ’eǰ ǧitl ǧitlwi’
ṣovbe’. Holχeḍ ǰih »Yeǰkuv Pakǧom«, ’eǰ ’oh boṣ ǰe
»Ḍah Hol Yeǰhaḍ«.
and a broad option:
a b c d e g h i j l m n ṅ o p k χ r s t tl u v w y ’
Kastahvis hoc dis, loslog Holχed cenmoh Tliṅan Hol Yejhad; de’maj
keṅwi’ potlku’ ’oh. Gitlmey le’, gitlmey motl je ṅas hoc
jabbi’id, ’ej Tliṅan holχed, Tliṅan hol, Tliṅan nug je kel.
Kecmey’e’ ṅasbog nuṅbog jabbi’id nudmeh ’ej gohmeh narg je
ladwi’pu’ jabbi’idhommey; mavuvcukmeh ’ej maja’cukcu’meh
narg. Holχed niv law’, χonos motl niv pus: hadcu’meh χonos ’oh
Holχed’e’. ’Ohdak nargpa’ gitl, ’oh nudcu’ latl, ’ej
gitl gitlwi’ sovbe’. Holχed jih »Yejkuv Pakgom«, ’ej ’oh bos
je »Dah Hol Yejhad«.
===
Of course it is easy to see that there is no difficulty with most of
the letters, which are unchanged (modulo casing, since the idea is to
free Klingon orthography to be able to use uppercase and lowercase in
the normal way).
a b e h i j l m n o p r t u v w y '
The questions:
Should ch and gh remain digraphs and tlh a trigraph? Why isn't S a
digraph, or Q?
Is it a problem for ng to be a digraph? (In principle, yes, depending
on what is done with gh, because you could have a word-boundary ng-h
or n-gh. Of course ng [nɡ], ňg [ŋɡ], nǧ [nɣ] and ňǧ [ŋɣ] may
all occur.
This attempts to mark the letters which are "different" from English,
which is what Okrand did with capitalization and diagraphs:
A B Č Đ E Ǧ Ħ I J L M N Ň O P Q Q̌ R Š T Ŧ U V W Y ’
a b č đ e ǧ ħ i j l m n ň o p q q̌ r š t ŧ u v w y ’
Qaštahviš hoč điš, lošloǧ Holq̌eđ čenmoh Ŧiňan Hol Yejhađ;
đe’maj qeňwi’ poŧqu’ ’oh. Ǧiŧmey le’, ǧiŧmey moŧ je
ňaš hoč jabbi’iđ, ’ej Ŧiňan holq̌eđ, Ŧiňan hol, Ŧiňan
nuǧ je qel. Qečmey’e’ ňašboǧ nuňboǧ jabbi’iđ nuđmeh
’ej ǧohmeh narǧ je lađwi’pu’ jabbi’iđhommey; mavuvčuqmeh
’ej maja’čuqču’meh narǧ. Holq̌eđ niv law’, q̌onoš moŧ
niv puš: hađču’meh q̌onoš ’oh Holq̌eđ’e’. ’Ohđaq
narǧpa’ ǧiŧ, ’oh nuđču’ laŧ, ’ej ǧiŧ ǧiŧwi’
šovbe’. Holq̌eđ jih »Yejquv Paqǧom«, ’ej ’oh boš je »Đah
Hol Yejhađ«.
===
Replacing H q Q with x k q is a handy idea, if diacritics are to be
shunned, though this will change wordforms quite a lot for anyone used
to reading Klingon already.
Kastaxvis xoc dis, loslog Xolqed cenmox Łiŋan Xol Yejxad; de’maj
keŋwi’ połku’ ’ox. Giłmey le’, giłmey moł je ŋas xoc
jabbi’id, ’ej Łiŋan xolqed, Łiŋan xol, Łiŋan nug je kel.
Kecmey’e’ ŋasbog nuŋbog jabbi’id nudmex ’ej goxmex narg je
ladwi’pu’ jabbi’idxommey; mavuvcukmex ’ej maja’cukcu’mex
narg. Xolqed niv law’, qonos moł niv pus: xadcu’mex qonos ’ox
Xolqed’e’. ’Oxdak nargpa’ gił, ’ox nudcu’ lał, ’ej gił
giłwi’ sovbe’. Xolqed jix »Yejkuv Pakgom«, ’ej ’ox bos je
»Dax Xol Yejxad«.
===
So! Is there scope for a spelling reform in the Latin orthography for
Klingon?
Qapla'!
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
