[85816] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Tue Jun 23 17:34:52 2009
In-Reply-To: <BA6D15DB-F9FE-4001-8441-5C396F7F0405@evertype.com>
From: "ghunchu'wI'" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:21:34 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
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.
> 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. Where's the "dotless question mark" key on a Latin keyboard?
Your examples are full of untypeable characters, and a few
unprintable ones.
If your goal is to make searches work better, there's already the
Unicode PUA mapping. 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. 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.
-- ghunchu'wI'
