[85956] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark J. Reed)
Thu Jun 25 07:34:46 2009
In-Reply-To: <FA504C89-FE36-4403-80BB-113C6E901506@evertype.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:32:27 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Michael Everson<everson@evertype.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> I think that both [ł] for {tlh} and [x] for {Q} are
>> counterintuitive;
>> you need some indication of the affrication. And my natural
>> inclination is to ǧ as [dʒ] instead of [ɣ].
>
> Well, Q is just a stop; it doesn't give an indication of affrication.
Well, <Q> doesn't appear in the IPA, so the capitalization severs as
some indication that it's not just [q], at least.
> In a number of transliteration alphabets ǧ is [ɣ],
It makes sense, certainly, but I've not run across it.
> though ġ is found
Yes, I've seen ġ and ḡ used (in e.g. Arabic transliteration).
> in this case one of the motivations was to use the same diacritic throughout.
Makes sense.
> Happy with ŋ?
Sure, eng is pretty standard in more recently developed orthographies.
Although the capital form may not be easily distinguished from N in
some fonts.
>> My monographical suggestion would be this:
>>
>> a b c d e g h i j l m n ñ o p k q r s t þ u v w y ’
>>
>> Only two non-ASCII characters, both in Latin-1 and readily typed on
>> most systems' "international" keyboard. They even have uppercase
>> forms if you insist upon using case distinctions.
>
> That's 10.3.4 in my PDF.
Sorry, did I miss a link to the PDF? vI'oghqa'chugh qablaHbe'. :)
>> a b ch d e gh kh i j l m n ng o p q qh r s t th u v w y '
>
> You've done a nice job there, replacing H with kh so as to avoid word-
> boundary crashes with -h-.
Plus, <kh> for [x] is pretty common.
> You've left S as s though... not sh.
Considered it. Thought it might be a bit misleading since {S} is not
really [ʃ]. Of course, {tlh} is not [θ] either, but one has to do
something there. <tl> would be more standard, but you run into
ambiguities at syllable boundaries (e.g. {betleH}). Honestly, I'd
seriously consider leaving it as a trigraph.
If I did use <sh> for {S}, I would probably also use <dh> for {D}.
> So you've got here either
Sorry, should have transcribed the example into my proposals. Here's
one with <dh> for {D}:
Qashtakhvish khoch dhish, loshlogh kholqhedh chenmokh thingan khol yejkhadh;
dhe’maj qengwi’ pothqu’ ’okh. Ghithmey le’, ghithmey moth
je ngash khoch jabbi’idh, ’ej thingan kholqhedh, thingan khol, thingan
nugh je qel. Qechmey’e’ ngashbogh nungbogh jabbi’idh nudhmekh ’ej
ghokhmekh nargh je ladhwi’pu’ jabbi’idhkhommey; mavuvchuqmekh ’ej
maja’chuqchu’mekh nargh. Kholqhedh niv law’, qhonosh moth niv push:
khadhchu’mekh qhonosh ’okh kholqhedh’e’. ’Okhdhaq narghpa’ ghith,
’okh nudhchu’ lath, ’ej ghith ghithwi’ shovbe’. Kholqhedh jikh
»Yejquv Paqghom«, ’ej ’okh bosh je »Dhakh Khol Yejkhadh«.
--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@gmail.com>
