[88062] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: tlhInganpu' ma'chu' lupwI' loH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Roney)
Sat Jul 24 21:41:04 2010
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:04:09 -0400
From: "Michael Roney" <nahqun@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikrST4YnewEMeoBCtpbYJCbpE1CPBBPXDgeh53-@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
> >
> I've noticed that the glyph used for 'g' in such words as "Gaslamp" and
> "San Diego" appears to differ from the one used in this chart:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Klinzhai_alphabet.GIF
> ...while the rest appear to be the same. Actually, I can't seem to find
> any glyph resembling the one you've used for 'g'. Is there a reason for
> this?
On Jul 22, 2010 15:11, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
It looks like that image on Wikipedia is wrong. Note how the th and g are
the same symbol.
KLI WebsiteDaq http://www.kli.org/pdf/Orthography.pdf yIlaD!
qurgh
IIRC, the "official" Mandel/Klinzhai orthography was 'missing' letters.
It also included some 'extras'.
Fans being fans, the gaps were filled in.
Eventually, .ttf's were produced and mapped to our keyboards.
"oo" and "ng" are not on my keyboard; changing the script even more.
I have not sat down to analyze what glyphs were kept or changed during either of these transitions--I simply accept that the font knows what its doing.
So, has anyone studied the progression? Are those of us using the various .ttf's using the same script?
~naHQun
~Michael Roney, Jr.
Professional Klingon translator
webOS dev
-- Sent from my Palm Prē
