Re: Do we need a Klingon in Unicode (was Re: What happened to

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Thu Oct 21 1999 - 05:26:35 EDT

Ar 20:34 -0700 1999-10-20, scríobh Gary Roberts:

>I have made comments that, if heeded, would make significant changes to
>the current proposal for the Tengwar. As usual, it would be best to
>involve more experts and potential users in order to resolve these issues.

I recall some innovative possibilities for the vowels (the problem) which
could be handled by the fonts.

>In short, the alternative I suggest involves handling Tengwar mode
>distinctions outside the normal text stream, allowing search algorithms to
>function properly independent of mode.

Your mail from January 1998 (note that Myanmar and Khmer took precedence
over Tengwar but I did save your message!):

Ar 17:38 -0800 1998-01-13, scríobh Gary Roberts:
>While I have not had time to fully evaluate this proposal, I am
>concerned about the highly unnatural way the tehtar would be
>used for scripts such as Sindarin or English.
>Perhaps tehtar are not non-spacing marks at all, but are often written
>in the form of a ligature. So far as I know, English, or any other
>language *can* be written either with tehtar ligatured with the
>preceding or following consonent. It would be unfortunate if the
>underlying form was different. Perhaps the mode of Beleriand is
>an indication that the shape and positioning of tehtar is a rendering
>issue, and should not be codified.
>This is merely my first impression, and, no doubt, pursuasive
>argument would change that. Still I would have difficulty
>accepting this proposal in its current form.
> *

Michael Everson * Everson Gunn Teoranta *
15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
Guthán: +353 1 478 2597 ** Facsa: +353 1 478 2597 (by arrangement)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn;  Baile an Bhóthair;  Co. Átha Cliath; Éire

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT