Re: Klingon anti-virus

From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Thu May 21 2009 - 16:15:59 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Klingon anti-virus"

    John H. Jenkins wrote:

    >
    > b May 21, 2009 12:53 PM ɡA Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven gG
    >
    >> If the Consortium is adamant on adding the emoji stuff to the
    >> standard, I
    >> honestly cannot see why something like Klingon, which actually has
    >> speakers,
    >> could not be encoded.
    >
    >
    > Fundamentally it's because the speakers don't use the script.
    >
    So I know for future reference, how much do I have to show as a
    counterexample for that? http://qurgh.blogspot.com/ has not been updated
    in a long time (neither has Linear B), but it's still there.
    http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Chatting+in+pIqaD is there so as to
    enable such usage. Apparently (I only just discovered this) at least
    some of the pages in http://mughom.wikia.com/wiki/ list pIqaD as well as
    Latin transcriptions (e.g. http://mughom.wikia.com/wiki/wejpuH).
    http://blogs.msdn.com/photos/shawnste/picture535604.aspx shows what
    appears to be an honest attempt to translate a locale (the words are not
    gibberish). http://www.btinternet.com/~qeSan/ has a lexicon for looking
    up words in each system. http://www.kli.org/QQ/?mode=UTF presents the
    issues of Qo'noS QonoS in pIqaD.

    I realize that this is a pretty small selection (Keep in mind the
    chicken-and-egg issue, though). I just want to know sorta where the
    dividing line is between "nobody uses it" and "people use it" so I'll
    know when it gets crossed.

    ~mark



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 21 2009 - 16:18:43 CDT