Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?
"Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode" <[email protected]> Sun, 31 May 2026 13:17:15 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0PyvLStJdEYArsZL4qt7tIgW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 5/28/26 12:29 AM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote: > Do these scripts (pIqaD, Tengwar, Cirth, Sarati) get used, in any > notable amount, for any purposes that aren't at all related to their > respective fictional universes? In that one document (L2/16-329) that > showed proof of pIqaD being used, only 1 single example was given of > pIqaD being used for something non Star Trek related (and Bing's > translator doesn't even have that feature anymore lol). Like it's not > Monopoly in pIqaD, it's *Star Trek themed* Monopoly in pIqaD. First of all, yes. There are original stories written in Klingon which are not set in the Star Trek universe, as well as translations of many works of literature. Second of all, since when are we in the business of critiquing the *content* of what people choose to write? Do we insist on a certain base level of sophistication of literature? Only insofar as it relates to the size of the community, really. Do we want to be judges of what literature is "worth" writing and transmitting? Do we have the right to? ~mark > > On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 4:17 PM Julian Bradfield via Unicode > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2026-05-27, Vikki McDonough via Unicode > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Didn't the U.S. Copyright Office definitively state several > years back that > > writing systems *themselves* (as distinct from the fonts used to > *display* > > those writing systems) are not copyrightable ( > > Unicode operates in other places than the U.S.A. - that's kind of the > point of it! > > I personally doubt that the Tolkien Estate/Trust would prevail in most > jurisdictions, but they have deep pockets (they got $24M from the > films). So unless you have a rich friend who will give an unlimited > and binding guarantee to bankroll Unicode in all the jurisdictions it > might be sued in, it ain't going to happen without the Estate's > consent. > > --------------0PyvLStJdEYArsZL4qt7tIgW Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/28/26 12:29 AM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CALpKH7pd102yy-WpGUFW37TqQiRLavNds4RGAKGYNZ4O6Bud1w@mail.gmail.com"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> <div dir="ltr">Do these scripts (pIqaD, Tengwar, Cirth, Sarati) get used, in any notable amount, for any purposes that aren't at all related to their respective fictional universes? In that one document (L2/16-329) that showed proof of pIqaD being used, only 1 single example was given of pIqaD being used for something non Star Trek related (and Bing's translator doesn't even have that feature anymore lol). Like it's not Monopoly in pIqaD, it's *Star Trek themed* Monopoly in pIqaD.<br> </div> </blockquote> <p>First of all, yes. There are original stories written in Klingon which are not set in the Star Trek universe, as well as translations of many works of literature.</p> <p>Second of all, since when are we in the business of critiquing the *content* of what people choose to write? Do we insist on a certain base level of sophistication of literature? Only insofar as it relates to the size of the community, really. Do we want to be judges of what literature is "worth" writing and transmitting? Do we have the right to?</p> <p>~mark</p> <p><br> </p> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CALpKH7pd102yy-WpGUFW37TqQiRLavNds4RGAKGYNZ4O6Bud1w@mail.gmail.com"><br> <div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"> <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 4:17 PM Julian Bradfield via Unicode <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 2026-05-27, Vikki McDonough via Unicode <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> > Didn't the U.S. Copyright Office definitively state several years back that<br> > writing systems *themselves* (as distinct from the fonts used to *display*<br> > those writing systems) are not copyrightable (<br> <br> Unicode operates in other places than the U.S.A. - that's kind of the<br> point of it!<br> <br> I personally doubt that the Tolkien Estate/Trust would prevail in most<br> jurisdictions, but they have deep pockets (they got $24M from the<br> films). So unless you have a rich friend who will give an unlimited<br> and binding guarantee to bankroll Unicode in all the jurisdictions it<br> might be sued in, it ain't going to happen without the Estate's consent.<br> <br> <br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </body> </html> --------------0PyvLStJdEYArsZL4qt7tIgW--