Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?
Gabriel Tellez via Unicode <[email protected]> Tue, 9 Jun 2026 21:15:09 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CALpKH7rtZ34GLbAsJ_VFGuNo4UcwvKH1CTROpnErfm8Cis+5oQ@mail.gmail.com> |
--0000000000003973660653dbfad7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If we were encoding Klingon as a language I would agree that there is enough existing work. But the alphabet alone is different. And it=E2=80=99s not =E2=80=9Csome topics don=E2=80=99t count=E2=80=9D it= =E2=80=99s that it=E2=80=99s one topic. And no this is nothing like historic scripts. This is a script for a living(?) language. Except Latin script is used for way more things (both in raw number and in amount of topics) On the other end of the spectrum there is sitelen pona. I see nothing wrong with encoding it, other than the fact that it might be too alive to encode (things keep changing and no one can agree on what words exist) On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 8:33=E2=80=AFPM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode < [email protected]> wrote: > On 6/9/26 6:42 PM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote: > > The core issue is if these scripts should be in Unicode in the first > place. I have yet to be convinced that these scripts (pIqaD, Tengwar, and > Cirth) are used in any contexts that aren't related to their universe/med= ia > of origin. > > And no it's not "nobody uses X, except for X's users", it's *when* are X'= s > users actually using it. Like is pIqaD only used when dealing with things > related to Star Trek? That doesn't seem like enough usage to me. One > again I say, it's not Monopoly in pIqaD, it's *Star Trek themed* Monopoly > in pIqaD. > > I still don't get why we feel it's necessary to "grade" the level (or > breadth) of literature in a writing system. It's true that a system whic= h > is used for nothing but education materials (in the same system) or only > has material published by one author or a single publishing source is > probably too idiosyncratic to be considered for encoding, but saying, "OK= , > you can write about love, revenge, pain, suffering, joy, sadness.... but = so > long as it's only in the Star Trek universe, that doesn't count as a > diverse literature." Where does Unicode get off telling people that some > topics "don't count"? Linear B was only ever used in the "Mycenean Greek > world-setting", and our evidence of it deals with almost nothing except > boring administrative records. No poetry, no songs, no plays, no books. > Does that mean it's too limited? > > Asmus notes the similarity of fiction-based scripts to historic scripts. > (not "invented" scripts; ALL scripts are invented. They don't grow on > trees, you know. And some encoded scripts are quite recent inventions.) > It's not about whether or not they're used for things other than their > historic milieu. It's about whether or not they are *used* by people, > either as scholarly discussion, creative innovation, or historical > recording. As to Asmus' point about the need to wait and see and conside= r > the impact, it's a fair enough point, but do note that proposals for > Klingon stretch back *thirty* years. And for good or ill, the actual > writing system has changed very little in all that time. I think the > wait-and-see period is over. > > (BTW, I've seen Klingon stories set in various non-Star-Trek universes. > But maybe you'll say that some of them are "too close" to Star Trek. Do > they have to be non alien/futuristic in order to count? The opera _'u'_ = is > set in the Star Trek universe, but in Klingon pre-history, so it isn't > "futuristic" at all. The audio story _qul toQ wo'_ is not set in the Sta= r > Trek universe, and there are no Klingons, but it is a futuristic setting > with various kinds of aliens and space-ships and wormholes. Is that too > close to Star Trek? How do we make the call for what is and what is not > "valid" use? (these are both just stories, not examples specifically of > pIqaD use.)) > > Like only if we truly have reason to put in Unicode should we > consider potential copyright problems that might happen if we do such > a thing. > > According to what I've been told, the potential copyright problems are > indeed what is stopping Unicode from encoding Klingon, even though the > record says that isn't the reason. Usage has already been demonstrated. > And indeed, it's reasonable enough to be cautious of those problems. > > ~mark > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:57=E2=80=AFAM David Starner via Unicode < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:05=E2=80=AFAM Michael De Roover via Unicode >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > The core issue, though, is institutional and legal, not a judgment >> about the >> > value of these communities. Unicode cannot standardize scripts that ar= e >> > copyrighted intellectual property without explicit permission from the >> rights >> > holders. The Tolkien Estate, Paramount, and miHoYo all retain legal >> control >> > over their fictional scripts. >> >> We can acknowledge the risk without agreeing to the argument. In the >> US, scripts have explicitly been refused copyright protection. When >> Cyan tried to register the Myst D'Ni script, the US Copyright Office >> responded with a refusal letter explaining that writing systems are >> not copyrightable in the US. I am not familiar with any contrary >> decision in any country, though many do permit copyrighting typefaces, >> which the US does not. >> >> -- >> The standard is written in English . If you have trouble understanding >> a particular section, read it again and again and again . . . Sit up >> straight. Eat your vegetables. Do not mumble. -- _Pascal_, ISO 7185 >> (1991) >> >> --0000000000003973660653dbfad7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><div dir=3D"auto">If we were encoding Klingon as a language I would ag= ree that there is enough existing work. But the alphabet alone is different= .=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">And it=E2=80=99s= not =E2=80=9Csome topics don=E2=80=99t count=E2=80=9D it=E2=80=99s that it= =E2=80=99s one topic.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">An= d no this is nothing like historic scripts. This is a script for a living(?= ) language. Except Latin script is used for way more things (both in raw nu= mber and in amount of topics)</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"= auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">On the other end of the spectrum there is= sitelen pona. I see nothing wrong with encoding it, other than the fact th= at it might be too alive to encode (things keep changing and no one can agr= ee on what words exist)</div></div><div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"= ><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 8:33=E2=80=AF= PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected].= org" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><bl= ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-lef= t-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(= 204,204,204)"><u></u> =20 =20 =20 <div> <div>On 6/9/26 6:42 PM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type=3D"cite"> =20 <div dir=3D"ltr">The core issue is if these scripts=C2=A0should be in Unicode in the first place. I have yet to be convinced that these scripts (pIqaD, Tengwar, and Cirth) are used in any contexts that aren't related to their universe/media of origin.= <br> <br> And no it's not "nobody uses X, except for X's users&q= uot;, it's *when* are X's users actually using it. Like is pIqaD only used when dealing with things related=C2=A0to Star Trek? That doesn'= t seem like enough usage=C2=A0to me. One again=C2=A0I say, it's not Mo= nopoly in pIqaD, it's *Star Trek themed* Monopoly in pIqaD.<br> </div> </blockquote> <p>I still don't get why we feel it's necessary to "grade&= quot; the level (or breadth) of literature in a writing system.=C2=A0 It's true t= hat a system which is used for nothing but education materials (in the same system) or only has material published by one author or a single publishing source is probably too idiosyncratic to be considered for encoding, but saying, "OK, you can write about love, revenge, pain, suffering, joy, sadness.... but so long as it's only in the Star Trek universe, that doesn't count as a diverse literature."=C2=A0 Where does Unicode get off telling pe= ople that some topics "don't count"?=C2=A0 Linear B was only= ever used in the "Mycenean Greek world-setting", and our evidence of it = deals with almost nothing except boring administrative records.=C2=A0 No poetry, no songs, no plays, no books.=C2=A0 Does=C2=A0 that mean it&#= 39;s too limited?</p> <p>Asmus notes the similarity of fiction-based scripts to historic scripts.=C2=A0 (not "invented" scripts; ALL scripts are inv= ented.=C2=A0 They don't grow on trees, you know.=C2=A0 And some encoded scripts are= quite recent inventions.)=C2=A0 It's not about whether or not they'= re used for things other than their historic milieu.=C2=A0 It's about whe= ther or not they are *used* by people, either as scholarly discussion, creative innovation, or historical recording.=C2=A0 As to Asmus' = point about the need to wait and see and consider the impact, it's a fair enough point, but do note that proposals for Klingon stretch back *thirty* years.=C2=A0 And for good or ill, the actual writing system has changed very little in all that time.=C2=A0 I think the wait-and-see period is over.</p> <p>(BTW, I've seen Klingon stories set in various non-Star-Trek universes.=C2=A0 But maybe you'll say that some of them are "= ;too close" to Star Trek.=C2=A0 Do they have to be non alien/futuristic in order = to count?=C2=A0 The opera _'u'_ is set in the Star Trek universe= , but in Klingon pre-history, so it isn't "futuristic" at all.= =C2=A0 The audio story _qul toQ wo'_ is not set in the Star Trek universe, and there are no Klingons, but it is a futuristic setting with various kinds of aliens and space-ships and wormholes.=C2=A0 Is that too clos= e to Star Trek?=C2=A0 How do we make the call for what is and what is n= ot "valid" use?=C2=A0 (these are both just stories, not exampl= es specifically of pIqaD use.))</p> <blockquote type=3D"cite"> <div dir=3D"ltr">Like only if we truly have reason to put in Unicode should we consider=C2=A0potential=C2=A0copyright problems that=C2= =A0might happen if we do such a=C2=A0thing.=C2=A0</div> </blockquote> <p>According to what I've been told, the potential copyright problems are indeed what is stopping Unicode from encoding Klingon, even though the record says that isn't the reason.=C2=A0= Usage has already been demonstrated.=C2=A0 And indeed, it's reasonable = enough to be cautious of those problems.</p></div><div> <p>~mark</p> <blockquote type=3D"cite"><br> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:57= =E2=80=AFAM David Starner via Unicode <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= ode.org" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left= -color:rgb(204,204,204)">On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:05=E2=80=AFAM Michael De Roover via Unicode= <br> <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank"= >[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> > The core issue, though, is institutional and legal, not a judgment about the<br> > value of these communities. Unicode cannot standardize scripts that are<br> > copyrighted intellectual property without explicit permission from the rights<br> > holders. The Tolkien Estate, Paramount, and miHoYo all retain legal control<br> > over their fictional scripts.<br> <br> We can acknowledge the risk without agreeing to the argument. In the<br> US, scripts have explicitly been refused copyright protection. When<br> Cyan tried to register the Myst D'Ni script, the US Copyright Office<br> responded with a refusal letter explaining that writing systems are<br> not copyrightable in the US. I am not familiar with any contrary<br> decision in any country, though many do permit copyrighting typefaces,<br> which the US does not.<br> <br> -- <br> The standard is written in English . If you have trouble understanding<br> a particular section, read it again and again and again . . . Sit up<br> straight. Eat your vegetables. Do not mumble. -- _Pascal_, ISO 7185<br> (1991)<br> <br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote></div></div> </div> --0000000000003973660653dbfad7--