Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?
"Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode" <[email protected]> Tue, 9 Jun 2026 21:27:24 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------X0an5lX3jlIi5zNotEyi2235 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/9/26 9:15 PM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote: > If we were encoding Klingon as a language I would agree that there is > enough existing work. But the alphabet alone is different. > It is indeed true that a lot of Klingon is written in Latin transcription (I personally don't use pIqaD much or at all. But I know people who quite quickly jot down notes in it.) On the other hand, there *is* attested usage of pIqaD. See the examples at https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf for 20-odd uses of it. Oh, but those don't count, because they're Star-Trek related? I disagree with you there. I think that claiming that pIqaD "just doesn't have enough usage" is simply nonsensical at this point. > And it’s not “some topics don’t count” it’s that it’s one topic. OK, but "one topic doesn't count" vs "some topics don't count" doesn't really seem to be that big of a difference. So it's singular versus plural? You're still saying that some topics are valid and others (or another) isn't. And it isn't even one topic, by your definition. Talking about Monopoly isn't a different topic *if* it has Star Trek smell wafting over it. It isn't that one topic doesn't count, it's that one topic is *forbidden*, in the sense that just a hint of it infects anything else one might be writing and makes it lesser. I don't really see where we have the right denigrate topics like that. > 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) Then we're back to raw usage, which is another issue. Does pIqaD usage compare to Adlam's? I dunno (probably not). Are there other encoded scripts with similarly small usage? Probably. But if anything, the bar for living languages should be *lower* than the bar for historic ones. Living languages have a need and a use right now! ~mark > 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 PM 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/media 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 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." 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 consider 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 Star 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 AM David Starner via Unicode >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:05 AM 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 are >> > 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) >> --------------X0an5lX3jlIi5zNotEyi2235 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 6/9/26 9:15 PM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CALpKH7rtZ34GLbAsJ_VFGuNo4UcwvKH1CTROpnErfm8Cis+5oQ@mail.gmail.com"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> <div> <div dir="auto">If we were encoding Klingon as a language I would agree that there is enough existing work. But the alphabet alone is different. </div> <div dir="auto"><br> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p>It is indeed true that a lot of Klingon is written in Latin transcription (I personally don't use pIqaD much or at all. But I know people who quite quickly jot down notes in it.) On the other hand, there *is* attested usage of pIqaD. See the examples at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf</a> for 20-odd uses of it. Oh, but those don't count, because they're Star-Trek related? I disagree with you there. I think that claiming that pIqaD "just doesn't have enough usage" is simply nonsensical at this point.</p> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CALpKH7rtZ34GLbAsJ_VFGuNo4UcwvKH1CTROpnErfm8Cis+5oQ@mail.gmail.com"> <div> <div dir="auto">And it’s not “some topics don’t count” it’s that it’s one topic.</div> </div> </blockquote> <p>OK, but "one topic doesn't count" vs "some topics don't count" doesn't really seem to be that big of a difference. So it's singular versus plural? You're still saying that some topics are valid and others (or another) isn't. And it isn't even one topic, by your definition. Talking about Monopoly isn't a different topic *if* it has Star Trek smell wafting over it. It isn't that one topic doesn't count, it's that one topic is *forbidden*, in the sense that just a hint of it infects anything else one might be writing and makes it lesser. I don't really see where we have the right denigrate topics like that.</p> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CALpKH7rtZ34GLbAsJ_VFGuNo4UcwvKH1CTROpnErfm8Cis+5oQ@mail.gmail.com"> <div> <div dir="auto">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)</div> </div> </blockquote> <p>Then we're back to raw usage, which is another issue. Does pIqaD usage compare to Adlam's? I dunno (probably not). Are there other encoded scripts with similarly small usage? Probably. But if anything, the bar for living languages should be *lower* than the bar for historic ones. Living languages have a need and a use right now!</p> <p>~mark</p> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CALpKH7rtZ34GLbAsJ_VFGuNo4UcwvKH1CTROpnErfm8Cis+5oQ@mail.gmail.com"> <div> <div dir="auto">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)</div> </div> <div> <div><br> <div class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 8:33 PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" 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-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"> <div> <div>On 6/9/26 6:42 PM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite"> <div dir="ltr">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/media of origin.<br> <br> 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.<br> </div> </blockquote> <p>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 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." 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?</p> <p>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 consider 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.</p> <p>(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 Star 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.))</p> <blockquote type="cite"> <div dir="ltr">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. </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. Usage has already been demonstrated. And indeed, it's reasonable enough to be cautious of those problems.</p> </div> <div> <p>~mark</p> <blockquote type="cite"><br> <div class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:57 AM David Starner via Unicode <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" 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-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:05 AM Michael De Roover via Unicode<br> <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[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> </blockquote> </body> </html> --------------X0an5lX3jlIi5zNotEyi2235--