Re: Fwd: vowel notation; yet another visit Sorik of Vulcan Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:34:25 PST >From: "Saul Epstein" >I realize that you may simply have chosen an unfortunate example, and >I realize that we have documents of different vintage floating around >contradicting each other, but at this point is always the sound in >. > >Until a revised version of the Grammar and Lexicon are produced, none >of the relative standardization that's been achieved in the last year >and a half will appear to have the smallest degree of dedication. >That's just something people will have to deal with until the revised >versions have been produced, argued over, and approved. Personally, >I've been a bit distracted by my time-space life lately, but I intend >to get back to proposing revisions fairly soon... I know what you mean. >If people _really_ care, someone can sort through the data and make >the rules for this explicit. I got part way through before I decided >it was less important than elaborating the grammar and switched >tracks. > This one _really_ cares. >Actually, this technique of effectively doubling the representational >capacity of the standard character set occured to me independently >some years before Klingon was first published. I suspect it may have >very wide usage, and for a long time: even type-writers can use it. > >Also, I seem to recall a, um, Klingonist suggesting using >capitalization for Vulcan at some point in the past. The suggestion >met mostly with disapproval, because people felt it would be hard to >read... And you think what we have now isn't hard to read? The only problem I have with whatever transcription we're using is that it contradicts itself. (see the and ) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www,hotmail,com