Difference between Klingon and Tengwar

Mark E. Shoulson mark at kli.org
Wed Sep 15 15:41:56 CDT 2021

On 9/15/21 3:17 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> It seems fairly clear by now that the real blocking issue is the perception, or reaction to it, that encoding Klingon would be undignified to Unicode.

And Asmus adds:

> Well, I didn't know that Unicode had "being high-brow" among its 
> principles.
Indeed.  As I already noted, this imagined issue of "dignity" is 
offensive beyond belief from a group that's supposedly culturally 
neutral.  If you took the sentence "encoding Klingon would be 
undignified to Unicode" and replaced "Klingon" with, say "Adlam" or 
"Yezidi" or "Mandombe", would anyone hesitate to call that bigoted and 
unworthy of Unicode?  "We shouldn't encode X languages because only Y 
people speak them and we don't want to be associated with them."  Would 
it be okay to replace X="African" and Y="dark-skinned"?  Then how is it 
okay to have X="Star Trek" and Y="geeks"?  Would you let some people's 
disapproval of Yezidis stop you from encoding Yezidi?  Then why do you 
care about people's disapproval of Klingon-speakers?

This horse is dead, and I need to stop beating it.  But so long as this 
somehow is actually allowed to remain an issue, there's something very 
seriously wrong with how decisions are made.

Is Klingon literature not high-brow enough?  How much research was done 
to make that decision, how much did the Unicode representatives read, 
and of what?  And how much research did they do to confirm the 
worthiness of Mro?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20210915/ca4de301/attachment.htm>

More information about the Unicode mailing list