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
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...
More information about the Unicode