Tengwar on a general purpose translation site

James Tauber jtauber at jtauber.com
Thu Mar 10 04:55:38 CST 2022

The intellectual property rights (to the extent they may be
enforceable or at least claimed) would be in the glyph and in the
name, right?

But the Tengwar has a canonical enumeration. So TENGWAR LETTER 1 is
meaningful in the context of LOTR Appendix E without reference to the
glyph or name 'tinco' so it's not quite the same as just saying


On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 9:31 AM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode
<unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:
> I sort of have to agree with Ken here (hey, it happens.)  What makes
> Unicode an encoding of *characters*, what makes U+0041 mean LATIN
> CAPITAL LETTER A, is that Unicode says that's what it is. In the name,
> yes, but the name isn't dispositive (there are misnamed characters); the
> rest of the standard also counts.  It's LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, and not
> just UNICODE CHARACTER 0041. Unless the standard stipulates, in the
> actual character names or out of them, that codepoint XXX01 really
> corresponds to TENGWAR LETTER TINCO, then, well, it might as well just
> be UNICODE CHARACTER XXX01 or as Ken says, <private-use F0001>.
> Also, although everyone seems focussed on the glyphs, I think that
> really isn't the issue.  If I somehow invented an entirely new and
> original set of glyphs for Klingon, and somehow got them retroactively
> canonized and used and all that stuff (or to put it another way, if I
> invented or held the copyright on the glyph forms), I don't think
> Unicode would be any more comfortable about encoding KLINGON LETTER A or
> even PIQAD LETTER A than they are now.  It's not about the pictures, and
> Unicode doesn't encode glyphs.  Encoding Tengwar is or maybe is felt to
> be... doing *something* sortakinda related to IP owned by the Tolkien
> estate, and that's the sticking point.
> ~mark
> On 3/9/22 13:57, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
> >
> > On 3/9/2022 10:38 AM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> >>
> >> Suppose a proposal works around any IP concerns, real or imaginary,
> >> by using generic character names along the lines of CJK ideographs.
> >> Such as:
> >>
> >> and so forth.
> >>
> >> The charts covering the ranges could be blank with a footnote
> >> explaining that the lack of glyphs is due to IP concerns.  The
> >> proposal could refer to earlier proposals for usage examples and the
> >> proposed range need not mention any author's name or copyrighted brands.
> >>
> >> Would such a proposal have any chance of moving forward towards
> >> acceptance?
> >
> > Well, insofar as this is attempt to "encode" characters without
> > providing reference glyphs or names or any meaningful semantics, it
> > isn't much different from just using:
> >
> > U+F0001 <private-use-F0001>
> > U+F0002 <private-use-F0002>
> > ...
> >
> > I don't see the UTC going for this kind of pseudo-private-use concept.
> > The whole point of *standardizing* characters is to spell out
> > precisely what they are so that interchange is reliable.
> >
> > --Ken
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>

More information about the Unicode mailing list