[tlhIngan Hol] xifan hol: k and q

[nIqolay Q]

boQwI' gives you an option of using k -> {q} or {Q}, is that something
feasible on your end?

I prefer to use boQwI' with k -> {Q}, since I can just use q for {q}. But I
have noticed that some fonts use k for {q} and q for {Q} (or, technically,
they use K for {q} and Q for {Q}, since the fonts map pIqaD to capital
letters). I think I might be in the minority on this one.

(Obviously, we should ask Okrand to make a ruling one way or another, just
to sort it out.)

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel at dadap.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> xifan hol seems to have a variant where k is mapped to {q} and q to {Q},
> and one where k is mapped to {Q} and q to {q}. The k -> {q}; q -> {Q}
> mapping appears to be more prevalent, but the other one is quite common,
> too.
>
> I can see pros and cons to both systems, although I personally prefer the
> k -> {q} version. For my TTS experiments, I’ve been using this particular
> xifan hol variant, but before I release the helper tools I’ve been using
> for these experiments to the public, I’d like to make sure that choosing
> this convention won’t be confusing or contentious, if there’s a large
> enough population of Klingonists that use k -> {Q}.
>
> I could always use XIFAN HOL instead, since I’ve never see. XIFAN HOL with
> K -> {Q} (since the main advantage of k -> {Q} is not having to explicitly
> convert q -> {q}.
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180602/d1392bcf/attachment-0033.htm>