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@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@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org