<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 10/06/2011 05:51 PM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1317937871.75902.YahooMailClassic@web82601.mail.mud.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="font: inherit;" valign="top">It's dangerous to
speculate about what would be "better" for writing any
language, but given <span style="font-weight: bold;">ta'
Hol'</span>s penchant for CVC syllables, something
similar to Korean <span style="font-style: italic;">hangul</span>
would probably be the most efficient. But if other
dialects of Klingon have different syllable forms, then a
simple alphabet may have proven most flexible over time.<br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
As writing systems go, in all fairness, it's hard to beat a simple
alphabet, in a lot of criteria. OK, it sounds kind of narrow-minded
to say it, but alphabets really do (or can) rock. They're flexible,
they use a minimum of glyphs, they're extensible by various means
even without actually adding whole new letters... Granted, those
aren't always the criteria being used to judge...<br>
<br>
~mark<br>
</body>
</html>