Q.: Who said you could do this?
A.: Who said I couldn’t?
Besides, I don’t see anyone else doing it. Do you?
Now that that’s out of the way . . .
This is the Unicode version of a group of pages originally published in Nunacom. Technically, all I had to do was feed the Nunacom into a transcoder, plug in the new text and let it go at that. But take a closer look at the original HTML with its mess of tables and <font> tags, and you’ll understand that this was out of the question. Most changes were behind the scenes. I’ve kept the look of the original, at least as far as the body text goes. I left out the advertising header (always empty in Inuktitut) and the navigation sidebar—the section that’s dark yellow on the front page. This makes the pages less colorful, but oh well. ᐊᔪᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅ.
I don’t know much about the original production. It seems pretty clear that most if not all articles were originally written in English, and were then translated by different people using different dialects. Or at least different orthographies: here a -ᒥᓐ, there a -ᒥᑦ; here a -ᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪ-, there a -ᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪ-. The online version doesn’t give any information. The back cover of the printed book tells us, in minute type against a dark background, that the translators were Therese Okkumaluk, Rachel Attituq (how you derive this from ᐊᑏᑦᑐᖅ is a mystery to me—but it’s her name, not mine) Qitsualik and Alexina Kublu. And, where the English says “Translation”, the Inuktitut says ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑑᓕᕆᔩᑦ. That’s pretty unambiguous.
The articles, corresponding to separate web pages, also seem to have been put into Nunacom by different people. The print version definitely came first. Some mistakes carry over, while others were newly introduced in the online version. Mistakes that were corrected between print and online formats can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. Some articles are very clean; others are littered with the same kinds of long-vowel mistakes that make the early Hansards so interesting. In particular, several articles have " where you would expect ᐲ. This seems to have something to do with the alternative character mapping of „ (“low nine” quotation mark) to ᐲ. Long vowels in Nunacom were, let’s say, chaotic.
In spite of all this, most changes are cosmetic or mechanical:
For non-trivial changes, read on.
This article had more transcoding problems than any of the others I looked at. I made some preliminary guesses, but most things had to wait until I got hold of the print version.
In the end this came down to searching visually for any and all long vowels. It turned out that almost all problems were in the ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑎᑭᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᒍ section, about 1/4 of the full article. A long list of characters—ᐋ ᐄ ᑖ ᑳ ᑰ ᒌ ᒨ ᓈ ᓲ ᓛ ᔩ—are completely absent from this section. ᐲ and sometimes ᓛ were rendered as "; ᓅ came through as © (Nunacom °). The typist may have thought she was on a Mac—or maybe she was on a Mac, and forgot to tell the programmer. The °-for-ᓅ character mapping doesn’t always work as expected.
Original text, showing missing letters:
ᐊᕕᖕᓂᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᐊᑐᓚᐅᕐᑎᓐᓇᒍ 1999-ᒥ, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐅᑭᐅᕐᑕᖅᑐᖓᓂ ᐱᖓᓕᖅᑲᖓᓗᓂ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᖑᕋᔭᕐᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓐᓇ ᒪᕐᕈᐃᖑᕐᑎᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᒻᒥᒃᕐᑐᓂ ᐊᕕᒃᓯᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ — ᐹᕐᑐᖃᐅᕐᑐᖅ ᒪᑲᓐ ᕚᓕ ᐱᖓᕐᓇᕐᒦᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᖃᐅᕐᖢᓂ ᐊᓪᓚᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᖁᓯᖃᑎᙱᑦᑐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᓪᓚᖓᔪᓂ, ᐃᓄᖕᓂ ᐅᑭᐅᕐᑕᖅᑐᖅᒦᑦᑐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᖅᓂᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᓇᖕᓇᕐᒥ ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓕ ᐹᖅᑐᖃᔮᖏᑦᑐᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 85 ᐳᓴᓐᑦ ᐃᓄᓪᓚᕆᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ.
ᒎᓗᒥ ᐱᖓᖕᓇᒥᓐ ᓇᓂᓯᔪᖃᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᐅᖅᓱᐊᓗᒃᓴᒥᓐ. ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑦ 40 ᓯᕗᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᐃᓚᖏ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᕕᖕᓂᕐᒥᓐ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᖃᑦᑕᓕᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᖓᖕᓇᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᓐ. 1963-ᒥ ᑏᕙᓐᐸᐃᑯ ᒐᕙᒪᖏ ᐊᓂᒍᐃᑎᑦᑎᑲᓴᑦᑎᐊᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᐊᕕᖕᓂᕐᒥᓐ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓄᖃᐅᔾᔭᐅᓕᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓵᓚᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᓂᕈᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯ. 1966-ᒥ, ᑯᕋᑐᔅ ᑲᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕆᔭᖓ, ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᑎᑕᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᒐᓱᒃᓗᑎ ᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒥᓐ, ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᕕᖕᓂᐅᔪᒥᓐ. ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᐳᕐᓕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᕕᖕᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᖅᓯᐅᕐᓂᐊᕋᓱᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᓂ “ᓄᓇᖃᖅᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᕐᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᓐ ᐃᓚᐅᖏᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕆᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ.”
ᑲᑎᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒧ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑏ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓄ ᑐᕚᒥ, ᐃᓚᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᓚᐅᕐᐳᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᓂᑦ, ᐊᓪᓚᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓄᖕᓂ, ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᐃᑉ ᐅᒃᐱᒃᒥ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓴᐃᓂ ᒪᐃᑯᓪᒥᓐ 1960 ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓂᑦ. 1967ᒥ, ᑲᒥᓯᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᖓ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥ, ᑲᑎᒪᓪᓗ ᓄᒃᑎᓕᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᔭᓗᓇᐃᕝᒧᓐ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 1975 ᑎᑭᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑲᑎᒪ ᓂᕈᐊᕐᑕᐅᓂᒃᑯ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᑎᐅᓕᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᑦ. 1980ᒥ, ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᖅᐹᖓ ᐱᐅᕐ ᑐᕉᑑ ᑭᒡᒐᕐᑐᐃᔨᖓ, ᓯ. ᐊᒻ. ᑐᕉᕆ (C. M. Drury), ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᓕᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᖅ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓂ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᖃᖁᔨᓪᓗᓂ ᑕᒪᑐᒥᖓ ᐊᕕᖕᓂᕐᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓂᑦ. ᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᑦ ᐊᕕᖕᓂᕐᒥ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᓕᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᑦ, ᓂᕈᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓐ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᖃᓚᐅᕐᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᖃᕐᑐᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ.
ᐱᕈ 1982ᒥ, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᓂᕈᐊᕐᓂᖅᑕᖃᓚᐅᕐᐳᖅ “ᐊᖏᕐᑐ” ᐊᒥᓂᕐᓴᐅᒻᒪᕆᒃᖢᑎᒃ; ᐊᒻᒪ ᓄᕕᐱᕆ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥ, ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᖏ ᑐᓴᕐᑎᑦᑎᓕᓚᐅᕐᐳᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᓂᕐᒥᖕᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᒃᓴᐅᓂᖓᓂ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓂᕈᐊᕐᓂᕐᑕᖃᓚᐅᕐᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᖁᔭᐅᔪᓂ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᐊᕈᑎᒃ. ᑭᖑᓂᑦᑎᐊᖓᒍ, ᑲᓇᖕᓇᕐᒧ ᑭᒡᒐᕐᑐᐃᔨᒥ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᑐᖃᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒧᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᒡᒐᕐᑐᐃᔨᖃᓕᕐᖢᑎᒃ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᓐ ᐃᓄᓪᓚᕆᖕᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᑎᒥᓐ, ᑕ ᐃᑎᓐᓄᐊᕐ.
ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒧ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᓚᐅᕐᐳᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅᕐᑐᒃᓴᒥᓐ ᑕᐃᔭᐅᔪᖅ Constitutional Alliance, ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᕐᕈᐃᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᑎᓂ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᖃᕆᓪᓗᓂ: ᐱᖓᖕᓇᕐᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒃᓴᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒧ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒃᓴᑦ. ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒐᓵᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᐳᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᓐ, ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᒐᓗᐊᕐᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᑭᐅᕐᑕᖅᑐᕐᒥ ᓄᓇᕋᓱᒃᑲᓗᐊᕐᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. 1984ᒥ, ᐃᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᒪᑲᓐᔨ ᑎᐊᑕᒥ, ᒃᑯᐊᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑯ ᓄᓇᕋᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᒋ, ᐊᑎᓕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᒥᓐ ᑲᓇᖕᓇᕐᒥᐅᑦ ᐃᓄᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᖃᑎᖕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕕᒡᕕᐅᒐᔭᕐᑐᒥᓐ ᐱᕆᒐᓱᒃᑕᖏᓐᓂᑦ. 1987ᒥ, ᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᐱᓕᕆ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᒥᓐ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᓚᐅᕐᐳᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᕕᐅᒐᔭᕐᑐᒥᓐ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᖓᖕᓇᕐᒥ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥ (ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑎᕐᒥ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᑦ, ᒃᑯᐊ ᓱᓕ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᑕᐅᕙᒃᐳᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥᓐ).
ᓂᐱᖃᖏᐅᔭᕐᑐᒥᓐ, ᐊᒡᓚᒡᕕᖕᒥ ᐃᒡᓗᐊᓗᖕᒥ ᑐᕚ ᑐᔪᕐᒥᕕᖓᑦᑕ ᐃᓚᖓᓐᓂ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᓂᖓᓂ ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓗ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᒻᒪᕆᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓄᖑᖅ ᐃᒥᒃᕐᑐᖅ ᐊᕕᒃᓯᒪᓂᒃᑯ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᕐᑕᐅᓕᓚᐅᕐᐳᖅ ᔮᓐ ᐊᒪᕈᐊᓕᖕᒧᓐ ᑐᙵᕕᒃᑯᓐᓂᕐᖢᓂ, ᕐᑎᓪᓚᕆᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ; ᔮᒃ ᔅᑖᒡ, ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯ ᕐᑎᖓ; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓕᒡ ᓯᓇᐃᑐ, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᑉ ᕐᑎᖓ. ᓂᕈᐊᕐᓂᖅᓕ ᖃᐅᔨᔾᔪᑕᐅᓕᒑᓪᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᖏᕋᓗᐊᕆᐊᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᑦ.
ᒪᐃ 1992 ᓂᕈᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯ, ᐅᓄᕐᓂᖅᓴᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥ ᐊᕕᖕᓂᐅᓂᐊᕐᑐᒥᓐ ᐊᖏᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᑦ. ᐊᖏᕈᑎ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᕐᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᑑᐸ 30, 1992ᒥ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓄ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒧᓐ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᒧᓐ ᑐᙵᕕᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᐊᓗ ᐊᖏᓕᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗ ᒪᓕᒐᖓᓂᑦ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓗ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᓕᒑᓪᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᒥᓐ ᐱᕈ 1, 1999ᒥᓐ.
That means, among other things:
In the original—both English and Nunacom—the first illustration was split into two files so it could interlock more closely with the text. The top part went alongside the title; the bottom went with the subhead. The top was then separately edited, as if the designers meant to use only this part, but changed their minds after discarding the unprocessed original.
Meanwhile, in the bottom half, something seems to have taken a bite out of the hunter’s left leg.
I recombined the two halves and did a little spot cleaning. The gap in the leg may be part of the original photograph after all. But it looks less distracting when filled in.
I posted this transcription before I saw the print version. It was pretty gratifying to see how much I got right, including disentangling the paired captions.
ᓄᑦ ᐱᖑᐊᕈᓰ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓄᑕᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ—ᐃᖃᓗᖕᒥᐅᑕᖅ ᓂᑭ ᐃᔨᑦᓯᐊᖅ
ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᓇᐅᓯᓕᒑᔪᖅ, ᖁᒡᓗᒃᑑᕐᒥᐅᑕᖅ ᔫᓐ ᑲᓚᖓᖕᐳᒡ ᐊᔭᕌᕐᑐᖅ.
31 ᐊᕐᕋᒍ "ᐅᑎᒃᑯ ᐅᖃᕐᑎᐅᓂᑯ ᔫᓇ ᑭᓕ ᓄᖅᑲᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᖅ ᓰ"ᓰᑯ "ᐅᑎᓕᕆᓂᖏᓐᓂ 1997ᒥ. ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᑐᑦ "ᐅᓯᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑏᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒥ
The online version introduced some obvious errors. Even if I hadn’t had access to the print version, I would have made most of these changes.
In this and the following article, the white-on-black text at the top seems to have been forgotten at the last minute. The black box is there, but the Inuktitut page doesn’t say anything. There is no equivalent in the print version. The English page quotes from the body text, so I did the same.
In the second-to-last paragraph, beginning “ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ”, a couple of <font> tags around exclamation marks were missing, so they turned into “1”.
The article ᐊᖑᓇᓱᒃᑏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑭᑐᔪᑦ (“Hunters and High Finance”) says:
ᓄᓇᓯ ᑯᐊᐳᕇᓴᓐ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒃᑯᕕᓕᒃ—ᓇᐃᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥᖃᐃ—ᔭᓇᐃᒥ
Nunasi Corporation, headquartered—one hopes temporarily—in Yellowknife
Nunasi’s current address is in Iqaluit.
The English-language version of the ᐅᖃᓪᓚᐅᓯᕗᑦ, ᐅᕙᒍᑦ (“Our Language, Our Selves”) article—presumably translated by the author—tells us that Alexina Kublu is an Inuk while Mick Mallon is a qallunaaq. Do they assume that if you can read Inuktitut, you already know this?
Conversely: The Inuktitut-language version of ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓴᓇᕐᖑᐊᒐᖏᑦ (“Inuit Art”) includes James Houston’s Inuit nickname, ᓴᐅᒥᒃ (“Lefty”). I guess English speakers weren’t to know.
My favorite line, though, is tucked away in the middle of the third article, ᐊᖅᑯᑎ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒧᑦ (“The Road to Nunavut”):
ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑎᓪᓗᒋ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ . . . ᐊᓪᓚᓂᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᓕᓚᐅᕐᐳᑦ . . . .
Meanwhile, the Inuit . . . joined the Cree . . . .
And that’s not something you hear every day.