Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
by
Mick Mallon
Iqaluit 2000
Contents
A: History of Syllabics
B: Linguistic Definitions
C: Static Phonology
D: Syllabic Structure
E: Morphology
F: Morphophonology
H: My Blunder
A: HISTORY OF SYLLABICS
I can give you all the dates and personalities by cribbing from Kenn Harper's work, but the
most important detail to remember is that the syllabic system was originally devised by English
clergymen in the last century. They were Godly men, but they weren't trained linguists. The
system they developed filtered Inuit sounds through English ears, and we are still struggling
with the infelicities that flowed from that.
• They could not hear the vital difference between the sound k and the sound q (they are
two different phonemes ... see below), and when they did try to remedy that omission
they produced the digraph ᕿ ᖁ ᖃ ᖅ, whose clumsiness still creates confusion.
• They also were misled by the English use of the digraph ng to represent the single
phoneme ŋ, thus giving us the awkward series ᖏ ᖑ ᖓ ᖕ.
• They also were misled by the English use of the digraph ng to represent the single
phoneme ŋ, thus giving us the awkward series ᖏ ᖑ ᖓ ᖕ.
• Finally, they were misled by the geometrical quadruplicity of the syllabic system to
think that there were four vowels in Inuktitut. There are only three: logically we need
only three columns plus the finals.
So much for the last century. Then in 1976 came the meeting at the ICI (Inuit Cultural Institute)
in Arviat (then called Eskimo Point). That's when we produced the new, modern, low-fat salt-
free dual orthography. We missed a few opportunities, mostly through ignorance.
• We didn't know that the Natsilingmiut dialect had an extra phoneme ɟ. (That's a j with a
strikethrough: it's a kind of a curled tongue y)
• We thought that nobody had the sequence nŋ. We were wrong, and later you'll see the
problem that created.
• We knew that several Keewatin and Western dialects use the sound h instead of the
sound s. We thought this didn't matter. They think it does.
• And then there is the use of q in the middle of words. That's my fault. I'll explain it
later, right at the very end.
B: LINGUISTIC DEFINITIONS
Phonetics is simply the study of the sounds themselves. The phonetician wants to know
precisely how the sounds are produced, or what their precise audio qualities are.
Phonology is the study of the sound system of a language. The phonologist takes the results of
the phonetician's work and uses it to see how these sounds interact. To the phonetician all
sounds are equal. The phonologist considers phonemes (the basic sounds of the particular
language: see below) to be of greater import than allophones (variants of phonemes).
Morphology is the study of the word-building processes of the language. English has a
complicated, rather illogical morphology, but the bulk of meaning in English communication is
transferred by the way we arrange words in sentences. Inuktitut has a logically simple
morphology, which carries a far greater load in communication in Inuktitut than morphology
does in English. An Inuktitut word can replace a whole English sentence.
Parimunngauniralauqsimanngittunga I never said I wanted to go to Paris.
A morpheme is "a minimal unit of meaning". There are three morphemes in the English word
unwarlike. There are eight (or so) morphemes in the Inuktitut word above: Paris + mut +
nngau + niraq + lauq + sima + nngit + junga (Inuit morphemes often change shape slightly
as they get tacked on).
Morphophonology is the study of how the rules of the sound system (the phonology) affect
the word-building process (the morphology). In many languages you don't just jam the bits
together: you have to modify them to fit the sound pattern of that particular language. Even in
English we say a situation that is not "tolerable" is "intolerable", but one that is not "possible"
is "impossible", (m and p are both formed in the same part of the mouth: English likes
geographical propinquity in its sounds.) The morphophonology of Inuktitut is much more
developed than that of English. The fontographer has to be aware of this. It's not enough for
him to know the sounds of the language: he should be aware of their possible combinations.
C: STATIC PHONOLOGY
We'll start with static phonology, a simple listing of the phonemes of something I'll call
Standard Inuktitut, in other words, Inuktitut without the dialectal variations.
Across the top is the Place of Articulation, i.e., the place in the mouth where the sound is
produced. The Inuktitut table differs from the English table in one particularly important point:
Inuktitut has uvular sounds; English doesn't. That difference is why, as explained in the history
section above, we have that awkward syllabic digraph for qi qu qa q: ᕿ ᖁ ᖃ ᖅ.
Along the side is the Manner of Articulation, i.e., the manner in which we modify the air as it
emerges. (This is all explained much more clearly in the PowerPoint presentation you have, the
one on Phonology.) The three manners are voiceless, voiced, and nasal. This is of much more
than academic interest, because in Inuktitut in any cluster of two consonants ... and you can't
have more than two (see next section) ... both consonants must have the same manner. Both
must be voiceless, or voiced, or nasal. A sequence like the mp of the English word impossible
is impossible in Inuktitut, because m is nasal, and p is voiced. This has an enormous effect on
how the finals behave when writing in syllabics, with additional dialectal subtleties, such as
gemination (see ... below).
So far we have followed the standard linguistic approach to any language. However, I will
eventually be adding another dimension: Flow of Articulation: i.e., is the sound a continuous
one, like f s v or l, or is it a stop, like p t k q. We'll get into that later.
Now for the table, on the next page. If my colour printer is still working, you will see the
voiceless sounds in green, the voiced sounds in red, and the nasal in blue. That way you can
think of the consonant clusters as having to be in matching colours ... rather twee, but it works.
Place of Articulation
Voicele
stops p t k q
ss
fricativ
Manner of sɬ
es
Articulation
Voiced v l j g r
Nasal m n ŋ [ɴ]
labi alveola palat vela uvula
al r al r r
Voicele
stops p t k q
ss
fricativ
Manner of sɬ
es
Articulation
Voiced v l j g r
Nasal m n ŋ [ɴ]
My belief is that in its basic form, every syllable in Inuktitut ends either in:
inuk + lu inuglu
→ and a person
ᐃᓄᒃ + ᓗ ᐃᓄᒡᓗ
I've been told that Hawaian is a language where all the syllables are open. No syllable ends in a
consonant. Oahu lei
English is anything but an open-syllabled language. Even when you allow for our awkward
spelling system, we abound in closed syllables, often with a cluster of consonants doing the
closing instead of just one: strength enchantment switch Christlike
Now let's cut to the chase for Inuktitut. Here is the formula. Brackets mark options.
(C)V(V)(C)
• a headless syllable is one that does not begin with a consonant, i.e., one that begins
with a vowel;
• a headed syllable is one that does begin with a consonant.
The complication with syllabics begins when a closed syllable is followed by a headed one, as
in natsiq seal. That juxtaposition automatically creates a consonant cluster.
Notice, before we go on, that the syllabic structure of Inuktitut does not permit the
conglomeration of consonants that we find in English. If you apply the formula, you will never
have a sequence of more than two consonants, or more than two vowels. In fact, with the
exception of a few exclamations, such as uaik!, expressing moderate admiration of someone's
accomplishment, and of a few uai combinations in the Pond Inlet subdialect, (quaittuq she
slips), Inuktitut does follow this rule rigourously.
Also, Inuktitut automatically considers a single consonant in the middle of a word to be the
initial consonant of a headed syllable. A word like aiviq walrus, is always analysed as ai / viq,
never as *aiv / iq.
So, a closed syllable only occurs at the end of a word, or in front of a consonant in the middle
of a word.
Now, finally, we see where the finals come in.
Except for the two digraphs discussed below (ᖅ ᖕ), the final is the a-syllable symbol written
small and high.
Before we get into the complications caused by the phonological system, we should clear up
the complications caused by history.
Remember the two digraphs: the first caused by the use of ᕐ as a diacritic to change k to q, in
ᕿ ᖁ ᖃ ᖅ, and the second caused by the use of ᖕ as a diacritic to change g to ŋ, in ᖏ ᖑ
ᖓ ᖕ.
The ᖅ symbol is inelegant enough in words like uqaqtuq, ᐅᖃᖅᑐᖅ she speaks. But it
would be unacceptably awkward to apply it automatically in words with a double qq, such as
utaqqijuq she waits, which would come out as *ᐅᑕᖅᕿᔪᖅ. So we have established a
convention that double qqs are written in syllabics (but not in roman), as ᖅᑭ ᖅᑯ ᖅᑲ.
Therefore the roman utaqqijuq appears as ᐅᑕᖅᑭᔪᖅ.
That creates a problem for transliteration programs, which I believe you have solved. Unless
you write a subprogram, correctly written roman utaqqijuq comes out in syllabics as
incorrectly written *ᐅᑕᖅᕿᔪᖅ, while in the other direction, correctly written syllabic
ᐅᑕᖅᑭᔪᖅ, comes out as incorrectly written roman *utaqkijuq. There's some more history to
this. It turned out that the use of q in the middle of words was a mistake, a psychological rather
than a linguistic one, (for which I was largely responsible: see the last page). Anyway, Kativik
decided to use only r medially: a good decision. (They made another decision, not so good ...
more on that later.)
A similar, but not absolutely identical, problem to that caused by ᖅ is the problem caused by
ᖕ. That symbol is inelegant enough in words like umianga, ᐅᒥᐊᖓ his boat. Once again
there is a problem in words with a double ŋŋ, such as umiaŋŋuaq toy boat, which would
come out as *ᐅᒥᐊᖕᖑᐊᖅ in syllables, and even more clumsily, as umiangnguaq in roman.
The convention here is to drop the first g of the sequence in roman. This gives us the roman
umiannguaq, and, to be consistent, the syllabic ᐅᒥᐊᙳᐊᖅ.
Once again, a problem, albeit a minor one. I'll leave the explanation for my discussion of
dialectical variations.
RECAP
Because of the syllabic structure of Inuktitut, finals occur only at the end of closed syllables.
However, since the sound ŋ never appears at the beginning of a word, neither does the
diacritic ᖕ.
qajaq ᖃᔭᖅ kayak
That's the template for the use of finals. But in practice the rules of Inuktitut morphophonology,
and the differences between dialects, affect what actually appears. We'll look at morphology
next, and then go on to morphophonology.
E: MORPHOLOGY
English morphology is incredibly complicated. First of all, you can have both prefixes and
suffixes: like, dislike, likeness.
There is the fact that we have four parts of speech to play around with: nouns, grief; verbs,
grieve; adjectives, grievious; adverbs, grieviously; plus all the combinations, like an adjective
formed by combining a noun with a verb form: grief-stricken.
Then you have all the clutter caused by the inconsistent heritage of Latin and French: deceive,
deceit, deception; receive, receipt, reception.
Inuktitut morphology is much simpler in its approach than English. First, with one exception,
there are no prefixes, only suffixes. Second, there are only two major classes, Nouns and
Verbs. So we'll start:
Verb Roots cannot exist on their own; they always need an ending. So I always write Verb
Roots with a dash after them:
Noun Roots Verb Roots
iglu taku- see
qajaq sinik- sleep
Verb Roots cannot exist on their own; they always need an ending. So I always write Verb
Roots with a dash after them:
Noun Roots Verb Roots
iglu taku- see
qajaq sinik- sleep
There are eight noun endings:
The first three are grammatical (like the -m and -se pernickety speakers put on who "Whom do
you wish to see?" "Whose little girl are you?
noun endings
1 ø (i.e., no ending at all) subject of nonspecific verb, object of specific
2 -up possessor, subject of specific verb
3 -mik object of nonspecific verb
The next four deal with spatial relationships: some of them have secondary meaning as well.
4 -mi in, on
5 -mit from
6 -mut to
7 -kkut through
Note: in this section I want to concentrate on the morphology. Therefore most of the examples
will be given morpheme by morpheme, with the morphemes separated by +. In the
morphophonological section I'll show how the morphemes actually combine.
Bad News.
There are, by one count, 699 verb endings in the North Baffin dialect, (only 609 in South
Baffin).
Why so many?
First of all, Inuktitut nouns and verbs can be singular, dual and plural.
takujunga takujuguk takujugut
I see we two see we several see
Second, instead of using words like because, if, whether, whenever, Inuktitut uses different
sets of verb endings:
takugama takugunnuk takungmangaatta
because I see if we two see whether we several see
Third, Inuktitut has one set of verb endings for nonspecific situations, and another for specific
situations. Compare:
takujunga takujunga takugama
I see I see because I see
takujagit takujara takugakku
I see you I see him because I see him
Fourth ... no, forget the fourth. It's too complicated. Just trust me. So, anyway. 699 verb
endings.
So far:
The resultant word is a noun, and has all the privileges of one.
umiaq boat
umiaq + juaq big boat (ship)
umiaq + juaq + mi in the ship
The resultant word is a verb, and has all the privileges of one.
taku- see
taku + ttiaq- see clearly
taku + ttiaq + jara I see it clearly
A Noun-Maker turns a verb into a noun, with all the privileges of one.
-ji is a Noun-Maker which has roughly the same meaning as the -er of worker, helper,
teacher.
sana- make, work
sana + ji construction worker
sana + ji + tut like a construction worker
-suuq is a Noun-Maker which means one who carries out the action (habitually)
tingmi- fly
tingmi + suuq airplane
tingmi + suuq + juaq big plane
tingmi + suuq + juaq + mit from the big plane
Nouns can have Verb-Makers attached to them.
A Verb-Maker turns a noun into a verb, with all the privileges of one.
It's quite all right to switch back and forth, like this:
umiaq + juaq + liuq + vik + mi in the ship yard
... or this:
anaq- defecate
anaq + vik + siuq + junga I'm looking for a defecatorium
Here are the categories so far.
panik daughter
panik + ga my daughter
panik + it your daughter
panik + nga her / his / its daughter
Kubluup paninga Kublu's daughter
The form of stem plus one of four endings gives you spatial information
tavvani at this (expected) spot
maangat from this (unexpected) area
tappaunga to that (expected) area up there
kanuuna through that (unexpected) spot down there.
The penultimate category consists of tails, little snippets appended to a word already
grammatically complete:
uvanga I, me
uvanga + lu me too
tukisi- understand
tukisi + juq she understands
tukisi + juq + guuq she understands, she says
That's it for morphology.
We'll summarize the morphology on the next page, and then move on.
MORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES
What happens when we get rid of our + signs and join these morphemes together?
F: MORPHOPHONOLOGY
Every affix has its own phonological behaviour. Every time you add an affix you have to be
prepared for it either to affect the preceding consonant (the final consonant of the preceding
syllable) or to adjust itself. In addition, there are other phonological behaviours such as
gemination, or the Nunavik Law of double consonants, that can add a dialectal flavour to the
finished word.
There are seven categories of the preliminary phonological behaviour of affixes, which I shall
now list and then, in a moment, describe.
Deletion
Neutral
Voicing
Nasalization
Consonant Alternating
Uvular Alternating
Vowel Heading
Every affix except the solitary prefix ta- must include its phonological behaviour in its
description. Examples follow.
The template:
Preliminary note:
With the exception of Vowel Heads, affixes do not usually affect preceding vowels, only
preceding consonants. The exceptions to this general rule are noted.
1: Deletion
The simplest of all, and the most numerous category. Deleters delete preceding consonants.
Generally, they are unpredictable from their appearance. However, because the syllabic
structure of Inuktitut blocks the occurrence of three consonant clusters, any affix beginning
with two consonants is automatically a deleter.
Examples:
In what follows, focus on the Manner, but note how the Place stays the same.
Place of Articulation
Voicele
stops p t k q
ss
fricativ
Manner of sɬ
es
Articulation
Voiced v l j g r
Nasal m n ŋ [ɴ]
In Assimilation, a consonant becomes similar to its neighbour in one or more of its features.
(Remember that there can be only two consonants in an Inuit cluster.)
In Regressive Assimilation, the assimilation operates backwards, from the second consonant
to the first.
In Regressive Assimilation of Manner, the first consonant assumes the manner of the second
consonant. In conservative dialects, the first consonant changes its manner, but retains its place
(Remember that final consonants are always voiceless in their basic form.)
kj → gj kn → ŋn
The k becomes voiced, but remains velar. The k becomes nasal, but remains velar.
2: Neutral
In a regressively assimilating affix, if the second consonant is itself voiceless, then of course
the first consonant does not undergo a change of manner. Affixes with this behaviour, or lack
of behaviour, we label Neutral.
ᐊᐃᕕᖅ
ᐊᐃᕕᖅᓯᐅᖅᑐᖅ
3: Voicing
In a regressively assimilating affix, if the second consonant is voiced, then the first consonant
becomes voiced also. Affixes with this behaviour we label Voicers.
ᓂᐅᕕᖅ-
ᓂᐅᕕᕐᕕᒃ
4: Nasalizing
In a regressively assimilating affix, if the second consonant is nasal, then the first consonant
becomes nasal also. Affixes with this behaviour we label Nasalizers.
ᐅᒥᐊᖅ-
ᐅᒥᐊᕐᒧᑦ
You have probably noticed that in roman and syllabics we have use the same symbol for both
voiced and nasal uvulars. The phonetic symbol we have used in the table for the nasal uvular is
[ɴ] in square brackets. [ɴ] is the nasal allophone of q. Unlike /r/, it is not a phoneme: it is not a
basic sound in the language. There is therefore no need to give it a separate symbol. No Inuk
would ever pronounce the r in umiarjuaq (big boat, ship) as if it were nasal, or the r in
umiarmut (to a boat) as if it were simply voiced.
There is, however, another source of confusion here. We'll leave that till later ... the last page.
One last complication with some voicers and nasalizers coming up.
The affix which we have so far written as -juaq for some reason inserts r after vowels. So ...
In South & East Baffin, and in Nunavik, the affix is simply -vik.
Compare these two affixes, both of which are Nasalizers beginning with m.
So far the affixes we have looked at affect their neighbours, actively. Now we have an affix
which reacts to its neighbour. These affixes take one form after vowels, and another after
consonants. Disregarding some dialectal flavours, we can state this.
ᐃᓕᓴᐃ- ᓂᐅᕕᖅ-
ᐃᓕᓴᐃᔨ ᓂᐅᕕᖅᑎ
Consonant Alternators abound in Statement and Interrogative verb endings:
Now it starts to get complicated. Not to begin with. Some Uvular Alternators are
(comparatively) simple:
In conservative dialects some Uvular Alternators have a different form for every possible stem.
(Note that Noun Roots end only in vowels, k or q, but Verb Roots end in vowels, t k or q.)
Here is one common form from North Baffin west to Siglitun (in the extreme west of Canada.)
I'll spare you the examples. The pattern is all we are after.
At first sight any affix that begins with a vowel seems to be simply a deleter. Take the affix
which would seem to be -innaq(-). I call it a double chunk, since it acts as both noun chunk
and verb chunk (hence the bracketed dash).
The answer, in this case, is insertion. We insert the sound ŋ to break up the sequence.
Vocabulary: Obviously we're not going to take the time to list the different vocabulary items.
Such differences are almost all arbitrary.
Grammar: The differences in grammar, i.e., in morphology and syntax, are minor, and mostly
arbitrary.
Many speakers, mostly older, more in the west than in the east, tend to nasalize final
consonants, especially t.
Kivalliq, Natsilingmiutut and Inuinnaqtun dialects substitute /h/ for /s/. Because we have the
letter h available in a roman alphabet, it is used in the roman orthography. Since the substitution
is automatic, it should not be necessary to create a different syllabic symbol, so to my mind,
these are perfectly acceptable transcriptions, with the readers pronouncing the syllabics as their
dialect prompts them to. (Some of my Western students disagree, they want a phonetic
representation in syllabics as well as roman.)
Aivilik, Kivalliq, Natsilingmiutut and Inuinnaqtun dialects have the allophone [b] before /l/.
Once again, since we have the letter b available in a roman alphabet, it is used in roman. In
syllabics we are a little more subtle. We use the p final ᑉ, and assume automatic voicing. Thus:
Several dialects have a glottal stop. However the original phoneme it replaces varies from
dialect to dialect. Many writers simply use the original phoneme: others use the apostrophe in
both roman and syllabics.
Consider the English expression in + tolerant, which comes out as intolerant,. Note that the n
and the t are both in the alveolar column. Now consider the same structure, but with a different
base in + possible. The n is still the same alveolar, but the p is labial. If we apply regressive
assimilation of place, we get a labial nasal, m, to give us impossible.
In South Baffin and in Nunavik, the sequence ts exists as in natsiq seal. But the sequences ps
and ks are subject to regressive assimilation of place, as in:
original SB / Nunavik
natsiq natsiq seal
ᓇᑦᓯᖅ ᓇᑦᓯᖅ
takugapsi takugatsi because you (pl) see
ᑕᑯᒐᑉᓯ ᑕᑯᒐᑦᓯ
iksivautaq itsivautaq chair
ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ
original SB / Nunavik
natsiq natsiq seal
ᓇᑦᓯᖅ ᓇᑦᓯᖅ
takugapsi takugatsi because you (pl) see
ᑕᑯᒐᑉᓯ ᑕᑯᒐᑦᓯ
iksivautaq itsivautaq chair
ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᐃᑦᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ
Assimilation of Flow
By Assimilation of Flow I mean assimilation from stop to fricative, or vice versa. This is not
very common, and in the example I am about to give it has no effect on the writing system, but
we should dispose of it, if only for the sake of symmetry. Here is the table for voiceless
consonants in Inuinnaqtun, including the fricative allophones, in square brackets. Note that in
the Inuinnaqtun dialect the phoneme h replaces the phoneme s, and also the phoneme ɬ.
Gemination
labC
a consonant cluster in which the first consonant is labial:
e.g., pk vv mn
alvC
a consonant cluster in which the first consonant is alveolar:
e.g., tp lv nm
velC
a consonant cluster in which the first consonant is velar:
e.g., kt gj ŋn
uvuC
a consonant cluster in which the first consonant is uvular:
e.g., qt rl rm
Note: If the second consonant is a voiceless fricative, then the patterns will be more complex
than shown here.
Here is the table. √ means the cluster exists as shown. gem means the cluster is regressively
geminated.
uvuC No need to fill this in. Only Labrador ever geminates uvulars.
Now you can see some of the effects on the syllabic system:
North Baffin is the only dialect that needs final s ᔅ, and then only in geminates from original
ps: takugapsi because you (pl) see becomes takugassi: ᑕᑯᒐᑉᓯ → ᑕᑯᒐᔅᓯ.
South Baffin & Nunavik only use all the other final symbols (except q ᖅ and r ᕐ) in doubles
or geminates, or at the end of words. These two dialects also have a high proportion of ts ᑦᓯ ᑦᓱ
ᑦᓴ.
In all dialects the only words ending in p are nouns with the possessive noun ending -up.
The western dialects and Aivilik are the only ones that use a medial p, either to indicate the
The western dialects and Aivilik are the only ones that use a medial p, either to indicate the
voiceless phoneme p as in takugapsi because you (pl) see ᑕᑯᒐᑉᓯ, or, in syllabics, to indicate
the automatically voiced allophone b as in kublu thumb ᑯᑉᓗ.
Nunavik refuses to permit a sequence of two consonant clusters. Any time this is about to
occur, the first consonant of the second cluster is automatically deleted. This is a completely
phonological process, and pays no heed to the underlying morphology.
The following three words express the same basic idea in the same structure, animal + hunt +
he. Note the difference in the surface forms between South Baffin and Nunavik. We'll use
tuttu caribou, aiviq walrus, and natsiq seal.
Even after a consonant has been deleted by the LDC its ghost continues to wheel its
phonological barrow. Compare these forms with the verbs sallu- lie (tell untruth), which ends
in a vowel, and aullaq- depart, which ends in the uvular consonant q.
Natsilingmiutut, with other western dialects, substitutes h for s. I have already mentioned that
although some speakers want their own syllabic symbol for that sound, in strict linguistic
theory it is unnecessary. The fortuitous existence of the letter h in roman is irrelevant.
However...
Natsilingmiutut is the only Canadian dialect to retain the difference between the voiced palatal
phoneme j and the retroflex phoneme ɟ. In all other dialects these two have merged to j. I don't
know this dialect well, but I have not found a minimal pair, where the only difference in
meaning comes from a contrast in these two sounds, (like pet and bet in English.) However the
occurrence of j and ɟ is not predictable:
H: MY BLUNDER
It's a long story, but I'll shorten it. Back in 1976, at the ICI standardization conference, because
of my belief that it was a good idea to mirror the Assimilation of Manner in the orthography, it
was decided to use q for the first consonant in voiceless clusters, and r for the first consonant
in voiced and nasal clusters.
That was a mistake. That particular distinction does not come natural to Inuit writers, (possibly
because of the non-phonemic status of [ɴ].) Public signs, newspaper articles, government
publications, children's literature produced by the Department of Education, all are littered with
qs where there should be rs, and rs where there should be qs.
Kativik did the right thing in switching to the use of rs medially, with qs left for word initial
and word final. When things settle down, maybe Nunavut will make that change. It won't affect
the keyboard or the fonts, but it will reduce spelling errors among the otherwise literate by
about 30%.