Re: FW: FVS Assignment Mismatch WrapUp

Hi Greg,

> MediGa03 – ADGAU/ADGAQU – by Professor Quejingzhabu’s rulings (see my 
> OverRide rulings) the GA should be undotted after DA/SA. In my 
> opinion, this is a mis-spelling in the dictionary.
     I rather hope this is a mis-spelling in the dictionary.
     But most Traditional Mongolian dictionaries spelling these words as 
with two dots.
         sd_ga_with_dots11.jpg
         sd_ga_with_dots12.jpg
         sd_ga_with_dots21.jpg
         sd_ga_with_dots22.jpg
         sd_ga_with_dots31.jpg
         sd_ga_with_dots32.jpg
         sd_ga_with_dots41.jpg
         sd_ga_with_dots42.jpg
     Even all of the dictionaries mis-spelling these words, there is 
exception in compound word like
         sd_ga_with_dots51.jpg

> FinalGa01 – Siqin, could you look at this example again. I am not sure 
> how it applies.
     This is not example. I only want to explain the meaning of the word 
final_ga_exception2.png.

SiqinBilige.

On 2015/08/24 22:58, Greg Eck wrote:
>
> Thanks again Siqin for your input.
>
> Here are a few comments on Siqin’s 6 examples:
>
> MediGa01 – By the rules in the OverRide paper submitted earlier plus 
> Siqin’s notes on the S/D + Medial GA case, this does not need the 
> over-ride FVS as it is a medial GA preceded by a SA.
>
> MediGa02 – By the rules in the OverRide paper submitted earlier plus 
> Siqin’s notes on the S/D + Medial GA case, this does not need the 
> over-ride FVS as it is a medial GA preceded by a DA.
>
> MediGa03 – ADGAU/ADGAQU – by Professor Quejingzhabu’s rulings (see my 
> OverRide rulings) the GA should be undotted after DA/SA. In my 
> opinion, this is a mis-spelling in the dictionary. *Badral, 
> Erdenechimeg, Siqin, and others, could you comment on this spelling?*
>
> *Siqin, if we need to over-ride context to get the medial GA dotted, 
> we already have the FVS1 firmly assigned there, so that should not be 
> a problem.*
>
> FinalGa01 – Siqin, could you look at this example again. I am not sure 
> how it applies.
>
> FinalGa02 – I know that Baiti would pass this as a masculine word and 
> therefore would not need the over-ride FVS. We need a foreign word 
> that has no masculine vowels (AOU). *Can others comment on how their 
> font would handle this text sequence?*
>
> FinalGa03 – QODAL SIG – Good, we can use this example
>
> We have a strong case for the Final GA over-ride. The FVS assignment 
> has been on record since the TR170 plus the MGWBM. Plus we have 
> examples. *More examples are welcome.*
>
> I am still not sure that we have a case for the Medial GA undotted 
> over-ride FVS. *More thoughts here … ?*
>
> Greg
>
> *From:*siqin [mailto:siqin@almas.co.jp]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 24, 2015 11:29 AM
> *To:* Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: FVS Assignment Mismatch WrapUp
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>     ·182D Medial – given the case where the contextual rules for the
>     dual dots must be over-ridden. In other words, the context
>     dictates that the medial GA is dotted, however, the actual shaping
>     of the word is desired without the dots. I have not had the time
>     to track down examples for this.
>
>     I did not face with this case in my font implementation experiment.
>     It may be :
>     There is a grammar rule which the two dots will be omitted if 
> g(182D) follows s(1830) and d(1833) in Traditional Mongolian.
>     ( The most dictionaries spell it as QA and read it as GA. )
>         medi_ga_exception1.png
>         medi_ga_exception2.png
>     But there is a exception
>         medi_ga_exception3.png
>     So, if over-ridden is needed, the doted GA, not the undoted one. I 
> think.
>
>     ·182D Final – given the case where the feminine final GA does not
>     follow the common pattern of sweeping to the left, but however
>     sweeps to the right. In other words, the word is composed of
>     feminine vowels, but carries a masculine right-ward swept tail.
>     From discussions with Professor Quejngzhabu, I understand that
>     there are just a small subset of words (5-6 in quantity) that
>     follow this pattern.
>
>     See
>         final_ga_exception1.png
>         final_ga_exception2.png
>         final_ga_exception3.png (?)
>
> SiqinBilige
>
> On 2015/08/24 0:19, Greg Eck wrote:
>
>     I am ready to wrap up the discussion on FVS Assignment Mismatch.
>
>     However I am still lacking good examples on two of the over-rides
>     discussed ...
>
>     ·182D Medial – given the case where the contextual rules for the
>     dual dots must be over-ridden. In other words, the context
>     dictates that the medial GA is dotted, however, the actual shaping
>     of the word is desired without the dots. I have not had the time
>     to track down examples for this.
>
>     ·182D Final – given the case where the feminine final GA does not
>     follow the common pattern of sweeping to the left, but however
>     sweeps to the right. In other words, the word is composed of
>     feminine vowels, but carries a masculine right-ward swept tail.
>     From discussions with Professor Quejngzhabu, I understand that
>     there are just a small subset of words (5-6 in quantity) that
>     follow this pattern.
>
>     ·I am attaching two files showing data sets for the non-over-ride
>     cases here.
>
>     *Erdenechimeg, Siqin, I wonder if you or others can help find some
>     good examples that we can state in this regard? Your examples
>     before were so helpful. We have some good examples for the 1822
>     medial single-tooth over-ride with NAIMA (“eight”). Also, we have
>     a good set with the 1828 undotted medial over-ride. But we are
>     still lacking for the two cases of the 182D GA as listed above.
>     Anything we can document here will be helpful.*
>
>     Thanks,
>     Greg
>
>     PS Our next topic will be Isolates – an exhaustive overview
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net]
>     Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:14 PM
>     To: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>
>     <mailto:richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>;
>     public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org <mailto:public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
>     Subject: RE: Reference Scheme for Mongolian Rendering
>
>     Hi Richard,
>
>     Attached please find the rules for the four over-rides.
>
>     I did this a bit fast, everyone please look over carefully to see
>     if I made a mistake.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Greg
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>
>     From: Richard Wordingham [mailto:richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com]
>
>     Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:56 AM
>
>     To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org <mailto:public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
>
>     Subject: Reference Scheme for Mongolian Rendering
>
>     Looking at Greg's list of data sets (DS...) in his post of
>     Saturday 8th August ('Mongolian Variation Sequences Missing from
>     Unicode 8.00 Code Chart',
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-mongolian/2015JulSep/0248.html
>
>     ), we are missing two important items:
>
>     1) A reference scheme for rendering. I offer one in the attachment
>     rendering_framework.odt.
>
>     2) The rules for contextual forms that may be overridden by
>     variation selectors.  Without these rules, we do not know whether
>     we have an adequate set of variation selectors for rendering
>     connected text.
>
>     I am trying to identify the contextual rules, though I am not the
>     best person for the job.  NNBSP has me worried.  Do we need to
>     identify suffix rules for every language that might conceivably be
>     written in the Mongolian script with separated suffixes?
>
>     Richard.
>