- From: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 23:31:35 +0100
- Cc: <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 05:04:13 +0900 <jrmt@almas.co.jp> wrote: > The following is our folding list. > > 1. A v. E, > 2. O v U > 3. UE v. UE (first syllable) > 4. O v. U v. OE v. UE (medial and final from) > 5. I v. Y - ( medial form is the UCS rule's new addition ) > 6. J v. Y (Initial) > 7. O U OE UE v. W (medial, final) - the UCS's new addition > 8. HE v. GE, HI v. GI, HOE v. GOE, HUE v. GUE > 9. TA v. DA > 10 EE v. WA - (the UCS's new addition) > 11 KA v. KHA - (the UCS's new addition) > 12. HAA v. ZHI (medial and final) Does the Mongolian alphabet as claimed by the Unicode codepoints work away from computers? What I get from that list is the idea that something much closer to the Semitic original, largely based on shape, should have been encoded. For example, what is encoded as OE- should actually have been encoded as E-O-I- (aleph, waw, yodh as 'The World's Writing Systems' by Daniels and Bright puts it). Richard.
Received on Monday, 3 August 2015 22:32:07 UTC