W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org > July to September 2015

Re: Searching

From: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 23:31:35 +0100
Cc: <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20150803233135.1c7388ce@JRWUBU2>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:07:04 UTC