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

RE: New Thread - FVS Assignment MisMatch

From: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:17:09 +0000
To: "jrmt@almas.co.jp" <jrmt@almas.co.jp>, 'Richard Wordingham' <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>, "public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org" <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
CC: "public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org" <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN3PR10MB0321FA5D0AF6648FEBFDEFA3AF740@BN3PR10MB0321.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
I agree with the difficulty in spelling correctly.
Vertical Mongolian is one of the most difficult scripts in the world to create as well as use.
Smart keyboards with even a smattering of spelling normalization will help a lot.
Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: jrmt@almas.co.jp [mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp] 
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 7:16 AM
To: 'Richard Wordingham' <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: RE: New Thread - FVS Assignment MisMatch

Dear Mr. Richard

> Is that true?  There may be more than two spellings that look the same, but do they *sound* the same?  
> As I understand it, the Mongolian encoding represents sounds as well as appearance.  Are Mongolian dictionaries sorted according to sound or according to visual form?
Yes you are right. They are sound different, the dictionary list the words in their *sound*.
But most of the Mongolian people can not exactly distinguish which word is which. Even the linguistic expert make mistake without dictionary.
But some times dictionary, listed them in different position, according to the authors point of view.
For this reason, the text existing in public, remains so many wrong spelled words. 
When people read them, it is no problem, but when we search in the Google, we have to search each possible spelling.
For example, we will search the word Mongolian ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠤᠯ  at least four times.

> It is a shame that the explanation is missing.  
> I'm still trying to understand the shaping rules, but I think the 
> variation selectors are most organised as you suggest.
Ok, no problem. We can communicate more kindly to help each other to understand them.

> The adjustments should only be minor.  
> There may be ways to make what looks like a big difference into a small difference.
> Otherwise, the Mongolian encoding seems to have failed.
It is not the small difference, So many related people in Inner Mongolia are concerning about it.
Please refer my another mails inputs.
Maybe it is not complete enough to understand the situation and problem now.
I will continue to input this issue till you and other members.

Thanks and Best Regards,

Jirimutu
==========================================================
Almas Inc.
101-0021 601 Nitto-Bldg, 6-15-11, Soto-Kanda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
E-Mail: jrmt@almas.co.jp   Mobile : 090-6174-6115
Phone : 03-5688-2081,   Fax : 03-5688-2082
http://www.almas.co.jp/   http://www.compiere-japan.com/

==========================================================




-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Wordingham [mailto:richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com]
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 7:00 AM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Thread - FVS Assignment MisMatch

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 05:52:01 +0900
<jrmt@almas.co.jp> wrote:

> What is the problem ? what I am saying here is we will follow the 
> Unicode Encoding chart U1800.pdf to select the default isolate variant 
> form.

If you mean you will make a choice consistent with standardised variants, that is fine.  If you mean the isolated form will necessarily be the one that is shown in the code chart, that is wrong.

> But do you know, how many undistinguishable word exactly in Mongolian 
> ? According to our approximately statistic, there are almost 80% of 
> the word have more than two spelling in current Mongolian Unicode 
> encoding.

Is that true?  There may be more than two spellings that look the same, but do they *sound* the same?  As I understand it, the Mongolian encoding represents sounds as well as appearance.  Are Mongolian dictionaries sorted according to sound or according to visual form?

> We have no other selection, we have to use current version of the 
> Unicode Mongolian.

> It is Ok to me that the principle of the Mongolian Variant form 
> mapping might be quietly different with my list.
> But I am hoping that there should be one this kind of principle. 

It is a shame that the explanation is missing.  I'm still trying to understand the shaping rules, but I think the variation selectors are most organised as you suggest.

> Do you agree that because of the Unicode Mongolian Encoding rule 
> definition, the users have to change their learned grammar to fit the 
> Unicode rule ? Or Unicode rule need to fit with the majority people's 
> existing grammar knowledge ?

The adjustments should only be minor.  There may be ways to make what looks like a big difference into a small difference.
Otherwise, the Mongolian encoding seems to have failed. 

Richard.



Received on Thursday, 6 August 2015 17:17:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:07:05 UTC