RE: FVS for NA

Hi Martin,

Thanks for your input and cautions.
I do have some ideas on how to represent what Professor Quejingzhabu did with the use of a white FVSx and a black FVSx in his early documentation Mengu Wen Bianma. I appreciate your statement about making sure that future documentation is as clear and un-ambiguous as possible.


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Heijdra [mailto:mheijdra@Princeton.EDU] 
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2015 9:15 PM
To: siqin <>; Richard Wordingham <>;
Subject: RE: FVS for NA

I was quite familiar with the very original Mongolian implementation, and helped develop based upon documentation provided by Quejingzhabu a full correctly working version for Mongolian, Manchu, Todo and Sibe during Vista development. The shipping Vista version already had problems (Uniscribe had changed), and later versions broke much. But I also realized that at that time some decisions were made, which actually should be agreed upon by a much wider community. And actually, Mongolian is the easy part (the goal is clearer!),while  in Manchu especially I found many spellings which needed to be implemented but were not documented in the available documents, but in articles here and there.

Since apparently everything is starting over from scratch, but discussed by the users community, which is the most important thing, I don't feel the need to report on individual issues (as long as agreement is reached, that is a step forward, and I certainly trust the work of some on this list), but I start having the feeling that some are not realizing that there is a major difference between a list with FVSs made to be able to use metatalk, using ZWJs, about those forms as forms (the old, but also the "new" Unicode 8 list) , and the use of FVSs in running texts. Thus, while the old Unicode list was particularly unhelpful, the new one referred to here every now and then is also not very clear for people who would not know Mongolian well.

Thus, the following message refers to the N. The FVS1 there always was defined as a *toggle*, always meaning "the first exception to the rule": thus, in running text, NA+FVS1 did NOT refer to a particular glyph, and any such assumption so is wrong (unless you completely change the rules). The NA has different default versions, with or without dot, before consonants and vowels; the FVS1 chooses the opposite. Thus, in running text, unlike metatext, there is no ONE definition of NA+FVS1: it depends on context. At least, that was the model chosen. Thus it is not even true to say, what is the case in most cases, that the FVS defines a glyph, but that whether the FVS is needed in running text depends on the context, and I think that is the assumption of many: the very shape of NA+FVS1 depends on the context.

When revising the variant list, I think it would be useful to point out those things, and not treat NA+FVS1 as if it were similar to the definition of an A+FVS1 etc.

The list as published in Quejingzhabu's book also made careful distinctions (even if unfortunately not 100% correct), through the use of white on black or black on white marks, and brackets (), whether a FVS was always , never, or only sometimes necessary in running text.  I would think that is a useful distinction to convey to implementers. I have the feeling (but not following the discussion that closely, may be wrong), that that is what Jirimutu is getting at, while Richard is looking at the insufficient Unicode variant list.

Andrew and Greg: I am sure you know what I am getting at. Perhaps there is no such misunderstanding between the discussants; but even then, the final document should ensure that nobody ever will have that misunderstanding, and in that sense, the Unicode 8 variant list is only a partial solution.


-----Original Message-----
From: siqin []
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 4:21 AM
To: Richard Wordingham;
Subject: Re: FVS for NA

On 2015/08/06 9:16, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> 1) Initial NA has a dot unless it is followed by a consonant.  (The 
> example I saw was the surprising spelling of the Canotonese name Ng, 
> with NA and, I think, GA.)
     No, Initial NA always has a dot. If no dot, it read as E(1821), not N(1828).
> 2) Medial NA has a dot before a Mongolian vowel, and not otherwise.
     Not entirely correct.
     There is exception that NA has not dot before a Mongolian vowel as below.
         Medial A(1820) + FVS1
         Medial I(1822) + FVS1
         Medial o(1823) + FVS1
         Medial u(1824) + FVS1
         Medial OE(1825) + FVS2
         Medial UE(1826) + FVS2
     This forms  are not used in normal word, but used in word which consists of two( or more) words.
     Look at na_exception.pdf and na_exception.png.
> 3) Before MVS, NA has a final form, but with a dot.
> 4) The final form has no dot.


Received on Friday, 7 August 2015 13:32:56 UTC