RE: OT: Guessing the Spelling

Richard,

> Sometimes one can work out which sound has been dropped.  Greg seemed to
imply that if one knew the Cyrillic spelling 
> (or, almost equivalently, pronunciation)and what the traditional Mongolian
> looked like, 
> one should be able to work out how to spell the traditional Mongolian.  
Yes. They can. Because they have different alphabet in Cyrillic, they are
accustomed to the spelling.
Maybe it is easy distinguish which is O, OE, which is U, UE. 
But they have some other kind of difficulties appears when the Cyrillic
Mongolian is direct record of the speaking language, the traditional
Mongolian have different writings with their speaking language. There are a
lot of phonetic drops and changes in Mongolian speaking language.


> Perhaps it is anyway - the original attempt to achieve mass literacy in
the Mongolian script was a failure, and Phags-pa and the todo variant are
evidence of the inadequacy of the classical system.
No. it is absolutely unacceptable.

> This post *is* diverging from the primary purpose of the list, which is
why I put 'OT' for 'off-topic' in the subject field of the post.
I got it. 

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 10, 2015 12:56 AM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Re: OT: Guessing the Spelling

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 23:39:32 +0900
<jrmt@almas.co.jp> wrote:

> Richard,
> 
> > As far as I can make out, knowing the Cyrillic spelling (аав) and 
> > knowing what the Mongolian script spelling looks like still leaves 
> > one with two alternatives - O and U.  Are people missing an obvious 
> > clue as to the spelling?

> It is not the people missing something, actually it is the computer 
> program is asking people to make clear distinguish of the alternatives 
> in one second.

Sometimes one can work out which sound has been dropped.  Greg seemed to
imply that if one knew the Cyrillic spelling (or, almost equivalently,
pronunciation)and what the traditional Mongolian looked like, one should be
able to work out how to spell the traditional Mongolian.  I was challenging
this claim.

> But the Mongolian people using
> Traditional Mongolian (not Cyrillic Mongolian) is accustomed to the 
> handle the writing shape quickly,  but not to the original 
> pronunciation.

Exactly.

> I am not sure what objectives are you considering,

I was merely pointing out that Greg's objections were unreasonable.
Alternatively, people need to lean to speak Written Mongolian before they
try to write it.  It makes one suspect a conspiracy to make the Mongolian
script too difficult to use!  Perhaps it is anyway - the original attempt to
achieve mass literacy in the Mongolian script was a failure, and Phags-pa
and the todo variant are evidence of the inadequacy of the classical system.

On the other hand, the multiple spellings of 'Mongol' are, so far as I am
aware, much more difficult to excuse.

This post *is* diverging from the primary purpose of the list, which is why
I put 'OT' for 'off-topic' in the subject field of the post.

Richard.