RE: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks

Hi Greg,


Mr. Liang Jin Bao’s paper is talking a lot linguistic arguments. 


But the major point of argument is how to define the Medial Form Glyph of the two character U+1836_Y and U+1838_W.


It should be 

1.      The first medial form  of U+1836_Y is ,  encoded as <U+1836>

2.      The second medial form of U1836_Y is , encoded as <U1836, FVS1>

3.      The first medial form  of U+1838_W is  ,  encoded as <U+1836>

4.      The second medial form of U1838_W is , encoded as <U1836, FVS1>


And we will 

1 . Encode  ᠠᠢᠯ as <U+1820><U+1822><U+182F>,   not as <U+1820><U+1836><U+1822><U+182F>

2 . Encode  ᠰᠠᠢᠬᠠᠨ as <U+1830><U+1820><U+1822><U+182C><U+1820><U+1828>,   not as <U+1830><U+1820><U+1836><U+1822><U+182C><U+1820><U+1828>

3 . Encode  ᠰᠠᠶ᠋ᠢᠬᠠᠨ as <U+1830><U+1820><U+1836><U+1822><U+182C><U+1820><U+1828>,   not as <U+1830><U+1820><U+1836, FVS1><U+1822><U+182C><U+1820><U+1828>

4 . Encode  ᠳᠠᠢ as <U+1832><U+1820><U+1822>,   not as <U+1832><U+1820><U+1836>


All of above is acceptable to all parties, there will be no need to discuss more on Diphthongs things. It is linguistic opinion. 


What we have agreed on NNBSP connected suffixes  Yin, YI, IYER, IYEN is the exception, and on for Suffixes.


Thanks and Best Regards, 





Almas Inc. 

101-0021 601 Nitto-Bldg, 6-15-11, Soto-Kanda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

E-Mail: <>    Mobile : 090-6174-6115

Phone : 03-5688-2081,   Fax : 03-5688-2082


Inner Mongolia Delehi Information Technology Co. Ltd.

010010 13th floor of Uiles Hotel, No 89 XinHua east street XinCheng District, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia

Mail: <>        Mobile:18647152148

Phone:  +86-471-6661969,      Ofiice: +86-471-6661995



From: Greg Eck [] 
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 8:34 PM
To: Greg Eck <>;
Subject: RE: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks


I have read through the paper as written up by Jirimutu summarizing Mr. Liang Jin Bao’s paper as attached. Much of the content is probably beyond the scope of our discussion in this forum. However points 4.e and 4.f should be brought forward.


4.e.) I think we have already agreed on how the the NNBSP-connected suffixes YIN, YI, IYEN, IYER should be typed. Please note that the second suffix as highlighted did not shape correctly in the pdf attached. It should actually be a straight tooth as with the first suffix. I note this as this point will affect the OT rulings in our fonts.


4.f.) “Are there any changes to the Mongolian Script orthography?” is the question that is asked. If there are impacts from the Diphthong discussion that directly relate to a font’s internal shaping mechanisms, then we should be made aware of this. Jirimutu, can you address this area as there is no detail in the summary?






From: Greg Eck [] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 12:09 AM
To: <> 
Subject: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks

With that I suggest that we invite Jirimutu and team to lead a discussion on diphthongs as we have not been able to have that yet. Would that be possible, Jirimutu?



Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 02:43:14 UTC