RE: U+1824 & U+1826

Hi Greg,


We are Ok if Mongolian Linguists agree to leave it out. 

We are not use it in our modern Mongolian.


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:   <>

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




From: Greg Eck [] 
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 12:45 AM
To:; 'Badral S.' <>;
Subject: RE: U+1824 & U+1826


This may be a pre-classical Mongolian form?

If so, could we leave it out for now?

Professor Quejingzhabu is working on another set of specifications that deal
more with the pre-Classical period now.

It is likely that the next GBxxxxx standard will have this in.




From: <>  [] 
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 9:33 AM
Subject: RE: U+1824 & U+1826

The U+1824 & U+1826 with dotted final form is not popular usage in Inner

I have heard that it is occurred in some historical material from linguistic

It is existed in the earlier proposals and I am not sure when it is
disappeared from major list like Professor Quejingzhabu's book and GB26226

We have implemented in our font as U+1826+FVS2, if it is necessary, it is
better to add in encoding.



From: Badral S. []

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 7:52 PM

To: <> 

Subject: U+1824 & U+1826

I just checked again and
found an issue at U+1824/1826.

If we should filter FVS-s strictly, then we should probably consider u & ue
with drop which occurs after NA alternatively.

@Siqin & Jirumutu: Is this form exists in Inner Mongolia? If yes, how
popular is it?





Received on Monday, 19 October 2015 08:08:09 UTC