RE: Sibe Range Head Forms, Postional Forms, Variant Forms - Final Looks

Hi Siqin,

Can you confirm that you are talking about Sibe 185D here and not Manchu? It is a typo, correct?

I thought that the MVS A/E occurred only in Mongolian??! Can you confirm the credibility of the text in the example? Please forgive me for asking, but this is a very important difference to our thinking about the MVS.

Greg


From: siqin [mailto:siqin@almas.co.jp]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:15 PM
To: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Re: Sibe Range Head Forms, Postional Forms, Variant Forms - Final Looks

Hi Greg,

I found that mvs+a(final_a+FVS2) used in early manchu document.
    manchu_a_e_01.jpg
    manchu_a_e_02.jpg

If it is true, may be mvs+e(U+185D, final_e+FVS2) is needed.

SiqinBilige.

On 2015/10/18 17:22, Greg Eck wrote:
We are past the Todo range now and looking at the Sibe range.

The default isolates are still in disarray ...

One question that I have had - two actually ...

1.)    U+185D shows one variant - I have in my notes to watch to another final variant to show up - does anyone have any evidence of more than two glyphs for the final position at U+185D?

2.)    Same question is raised for U+1860 - I have in my notes to watch for an undotted form of the 1860 Final+FVS2 - does anyone have a comment on this?

Greg