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

Hi Greg,

I means manchu and not sibe.
But 185D used in both sibe and manchu.
I receive this document from Professor Kuribayashi (Center for Northeast 
Asian Studies, Tohoku University, Japan).
When I develop a manchu keyboard layout for him, he wanted to add MVS.
He says, There is no grammar rule using MVS in manchu.
But there is usage of MVS like words in early manchu documents.

SiqinBilige.

On 2015/10/19 23:15, Greg Eck wrote:
>
> 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
>