RE: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks

Hi Greg and All,


I thinks we have got to final agreement on how to handle the Mongolian Diphthongs.


Please correct If I am mistaking anything in my summarize.


Firstly Compared to GB 26226-2010, GB 25914-2010 and MB font, MS font in the

1.      We have switched U+1836_Y first medial form ( the default form) to , encoded as <U+1836>,  

2.      We have switched the second medial form of U+1836_Y to , encoded as <U+1836, FVS1>.

3.      We have Switched the first medial form (the default form) of U+1838_W is  ,  encoded as <U+1838>

4.      We have Switched the second medial form of U+1838_W is , encoded as <U+1838, FVS1>


5.      For the Mongolian Diphthongs, we will support both theory which is exist or non-exist.

6.      For the Mongolian Diphthongs, one can encode it as ai, ei, ii, oi, ui, oei, uei, as well as ayi, eyi, iyi, oyi, oeyi, ueyi in the medial and ay, ey, iy, oy, oey, uey.

But the the yi in the medial should encode as  <U+1836, FVS1> if use *yi, could not use any contextual condition to derive from default form.

7.      Same to the Mongolian Diphthongs used o, u, oe, ue after vowel. They can be encoded as o, u, oe, ue as well as w, but have to encode as <U+1838, FVS1> if use *w



8.      I would like to ask our linguists to give out the exact encoding sequence for following case if you use ayi, eyi, iyi, oyi, oeyi, ueyi for Mongolian Diphthongs.


ᠨᠠᠢ᠌ᠮᠠ - 

ᠰᠢᠢᠳᠪᠦᠷᠢ - 

ᠦᠢᠯᠡᠰ - 

ᠰᠦᠢᠯᠡᠬᠦ - 

ᠠᠤᠭ ᠠ - 

ᠲᠠᠤᠯᠠᠢ - 

ᠤᠤᠯ - 



I am wandering there will be some ambiguous encoding sequence for these word. 


9.      There are one issue need to make consensus between our members.

After this change do we need to change the following NNBSP suffixes encoding in DS05 document ?

Because it is using <U+1836> without FVS1. (We are ok to remain as before. We can handle NNBSP in a special rule)

 ᠢᠶᠠᠷ <U+202F><U+1822><U+1836><U+1820><U+1837> 

 ᠢᠶᠡᠷ <U+202F><U+1822><U+1836><U+1821><U+1837>

 ᠢᠶᠠᠨ <U+202F><U+1822><U+1836><U+1820><U+1828> 

 ᠢᠶᠡᠨ <U+202F><U+1822><U+1836><U+1821><U+1828>


10.   Do we need to support both possibility for following NNBSP suffixes encoding ? maybe there more than following.

ᠲᠠᠶ <U+202F><U+1832><U+1820><U+1822> 

ᠲᠡᠶ <U+202F><U+1832><U+1821><U+1822>

ᠲᠠᠶᠢᠭᠠᠨ <U+202F><U+1832><U+1820><U+1836><U+1822><U+182D><U+1820><U+1828> 




Finally, I was saying that I had walked through the Universities, Research Institutes and  Publishing house and took some interviews related with the Mongolian Diphthongs in Hohhot last month. I am receiving some of the interview replay document from each organization now.

I have interviewed following organization in Hohhot last month.

1.      Inner Mongolia Educational Publishing House (内蒙古教育出版社)

2.      Inner Mongolia Normal University Computer Science Institute (内蒙古师范大学计算机学院)

3.      Social Academy of Inner Mongolia (内蒙古社会科学院)

4.      Hohhot Minzu College (呼和浩特民族学院)

5.      Minzu University of China(中央民族大学) – telephone interview.


All of them disagree the Diphthongs non-existence theory and welcome to support both theory.

Regarding to the encoding sequence, all of them welcome to switch to regularly used and broadly accepted one to default form like listed above. 

For all of member’s reference, I would like to commit all of the interview reply in their original format to this discussion forum for archive the documentation.


I had committed the interview reply from Inner Mongolia Normal University Computer Science Institute (内蒙古师范大学计算机学院) last week.

I have attached the interview reply from  Inner Mongolia Educational Publishing House (内蒙古教育出版社) in this mail.

They say the stamped original document is on the road.


All of these documentation is written in Chinese or Mongolian, 

I am sorry for I am not able to get enough time to translate or summarize them in English in shortly.

If anyone need English translation or summarization, please let me know. 

I will try to find time to respond on your individual request later.


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: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:55 AM
To:; 'Badral S.' <>;
Subject: RE: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks


Hi Badral,


I don’t see this as such a big issue. Fonts should be as neutral as possible and as Richard Wordingham put it, contain as little grammar as possible. Of course thorny solutions like the Final Feminine Ga in Mongolian are made easy with OpenType rulings.


The solution Baiti has implemented allows one to type in both AYI as well as AI given the preference of the user. Of course this makes more work for the utilities developer, but it maintains the emphasis on neutrality.





Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks


Hi Badral and All,

Great! welcome to raise this issue and declare the insistance of linguists in Mongolia. because I know this the linguistic argument is continued several handrid years.

You can refer the Dr. Liang’s article what I have committed before. 

I don’t care if you want to encode the diphthongs as AYI, EYI, IYI, OYI, UYI, OEYI, UEI. In this case, it is an irregular usage in modern Mongolian and 

Unicode provide you encode the Y as <U+1836_Y, FVS1> in the Diphthongs.

We will continue to use AI, EI, II, OI, UI, OEI, UEI for Diphthongs. Because all of our users will definitely disagree for the removing Diphthongs from Mongolian scripts.


Here I am also collecting Mongolian and Computer Science expert’s opinion in Inner Mongolia.

I will commit all of the reply from Inner Mongolia in this thread till we can reach the agreement.


Please find attached file interview reply from 4 Computer Science Professors,

Song Yun, Has, Wang Serguleng, Lin Min in Inner Mongolia Normal University.

Let me summary all of the interview replies later. 



Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks


Hi Greg,
Unfortunately, I have to re-open this issue. You are right that you were insecure with my agreement.
I asked today from our Mongolian linguistic team with some Mongolian script experts like Prof. Dr. Sh. Choimaa, Dr. Munkh-Uchral to confirm this agreement at Mongolian diphthongs. Due to Mongolian language law or what I don't know, somehow the discussion was very intensive, sceptical and concentrated. Nobody has accepted my agreement with ai, ei, oi, ue, üe, öe. I claimed that this encoding seems similar to Mongolian Cyrillic (ай, эй, ой, өй, үй, өй) and simplify our rules significantly. But they argue as follows:
Argument 1: It destabilizes existing Mongolian data. They summarized, that any changes could be only acceptable/doable for some good reason like bug fix, correction (at least like our Da, Na, Ga issues) but not for destruction!
Argument 2: Encoding diphthongs as ai, ei etc. lead damage to Mongolian script. As you all know Mongolian script keeps the alternation rule of consonant and vowel. And we treat ya as a consonant and keep the rule. But if we encode diphthongs as ai, ei etc., it voids the rule.
Argument 3: We should be more concentrated on how to encode Mongolian Script correctly in computer rather than damaging it to make the encoding easier.
Summary: All diphthongs have to be encoded as ayi, eyi, oyi, uyi, öyi, üyi.


Received on Tuesday, 3 November 2015 03:22:32 UTC