RE: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks

Hi Greg,

 

>I am fine with 1-5.

Ok. I got it. Thanks.

 

>For the latter part of #6, I cannot see the way clearly enough without working directly in the font to verify my/your thoughts at this point in time.

>>>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.

This is because there are a lot normal spelling YI in the middle of the word. For example we have two SAYIQAN if we allow to encode SAIQAN and SAYIQAN both for first one bellow,

*  Encode  ᠰᠠᠢᠬᠠᠨ as <U+1830><U+1820><U+1822><U+182C><U+1820><U+1828>,   or  <U+1830><U+1820><U+1836, FVS1><U+1822><U+182C><U+1820><U+1828>

*  Encode  ᠰᠠᠶ᠋ᠢᠬᠠᠨ as <U+1830><U+1820><U+1836><U+1822><U+182C><U+1820><U+1828>

 

>Can you give some examples on #7?

For example,  the following others means that the other parties who are insisting the Mongolian Diphthongs not exist.

ᠠᠤᠭ ᠠ - we encode it as AOG-A (U+1820_A, U+1824_U, U+182D_G, MVS, U+1820_A),  

but the others say that they will encode it as AWG-A  (U+1820_A, U+1838_W, FVS1, U+182D_G, MVS, U+1820_A).

ᠪᠢᠰᠢᠦ - we encode it as BISIUE (U+182A_B, U+1822_I, U+1830_S, U+1822_I, U+1826_UE), 

but the others say that they will encode it as BISIW (U+182A_B, U+1822_I, U+1830_S, U+1822_I, U+1838_W),

 

Even the word

ᠤᠤ - we have already decided to encode it as UU (U+1824_U, U+1824_U) or UEUE(U+1826_UE, U+1826_UE) , 

but the others say that they will encode it as UW (U+1824_U, U+1838_W) or UEW  (U+1826_UE, U+1838_W),

 

> If we could have both spelling methods on #8, that would be a good comparison.

We will encode these as bellow.

ᠨᠠᠢ᠌ᠮᠠ - (U+1828_N, U+1820_A, U+1822_I, FVS2, U+182E_M, U+1820_A)

ᠰᠢᠢᠳᠪᠦᠷᠢ - (U+1830_S, U+1822_I, U+1822_I, U+1833_D, U+182A_B, U+1826_UE, U+1837_R, U+1822_I)

ᠦᠢᠯᠡᠰ - (U+1826_UE, U+1822_I, U+182F_L, U+1821_E, U+1830_S)

ᠰᠦᠢᠯᠡᠬᠦ - (U+1830_S, U+1826_UE, U+1822_I, U+182F_L, U+1821_E, U+182C_Q, U+1826_UE) 

ᠠᠤᠭ ᠠ - (U+1820_A, U+1824_U, U+182D_G, MVS, U+1820_A)

ᠲᠠᠤᠯᠠᠢ - (U+1833_T, U+1820_A, U+1824_U, U+182F_L, U+1820_A, U+1822_I)

ᠤᠤᠯ - (U+1824_U, U+1824_U, U+182F_L)

But what it will become when we use YI or W to encode.

ᠨᠠᠢ᠌ᠮᠠ - (U+1828_N, U+1820_A, U+1836_Y, FVS1, U+182E_M, U+1820_A)  or  (U+1828_N, U+1820_A, U+1822_I, FVS2, U+182E_M, U+1820_A) ?

ᠰᠢᠢᠳᠪᠦᠷᠢ - (U+1830_S, U+1822_I, U+1836_Y, FVS1, U+1833_D, U+182A_B, U+1826_UE, U+1837_R, U+1822_I) or (U+1830_S, U+1822_I, U+1822_I, U+1833_D, U+182A_B, U+1826_UE, U+1837_R, U+1822_I) ?

ᠦᠢᠯᠡᠰ - (U+1826_UE, U+1836_Y, FVS1, U+182F_L, U+1821_E, U+1830_S)   or (U+1826_UE, U+1822_I, U+182F_L, U+1821_E, U+1830_S) ?

ᠰᠦᠢᠯᠡᠬᠦ - (U+1830_S, U+1826_UE, U+1836_Y, FVS1, U+182F_L, U+1821_E, U+182C_Q, U+1826_UE)  or (U+1830_S, U+1826_UE, U+1822_I, U+182F_L, U+1821_E, U+182C_Q, U+1826_UE) ?

ᠠᠤᠭ ᠠ - (U+1820_A, U+1838_W, FVS1, U+182D_G, MVS, U+1820_A)  ?

ᠲᠠᠤᠯᠠᠢ - (U+1833_T, U+1820_A, U+1838_W, FVS1, U+182F_L, U+1820_A, U+1822_I) or (U+1833_T, U+1820_A, U+1838_W, FVS1, U+182F_L, U+1820_A, U+1836_Y)

ᠤᠤᠯ - (U+1824_U, U+1838_W, FVS1, U+182F_L) ?

 

> Regarding #9, I think it unreasonable to ask a user to type in an FVS for something as common as a suffix. The context is clear given the NNBSP. OT rulings will be fine here without FVS usage.

I agree. We can accept this.

 

> #10 should definitely have both A/E variants. This is an area for linguistic engineers probably at a national level to decide on.

I think we should allow both spelling as bellow because we allowed the both theory of the Mongolian Diphthongs.

ᠲᠠᠶ <U+202F><U+1832><U+1820><U+1822>    and  <U+202F><U+1832><U+1820><U+1836>

ᠲᠡᠶ <U+202F><U+1832><U+1821><U+1822>  and  <U+202F><U+1832><U+1821><U+1836>

 

The following should use <U+1836, FVS1>, but because of it is followed after NNBSP, we can ignore the FVS1.

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

ᠲᠡᠶᠢᠭᠡᠨ<U+202F><U+1832><U+1821><U+1836><U+1822><U+182D><U+1821><U+1828> and <U+202F><U+1832><U+1821><U+1822><U+182D><U+1821><U+1828>

ᠦᠭᠡᠢ <U+202F><U+1826><U+182D><U+1821><U+1822> and <U+202F><U+1826><U+182D><U+1821><U+1836>

 

The red colored parts above are the encoding request  from the parties who are insisting the Mongolian Diphthongs not exist.

The blue colored parts are our encoding requirement and we are all accustomed to encode like these..

 

Here I would like to declare that these encoding in red color is my assumption, because I have no experience of how to encode it with W. and how widely the rule will be applied to the spelling.

I would like to ask the linguists who are insisting  the theory give the exact spelling and exact range of the rule will be applied.

 

Actually, I had find the contradictory in NNBSP suffixes list when we were discussing the NNBSP. But they not impact the NNBSP definition and these can be corrected or amended after our decision on the Mongolian Diphthongs.

 

Additionally, we have 30 Mongolian IT engineers in Japan had three times meeting and had discussed how to improve and utilize the Unicode Mongolian in their own fields.

On these meeting, regarding to the Mongolian Diphthongs matter should be corrected as soon as possible and match the Inner Mongolia school education requirements.

I have included all of their suggestions and advices in my discussion in the past. 

Here I have just to say thanks to all of the peoples whom have contribution to our work.

 

Thanks and Best Regards, 

 

Jirimutu

===============================================================

Almas Inc. 

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

E-Mail: jrmt@almas.co.jp <mailto:jrmt@almas.co.jp>    Mobile : 090-6174-6115

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

http://www.almas.co.jp/   http://www.compiere-japan.com/

http://www.mongolfont.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------

Inner Mongolia Delehi Information Technology Co. Ltd.

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

Mail:  jirimutu@delehi.com <mailto:jirimutu@delehi.com>        Mobile:18647152148

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

http://www.delehi.com/

===============================================================

 

From: Greg Eck [mailto:greck@postone.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 12:36 AM
To: jrmt@almas.co.jp; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: RE: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks

 

Hi Jirimutu,

 

Thanks for the thorough critique …

I am fine with 1-5.

For the latter part of #6, I cannot see the way clearly enough without working directly in the font to verify my/your thoughts at this point in time.

Can you give some examples on #7?

If we could have both spelling methods on #8, that would be a good comparison.

Regarding #9, I think it unreasonable to ask a user to type in an FVS for something as common as a suffix. The context is clear given the NNBSP. OT rulings will be fine here without FVS usage.

#10 should definitely have both A/E variants. This is an area for linguistic engineers probably at a national level to decide on.

 

Thanks,
Greg

 

 

>>>>> 

Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 11:22 AM
Subject: 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 https://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/variants

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> 

ᠲᠡᠶᠢᠭᠡᠨ<U+202F><U+1832><U+1821><U+1836><U+1822><U+182D><U+1821><U+1828>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>