RE: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks

Hi Greg,

 

*  I think without exception that my team agrees with the blue spellings.

Actually, it is the real world of the traditional Mongolian. clear and simple.

But linguistic arguement always making things complecated and ambigiuos, self-contradictary, imperfect.

 

*  Yiou put a good bit of time into this presentation.

I have been spending my whole lifetime to contribute on the Mongolian Information technology development area since 1989. 

Maybe there are only have several years exception in the early time after coming Japan. (laugh)

 

Our purpose is not just only on the correction or unify the Unicode Mongoian Encoding,

But there will be more heavy task waiting for us to promote the standard, utilize the standard,  popularize the standard to all kind of social fields.

establish more strong and wide information technology educational system as well as the information technology utilization in the taditional education system,

enrich and develop the entire Mongolian Information technolofy fields as well as other national culture and economy fields.

(It is the true that there are still have a lot kind of fields still using non-standard, individual encoded Mongolian in Inner Mongolia now)

 

This is the reason why I am always saying we have no time still stopping at the arguement stage.

 

We will not stopping at the historical or language or grammer research stage. the language utilization fields is a lot and wide.

We will more concentrate on utilization of the standardized Mongolian to our daily life. not only by the normal computers, but also through the mobile phone and other smart devices.

 

It is the very good things that we can imagine our near future figture more clearly now.

 

Thanks to you and all member’s understanding and contributions.

 

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 9:28 PM
To: jrmt@almas.co.jp; public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: RE: Two Final Threads - Diphthongs / Final glyph checks

 

Hi Jirimutu,

 

Thanks for the time spent on the extra examples and also the various spellings – very clear.

Yiou put a good bit of time into this presentation.

 

I think without exception that my team agrees with the blue spellings.

 

Greg

 

>>>>> 

Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 12:02 PM
Subject: 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.

 

Jirimutu

>>>>>>