![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Some articles in WP use Latin gamma, ɣ, in place of Greek gamma, γ, to transliterate Mongolian. (The Latin gamma is used in the orthography of some varieties of Berber.) This has the advantage of being visually more distinct from y (cf. ɣ γ y, ɣ γ y), as well as matching other letters esthetically, but we should be consistent. Any problem with me converting these back to Greek gamma, as used in this article? — kwami ( talk) 19:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
(dedent) In printed publications, it is generally impossible to tell whether someone used a latin or greek gamma (and whether the typesetter really used what the writer intended). And if the sources use inconsistent/contradictory/illogical spellings, then it makes even more sense to just follow the strict rules of the naming conventions, doesn't it? Or do you have sources that explicitly state "we use the greek gamma here because..."? -- Latebird ( talk) 08:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Latebird, there is no argument, there's just the transcription. I'm sure someone covers it in some volume somewhere, but in what I've seen it's just taken for granted. For example, the "Mongolian script" section begins with the Mongols borrowing the Uyghur alphabet, which the author spell with a "gh": "... for several centuries no new letters were created for the few Mongol phonemes unknown in Uyghur. ... Thus in the orthography without diacritics, qačar 'cheek' and γaǰar 'place' have the same written form."
They finish with a Mongolian text, with:
It's in the Latin normalization that the Greek gamma shows up. Note that it's not supposed to be the IPA. The Avestan alphabet is listed with phonetic values/transliterations like β, δ, γ, x́, ń, ŋ́, etc. For ń they have a footnote in which they describe it as [ɲ], but they only give the IPA for a few values, probably because they can't be reconstructed all that well. Mandaic, by a different author, has an alphabet table with both this kind of transliteration and the IPA is full, like š [ʃ], but unfortunately Mandaic does not have a γ. I only see the letter in (most) extinct Persian/Central Asian languages with Aramaic-derived scripts, and derivatives like Uyghur and Mongolian. Nonetheless, it's clear that typography is not the problem in this volume, even if it might be the original motivation. As I've said, I'm in favor of using Latin gamma, I just don't think it's obvious that we "must". — kwami ( talk) 23:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm finding several snippets on Google books about using Greek gamma for Mongolian, such as teachers noting that US college students sometimes don't know what it is, but little that's accessible. In The gods of northern Buddhism they say, "For the Mongolian names, the Ramstedt method has been followed with the exception of the Greek gamma, which has been replaced by the letters gh." — kwami ( talk) 23:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No consensus to move. This discussion has been open for a while and I just don't see a consensus. Maybe a simple request with no distractions could result in a consensus. In the meantime, the pages are move protected. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
– Kwami moved Mongolian script to Classical Mongolian alphabet, yet leave the talk page ( Talk:Mongolian script) here. And this is a move without consensus. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Move:
–– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I cannot bare the nonsense discussion. The introduction on applying Mongolian script to Evenk language has long been there but that man just says this article is about the alphabet, a.k.a. the orthography... I revert his unilateral move. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
“ | The table in Traditional Mongolian alphabet#Overview have 2 parts. The first part, "Characters", belongs to Mongolian script, while the second parts, "Transliteration & Notes" a.k.a. Usage, belongs to Hudum. But you moved it to Hudum altogether. | ” |
The table contains basic information of orthography in "Notes" part and language specific part ("Transliteration"), so it cannot be included in Mongolian script article solely (without corresponding Evenki and Manchu one). However, the "Characters" relate nothing to specific languages, so it should be preserved in the Mongolian script article. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
What a fucking mess. Can you two ladies and/or gentlemen (see I'm charitable) first please stop moving the articles for the duration of the discussion. (I count 12 moves and a content fork since this about the time discussion began). Next, could someone please restate the move request based on the article titles at the cessation of hyperactive moving. I would love to contribute but I can't even figure out who wants what done to what. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 17:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
One should avoid referring to the traditional Mongolian alphabet as hudum (ᡍᡇᡑᡇᡏ худам). This is an Oirat term not used by most speakers of Mongolian proper. 乔伦夫 even finds it derogatory (《为两种蒙古文正名》, 《语言与翻译》1999年第4期, p. 66). Also the word does not mean "inexact". According to 色音额尔敦 (《关于新疆卫拉特方言中“胡都木”一词的含义》, 《民族语文》1983年2期, p. 70), the Oirat word hudum might be a cognate of the Mongolian proper word udum (ᠤᠳᠤᠮ удам), which means "tradition". Daltac ( talk) 23:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Choijinzhab, a major contributor to the encoding of the Mongolian script in Unicode, recorded a naming scheme in his 蒙古文编码. According to the scheme, which was proposed by experts in the field, the term "Mongolian script" (Monggoljin bicig; 蒙古文) covers the following:
Per WP:NCWS these four should be called alphabets. Daltac ( talk) 08:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed the Monggol bicig (not the Monggoljin bicig) itself include at least 3 different alphabets - Hudum Mongolian, Old Manchu alphabet, and Evenki alphabet. I think this article is about Monggol bicig, a script consists of 3 alphabets; for Monggoljin bicig, it would be Mongolian script family (not the Mongolian writing systems). –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
There seem to be some tools for processing Mongol bichig available now, including auto-conversion from cyrillic to bichig and/or vice versa. Anyone know details? www.saiyin.net seems to be a good start, unfortunately it is all in Chinese and I just can't be bothered right know to work through it (notice that cute yet disquieting Internet Police mascot on the subpages, though). Yaan ( talk) 12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Cyrillic (Cy) to Written Mongolian (WM) and transcription (tr) of WM to Cy could easily be done via a dictionary. trWM to Cy could also be done by a complex set of character replacement rules, but you’d have to use a supplementary dictionary. Eg it is адгуус (< *atuhus), not the expected адуус (cp. *atuhu > адуу), and you have no rule to predict what science has not yet managed to explain as regular sound change. Of course it doesn’t work the other way round: if *uhu and *ahu both become modern u, there’s no way of knowing from Cy which form was present in WM. WM to Cy can not even be based on a dictionary alone, as a few words (probably less than one in a hundred, but still a considerable number) will need contextual disambiguation. You could enter compounds that are written separately into your dictionary, that might help to some extent, but a few remaining ambiguous words that are not part of compounds will have do be resolved by a human. G Purevdorj ( talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
"Direction Left-to-right" is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonah.ru ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I propose a merger with the Traditional Mongolian alphabet article. Both seem to have the same rough information, so I don't see a need for separate articles. Even the interwikis link to same articles in different languages. -- chinneeb- talk 13:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
LaTeX typesetting for monglian and related scripts (old uyghur, manchu) and cyrillic.
http://books.google.com/books?id=LLYYisjrFdEC&pg=PA361#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=LLYYisjrFdEC&pg=PA362#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan ( talk) 15:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Mongols learned their script by syllables and not in an alphabetic manner.
Page 15 of
Chinggeltei. A Grammar of the Mongol Language (New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.) 1963.
Page 52
Page xxvi
http://books.google.com/books?id=v6k-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PR26#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan ( talk) 06:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Read through the teaching section, someone REALLY wants us to know that Mongolian and Manchu were often taught as a syllabary--they repeat it about 4 times in four paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.179.191 ( talk) 16:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The "Examples" section needs to be condensed. It's breaking into other sections. BMACS1002 ( talk) 13:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the translation of the "Example text" used in the infobox? It would be nice to provide that to readers instead of just identifying it as "Example text". Pretty sure it ends in the phrase "Mongolian script", but I can't figure out the rest of it. - dcljr ( talk) 19:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it maybe "ᠴᠣᠷᠢ ᠶᠢᠨ ᠭᠠᠭᠴᠠ ᠪᠣᠰᠤᠭᠠ ᠪᠢᠴᠢᠭ᠄ ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ ᠪᠢᠴᠢᠭ / Čori yin γaγča bosuγ-a bičig: mongγol bičig / Цорын гагц босоо бичиг: монгол бичиг"? I matched the appearance of the words and compared with ones in the online Bolor Toli dictionary, then converted the sentence into cyrillic (using the converter linked in the external links section). Translated with google translate it becomes "Vertical Vertical Letter: Mongolian script", so there has to be a better translation out there. NiluXC ( talk) 10:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 23:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Mongolian script → Traditional Mongolian script – Most Mongolians use Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet now. 67.149.246.163 ( talk) 22:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There are 3 rows of gallery pictures, of which many examples are not very good examples at all. I suggest picking the clearest/most interesting examples and removing the rest. Thoughts? Glennznl ( talk) 18:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
NiluXC ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
There is too much information in the Letters section, particularly the Vowels and Consonants subsections. I am already familiar with Semitic and Brahmic scripts, but even with a large screen I can only see two letter tables at a time, so I can't get a sense of the script as a whole. Can someone condense the information into a single table for easy comparison? Danielklein ( talk) 03:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Is nobody going to say anything about the message at the very top of this section? I won’t touch it, but I think someone should do something about it. It is, and I quote: “ THIS SECTION CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE CORRECT, BUT MAY NOT BE COMPLETE.
THE FORMATTING OF THESE TABLES IS TERRIBLE. IF SOMEONE COULD PLEASE FIX THIS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
ALL OF THE INFORMATION HERE HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THIS ARTICLE.” Thank you for your time and consideration. SuperNova422 ( talk) 21:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Some articles in WP use Latin gamma, ɣ, in place of Greek gamma, γ, to transliterate Mongolian. (The Latin gamma is used in the orthography of some varieties of Berber.) This has the advantage of being visually more distinct from y (cf. ɣ γ y, ɣ γ y), as well as matching other letters esthetically, but we should be consistent. Any problem with me converting these back to Greek gamma, as used in this article? — kwami ( talk) 19:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
(dedent) In printed publications, it is generally impossible to tell whether someone used a latin or greek gamma (and whether the typesetter really used what the writer intended). And if the sources use inconsistent/contradictory/illogical spellings, then it makes even more sense to just follow the strict rules of the naming conventions, doesn't it? Or do you have sources that explicitly state "we use the greek gamma here because..."? -- Latebird ( talk) 08:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Latebird, there is no argument, there's just the transcription. I'm sure someone covers it in some volume somewhere, but in what I've seen it's just taken for granted. For example, the "Mongolian script" section begins with the Mongols borrowing the Uyghur alphabet, which the author spell with a "gh": "... for several centuries no new letters were created for the few Mongol phonemes unknown in Uyghur. ... Thus in the orthography without diacritics, qačar 'cheek' and γaǰar 'place' have the same written form."
They finish with a Mongolian text, with:
It's in the Latin normalization that the Greek gamma shows up. Note that it's not supposed to be the IPA. The Avestan alphabet is listed with phonetic values/transliterations like β, δ, γ, x́, ń, ŋ́, etc. For ń they have a footnote in which they describe it as [ɲ], but they only give the IPA for a few values, probably because they can't be reconstructed all that well. Mandaic, by a different author, has an alphabet table with both this kind of transliteration and the IPA is full, like š [ʃ], but unfortunately Mandaic does not have a γ. I only see the letter in (most) extinct Persian/Central Asian languages with Aramaic-derived scripts, and derivatives like Uyghur and Mongolian. Nonetheless, it's clear that typography is not the problem in this volume, even if it might be the original motivation. As I've said, I'm in favor of using Latin gamma, I just don't think it's obvious that we "must". — kwami ( talk) 23:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm finding several snippets on Google books about using Greek gamma for Mongolian, such as teachers noting that US college students sometimes don't know what it is, but little that's accessible. In The gods of northern Buddhism they say, "For the Mongolian names, the Ramstedt method has been followed with the exception of the Greek gamma, which has been replaced by the letters gh." — kwami ( talk) 23:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No consensus to move. This discussion has been open for a while and I just don't see a consensus. Maybe a simple request with no distractions could result in a consensus. In the meantime, the pages are move protected. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
– Kwami moved Mongolian script to Classical Mongolian alphabet, yet leave the talk page ( Talk:Mongolian script) here. And this is a move without consensus. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Move:
–– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I cannot bare the nonsense discussion. The introduction on applying Mongolian script to Evenk language has long been there but that man just says this article is about the alphabet, a.k.a. the orthography... I revert his unilateral move. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
“ | The table in Traditional Mongolian alphabet#Overview have 2 parts. The first part, "Characters", belongs to Mongolian script, while the second parts, "Transliteration & Notes" a.k.a. Usage, belongs to Hudum. But you moved it to Hudum altogether. | ” |
The table contains basic information of orthography in "Notes" part and language specific part ("Transliteration"), so it cannot be included in Mongolian script article solely (without corresponding Evenki and Manchu one). However, the "Characters" relate nothing to specific languages, so it should be preserved in the Mongolian script article. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
What a fucking mess. Can you two ladies and/or gentlemen (see I'm charitable) first please stop moving the articles for the duration of the discussion. (I count 12 moves and a content fork since this about the time discussion began). Next, could someone please restate the move request based on the article titles at the cessation of hyperactive moving. I would love to contribute but I can't even figure out who wants what done to what. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 17:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
One should avoid referring to the traditional Mongolian alphabet as hudum (ᡍᡇᡑᡇᡏ худам). This is an Oirat term not used by most speakers of Mongolian proper. 乔伦夫 even finds it derogatory (《为两种蒙古文正名》, 《语言与翻译》1999年第4期, p. 66). Also the word does not mean "inexact". According to 色音额尔敦 (《关于新疆卫拉特方言中“胡都木”一词的含义》, 《民族语文》1983年2期, p. 70), the Oirat word hudum might be a cognate of the Mongolian proper word udum (ᠤᠳᠤᠮ удам), which means "tradition". Daltac ( talk) 23:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Choijinzhab, a major contributor to the encoding of the Mongolian script in Unicode, recorded a naming scheme in his 蒙古文编码. According to the scheme, which was proposed by experts in the field, the term "Mongolian script" (Monggoljin bicig; 蒙古文) covers the following:
Per WP:NCWS these four should be called alphabets. Daltac ( talk) 08:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed the Monggol bicig (not the Monggoljin bicig) itself include at least 3 different alphabets - Hudum Mongolian, Old Manchu alphabet, and Evenki alphabet. I think this article is about Monggol bicig, a script consists of 3 alphabets; for Monggoljin bicig, it would be Mongolian script family (not the Mongolian writing systems). –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
There seem to be some tools for processing Mongol bichig available now, including auto-conversion from cyrillic to bichig and/or vice versa. Anyone know details? www.saiyin.net seems to be a good start, unfortunately it is all in Chinese and I just can't be bothered right know to work through it (notice that cute yet disquieting Internet Police mascot on the subpages, though). Yaan ( talk) 12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Cyrillic (Cy) to Written Mongolian (WM) and transcription (tr) of WM to Cy could easily be done via a dictionary. trWM to Cy could also be done by a complex set of character replacement rules, but you’d have to use a supplementary dictionary. Eg it is адгуус (< *atuhus), not the expected адуус (cp. *atuhu > адуу), and you have no rule to predict what science has not yet managed to explain as regular sound change. Of course it doesn’t work the other way round: if *uhu and *ahu both become modern u, there’s no way of knowing from Cy which form was present in WM. WM to Cy can not even be based on a dictionary alone, as a few words (probably less than one in a hundred, but still a considerable number) will need contextual disambiguation. You could enter compounds that are written separately into your dictionary, that might help to some extent, but a few remaining ambiguous words that are not part of compounds will have do be resolved by a human. G Purevdorj ( talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
"Direction Left-to-right" is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonah.ru ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I propose a merger with the Traditional Mongolian alphabet article. Both seem to have the same rough information, so I don't see a need for separate articles. Even the interwikis link to same articles in different languages. -- chinneeb- talk 13:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
LaTeX typesetting for monglian and related scripts (old uyghur, manchu) and cyrillic.
http://books.google.com/books?id=LLYYisjrFdEC&pg=PA361#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=LLYYisjrFdEC&pg=PA362#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan ( talk) 15:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Mongols learned their script by syllables and not in an alphabetic manner.
Page 15 of
Chinggeltei. A Grammar of the Mongol Language (New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.) 1963.
Page 52
Page xxvi
http://books.google.com/books?id=v6k-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PR26#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan ( talk) 06:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Read through the teaching section, someone REALLY wants us to know that Mongolian and Manchu were often taught as a syllabary--they repeat it about 4 times in four paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.179.191 ( talk) 16:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The "Examples" section needs to be condensed. It's breaking into other sections. BMACS1002 ( talk) 13:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the translation of the "Example text" used in the infobox? It would be nice to provide that to readers instead of just identifying it as "Example text". Pretty sure it ends in the phrase "Mongolian script", but I can't figure out the rest of it. - dcljr ( talk) 19:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it maybe "ᠴᠣᠷᠢ ᠶᠢᠨ ᠭᠠᠭᠴᠠ ᠪᠣᠰᠤᠭᠠ ᠪᠢᠴᠢᠭ᠄ ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ ᠪᠢᠴᠢᠭ / Čori yin γaγča bosuγ-a bičig: mongγol bičig / Цорын гагц босоо бичиг: монгол бичиг"? I matched the appearance of the words and compared with ones in the online Bolor Toli dictionary, then converted the sentence into cyrillic (using the converter linked in the external links section). Translated with google translate it becomes "Vertical Vertical Letter: Mongolian script", so there has to be a better translation out there. NiluXC ( talk) 10:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 23:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Mongolian script → Traditional Mongolian script – Most Mongolians use Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet now. 67.149.246.163 ( talk) 22:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There are 3 rows of gallery pictures, of which many examples are not very good examples at all. I suggest picking the clearest/most interesting examples and removing the rest. Thoughts? Glennznl ( talk) 18:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
NiluXC ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
There is too much information in the Letters section, particularly the Vowels and Consonants subsections. I am already familiar with Semitic and Brahmic scripts, but even with a large screen I can only see two letter tables at a time, so I can't get a sense of the script as a whole. Can someone condense the information into a single table for easy comparison? Danielklein ( talk) 03:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Is nobody going to say anything about the message at the very top of this section? I won’t touch it, but I think someone should do something about it. It is, and I quote: “ THIS SECTION CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE CORRECT, BUT MAY NOT BE COMPLETE.
THE FORMATTING OF THESE TABLES IS TERRIBLE. IF SOMEONE COULD PLEASE FIX THIS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
ALL OF THE INFORMATION HERE HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THIS ARTICLE.” Thank you for your time and consideration. SuperNova422 ( talk) 21:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)