User talk:G Purevdorj

Hello G Purevdorj! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Khoikhoi 05:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Hi, on Mongolian name you just changed a lot of names to somewhat unusual (on WP) spelling variations. I remember you contributing to discussions on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) on earlier occasions. I have now made a new and more complete proposal at Wikipedia:Romanization of Mongolian. Would you mind sharing your opinion there? --Latebird 16:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please have a look at mn:User_talk:Chinneeb#Улсуудын нийслэл, and give us your professional opinion? Temur 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probe--G Purevdorj 20:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to invite you to the Mongolia work group of the WikiProject Central Asia. You're welcome to add that page to your watchlist and participate in discussions there. So far, many general discussions about topics related to Mongolia have been discussed on individual user's talk pages, away from the attention of a wider audience. I hope that a centralized talk page will make communication between all of us easier. If a question doesn't primarily concern just one specific user, then the work group is probably the right place to ask it. See you there! --Latebird (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have uploaded two pics for the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Mongolian). Yaan (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frohe Ostern! Ich frage mich gerade, was die korrekte Schreibung von Ligden Khan wäre - Ligden oder Ligdan? Äußere Mongolen schreiben "Ligden", aber eine Reihe von Autoren bevorzugen scheinbar "Ligdan". Wie kann das sein (tibet. Name?), und wie sieht der Name in der traditionellen Schrift aus? Yaan (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keine ganz leichte Frage. Es hat eine Änderung in der Vokalharmonieklasse gegeben bei Worten, deren Stamm nur i enthält, und zwar von hinter- nach vordervokalisch. Das würde eine Diskrepanz zwischen Mongolen und Nichtmongolen erklären. "Ligdan" ist natürlich EIN Wortstamm, also etwas seltsam. Könnte sein, dass für Fremdwortphonologie (kein mongolisches Wort mit L am Anfang) andere Regeln gelten. Ist am Ende aber irrelevant, wie man ihn im heutigen Mongolischen ausspricht. Für das andere müsste ich mal in die Quellen kucken. Vorder- und hintervokalisches g sind ja recht leicht zu unterscheiden. Wird aber vor Donnerstag nächster Woche nichts. Erwarten würde ich „Ligdan“. Aber es sollte (sobald die Vokalsache geklärt ist) noch eine zweite Variante erwähnt werden. Der Gute kommt nämlich nicht nur in den chinesischen, sondern auch in mongolisch geschriebenen Quellen als „LiNdan“ vor. G Purevdorj 15:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kein völlig klares Ergebnis. Sehr wahrsch. Entlehnung von tib. legs-ldan, etwa mong. buyan-tu. Siehe auch Bolur Erdeni "Laenkldan qutughtan-u". Im Tib. a zu ä vor n, aber wann genau noch unklar. Daneben Vokalharmonie, und der Name war nicht unüblich. Soweit "Lighdan" mir bisher nicht belegt, würde ich vorsichtig vermuten, dass e ab urbe condita. Bisher finden sich:

• Altan tobci (je nach Version): Linda/en, Ligda/en
• Qad-un ündüsün-ü erdeni-yin tobciya: Lingda/en
• Bolur Erdeni: Laenkldan, Ligda/en
• Asaraghci neretü-yin teüke: Linda/en
• Iledkel shastir: Linda/en

Also g ~ n ~ ng (ein Phonem). Da nicht in Tib., sehe ich (lustigerweise, da man von den Buchstaben selbst her ja andersrum denken würde) zu ng keinen Weg außer von g aus. Und der Weg von ng zu n vor d ist unentrinnbar. Das soweit Geschriebene ließe sich durch weitere Quellen, durch eine systematische Lehnwortphonologie sowie durch eine Rekonstruktion der chin. Aussprache von 林丹 um 1600 vertiefen. Aber ich denke, es dürfte dabei bleiben, dass Ligden die treffenste Form ist. G Purevdorj 23:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

g>n|_d doch schon im Tib. belegt, d.h. eventuell konkurrierende Entlehnungen. Recht aufwendig zu untersuchen, das. Kann man nur skizzieren. G Purevdorj 10:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

does this look good on your computer: Ula{{gh}}an/Ula{{gh}}an? On mine (currently Apple) it does, but I would like to know what it looks like on others. Regards, Yaan (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks slightly better than the gamma I used in the bibliography in Mongolian language. Will certainly do. G Purevdorj 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe bold looks better? mong{{gh}}ol Yaan (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit. But it's too eye-catching this way. Better opt for the first version. G Purevdorj 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am currently wondering how one is to know that it is Demchughdongrub, not Damchughdongrub. Are there different forms of the initial d for front and back vowels, or am I missing out something? Regards, Yaan (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the Mongolian script is sometimes used to indicate the difference between d and t, neither of these does in any position indicate something about the vowel harmony class of a Mongolian word. Now the name in question is obviously Tibetan. In a Mongolian name, <gh> would have indicated back vowels. Not so here. And it is not even sufficient to look up the correct form in Classical Tibetan; see the discussion about several forms of a name under Ligdan. If the Cyrillic forms and the reconstructed phonetic realization of Classical Tibetan writing agree, we may be sure whether to opt for “a” or “e”. If not, one can try to reconstruct the history of the borrowing. But for a non-scientist (and for most scientists under normal circumstances), it stops short of this with an unsatisfactory form someone else has introduced. So to answer your question: you are not missing out something, unfortunately. G Purevdorj (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. Thanks anyway. Cyrillic Mongolian and the Chinese transcription give e as the vowel in the first syllabe, but I was wondering if/how this can go together with the back g (if it is a back g) at the end of the second syllabe. The relevant article, btw., is Demchugdongrub. Regards, Yaan (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked from a friend. Like written in the article name, it is a front g (not gh). So not even the trace of a conflict with e. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a transcription with 'gamma', and none with 'ü', that is why I asked in the first place. But one transcription can of course always be wrong. Regards, Yaan (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I also came across a vocabulary question recently. Does the Sangiin in Sangiin Dalai nuur refer to 'Sangiin' as in 'Sangiin Yaam', or might it rather refer to Sangha? Yaan (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worse than toponyms, eh? According to my dictionaries, there are approximately four modern words with the pronunciation and historical orthography of <sang>. ‘treasure’ (originally Chinese), ‘means of purification’ (originally Tibetan, containing ‘incense’ and ‘a certain kind of shamanist poem’), and some architectural structure of a temple (only featured in one dictionary). The dictionary of Lessing gives sangga (Sanskrit) ‘congregation, clergy’, but refers to quvaragh as more common. It doesn’t give a modern Cyrillic form either. If it did, however, it would likely have acquired a similar pronunciation. So I am not aware that any cognate of sangga still exists in modern Mongolian. Toponyms, however, have the disadvantage that they needn’t necessarily be synchronically transparent. Any explanation of sangiin dalai will have to have a rather concrete historical foundation, and I don’t have any book that would provide one. (It could also suffice to find some Buddhist terminology “sangiin dalai” with its meaning. However, could you conceive of any possible meaning of sangga-yin dalai???) So, in short, I dunno. G Purevdorj (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. Thanks a lot, anyway. Yaan (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiyas,

I’ve replied to your Wiktionary comment at: wikt:User talk:G Purevdorj

(BTW, if you’ve any interest in contributing to Wiktionary’s Mongolian entries, I suspect that they’re quite needy!)

Nbarth (email) (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your prompt responses to my questions. Now they are talking about the next Olympics and everybody calls it "Лондонгийн олимп". In my humble opinion, it should be "Лондоны" because the name ends just with "н", not "нг". This difference seems to have been ignored when the Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet was developed. But we don't say "Дархангийн, Завхангийн" etc. We say "Дарханы, Завханы". Because these names end with "н". We say "Бээжингийн", not "Бээжиний" because actually there is "нг" at the end, which is ignored in the Cyrillic, but appearant in the Classical Mongolian and in the English transcription. Also we say "Жанчивлингийн, Шадувлингийн" because there is "нг" at the end. So the question is: which is right "Лондонгийн" or "Лондоны" ? Gantuya eng (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is wrong, for language is changing, and yours at a high pace. But the details are more difficult. There’s a lot of research on this question, the quality of which I never assessed, because I never read it. Would probably come in handy now. (And again, I have no books at all to consult at the moment.)

Word-final n in Mongolian is often pronounced as ng even if it was written just –n in Mongolian script, eg yavsan [jawsa̭ŋ] or altan [aɬta̭ŋ]. The standard exception is –n-a or –n-e in Mongolian writing which is [n] today, eg dagina [taɢɪ̭n]. But in the usual examples, there is still a process that leaves this n underdetermined phonologically, eg yavsnii [jawsnɪ] instead of [jawsa̭ŋgin]. However, this process is becoming weaker, and some words that had n only (instead of ng or na) now get a genitive as if it had been ng. For example, tüvshin (Written Mongolian tübsin) often becomes tüvshingiin (Google 531) instead of the expected tüvshnii (Google 2460). Such examples are not infrequent in contemporary Mongolian. So now “London”. “London” is a foreign word, and I fancy it doesn’t really have a historical phonological structure. So what rule to apply? The one most productive (widespread) at the moment: take [ɮɔntɔ̭ŋ] (I would suppose that’s the way in which Mongolians who don’t know English would pronounce it) and just create the genitive that is most readily available: Londongiin. It would be different if Mongolians would usually say [ɮɔntɔ̭n], but seeing “Londongiin” I can’t imagine they do. By the way, if you google for Лондонгийн, it is still second to Лондоны.

I hope that what I’ve written could contribute to your understanding of this matter. Best, G Purevdorj (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and extensive answer.

Another phenomenon that surprises me is the name "Лу гүний Итгэлт". Usually it is conjugated like "гүнгийн хэргэм", "гүнгийн хатун". And the original Chinese word is Latinised with "ng" (gong, wang). And the traditional Mongolian alphabet spells it with "ng". We never say "ваны", we say "вангийн" (То вангийн сургааль гм). So is it a mistake to say "Лу гүний Итгэлт" or should it be "Лу гүнгийн Итгэлт"? Gantuya eng (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ene chini yalgaatai. Aldaa baina gej bi bodno: 1. [ng]-tei ugiig [n]-tei bolgoh helnii hogjil yavc orchin cagiin mongol helend baihgui baina. 2. „gün“ gesen helbertei hoyor ugs baina: 1. gün[g] wan[g] 2. dalain gün. Internetees uzvel, anhdugaar ugiin butec bol /güN/. Oguulberiin ecest [güng] gedeg duudlagatai baih, harin hariyalah tiin yalgal ni /güni/. Hoyordoh ügiin avialbariin butec bol /güng/. Tiim uchraas nerleh tiin yalgaliin duudlaga ni omnoh ugtei adilhan, harin hariyalah tiin yalgaliin helber ni /güngin/. Harin „Лу гүний Итгэлт” gej bichsen hun ter hoyor ugiig biye biyetei sanamsargui anduurch bichsen shig haragdaj baina.

Harin ene asuudal uunees jaahan hecuu ni haramsaltai. „Tungalag tamir“-aas ish tatsan tul ter nom hezee bichsen ve, Lodoidamba guai ug ni yamar nutgiin hun baisan ve, ene nomiig anh bichihdee mongol esvel kiril usgeer bichsen ve geh met zuilsiig medej avah heregtei. Bas kiril bichigt oruulah ajliin uyeer mash olon aldaa gardag baisan. Bur nertei nom tul iim hereglee uunees bolj bas oor gazart ch garsan bolomj bii.

Medeej, Nuuc tovchnii helzui odoo oorchilson bolovch aldaa bish tul ene chini aldaa mon gej bas ch sanahguigeer helj bolohgui. Lodoidambagiin gar bichmel deer ene hereglee olon udaa gardag gej bid nar togtooj diilsnii daraa ene bol tuunii helnii onclog gej helj bolno. Tegvel nutgiin ayalguu buyuu salbar aman ayalguunii yalgaa baij magadgui, bas mongol helnii hogjliin chiglel 50 jiliin omno odoogoos ondoo baisan geh met olon bolomj baina. Harin iim nyambai medee baihguidee ug ni orchin cagiin mongol hel chini iim bish, odoo ingej bichvel aldaa baina gevel barag taarah yum shig. G Purevdorj (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsag zavaa zoriulsand ih bayarlalaa. Now I'm translating about avian flu. Sometimes it feels good to write "tomuuny" and sometimes it feels good to write "tomuugiin". Complete mess. Gantuya eng (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same with ugnii and ugiin for me. That's just normal, employing analogy where no actual linguistic evidence is left. Maybe all this might have settled down when I'm old and grey (possibly replacing -VVgiin altogether). But usually such processes take several centuries. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So these are evolutional processes. Perhaps the beauty is in its constant movement. When some processes settle down, other processes begin. Gantuya eng (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Purevdorj,:)

I've read your article as promised and commented in my talk page. Gantuya eng (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Here is an archived page. As you see, it's just an abstract. I have copies of this paper and its original paper in Japanese, but I don't know if there are electronic versions of them.

One interesting point of this paper that is not mentioned in the abstract is:

[In the first half of the 20th century,] the name of 'Inner Mongolia' began to connote a positive meaning of 'unification of Mongolia to the south of the Gobi' for Mongols, but the Chinese Nationalist Party banned the use of Inner Mongolia [to keep Mongols under separate Chinese provinces].

PS. You can read some of his papers at CiNii. I think [1] is a good overview of his recent work. --Nanshu (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nanshu!

Thanks a lot for your link. I am always highly interested in obtaining any essays on the Mongolic languages, and for some reason or another, Mongolian studies research done in Japan is rarely taken notice of anywhere besides Japan and Obur Monggul. I'm to some extent in a position to change this, but I lack sufficient connections to Japan. Now, first of all, I hope I'll be able to cope with モンゴル語近代語彙登場の母体-『蒙話報』誌 - its pdf-form has the distinct disadvantage of prohibiting copying which is bad as I otherwise could copy the bunch of words that I don't know into a dictionary instead of looking them up in a kanji jiten first. But it looks worthwhile, and the 5th part even looks easy to comprehend. Thanks again, G Purevdorj (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting to me is that ethnic Mongols (and other minorities) from the PRC freely express their opinions that are in direct opposition to or overshadowed by official Chinese views.

Also, it's frustrating that only a few scholars in those fields are alarmed by the fact that they are isolated. Certainly, there are some good work. I hope they will be valued properly. --Nanshu (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for your info! Trigaranus (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sain baina uu, Bi anh ene uguullegiig oruulahdaa Khaiysan Kholog Khaanii uyd Ossetian bolon Kipchak tseregiin bulegleliin nuluu Ikh Yuan gurend ihessen gej oruulsan ni logic-n huvid jaahan aldaatai sanagdsan tul zassan yum. Uchir ni Tughtemur-n uyes naash ted tur erguuleh huch olj amjaagui sanagddag. Shidebala buyu Sodbal Khaaniig horloh uyd Asuduud oroltson gedeg ch ted Mongol noydiin udirdlagaar hiigdsen gej bi uzdeg. Hundetgesen, --Enerelt (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Za, oorchloltiin aguulga chini bol zugeer l dee. Oorchloh uchir chini undesleltei baih, chi ug ni bas anh tekstiig bichsen baij magadgui gej bi anhaarsan daa. Harin neg l udaanii uyeer bish, heden odriin daraa ooriin bichsnee oorcholvol jinhene edit baina. Help:Minor edit#When to mark an edit as minor gej unshaarai! "minor edit" gedeg temdegleliin uureg bol ene nevterhii toliin neg oguuleliig tanij zovshorooson humuust "za, aguulga ni oorchlogdoogui, bi hyanah hereggui" gej medegdeh yostoi. Gehdee saijruulsan aguulga bol oorchilson aguulga mon shuu. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input about that article. I have also noticed a lot of problems with it but haven't had time to sit down and plan out a new version. Anyway, I left you some comments at the article's talk page. Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly be willing to read this article and correct grammatical errors, however one of my classmates is editing the page as a school assignment. He is going to do another revision so I think he will fix the problems. I would be happy to take a look at it later if there are still any issues. Zoogzy (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that I could in principle write a detailed critique of his revision on the talk page, and he would get worse grades if he doesn't comply? G Purevdorj (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The Mongolian language article is already rated B-class, which is the highest rating that Wikiproject China gives without formal review (we do not use the A class). However, the article looks like it might be able to pass at WP:GA. Have you considered nominating it there? I will check out the other articles that you mentioned shortly. Thanks,--Danaman5 (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that this is above project-level, but I'll do as you suggested. Regards, G Purevdorj (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're just handing out WP:Languages ratings, but just wondering if, as a languages person, you'd care to do the "split" of language off from the Danezaa article, which should be for ethnographic/historical material; not sure if you know enough to take part in the name debate, but because that debate exists (or rather because so many different "indigenous spellings/names" exist) the recourse to give the language page an English name, i.e. Beaver language has been used before with Thompson language and Shuswap language; anyway language isn't my department, though I've done a few such splits; just got my hands full elsewhere, also....Skookum1 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not familiar with American languages. That's enough for rating (given that you rate the amount, congruence, completeness etc. of data and the references and refrain from actually confirming the correctness of the data), but not to take a position in this discussion. Next, I've never done a split before myself, so I won't in this case. But good luck! G Purevdorj (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fröhliche Weihnachten. Yaan (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Za, bayarlalaa. Bas chamd zuliin sariin bayariin mend hurgii! G Purevdorj (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You wrote in the summary line: "(1. No ISBN necessary. Those who wanna have these books can do without. 2. you didn't expand the article, so these aren't actual references 3. not clear from title if 1989 essay on script, rather lang?)". My response: 1. Am very puzzled about the ISBN comment. It's one thing to decide whether a book should or should not be mentioned, but once it is mentioned, surely it's better to give the ISBN than not to give it? While ISBN optional, it's useful for the sake of easier identification and search in library catalogs. See Wikipedia:References#Citation_styles. I usually try to add ISBNs to cites that are lacking them. 2, True, I have not used them yet, but I was going to use the 1989 title as a reference for a couple facts in the article that currently don't have them, and possibly add a couple more details based on that. The 2009 book obviously has not appeared yet, but I pasted its data in along with the 1989 one since, once it's available, it probably would be the most up-to-date resource in English for the topic. In any event since you - an editor who actually wrote much of the article, and probably know lots more about the subject than I do - objected to listing those books, I won't bring it back until I actually refer to one of them. 3. The 1989 book, is mostly on Jurchen inscriptions and manuscripts (both script and meaning, such as has been understood so far), but it has a chapter specifically on the Khitan script (mostly summarizing the main results of Chinggeltei et al. available by that time). If you need the actual text for your work, you can email me (via Special:EmailUser/Vmenkov), and I'll get you link to it. Best regards, Vmenkov (talk)

Hi Vmenkov, thanks for your comments. 1. ISBN seemed a bit commercializing to me, and it's very rare that they are included in the bibliography of books. Anyway, you're completely right about the guidelines (I didn't take them into account), so if you like you can restore the ISBN. 2. I actually didn't contribute much to the article and am not very competent on Khitan either. As I don't know the articles, I have no objections against any content of them, only to the circumstance that they were so far not included into the article by in-line references. And as this was your first contribution, it was hard to know whether these actually related well to the content of the article. But as soon as you come up with in-line citations, I'll be happy to have them not as further reading, but as actual references. 3. I'm always happy to have at hand any text that somehow relates to my work. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done work on it, but it’s all about improvement of course. There are some other language articles I have worked on that could be ranked by Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages. Is there a way to request a ranking?

Besides Munsee, the main Eastern Algonquian language page that could be reviewed is Delaware languages. I have also worked on Mahican language and Powhatan language. The latter two articles are more cursory because both are extinct and there is not a lot of documentation on them.

I have also worked on Ottawa language, which is a dialect of Ojibwe, an Algonquian language.

Thanks. John. Jomeara421 (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John! If you feel your article meets the Good Article or Featured article criteria on the quality scale, you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Candidates or Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. (As I’m usually not using the A class when rating, to get anything better than B class means that you’ll have to nominate your article as a GA.) Otherwise, there is no formal way to ask for a reassessment. I'm considering establishing such a category at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages, but currently there is none. Unrated articles are automatically listed at Category:Unassessed_language_articles and are thus requested to be ranked. Actually, this did matter little in the past, as there were 2500 unrated articles in mid-November. But I’m very busy changing this: I have them down to about 950 by now. So if some rating (like “stub” for that well-referenced article on Delaware languages) seems to have become an anachronism, just delete the rating and the article will re-appear in the list of unrated articles. And of course there’s the possibility to drop a note at the talk pages of suitable editors. In the meantime, I’ve (re)assessed the articles you mentioned. (There should be a more precise standard for rating anything that is not a language unto itself, eg for extinct languages and dialects, but I try to do my best by improvising.) Best regards, G Purevdorj (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on the other pages I mentioned - it is greatly appreciated. I am thinking of concentrating on the Ottawa dialect of the Ojibwa language page for a while to see how far I can push that. Dialect pages are tricky, because there has to be a balance between what goes there and what goes on the main page for the language, so some thinking is required on that. Ojibwa is complicated because there are a bunch of 'main' pages that are very muddled and overlap - trying to straighten them out would be a massive task and require more time that I have. I am going to put a message on the WikiProject Languages talk to see if there's a way to give better guidance for dialect pages.

Thanks. John. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would perfer that someone that has no assosiation to the article rereview it, since I failed it (I think) and would have a bias for it. You might want to repost it at WP:GAN. Good luck! Leujohn ^(talk) 10:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is reposted (kind of), but considering the backlash ... But okay, I'll have to wait for the next reviewer to come along. G Purevdorj (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you see narrative "Prince Oljeitu the Beauty" (on my user page)? Please advise me how it can be edited to resemble Old English a little bit. Just a little flavour of Old English because the events in the narrative happened late 15th century. Except of "thou", "thee", I don't know anything of Old English. Gantuya eng (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're bargaining for far more than you're prepared to receive. Old English is a variety that speakers of Modern English won't understand in the least. Eg. "bearn" instead of "son". You want some Middle English or Early Modern English (that would be the language of Shakespeare) features. Well, I'll guess I'll be quite clumsy at that, but I shall give it a try. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He he, sure. Thank you first of all for editing my funny translation of the Altan Tobchi text.

Old English: I meant not the very oldest English, but something close to the language of Shakespeare though I even cannot understand Shakespeare without explanation. I wanted something in between Shakespeare's language and modern language. Just a flavour. I think you've done it. Thank you again.

The Altan Tobchi copy I have is itself also not in its original language. It's a translation into modern Mongolian. I've got Erdeny yin Tobchi in its original language. Very tough to understand. 17th century. Ordos(?) dialect yet. :) Gantuya eng (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know much about the rating process, and in particular I don't know if many people pay any attention to an article's rating. But in cases like this, where you gave a substantial article a Start-Class rating, it seems insufficient to just mention your reasoning in the edit summary. I only saw it because this page happens to be on my watchlist. Why not also add a Norefs or other relevant tag to the main article so that people actually notice the problem? CapnPrep (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether ratings are relevant to the readers of individual articles, but sometimes they are relevant to the editors, and most important, they are relevant in order to know how the situation of language articles on en.wikipedia is as a whole. The tag saying that the article does not cite its sources is already present. If you take a look at the quality scale, you'll find the following line: "The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup." This is clearly not given, and thus there's not much more to comment on. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag myself. I wasn't calling your ratings decision into question. Just saying that as long as you're going to the trouble of evaluating all these pages (some of which, I suspect, are not watched very actively), in cases like these it would be easy and useful to leave some more explicit and visible recommendations for subsequent editors. CapnPrep (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and my excuses for the slight arrogancy in claiming that there "was" a tag. There have indeed been few cases where adding a tag was as justified as here. I shall try to think of it when I stumble over a similar article next time. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that variant was actually an attempt at using the PRC transcription system, in analogy to names like Hohhot or Ulanhu. The problem with the passports is not that the PRC is not using the usual transcriptionsystem from Mongolian, but that they don't even use their own system and instead take a detour via Chinese characters. That's how you end up with stuff like Wulan Qiqige. Yaan (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you gave was not Mongolian Pinyin as would be used for transcription of words that are not names. Can you provide me with a link for that Chinese system for the transcription of Mongolian names, so that I can have a look at it myself? G Purevdorj (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is something like this, though it's apparently mainly for geographical names. Now I am not so sure about the existence or shape of such a system for personal names myself anymore. Some more datapoints: Uyunqimg, Bagatur. P.S. Maybe this reads better. I had actually thought this link was brought up by you, now I see it was someone else here. Yaan (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have somewhere provided a rather more complex pdf on Mongolian transcription. Anyway, to arrive at "Bator", you need a system that recognizes syllable chains, syllable chain pronunciation pairs or mere pronunciation (of some dialect that I am not aware of at the moment), or you might use an analogy to Ulanbator. None of your links provides something like that, they're just about simple transcription of letters in context. So it looks that we have no way to arrive at "Monhebator" without improvization, which is of course undesirable. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That "bator" was by analogy with "Ulanhot". Given that the current chairman of IMAR is written "Bagatur", I guess Monghebagatur is closer to what the name should look like. But you are right, guessing is not desirable. Regards, Yaan (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another nice example: click! Yaan (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closes in on pronunciation, but still fails to adhere to any actual system that we're aware of. What do you think of "urtien doh"? Just for the sake of the average German reader that is not going to busy herself with Mongolia? G Purevdorj (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'h' is a big nuisance, the 'e' too. Especially since German has no problems with double vowels. I was more impressed by all those personal names, Hasichaolu, Cha Gan etc. The movie title itself is OK, one only wonders why it's not something like Wuerting du. Yaan (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"doo" is quite possible, while somewhat less usual than "doh", but "urtiin" is no possible German spelling, and "urtin" as read by a German would sound quite different. But you very pointedly mention the reason why I didn't take any special notice of the other names; their written form is quite systematic. There may well be a different approach to names (of people, places etc.) and to other Mongolian vocabulary. Harin gunigtai baina daa. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		Your assessment of all unassessed WikiProject Language articles surely qualifies as epic in the Homeric sense. Gimme danger (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not through with it yet, but soon will be. Anyway, thanks for the barnstar, I'm glad to know that other people find these ratings useful. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I have now removed this category from your user talk page.

Hope this helps,

The Helpful One 10:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! G Purevdorj (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got time to edit the text about Mother Hoelun on my Userpage ? Danke. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so glad that you devoted time to edit it. The verses ate the end even became rhymed. I'm amazed. Thank you. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zugeeree, ug ni iim tekstiig hereglegchiin huudastaa tavih ni sain bodol shuu. Neg yum asuumaar baina. Chi "Lambaguian nulims" neg unshsan uu? Roman uu, oguulleg uu? Internetees olj boloh uu? (Bi eniig tendees oloh gej oroldson, harin olsongui.) G Purevdorj (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ene bol D. Natsagdorjiin oguulleg, yerdoo 4 tal. Yeronhiidoo lama huvraguudiig doogloson utgatai gedeg. Lama huvragiig doogloh nugel shuu dee. Bas duuri garsan. Ter jujigchin ni uuniig zaaval lama huvragiig naryg shoolson gej oilgoh albaqui. Ted ch bas hun uchraas hund l baidal durlal shanalal tedend ch bas bii gej helsen. Bi scanner olohooroo scannerdaad yavuulamz. Buh surguulid uzdeg baisan shig sanagdana. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to put something in the back of your mind.

In the past week, I stumbled across Xiongnu#Origin and Languages which mentions Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat and Julius Klaproth in the section about Turkic and Mongolic theories. The subject does not attract more than passing curiosity, but these two early 19th century Parisians do interest me very much. Rémusat and Klaproth were friends of Isaac Titsingh who died in Paris in 1812; and both men were editors of posthumously published Titsingh books about Japan. In passing, I've tried to improve the articles about these two prickly personalities ....

It crosses my mind that you may come across these names in the course of your future research activities. If you do happen by accident to encounter anything which can enhance the articles about either of these two men, I hope to encourage you to contribute a quick talk page comment which I can follow-up in due course.

Just a thought ...? --Tenmei (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I happen to stumble over one of these and still remember your request, I shall gladly do as you requested! G Purevdorj (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Tenmei (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty#Semi-protection needed. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. I'm sorry for whatever can be construed as my part in the stressful exchanges of the past week. In retrospect, every well-intentioned contribution just made this situation worse because the most relevant factors were not within the ambit of anything written explicitly presented on the screen in front of me.

I regret the extent to which my contributions exacerbated a problem I was trying to mitigate. No one could have been more surprised than me as I continued producing the opposite of intended results. I'm not unsubtle; but all I can say at this point is that I will continue trying to learn from my mistakes. I know this isn't much of an apology; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tenmei! I'm not really sure whether your contributions have ONLY exacerbated the problem. You replaced a lot of the wrong-headed information that was originally present. And while the outsiders were not convinced that the article should be convinced, and while most of the Mongolia work group just perceived the vandalism and were flabbergasted that they were alone in doing so, your involvement at least managed to provoke evidence that is obvious for anyone to see. If the article might have been deleted, your involvement was a setback. But if this could not have been achieved, it was some useful help. I now just wish that YOU could set your mind at ease a bit. As was stated before and was shown by several of his/her contributions, Mr./Ms. Anonymous enjoys the distress s/he is able to cause. Relax and revert! G Purevdorj (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I could have or should have done something differently, I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Tenmei reported by Teeninvestor. Perhaps this will slow things down a bit. --Tenmei (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to withdraw from WP:3RR because it is ineffective and no uninvolved editor has shown the willingness and temerity in wading into this escalating dispute.

Instead, the dispute resolution processes of formal mediation are necessary. If that fails, the resort to arbitration may prove helpful.

We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes. In my view, the the words and actions of our alleged "tag team" have been consistently informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:

• 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
• 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
• 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
• 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?

As you probably know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality.

As I see it, your participation has reliably focused on aspects of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty which would lead to a stable, credible article.

What seems to be missing is a method by which a determination on whether content policies are being followed can be made authoritatively. Mediation may help resolve the issues which mark this minor article as a battlefield. --Tenmei (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that succeeding in convincing an outsider of the problems obviously linked with this article, Teeninvestor's mindset and probably the Chinese historiographical book, you would indeed have to look up other literature and, in the worst case, even get that Chinese source itself. I do agree that your position is sound, but I fear you don't manage to convey this to the outsiders on the talk page. So it's looking up literature. Otherwise we won't stand our ground, not as it is and probably not in mediation. But doing so requires some considerable effort, about a day in the library. But I have to do final exams in early sommer, and the preparation for these is linked to similar work. So I'm not willing to do this work in addition. I might possibly make a bunch of contributions to wikipedia, but this will be directly related to topics of my exams. For this reason, I decide not to try to get to the bottom of this. G Purevdorj (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis and judgment are sound.

The mediation process is explained at WP:Mediation. I will initiate the process at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. As you may know, all participation is voluntary; and in fact, Teeninvestor can thwart the process by refusing to agree to mediation or by withdrawing at any point afterwards. If you prefer, I will not include your name in this reasonable next step; but I construe the likely benefit/risk ratio as mildly encouraging. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my best effort to distill a complex tangle of problems into something succinct. Even if nothing else is ultimately achieved, I feel this writing exercise was worth my investment of time. I hope this can -- in some unforeseen manner -- help you avoid the necessity of "re-inventing the wheel" in some other setting in the future. In my view, this summarizing step is an essential part of the alchemy process which turns what we all endured into something of plausibly instructive value. I myself can't understand the full measure of lessons learned the hard way at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty -- not yet. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. --Tenmei (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom[edit]

I posted the following on Teeninvestor's talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an ArbCom notice template on Teeninvestor's talk page. He/she did not consent to mediation; and that dispute resolution process could not go forward. Today, a request for arbitration has been entered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration; and the complaint is captioned "Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article". --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOU do not need do participate unless you choose to do so[edit]

I'm sorry. Do I need to apologize? You are not required to be a part of this.

You are welcome to participate, of course; but I wasn't intending to drag you into anything. I used this ArbCom notice template because I thought it would be easily recognizeable; but if misled you by doing this, that's bad. Sorry.

Having asked for your feedback, I was persuaded that I was a little bit obliged to "keep you in the loop" ... but I truly had no intention to burden you unfairly. --Tenmei (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following the process and I am glad for your posts, but I think it is unlikely that I will contribute to it. G Purevdorj (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case[edit]

An Arbitration case has been opened, and is located here. As I understand it, the open-ended process invites anyone to participate, not only those who contributed to the thread which led to a case being opened.

I wonder if this forum might be worth your investment of time and attention -- if only because of the possibility that you glimpse some better way of dealing with those who would dismiss, deride, or devalue your future contribution labeling you "pro-Mongolian" (as if it were a self-evident and obviously perjorative term). This seems rather like those who have sought to diminish my Wikipedia contributions with a label "Japanese" (as if "Japanese" were to be understood an arguably derisive term).

I would guess you probably understand that my primary focus is elsewhere, but I'm still troubled by that "pro-Mongolian" gambit in the AfD thread. It's not so much that the innuendo was introduced, although I'm very clear that it shouldn't have been tolerated by the consensus. What still bothers me particularly is that this derisive tactic proved to be so easy, so effective, so readily accepted by the so-called "uninvolved" or "neutral" others in that discussion thread. I wish there were some way to leverage this ArbCom "event" so that such needless tactics were less easy or that such heedless claims were accorded closer scrutiny? Just a thought ...?

To be frank, I don't quite understand how this will unfold from this point on -- especially in light of what Teeninvestor has posted thus far, but the formal notice that the case had been accepted included the following, which I construe as being addressed as much to you as me:

• Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence.
• Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible.
• You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop.

Bottom line: If you can see some way to convert this from a mere academic exercise into something with practical and practicable consequences, please share your thoughts with me or with some member of ArbCom. You aren't obliged to do anything, but, as promised, I'm keeping you informed as developments follow one after another.

On an optimistic note, will you join me in hoping that this process can be converted into something which is demonstrably constructive, useful, helpful? --Tenmei (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Mongolia during Tang rule redirect page[edit]

In this slow-moving ArbCom case, I proposed only one remedy -- deleting the Mongolia during Tang rule redirect page; It has engendered one comment.

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop: (diff) 13:53, 18 April 2009 Patar knight (43,556 bytes) (→Deleting Mongolia during Tang rule: Seems to be a lggitimate redirect)

Teeninvestor invited this editor to comment -- see here.

You were in my thoughts when I typed out this proposal -- see here.

The discussion and decision-making about this singular proposal would benefit from your participation. --Tenmei (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom remedy?[edit]

The ArbCom case is moving inevitably towards conclusion. The only part of it which plausibly concerns you is one of my proposed remedies:

• Deleting Mongolia during Tang rule redirect page.

I have added my arguments to what you already posted some weeks ago. If you want to add anything more to this one thread, now would be a good time to contribute whatever you think best. --20:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Purevdorj,

I am writing to discuss, in a friendly spirit, your recent rankings of Comparative method as B class and Joseph Greenberg as Start class. I am bringing this up, as you suggest, rather than changing the rankings myself, because I believe we should try to get a consensus.

The simpler case is "Comparative method". The comparative method is the principal tool of historical linguistics, without which it can - so to speak - do nothing, yet the article, in its present form, is solely focused on the use of the comparative method to validate genetic relationships between languages. There is nothing about its use, for example, to study the history of sound systems and, via it, their nature, as for instance by André Martinet in his Economie des changements phonétiques. But there is obviously a great deal more to historical linguistics than genetic classification alone, which occupies maybe 10% of the efforts of historical linguists. I hope you will agree with this observation and downgrade the article from B to C class until it includes a more wide-ranging treatment.

The second and more complex case is that of "Joseph Greenberg". It is possible that more information on typology would be helpful, but the information that is there is accurate and hits the essential points, whereas more detailed material might well be better discussed under e.g. Linguistic typology and Linguistic universal. The treatment of biography and especially of language classification controversies in this article is fairly complete, though it could always be expanded. Most important, the article is fairly heavily referenced (except at a few points), whereas the Start class criterion is "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." It also has a massive bibliography. I don't see any way this article is "Start" class. I suggest upgrading it up to B class (a little optimistic) or C class (a little pessimistic).

Regards, VikSol (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viksol! Thanks for notifying me. Yes, I was somewhat reluctant to rate the article on the comparative method at all - I could be more familiar with that topic. And except for simple language articles, there is no project-specific template for rating. But you're justified in pointing out the limitations of the article. The other article is one of very few bibliographical articles in the whole WP languages, so I didn't really develop any measured judgement for this class. You're right, it does meet C class criteria. I do think, however, that the article is somewhat unbalanced, focussing too much on his activities in classification and too little on the foundation of typology. But that is only a criterion for GA class. B class only has "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.", and it is easy enough to argue that this criterion is met. As no one really believes in Amerind, the missing in-line citations there are not crucial and not impeding B class. I don't like rating this article as B class, but I'll do it. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, last summer I got a book by Če. Damdinsürüng, Mongolyn uran zoxiolyn deezh zuun bilig orshvoi (actually, the transcription is different), 1959. Unfortunately it is of little use for me now because I can't read Monggol bichig so well. I thought about scanning it with the book-eye scanners in my library and uploading it somewhere, maybe archive.org or wikisource if the latter accepts pdfs. I guess copyright is not so big a problem, nothing that will get me jailed anyway, but at roughly 600 pages and 5 cent per scan this is not going to be particularly cheap. I am not even sure I can scan two pages at the same time. Do you think it is worth it, or have any idea about how to save costs, or other comments? Regards, Yaan (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yaan! I just got to the library and got a look into the book. It is a huge reader consisting of appr. 2000 pages in 4 volumes. It contains numerous adapted versions of historical texts. This means that this book is of great cultural and little scientific value. It is interesting exclusively for those who can read Mongolian fluently and want to become familiar with Mongolian literature from a cultural point of view. That is, most likely, almost exclusively Mongolians who can access it anyway. And you seem to own only part of the book. Thus (though I dislike to discourage you from such worthy efforts) I don't think that it is worth it in this case. Greetings, G Purevdorj (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that book you can find the poems of Khishigbat from Ordos. They are difficult to understand and I was asking you (G_Purevdorj) some time ago whether that is the Ordos dialect. If I recall right, indeed Če. Damdinsürüng made comment that those poems are in a local dialect. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were asking about some other work. But I might have a look at them. Poems don't take that much time and might reveal something of interest for me as well. A good friend of mine is Ordos, I won't have any problems if I don't understand them myself. G Purevdorj (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. I was asking about Erdeni-yin Tobchi. But Khishigbatu's poems can be added to the list. He lived at the end of 19th century, so his language should be more modern than the language of Sagan Secen. I guess, to recognise a dialect, it's not necessary to read the whole text, a couple of sentences could tell. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2000 pages? I thought that since my copy already contains 100 texts, it should be complete. Do they all have the same number (mine is XIV, I think)? Yaan (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what is the correct transcription for baruun (western) from Mongol bichig? I ask because of the image caption here. Regards, Yaan (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC) baraγun G Purevdorj (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Yaan (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening
Well, I Think you know who I am. However, let me introduce myself: Dhegiha from fr.Wiki Thanks a lot for completing the french page on ordos dialect. We lack a good dictionary French-Mongol, and I must search (transcription, translation) in a bunch of books. May I ask you a few things about mongolian dialects, especially oirat ones.
I have a dictionary and an article about a dialect called 'degedü mongghol aman ayalghu'. The sources are in classical script and I can't find such a name in dictionaries (I've used a cyrillic-classical-chinese one). As far as I understand the Degedü live in Xingjiang in Xöxnuur (kokunor). Have they another name?
I've also made a page about the dialect of the 'Lesser Waisi tribe' (the page is 'Waisi') who live in Qinghai. It is also Oirat-like. The source is in Chinese (Minzu yuwen). Have they a mongolian name?
If you wish to answer, please do it on my user's page on fr.wikipedia. By the way, congratulations for your work on mongolian dialects
Dhegiha (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks,
I wrote the page surely too fast. Your remarks were good. I checked and this was not 'nine' but 'blood' and so for 'tear';. However the article by sechen gives 'nʊlms'. is this a print error?
Dhegiha (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Purevdorj
Ich hab' erst bemerkt das Sie deutsch sprechen. Also, ich bin Franzose aber wohn' im Kehl. Kein Wunder: meine Frau ist deutsche. Ich verstehe dass Sie erstaunt von meiner Quellen sind. Solche Sachen müssen in West-Europa selten sein! Die kommen aus meine eigene Bibliothek. Ich kaufe Bücher über Sprachen ein, und einen meinen beliebtesten Gebieten heisst Mongolische Spr. u. Dialekte. Ein Glück ist die chinesische Buchhandlung 'Le Phénix' in Paris. Hier hab'ich viel gefunden. Für die revues, ich war abonniert durch dieses Laden.
Sie wissen dass ich lese klassische Mongolisch absolut nicht flüssig, so vielen Dank für ihre Helfe! Für die Artikeln über Sünid, ich kann wahrscheinlich sie scannen (Wenn mein Scanner noch funktioniert!). Wenn ich Zeit habe..Ich werde Sie dann kontaktieren.
Sind sie ein Student oder Spezialist der mongolischen Sprachen? Und wohnen sie in Deutschland? Viele Grüsse.
Dhegiha (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have begun to create a template for writing Mongol bichig words as a table of individual characters, or sometimes, pairs of characters. A first example for what it is supposed to look like is on the right. In my opinion it does look good enough, but the problem is I think it is not possible to use such tables within paragraphs, only outside a paragraph or in other tables.

It is a bit of work, actually, to create all those .svg images of characters. Do you think it is useful? Regards, Yaan (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it may have some limited use in the article on Mongol bichig itself, but not anywhere else on Wikipedia. How did you get this idea? G Purevdorj (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I thought it would be more flexible than creating lots of single-use images. (Are you aware that only one of the two tables is really relevant here? The left one is just an illustration.) The idea is from railway-related templates like template:trans-Siberian Railway. Yaan (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not written in one word, but with spaces in-between, it looks somewhat awkward. CAN it be written in one piece? G Purevdorj (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to write it in one piece. And the one writing that is left now actually looks like one piece on my computer. Yaan (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. But not when I use Internet Explorer. Stupid. Apparently the problem is that the cells have all the same height. Yaan (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I use Firefox, the word is not shown in one piece (although the cells have different height then). G Purevdorj (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A second point that might be relevant: can those cells be integrated into a text? G Purevdorj (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had changed the class of the table somewhere along the way. Now it should look just perfect in Firefox again. But of course that is not enough... I don't think you can use this within text, just in tables, infoboxes and the like. Unfortunately. Yaan (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it looks much better on IE (still not perfect) if you don't shrink the images below a certain size. So maybe all we need are smaller images. Yaan (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have infoboxes everywhere. If it is about inserting original script in normal articles, it might be better to have something like the IPA template and a font presented horizontally. If so, we wouldn't even need to use images everywhere. G Purevdorj (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how would we make sure random other users have that particular font? I don't think using images instead of a real font would be so easy either, because of different widths of the letters if written horizontally. Maybe it's ok if you only use one image size all over wp, or find a way to enlarge or shrink images by a certain factor rather then giving an absolute width. Yaan (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure what I am talking about, but {{IPA|...} would make sure that any user can read IPA symbols independet of font. I wonder if something similar (or even the same?) could be done with Mongolian script. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it could. Or at least not so easily and without admin help. If you look at the source code of Template:IPA, they have apparently defined some IPA class, which is probably not possible for normal users because they lack the permission to do this on wp, and not possible for me because I lack the technical ability.

The problem with the font is that your computer can only display fonts that you have installed (under System control -> fonts or so). I think. Most users won't have fonts suitable for displaying Mongolian script. Even if they have a font capable of displaying Mongolian script as provided by unicode, unless they have Windows Vista they probably can only display initial letters. There are workarounds for this, for example at linguamongolia.co.uk (the dictionary), but from what I understand they require very special fonts that are not particularly common either. The IPA template seems to presume that the user has at least one out of a whole set of fonts that is able to display IPA symbols.

I think most users could display IPA symbols without using that template. If this was the case for the Mongolian script, I don't think I would have felt it necessary to create a template. Yaan (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now figured out how to make it work. But it is a bit of a hack and might not work equally well on all browsers, and it will take some time to pack this into an easy-to use template. But I think it can be done.

Actually, I think we can have both vertical and horizontal script, and once you have one of the two properly working, creating the other one should not be so difficult anymore. Just turn all the images clockwise and choose some default image size that looks fine. Calculations for other image sizes can then be done with the help of data we will need for the vertical script anyway. Yaan (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. except that now, it looks strange in Firefox again. Sigh. Yaan (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it work on your computer now (the second/largest Hohhot)? Yaan (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at the moment I'm using IE and the 2nd image works. The 3rd image is pretty good as well, but has two slight discontinuitites. G Purevdorj (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally. Thanks a lot. The third one was manually coded, the second (and now the first) have been done with the template. Yaan (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unicode has a Mongolian alphabet, but it is displayed rotated by 90 degrees: ᠠᠡᠢᠣᠤᠥᠦᠧᠨᠩᠪᠫᠬᠭᠮᠯ . It is in the range (hexadecimal) 1800 to 18FF. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Purevdorj
Ich habe sie ein Email gesendet. Und noch was, weil ich brauche IPA. Ich habe ein Buch gekauft, eine Sammlung Artikeln, mit eine phonologische Deskription von Chakhar von Uuta. Und überraschung, nilbusu, ist nicht als nʊlmɑs gegeben sondern als nœlʲmɔs. Verstehen sie das? Bedeutet Chakhar zwei Sachen? Die Standardsprache der Öbör Mongghol (barimjiy-a) und lokales Chakhar Dialekt?
Ta ih tus bolloo.
Dhegiha

Zwischen Standardaussprache und Chakhar wird schon unterschieden, aber Chakhar ist eine große Gegend, die selbst in ihrer engeren Abgrenzung zehn Landkreise umfasst. D.h. nicht alle Chakhar reden gleich. Aber wir haben hier ein Wort vor uns, das sich auch im Khalkha sehr unregelmäßig verhält:

:1. [nʊɮmɑs] ist eine gutbezeugte Aussprachevarietät dieses Wortes. /ɮ/ ist hier nicht palatalisiert. :2. Svantesson et al. 2005 geben für Khalkha nʊɮʲəms ~ nʊɮʲməs an. Das nichtphonemische ə wird dabei meist als [i] realisiert. :3. Ich meine mich an etwas wie [nœɮʲmʲœs] zu erinnern, aber das hab ich nicht in der Literatur. Das ist dann fast dasselbe wie „nœɮʲmɔs“.

:(3) ist als vermutlich analog zu (2) als /nʊɮʲms/, syllabifiziert /nʊɮʲməs/ zu analysieren. Das palatalisierte /ɮʲ/ kontaminiert den vorhergehenden Konsonanten, was im Chakhar nach Sechenbaatar eigentlich zu [ʏ] führen sollte. Wie dem auch sei, in unserem Dialekt ist das Ergebnis [œ]. Da die erste Silbe einen gerundeten Vokal hat, muss die zweite per Vokalharmonie auch einen kriegen, also ergibt sich [nœɮʲmɔs]. Zu (1): Es wäre denkbar, dass nicht /ɮ/, sondern /ɮʲ/, wobei /ʊ/ dann im Ggs. zu /ɔ/ oder /ɑ/ nicht besonders kontaminiert würde. Es bleibt hier das eine oder andere unklar, aber es ist weniger verwirrend, als es im ersten Moment scheint. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd be delighted to help on this article. Unfortunately I won't be able to start a concerted effort on it until the weekend; I hope this won't be a problem. (I see a few others have also offered to c-e at the FAC discussion, so perhaps the article won't be neglected in the meantime.) Best regards -- Timberframe (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The weekend is not far away, so I'm looking forward to seeing you then! G Purevdorj (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Purevdoj,
Danke für die Korrektur auf die Artikeln. Ich habe geändert die Referenz auf Svantesson, wie du es vorgeschlagen hast. Du hast recht, ich glaube das er, nur die Zahl des Bevölkerung der bestimmten Kreise genommen hat.
Ich hab gerade gekauft die Bücher von Svantesson und Sechenbaatar. Jetzt hab'ich die Lösung über diese Zhenglan Kreis. Es ist nur die übersetzung auf Chinesisch von Shuluun Xox, d.h. die gewählte form für die Standardsprache. Aber, Svantesson schreibt dass normatisierter Chakhar ist wahrscheinlich anders als der dialekt von Shuluun Xox. Dieser Eindruck hab ich immer gehabt beim Vergleich der diversen Quellen (Chinggeltei vs. Dobu z.B). Und ich habe manchmal gelesen (bei Todaeva z.B) dass Chakhar ist die Basis der Sprache, und nicht gelesen der Sprache.
So, ich habe gemacht eine Seite Mongol (langue de Chine) mit Chinggeltei phonologie aus seiner Grammatik, und werde wahrscheinlich eine Chakhar-Seite mit Uuda oder Dobu machen.
A propos, hast du das Büchlein von Janhunen über Mandschurien-Kamnigan?,
Viele Grüsse und gute Nacht!Dhegiha (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ich sehe, dass auch deine Literaturrecherchen erfolgreich verlaufen :-). Darf ich fragen, ob du jetzt Sechenbaatar 2003 oder Sechenbaatar et al. 2005 hast? Fußnote 24 von Mongolian language enthält als wörtliches Zitat eine Aussage aus Sechenbaatar et al. 2005, dass Standardinnermongolisch nur auf [Shuluun-Hoh]-Chakhar basiert, aber nicht mit ihm identisch ist. Norǰin 2001 (zitiert auf Chakhar dialect) enthält zahlreiche Vergleiche von normativer Standardaussprache und Shuluun-Hoh-Aussprache, sowohl als Wortliste wie auch in der Analyse. Das Buch von Janhunen hab ich leider nicht. Viele Grüße und vermutlich bis bald! G Purevdorj (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Das Buch das ich habe, ist die Grammatik von Chakhar (2003), leider habe ich nicht die zwei andere aus Hohhot! Aber jetzt weiss ich bescheid über diese komplizierte Frage des Chakhar. Und dann was ist barimjiy-a, bedeutet es gesprochen (Standard)?

Für das Buch über Kamnigan ich kann es dir schicken, ich habe es falsch bestellt (Internet manipulation!): ich habe jetzt zwei Exemplare.

Bis bald, Dhegiha (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

barimjiy-a meint „ungefähres Maß“, ferner auch „Orientierung“ (Vietze). Vielleicht könnte man von „Richtwert“ sprechen. avia bedeutet „Laut“. Ich bin etwas überrascht, dass du Sechenbaatar 2003 einfach so hast kaufen können. Ich hatte mich damals an den Verlag gewandt, aber die hatten nichts mehr. Schlussendlich hab ich dann ein Examplar von Sechenbaatar geschenkt bekommen. Vielen Dank für das Buch von Janhunen! Ich schicke dir meine Adresse per Email zu. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo purevdorj
Hier ist die Quelle:
Süngrüb, Alaša Aman Ayalγun-u Abiyalaburi Bolun Barimjiya Abiyal-un Abiyalaburi-yin Qaričaγulul, In Erdem Sinjilegen-ü Ügülel-ün Tegübüri 1, Beijing, Ündüsütün Keblel-ün Qoriy-a (Minzu Chubanshe=Nationale Minderheiten Verlag), 1988.
Ich bin nicht absolut sicher auf die Transkription. Das Buch in nicht in die Biblio von Svantesson. Er schreibt Ögülel, bolon. Aber das weiss du genau! Es gibt kein Herausgeber. Nur steht: Dumdadu Ulus-un Mongγol Kele Bicig-ün Sinjilegel-ün Neyigemliγ (нийгэмлэг).
Bis bald Dhegiha (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Ich habe die Seiten vergessen S.160-197

Wurzel bol-, epenthetischer Vokal -u- und Konverbalsuffix -n > bolun > bolon. /o/ ist im Mittelmongolischen immer Teil von Wortstämmen, nie von Suffixen. Den späteren Wandel nach bolon berücksichtigen wir bei der Umschrift nicht. (Ich persönlich benutze eine Umschriftkonvention, bei der in nichterster Silbe IMMER <u>, aber das ist nicht historisch akkurat. Das Problem für eine zügige Umschrift ist nur eben, dass man diesen Unterschied im Mongolischen gar nicht mehr hat, d.h. man müsste immer ins Mittelmongolische kucken, um Bescheid zu wissen. Das andere Wort ist Khalkha <өгүүлэл> von <өгүүл-> 'erzählen'. Luvsanvandan behauptet, dass hier ein Zusammenhang mit üge(n) 'Wort' besteht, aber ich erkenne nicht, durch welches Suffix. Andererseits hab ich Luvsanvandans Text hierzu auch nicht gelesen, und Lessing folgt ihm. Deshalb halte ich "ügülel" bis auf Weiteres für akzeptabel, aber schreibe selber "ögülel". Was am Ende richtig ist, weiß ich im Moment nicht, aber solange ich nicht eine Protoform rekonstruieren muss, ist das nicht so wichtig. G Purevdorj (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Und es ist "ündüsütEn" < "ündüsü 'Wurzel' + tei 'haben' + n 'mittelmongolischer Plural'" G Purevdorj (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Purevdorj,
Einige Bemerkungen zu Etymologie des Dörbetisches. 1)intsxæːdnɛ: das /-d-/ stimmt, aber diese Form ist nur bei Kara. Todaeva (Xinjiang-oiratisch Wört.) gibt intseɢæːxe, Tsoloo: intsaxaːxːa (Dörbet., Bayan, Khoton) usw.
2) manʊːl (richtige Form) findet man nur bei Kara, nicht bei Tsoloo. Das Wort kann man im Khalkha finden: manʊːl (Schriftmongolisch, manuul) und ist wilde Katze. Aber ein zweiter manʊːl steht als Synonym von manʊːxai Vogelscheuche, Marionette. Ich habe erst gedacht dass das Wort in Kara ein Lehnwort aus Khalkha wäre. Aber Todaeva hat manuːl ~ manuːxaː: Vogelscheuche. Und Burjatisch manʊːl: wilde Katze, manʊːxai: Vogelscheuche.
Schöne etymologisches Rätsel, nicht? Ob beide manʊːl verbunden sind oder nicht?
PS: ich habe dir ein Email gesendet.,
Dhegiha (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

„manuul“ geht in Ordnung. Ich hab gestern nur zwei Wörterbücher geprüft, wo das Wort fehlte, aber in anderen Wörterbüchern kommt die Bedeutung „Wildkatze“ tatsächlich vor. Aber das „d“ kommt mir komisch vor. Vielleicht sollte man eine Fußnote machen, in der man Tsoloos Form angibt und darauf verweist, dass hier kein „d“ vorkommt. Wenn es ein Nomen intsxæː "das Wiehern" gäbe, wäre alles klar, dann könnte man mit -d- ein Verb ableiten, aber so ... Einfach "d" streichen geht natürlich nicht, keiner von uns weiß, ob es so ein „d“ dann nicht vielleicht doch noch gibt, und die Form von Tsoloo zeigt natürlich schon Einfluss von Khalkha. G Purevdorj (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vielleicht macht Kara eine Confusion mit einem anderen Verb, intsedxe, zuschlagen, schnalzen (Todaeva, Xinj.-Oir.)!

Dhegiha (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klänge plausibel, aber nach meinem Wörterbuch bedeutet dein Wort nilaqu = "mit dem Finger schnippen", d.h. es gibt einen etwas größeren Bedeutungsunterschied. Trotzdem scheint es wahrscheinlich, dass Haradorji hier einen Fehler gemacht hat. Nur ist das nur sehr schwer mit Sicherheit festzustellen, ohne einen Xinjiang-Oiraten zu fragen. Am besten streichst du das Wort einfach und ersetzt es durch ein anderes. Es kommt in dem Artikel ja nicht auf das Wort an. G Purevdorj (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do the infoboxes at Mörön (city) and Bulgan (city) look strange on your computer now, too? I see much too much empty space below the Mongol bichig writing. But I think this might be because I am currently using Safari, which tends to mess up wikipedia tables anyway. Yaan (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hab grade IE und es ergeben sich einerseits Lücken, andererseits werden manche Buchstaben teilweise übereinander geschoben. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, dann werde ich das jetzt erstmal revertieren. Yaan (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

und wie sieht das hier aus: ? Ich weiss schon, dass die Buchstaben etwas unordentlich aussehen (der nuruu hat Stufen, besonders aergerlich bei kleiner Schriftgroesse), aber ansonsten? Wenn man sich auf eine feste Schriftgroesse festlegt, koennte man die Stufen sogar wegbekommen. Yaan (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sieht gut aus bei mir, sehe auch keinen gestuften Rücken. G Purevdorj (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on the project's talk page. Let me know if you would like further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kennst du http://dic.on-toli.com/? Yaan (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatte n gewissen Wiedererkennungsfaktor, aber ich hatte es nicht mehr präsent. Nett, dass du mich daran erinnert hast! Hab es zu Mongolian language hinzugefügt. Das Wort, was ich grade suche, finde ich aber trotzdem nicht. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how essential I find the phonology. There is nothing overly unique about the pronunciation. Koreans don't try to pronounce sounds they can't say so the pronunciation is just an approximation of the english pronunciation in Korean. If people want to know what sounds are available in Korean they can visit the korean language article. There is no standard or consensus on how english words are changed to konglish (as evidenced by pa-i-ting or hwa-i-ting) so I really think you're going to find it impossible to present a cited phonology for Konglish, not one that could be universally agreed to be correct. As for the citations, everything I've added comes from a newspaper. There are a couple cites for the words I don't agree with, but I'm not even sure how I feel about that section to begin with. I've never really liked them as they tend to attract trivia.--Crossmr (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Korean is spoken over an extended area, so it is not surprising that there are variants. It may also depend on age, as holds for European /h/ to Russian /g/ vs. /x/. But while irregularities are expected to exist (as they exist in dialect phonology), I would expect more regularities. And the very fact that Korean has no particular loanword phonology but only uses its usual phoneme inventory makes this a fact that need not be noted in Korean language and not even in some detail in an article on Korean phonology - it is only essential for a special treatment of Korean loanwords or - for a treatment of Konglish. And there is a bit of stuff on such a question, eg [2], [3], [4], [5]. With some effort, it would probably be possible to find much more and better stuff. Anyway, I do think that your editing did substantively improve the article - just not to B class, but still from start class to C class. If you strongly disagree with my rating "C class", I would have to try to back up this claim, but if it needn't I'd prefer not to. It might be quite a bit of work :-). G Purevdorj (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like as I'm reading "English Coda /s/ in Korean Loanword Phonology" that he is again not telling me anything that isn't obvious. As many Korean letters change their pronunciation in a final position ㅅ which is normally an "s" sound becomes a "t", loanwords necessitate putting the vowel ㅡ on the end for: 스 as with most final consonants. A final D becomes 드, a T 트, etc. The additional vowel makes the sound longer, and what I like to call harder or stronger in some cases, but in the end they're still regular korean sounds that sometimes appear in korean words. I felt like there wasn't really an objective analysis of the subjects themselves. The paper even admits further testing is needed to find "more reliable and robust data". There doesn't seem to be much comparison of the various levels of english ability by the subjects, simply a time measurement which as we all know can be pretty meaningless. About the only unusual or bizarre thing I've seen in relation to Konglish is how "lunch" has end up "lunchee" instead of "lunch-eu". For some reason koreans borrow ch as chee instead of ch-eu when they add eu to all the other final consonants. Everything else seems to follow what one would expect in a very rational manner. They use some words properly, they use some words because of bad translations, and they misunderstand the meanings of some words. All the sounds are approximated as best as possible in Korean, except for CH. As for your changing the class, I don't have any beef with that at all. I spent a long time looking up citations and tried to incorporate every cite I could find to remove any trace of OR I could find from the article and at least getting sitting as something started and cited.--Crossmr (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is obvious to you (and many linguists) may be less so for others. Many articles on physics and mathematics on wikipedia would look different if anything obvious wasn't mentioned. :-) G Purevdorj (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G Purevdorj. I have seen your efforts at rating language relating articles - I have drastically expanded the article on the Otomi language and would appreciate your comments on how I could make it even better. You can comment on the talk page. I have also listed the article for peer review and if you are interested in making a full review you can do so here. Thanks in advance for any help you can give.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not mean to revert your edits - I didn't realise you were also working on the article. Why are you removing the parentheses in the citations? Is that a requirement?·Maunus·ƛ· 22:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough copyediting - anything you can contribute is appreciated!·Maunus·ƛ· 00:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya G, quick question for you - the Hazaragi (and the associated page on Hazara) have some small lists of cognates with Mongol but they don't quite square with my (limited) knowledge of Mongol. If you have a moment, could you have a look please? Thanks! Akerbeltz (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd planned to get to the Mongolian language article this week, but seems as though it's already been copyedited. If you don't mind, I think I'll wait for a while, as it's best not to have multiple editors stepping on toes. Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dale did his edit in one piece, so I wouldn't be surprised if he lets it rest at that. But just wait five days or so, if nothing happens during that time, Dale is done with it. (I'd prefer he weren't, though, he did make some nice improvements.) G Purevdorj (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salam to G Purevdorj: I am sorry for the mistake that I made there, The real meaning of Chigin in Hazaragi Language is your word "Breast" or "Chest" or associated part. I have also confirmed from Hazaragi Linguistics. I have changed the word, have a look please, here it is hazaragi language. | - |azaraBoyz (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Did you see this message: User_talk:Yaan#Latin - Traditional Mongolian - Cyrillic automatic transliteration of Mongolian Wikipedia ? Gantuya eng (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WM would get pretty nasty, and for Latin-Cyrillic there is already a page online. And the bigger part of the work is clearly the one undone. I'm not interested. G Purevdorj (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, gepunktete abgetrennte n's und gh's erhaelt man mit shift+ß nach dem jeweiligen Buchstaben. shift+ä (oder ö oder ü?) geht auch, aber dann ist das nachfolgende a andersrum orientiert. Ein ordentliches ng erhaelt man mit shift+n anstelle n und dann g. Um das g in jijighen schoen rund aussehen zu lassen, kann man nach dem g die Taste links neben der 1 tippen. Bei mir hat's jedenfalls so funktioniert. Gruesse, Yaan (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "shift+n anstelle n und dann g" soll heissen: shift+n, nicht n+g Yaan (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exzellent, obwohl ich mir nicht zusammenreimen kann, wie du auf die Lösung zu jijighen gekommen bist. Kriegst du auch maTeriyal (mit wortinternem Anfangs-t), Dorji (mit wortinitialem Mittel-d) und eD (mit wortfinalem Mittel-d) hin? G Purevdorj (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meinst Du, jijghen mit zwei runden g's bzw. k's hintereinander ist falsch? Yaan (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keinesfalls, es ist sehr gut geworden. Nur überhaupt auf die Idee zu kommen, auf die Taste neben der 1 zu drücken, NACHDEM das hintervokalische g schon steht, ist etwas, worauf ich nicht gekommen wäre. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, entschuldige die Verzoegerung. Ich habe es noch nicht selbst probiert, aber ein mediales d am Anfang eines Wortes muesste eigentlich mit einem Schlag auf die ß (auf englischen Tastaturen: minus)-Taste vor dem d funktionieren. Fuer ein t in der Mitte des Wortes muss man wahrscheinlich nach dem t irgendwo dort, wo auf der deutschen Tastatur das ä ist, rauftippen. Gruesse, Yaan (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funktioniert. Wie sieht es mit v und e (as in SErenbatu) aus? G Purevdorj (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ich verstehe nicht ganz. Meinst Du ein hinteres u in einem Wort, das auch e's enthaelt? Oder meinst Du ein v wie in Tuva und ausserdem ein 'langes' e wie in ? Zweiteres geht vielleicht nur mit tricksen. Wahrscheinlich Zeichen #180A (laut unicode: mongolian nirugu - klingt brauchbar, oder?) aus der Zeichentabelle kopieren und an passender Stelle einfuegen. Yaan (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An ende hatte ich noch gar nicht gedacht, weil das spezifisch innermongolisch ist. Ich weiß nicht, wie man tuva schreibt, aber vermutlich tuv-a, wobei v zu u würde. davadagva enthält aber ein richtiges v. In SErenbatu wird das erste e als ausländisches e (genau wie v) geschrieben, um von Saranbatu zu unterscheiden. Die Taste v ergibt hin.gegen nur u, nicht v. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ein ausländisches e ist wahrscheinlich das, was bei shift+e herauskommt? Ein v erhält man mit shift+w. Ein Stückchen nuruu kann man offenbar doch über die Tastatur eingeben, nämlich mit shift+7. Und mit shift+8 erreicht man, dass die automatische Umwandlung in initiale/mediale/finale Formen unterdrückt wird, d.h. shift+8 wirkt wie ein unsichtbarer Buchstabe (deshalb initiales e: shift+8 und dann e, mediales e: shift+8 und dann e und dann shift+8, finales e: shift+8 und dann e). Wie man den nuruu am ende von ᠡᠲ‍ wegkriegt, weiss ich aber auch nicht. Oder brauchtest Du ein ᠡᠳ᠋(edä)? Yaan (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ich meine, edä hattest du vorher schon angegeben, aber ja: das war es, was ich meinte. Vielleicht kann ich grade noch w+ä und u+ä hinzufügen, dann scheinen wir erstmal alles gehabt zu haben, was ich grad so schreiben will. Schönen Dank! G Purevdorj (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article states that Mongolian Cyrillic is a phonemic script. Is this so in respect to Inner Mongolian dialects? Yaan (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Cyrillic Mongolian is (usually) phonemic with respect to Khalkha Mongolian. Take, for example, Cyrillc чанга, Khalkha /ʧʰɑnɢ/ (га is /ɢ/, while г would be /g/), Chakhar /ʧʰɪng/ (which might be Cyrillic чɪнг with an additional phoneme because of the two i-s and the absence of /ɢ/), Khorchin (probably) /ʃɑng/ (which might be Cyrillic шанг). G Purevdorj (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could still be a quite phonemic orthography. A proof must be based on examples from one variety. TrueColour (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, Mongolian Cyrillic is usually close to phonemic for Khalkha, but not for any other major variety. Yaan's question was whether it is phonemic in respect to Inner Mongolian dialects, which it is not (except for, to some degree, Shilin gol). G Purevdorj (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which fact would lead to the conclusion it is not phonemic for Chakhar or Khorchin? TrueColour (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic was developed basing on the Central Khalkha dialect. It didn't consider the variety of pronunciations in other dialects. If it seems to be phonemic for some other dialects, that's perhaps by chance if those dialects have pronunciations close to those of Central Khalkha. Is it right? Gantuya eng (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The definition of phonenic does not consider relations between dialects. A script and one "dialect" or language is needed. The pronunciation between dialects may vary. TrueColour (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then French is phonemic, too, just not for the dialects spoken today? Yaan (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Which fact would lead to the conclusion it is not phonemic for Chakhar or Khorchin?" Read the articles on Khorchin and Chakhar and the commentary by Ganaa and you should know why Mongolian Cyrillic is only phonemic for Khalkha. I don't really have the time to present a detailed argumentation during the next several days, and the question is trivial enough. G Purevdorj (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you left a comment in the discussion tab of the Shehri language, I would just like to ask you to change the name of the page from "Shehri language" to "Jebbali language", because in the Dhofar area were it is spoken, it is referred to as Jebbali rather than Shehri.

Thank you--Salalah4life (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any knowledge about the respective conventions and will accordingly not act to accomplish something that I don't fully understand. The usage of the speakers themselves need not be crucial for more general conventions. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have engaged a procedure for amending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty.

• See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Tang Dynasty.

I construe the process to require me to notify you; but of course, you are not required to do anything. --Tenmei (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. a short reply TrueColour (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reassessment of Greenlandic language and any comments on how to improve it further would be appreciated.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, now I know along which lines to keep working.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have one some work on sources and introduced most of the changes you suggested. I'd be surprised if its not at B level now. I'd be happy if you take a glance.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at the sources I sent you?·Maunus·ƛ· 06:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll gonna get a skeleton of the tense section before tomorrow is over. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Purevdoj,

Receive your flowers here:
Flowers

Gantuya eng (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC) 18:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)18:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingjia Pan (talk • contribs) [reply]

How come this band is not significant? Is there a way to undelete the article? Last time they also wanted to strangely delete Odette Henriette Jacqmin article. Gantuya eng (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with you. I have already taken action by asking from the admin who deleted the article, see User_talk:NJA#Deleted article on Lipstick (band). I wish s/he would have tried a regular deletion in which case we could have simply made the article significant by contributing sources etc. By the way, the article you just mention might indeed be in danger of being deleted, for it does not cite a reason why it should be significant. On the other hand, that is what we will soon endeavour to show for Lipstick. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases, WP:MUSIC is relevant to figure out what is needed. It shouldn't be difficult for Lipstick, but I'm not sure about Jacqmin. If she really has only one album out, then that may not be enough. Also remember that it isn't enough to "know" that a band/musician is notable, you must demonstrate it by citing reliable sources. --Latebird (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latebird, you might even be wrong. The Mongolian internet is extremely short-lived (e.g. I still haven't managed to obtain a CD of the famous, but old band Dain ba Enh), and Uruuliin budag is not active anymore. I did not find any website (i.e. at Banjig) that gives some info about them. They obviously have had three albums

• Khelj amjaagüi hair
• Unplugged
• Khüree khüükhnüüd

but I don't know at what (if any) label (they don't have many of these and tend to go without), and I don't know the years. Their current inactivity is mentioned in an evgüi article [6] in Öglöönii sonin, Mongolia's only daily tabloid, and the Mongolian embassy in the US mentions them as representative of Mongolian musical culture [7] ... I could do with some help from Ganaa, or somebody else ... G Purevdorj (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Bidend mongol rock pop hiphop hamtlagiin tuhai nom oguulel heregtei. Hun ene sedviin tuhai magister, doktriin ajil bichih yostoi. Bi PhD-gee hamgaalsnii daraa mongol sudlaliig zaah yum bol iim ajliig hyanahaar belen baihiimaa. Harin odoogiin baidald ch iim ajliig dagah huniig olj bolno. (Bolomj arai muu baigaa bolovch) Bonn hotod bolno, mongold ch boloh baih. G Purevdorj (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]