Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:04, 4 March 2009

Welcome

Hello G Purevdorj! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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) Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Transcription of Mongolian

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) on earlier occasions. I have now made a new and more complete proposal at Misplaced Pages:Romanization of Mongolian. Would you mind sharing your opinion there? --Latebird 16:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Double plurals in Mongolian language

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)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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)

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

Mongolia work group

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)

Classical script

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

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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)

Ligden Khan

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)

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)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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)

gamma

Hi,

does this look good on your computer: UlaTemplate:Ghan/UlaTemplate:Ghan? 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)

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? mongTemplate:Ghol Yaan (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Mongol bichig initial 'd' - difference between front and back vowels?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sangiin Dalai

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)

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)

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

Japanese etymology

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)

"Londony" or "Londongiin"

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)

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 or altan . The standard exception is –n-a or –n-e in Mongolian writing which is today, eg dagina . But in the usual examples, there is still a process that leaves this n underdetermined phonologically, eg yavsnii instead of . 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 (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 , 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)

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)

Ene chini yalgaatai. Aldaa baina gej bi bodno: 1. -tei ugiig -tei bolgoh helnii hogjil yavc orchin cagiin mongol helend baihgui baina. 2. „gün“ gesen helbertei hoyor ugs baina: 1. gün wan 2. dalain gün. Internetees uzvel, anhdugaar ugiin butec bol /güN/. Oguulberiin ecest 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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi Purevdorj,:)

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

Huhbator

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:

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 .

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

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)

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)

Coverb

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

Asud warriors

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)

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)

Lexical aspect

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 /_contribs 20:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Khitan Scripts

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)

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)

Re:Mongolian dialects in China

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)

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)

Beaver language/Danezaa

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)

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)

Weihnachtsgrüße

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

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

Khitan scripts

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Thanks for ranking Munsee language page for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Languages!

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Hi John! If you feel your article meets the Good Article or Featured article criteria on the quality scale, you can nominate it at Misplaced Pages:Good_articles/Candidates or Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

Re: GA:Mongolian Language2

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 10:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Old English

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)

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)

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)

Lithuanian grammar article rating

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)

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)

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)

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)

Monhebator

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

I'm amazed

		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)

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)

RE: Category

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)

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

Please edit

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

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)

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)

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)

19th century linguists

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)

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)

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

Further development

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

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)

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)