Talk:ʼPhags-pa script

message: a comment on two wording choices: the title should be something like 'Phagspa script' or 'Phagspa alphabet', and it should not be compared to "other languages", since it itself is not a language. kwami 10:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hi -

message: Good to have this article about one more mongolian script now! I did a general copyedit for grammar, consolidated some redundancies, and added details here and there. In the process, I had to remove a few things:
* The "inuse" tag (should not be in an article for more than a few hours).
* The "translation" tag (a quick babelfish check confirmed that all important information from the chinese version is present).
* The empty language comparison heading (didn't make sense anyway).
* The paragraph about the chinese linguists purportedly necessary for creating for the unicode specification (sounded very much like nationalist POV).
* The link to the MSN VOLT discussion board (requires registration and is very product specific).
I hope that not too much useful information was lost in the process. I'll see if I can find some information about how the script actually works (it's a syllabary), to create a character table, etc.
I agree with Kwamikagami that the article should be renamed to Phagspa script (or possibly 'Phags-pa script, currently a redirect), consistent with other alphabets. --Latebird 10:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not a syllabary, but a true alphabet, albeit one obviously derived from an abugida. Vowels follow consonants in direct iconic order. kwami 01:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And I do not agree that it is some sort of nationalist POV that "the chinese linguists purportedly necessary for creating for the unicode specification", because most of the available documentation about this script is mostly in Chinese during the Yuan dynasty.  Documentation in other languages is very very limited.  So far a friend forwarded me a page copied from an encyclopedia, which is in German.  It may be true that there are quite many documentation about this script in the recent five years, but they are all based on research results from Sinologists.  Without their effort, I do not believe they can get any idea about the coding.  Check also the website of Andrew West as well. -- Tomchiukc 08:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the old version about Unicode again, and can't find any nationalism anymore myself. I must have looked at it the wrong way at the time (probably confusing "sinologists" with "chinese linguists"). Sorry for that. But I'm still not certain if the information given there was really relevant to the Unicode section. It seems trivial that a standard can only be designed by people able to understand the available documentation. However, it might be interesting to write something about the available documentation and the state of research under a seperate heading. --Latebird 12:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: This was moved from Phagspa script to ’Phagspa script recently, on the grounds that this is the more normal spelling. I'm not sure that's right. I note that none of the external links this article links to spell it ’Phagspa script. The correct Wylie is ’phags-pa (or vphags-pa, an acceptable variant); the modern pronunciation would be something like pagpa—the apostrophe serves no purpose there. The most common spelling on the internet seems to be the Wylie (this is the only case I can recall seeing where the Wylie spelling is more popular than a phonetic one). I suggest moving this page to ’Phags-pa script, especially since we have an article on Phagpa himself; the Wylie spelling is indispensible but it seems unfair to our readers to introduce a third spelling of the name.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, my system doesn't display the script. All the same, in Wylie transliteration, I can't find any indication of a character or character combination that would be transliterated as 'pha or vpha. I'm sure I'm missing a lot here, but what exactly?  --Latebird (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The combination འཕ would be transliterated 'pha. The "apostrophe" indicates a prefixed letter.--Gimme danger (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I think this opens up a can of worms. I hadn't paid much attention to the title previously, but now I look I see that the article is about the ’Phagspa script, with the Wylie apostrophe represented by U+2019 (Right Single Quotation Mark). The misuse of U+2019 for an orthographic letter is definitely wrong, and if you wanted to be typographically correct then you should instead use U+02BC (Modifier Letter Apostrophe), i.e. ʼPhagspa script. But on the other hand, the Wylie transliteration page uses a plain ASCII apostrophe, and the Drogön Chögyal Phagpa article gives the Wylie transliteration of his name as 'Gro mgon Chos rgyal 'Phags pa with plain ASCII apostrophes; and as I am sure that the vast majority of Wikipedia users would also just type in a plain ASCII apostrophe, it seems to me that 'Phagspa script (U+0027) would be better than ’Phagspa script (U+2019) or ʼPhagspa script (U+02BC). Since the script has been accepted into Unicode as Phags-pa (with no apostrophe because of technical restrictions on characters that are allowed in Unicode script names), I personally now use Phags-pa with no apostrophe.  However, I would agree that the hyphen before pa is desirable, so my preference would be for 'Phags-pa script. BabelStone (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see 2 and a half advantages to not using the plain ASCII apostrophe: a curved mark is more attractive to the eye; the reader is less likely to confuse it for either an intentional or unintentional punctuation mark, rather than part of the spelling of the word; and there is no chance of the curved mark interfering with wiki mark-up. That said, if the alternative is U+2019 which you say is quite wrong or, U+02BC ʼ, that's a problem. Not only is neither of them easily typable for most people, but I have problems displaying U+02BC (I would describe my obscure character support as pretty good, but not superb; that's probably better than most of our readers have). Under the circumstances, straight ASCII apostrophe seems like the only reasonable option.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the name of the script to 'Phags-pa (plain ASCII apostrophe) and the name of the script creator to Phagpa (to be consistent with the Drogön Chögyal Phagpa page). Please do not revert either change without first discussing on the talk page. BabelStone (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://kr.geocities.com/tomchiukc/Language/Mongolian/MidMongolian.html
** In 'Phags-pa script on 2011-05-20 21:16:39, 410 Gone
** In 'Phags-pa script on 2011-05-31 04:06:56, 410 Gone
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=3q6nja-Ii8gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Jerezembel (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book about chinese written in phags pa 

message: http://books.google.com/books/about/Chinese_in_Hp_ags_pa_Script.html?id=4mHKuAAACAAJ
Menggu Ziyun
http://nthur.lib.nthu.edu.tw/retrieve/107565/JA01_2001_p459.pdf
http://nthur.lib.nthu.edu.tw/retrieve/107536/JA01_2000_p93.pdf
07:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese in Hp'ags-pa Script 

message: This script was only recently added to Unicode and many devices (e.g. mobile phones) don't have fonts with the necessary glyphs. Could images of the characters be added to the table, please? Other articles on writing systems do this, for example Aramaic script. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Character images