Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Mongolian)/Archive 03

message: In case someone is still watching here... Any opinions on this question? --Latebird 14:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In traditional mongolian script "arvan" is written as "arban". I suspect that means some centuries ago it was the pronounciacian of the word. Temur 19:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, even if surprising. Thanks for the info! --Latebird 22:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Just for the record: In traditional mongolian there is no 'v' or 'w' to be used in proper mongolian words. There is a 'v' which is supposed to be used only in foreign words. Temur 08:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  arban vs arvan 

message: People here probably focus on current Mongolian entities, but this is about history stuff. I proposed naming conventions for Mongol rulers at Talk:Yuan Dynasty. If you are interested, please leave your comment. --Nanshu 08:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conventions for Mongol rulers

message: Map no. 15 at http://mongol.tufs.ac.jp/landmaps/ lists Baigal and Khovsgol (Qubsugul?) dalai, and Dalai nuur and Sangiin dalai nuur. It also lists some rivers with a genitive particle (Tesiin gol, Khalkhyn gol), and some without (Chuluut gol). Just FYI. Yaan 10:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Genitive suffixes in river names are common. Presence both nominative and genitive forms for the same river that is the problem. Ider gol = Ideriin gol, Khalkh gol = Khalkhin gol. And what will be a choice: latest maps form? With Khalkhin gol - no, you see. With Ider - no.Bogomolov.PL 13:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, taking the nominative (without gol) + river would be OK. I.e. Eg river, Tes river, Tamir river, etc. I think I am against partially translating names that only make sense when translated full or not at all. I.e. if talking about China, we should use either Huang He or Yellow river, but never Huang river. I don't know if such problems really exist with Mongolian rivers, though. The genitive-or-not question is still relevant to the articles themselves, though, as we usually do give the Mongolian form of the name. (The Tamir river (Mongolian: Tamiryn gol) is one of Mongolia's most famous rivers, and frequently referred to in songs and poems). For that, I think any Mongolian map that gives some rivers in nominative and others in genitive should be OK. The newer, the better of course,  but IMO we can as well use that 1930 map as first reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaan (talk • contribs) 15:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: old map

message: In order to come to a conclusion, my proposal is the following two sections. I am not really sure which words to capitalize and which not, and I was too lazy to add the cyrillic names for the intro sentence examples. Any opinions? Yaan (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why such a systematically different treatment between rivers and lakes? --Latebird (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP doesn't have a naming conventions for lakes yet but it has one for rivers ;). Actually, I also feel like there are much more names like Khökh nuur, Khar us nuur etc. than like Shar mörön and the like. And lakes do not pose the genitive/nominative problems that the rivers do. Yaan (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary/proposal 

message: *By default, use Mongolian name for the page title and for the intro sentence. Example Uvs nuur () is a salt-water lake in northwestern Mongolia. etc.
::Why such a systematically different treatment between rivers and lakes? --Latebird (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP doesn't have a naming conventions for lakes yet but it has one for rivers ;). Actually, I also feel like there are much more names like Khökh nuur, Khar us nuur etc. than like Shar mörön and the like. And lakes do not pose the genitive/nominative problems that the rivers do. Yaan (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: lakes

message: There are authoritative sources for place names in Inner Mongolia, no need for speculation and original research. Here are two:
* Hàn-Méng duìzhào Nèi Měnggǔ dìmíng cídiǎn 《汉蒙对照内蒙古地名词典》, Hohhot, Nèi Měnggǔ rénmín chūbǎnshè 内蒙人民出版社 2001, .
* Nèi Měnggǔ dìmíng 《内蒙古地名》, Hohhot, Nèi Měnggǔ rénmín chūbǎnshè 内蒙人民出版社 2006, .
Any other references? --Gregor Kneussel (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Yet another topic: Contrary to what I thought earlier, maybe we should include the official names of sum centers in the sum articles and disambiguation pages after all? A number of (non-mongolian) maps, and also Google Earth in some cases, seem to display these official names instead of those of the sums, and this can easily lead to confusion. For Khövsgöl, there is a sum named Shine-Ider, but Ider is also the official name of the center of Galt sum. Jargalant is the name of a sum, but also the official name of the center of Tömörbulag sum. This would expand the disambiguation pages a bit, but maybe it would also help some confused users now and then. Yaan (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really a naming convention issue, is it? In any case, if we have reliable information about what the "official" name of the sum center is, then of course we should mention it in all the appropriate places. But remember that in Google Earth, only the imagery is reliable. All other info may be user contributed (actually, place names are often extracted from Wikipedia coord tags). --Latebird (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ;) I'm always a bit reminded of this when browsing Google earth in Mongolia. All these Dugans and Örtöös must have been dissolved/destroyed quite some time ago. Happy new year, anyway. Yaan (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To add official names for sum centers (respective bag names in fact) we need official data, as it is with bag division (as  of Bayankhongor ).Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sum center official names 

message: A template was just created that can be inserted at the top of articles as an information on which part of the name is the given name and which the patronymic:
Those types of headers seem to be particularly popular with sportspeople, probably because the audience there has to deal with many countries of origin and may not be able to keep track of all the different conventions.
In our case now, the remaining question is whether to use tThe nominative might be more useful because it offers additional information. On the other hand, it may even add to the confusion, when a reader starts to wonder about why there are two different forms. Any opinions? --Latebird (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info header for Mongolian names 

message: We're currently having a debate on the talkpage of this article, as to what the "most common English spelling" of this medieval monarch's name is.  If any editors here have an opinion, we would appreciate further comments at the talkpage.  :) --Elonka 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sorghaghtani Beki]]

message: Bogomolov just pointed out that WP:UE dictates that "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English." 
I personally think that "gamma" should be familiar enough to anybody who has ever dealt with angles, simple geometry etc., but I see that q may indeed pose a problem - but then, all those Chinese names are written with 'x' and 'q' (Qi Xi) and nobody seems to care at all!
I personally could live with replacing γ with gh and q with kh, but it would be nice to have some kind of consensus first. Yaan (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gamma is a Greek letter and as it is must be transliterated as every Greek letter.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Must be transliterated" obviously means "into the latin alphabet", as it wouldn't make sense otherwise. Technically, this leaves us the possibility to use the latin gamma, although I'm not sure yet if that would be a good idea in terms of user friendliness. I guess we finally need to get a conclusion to the two related discussions further above. If someone similarly knowledgeable could confirm/amend Purevdorj's comments above about using Poppe's system, then that would be most helpful. --Latebird (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Transcription of the γ can be used in an article body, but using signs out of Latin alphabet is not acceptable in article naming". As long as it is confined to the article naming ... An alternative transliteration'd be rather unusual, but it might be feasible to simply replace letters by phonemes: , <k> ~ /k/, <γ>, <g> ~ /g/ (somewhat simplified in the second case if we follow Doerfer/Svantesson et al.). G Purevdorj 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: O yes, and it was „transcription“, not „transliteration“. Transliteration IS possible since Janhunen developed it, but would lead to complete unintelligibility. Eg vvldvv qvqhvv = Altan qaγan, vudu = odu, vuiilv = üile, vxvdv = ende. The impossibility to “transcribe” Mongolian in a handsome way also becomes clear if we recognize that there is no difference between /o/ and /u/, /ö/ and /ü/, non-initial /a/ and /e/, often /en/ and /a/, syllable-initial /t/ and /d/, in front-vowel words /k/ and /g/ in writing. Anyone willing to bestow this upon an unsuspecting reader? G Purevdorj 15:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why we use latinization of Mongolian Cyrillics, but not transcription. We used only two letters out of common English alphabet (with umlauts), but present in character set of other (German) Latin alphabet.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? We do use a transcription for the latinization of Cyrillic Mongolian, as I pointed out on the project page. But I don't get the point of your last point. G Purevdorj 10:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Latinization sense is close to the simple replacement of original nonlatin letters with Latin using as possible simple rules. This rules are created using traditional correspondance  phoneme - grapheme.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  q's and γ's, again 

message: I've created a template for Mongolian and Chinese names (Mongolian-Chinese-box), following the model of a similar template for Tibetan and Chinese (Tibetan-Chinese-box). You can see what it looks like in the article about Chifeng. --Gregor Kneussel (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be quite helpful. However, it currently suffers the same problem as the German version, in that the instructions refer to a rather random transcription system from cyrillic. That's exactly why this specific naming  convention here exists. Please use it consistently. --Latebird (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Both the English and the German version refer to the ISO 9 transliteration. I've found four differences in what I've originally called "general transcription" in the English version, and I've corrected them to follow the naming convention. If you find any other mistakes, please help to correct them—that's what Wikipedia is about. --Gregor Kneussel (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks ok now. However, somewhere on this talk page here, there's a discussion on why using Unicode for the traditional Mongolian script is not a good idea (in short: the standard is not fully defined, the workaround in Vista is proprietary). Some people have started to create svg (or png?) files for various names instead. And as Yaan has mentioned on dewiki, it would look nicer to display it as a vertical column (eg. to the right of the others). --Latebird (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree. Also I think that it may not always be neccessary to display cyrillic and its transliteration as prominently as the traditional script or the Chinese name, and generally also Wade-Giles seems not always terribly relevant (except maybe for cases like Wang-yeh-miao), and in some cases Chinese should come first (certainly in Wuhai, arguably in Chifeng). Working this all out would require some more effort, though. But the idea is alright. In fact, I had a similar one a while ago, the result is :Template:Mongol, which can be seen at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Central Asia/Mongolia work group. Yaan (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know about the IPA eg for Ulaghanqada? Which kind of standard is this supposed to adhere to? Standard Khalkh, Standard Inner Mongolian, Ulaghanqada Mongolian? And then, phonemic or phonetic? Anyway, it's aspirated vs. non-aspirated, so it can't be [d], and /x/ is most likely not realized as a velar but as a uvular here. Of course, it's /x/, but who cares? Anyone unable to declinate the word will fail to find any sense in getting a /d/ for a [t]. And who provides the data for this? UB Khalkh is easy, Svantesson et al., and if anyone actually HAS the studies conducted by Jō, that might help for Standard Inner Mongolian. Rough data on most Inner Mongolian dialects are available, but they wouldn't suffice for phonetic. But yuunii omno: what do we want here? G Purevdorj 22:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you suggest? --Gregor Kneussel (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very simple: If you don't have certain knowledge of the IPA (eg. from a reliable source), don't include it. --Latebird (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template