[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Albisaurus... and Shuvuuia... and Cryptovolans

Original Message by Jaime A. Headden Sunday, 24. November 2002 00:01 

> <At last I learn it's Tögrögiyn...>
>   Yet another variation on the name generally provided as Toogreeg,
> Tugriikin, or Tugriken[shireh], depending on where you're coming from; the
> above cited spelling is very Cyrillic in its structure. The original
> language (Altaic in nature) lacks diacritics,

OK, er... that's not the question. As usual in Altaic languages, it has 7 or 
8 vowels. I use ö and ü for two of them because almost all languages that 
have those and use the Latin alphabet write them as ö and ü. (Swedish and 
Finnish have ö and y, Danish and Norwegian have ø and y, French has, among 
others, e and u...) And so does the paper.

> written normally as it is in a derivation of Sanskrit text,

Well... the Mongolian script (written from top to bottom) is derived from 
Uygur which AFAIK comes from Tibetan which itself comes from Devanagari, but 
not directly either AFAIK. In Mongolia, it is hardly used, and I've read its 
orthography has become as illogic as that of English over the last 8 
centuries. It is still used in Inner Mongolia, though. The Republic of 
Mongolia uses a Cyrillic alphabet, directly derived from Russian, with extra 
letters for ö and ü (ö derived from the capital theta, but with the - 
touching the O at both ends, probably in analogy to ø; ü is Y, but the small 
letter is not y but remains straight, similar to some versions of lower-case 
Greek gamma, in order not to be confused with the Cyrillic u, which is y). 
The Mongolian script has largely ornamental character there, it seems... 
apparently it's used there where the Chinese use their rounded "small seal" 
script from 200 BC.

> and its the transliteration in different
> languages that forms the variations in spelling. In Russian, Polish,
> English, etc., it has always been different.

Most transcriptions, by Mongolian authors or not, used to be done from the 
Russianized version. Russian has neither ö nor ü and strongly dislikes double 
letters. Use of u for ö was probably encouraged by the fact that Özbekiston 
used the Belorussian letter "short u" for its ö. (No, I have no idea about 
Özbek, I've seen a stamp from there. :-) )

> I think it would be
> practical, but not possible, to concretely lay down a single spelling to
> be used by all. This is why the Maroccain in France are Moroccan in
> English-speaking countries.

Hm. Firstly, these are old names in French and English, not an attempt to 
transcribe how the country calls itself in the first place. Secondly, Arabian 
doesn't write vowels... and thirdly, those vowels vary strongly between the 

> Currently in Mongolian, both a Cyrillic (dominant) and a Sanskrit
> (not so dominant, but with growing support)


> Many Mongolians are bilingual, speaking Mongolian and at
>  least either Russian, Chinese, Turkic,

In the west of the country there are many ethnic Qazaqs. Qazaq is a Turkic 
language. -- Chinese? Really?

> *Achillobator* [which probably would
> have been corrected to "Achillobataar" in American orthography]

-baatar. *Tarbosaurus*-or-not *bataar* has it the wrong way around. Bator is 
Russianized... in Russian unstressed o is pronounced something like English 
uh, so it's good to use for a short ah. Ulan Bator is Russianized for 

> <I don't completely  understand why the authors think *S.* has more than
> 35 vertebrae in its surprisingly *Jeholornis*-like tail. [...]>
> The authors state that the articulated sequence comes from the middle
> to distal section, and does not consist of the proximal section.

I see...