User talk:Wackyslav

SGE, baby!

You might want to chip in at User:Kukkurovaca/Sewer, Gas & Electric: The Public Works Trilogy. Next stop: an article on SGERPG

Wow, quick on the accusation there

If you'd checked the history, you'd've seen that RickK removed our images because he thought they were copyrightd, or so he claimed. I've restored. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:20, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Great work

Hello, Wackyslav. I must say that I really appreciate the work you have begun with the Mongol Empire. When talking about romanizations (I prefere the term transcription) of Mongolian names... Well, I do not know of any official Mongolian transcription, but since modern Mongolian is written in the Cyrillic alphabet you might want to check that out. Furthermore, the Turkish language, written in a modified Latin alphabet, is a distant relative to Mongolian. You can also check out the pinyin system of writing Chinese, since many Mongolian names are actually Chinese, or they have been written by Chinese historians. Using umlauts such as ö and ü is generally a good thing. Anyway, keep up the good work! –The Phoenix 11:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More fun with wikistalker

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=The_Fortunate_Fall_%28novel%29&diff=4358201&oldid=4350373

Khan

We usually call Mongol Khans "X Khan". X is either a title or personal name (some were hereditary titles in the 17th century). In the former case, "Khan" should be included. But in the latter case, I don't have a strong opinion. "Chinggis" was a title, but Ögedei, Güyüg and Möngke are personal names. (Curiously, Ögedei's title seems "Khaghan") Khubilai and his successors had titles and weren't called by personal name in historical documents although historians don't always follow the convention. Khubilai was usually called "Sechen Khan" (Wise Emperor) in Mongolian documents. Khubilai's grandson Temür was Öljeyitü Khan (Fortunate Emperor).

Another problem to consider is that one name was often shared by two or more famous historical figures. Temür is the case. And Khubilai was also the name of one of the Four Dogs of Chinggis Khan. In that case, including "Khan" is nice for the purpose of disambiguation. (Unfortunatedly, Öljeyitü Khan also refers to a monarch of Il Khanate).

Anyway, the Mongol Empire still remains an unexplored field in the huge community. Keep the nice work!--Nanshu 03:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Khaghan is the Turkic/Mongolian word for emperor, literally the khan of khans. Originally, it was the word khan said twice, but the language evolved so that the consonants in the middle was dropped. The gh is a romanization of the Turkish character ğ which isn't pronounced at all but lengthens the preceding vowel (i.e. khaghan is pronounced khaaan). –The Phoenix 14:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the "khan-khan"? ::resists urge to make dance puns:: -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 17:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moved Thing From Above w/Nanshu

Hello. Nice works on the Mongol Empire. Do you have an idea on Mongolian romanization? --Nanshu 02:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, not really. I'm sorry. I'm a native American with no command of any Asian language, and nothing more than a bunch of (hopefully good) secondary sources in English, with varying romanizations. To some extent, I'm more concerned with getting pages out there and then using the #REDIRECT page (see what links here off of Möngke for an example.) It's ugly, I know. Ultimately, I'd love a system where you could specify aliases all on one page. Right now, I'm trying to get pages out there with little regard for "good" romanization, often using, unfortunately, what I like/looks good to me at the moment. If you have any ideas, and would like to start up a project to move pages to better main homes, I'd be more than happy to help out--rewriting redirects, for example. I would love to get some sort of standard up and running, if only for between us. Also, I'll go back through and put in links to List of Mongolia-related topics, as I can. Great to hear from you! Wackyslav 02:58, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've been very annoyed that there seems no standard in Mongolian romanization. I decided to use a transliteration of the Cyrillic alphabet for things related to the modern independent state of Mongolia. For the rest, I basically follow the ambiguous Uyghur-Mongolian script and take into consideration modern Khalkha Mongolian for disambiguation. For example, I use -g, -gh, -d, -b instead of -k, -kh, -t, -p for consonantal endings because it is the way Khalkha Mongolian orthography adopts. But I still vacilliate in some minor points. I plan to clarify my ideas. --Nanshu 03:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No. It's not a historical change in the Mongolian language but purely a matter of romanization. There was only one series (no phonological distionction between voiced and unvoiced sounds) in Mongolian consonantal endings. As far as I know, all scholars use voiced letters when romanizing classical Mongolian texts today.

And modern Mongolian does affect romanization because the classical script is ambiguous. There is no distinction between the "o" and "u", and "ö" and "ü", and almost no distinction between the "t" and "d", and the "k" and "g". To make romanization readable, we consult the modern language. The 'Phags-pa script, which is not ambiguous, also used voiced latters for consonantal endings except for the "q". So I prefer Güyüg. --Nanshu 02:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• laughs* And this is why we need a new script, or need to have everything in IPA, or somesuch. *shrugs* All of my sources, coming from an English-only standpoint, have a final -k. Practically speaking, it's what I prefer, but I understand this to be more a matter of acclimatization/preference. But it seems to me if there wasn't any phonological distinction between g/k, _either_ choice involves a bit of waffling, disambiguation in other scripts or no--it's a fault of our lousy voicing-dependent orthographies. From a stanpoint of coming at it from an English standpoint--it is the English wikipedia--and of wanting others to be able to find my page, I still come down on the side of -k. The clumsy redirect system doesn't help. If you could tell me the classical Mongolians voiced their final consonants, that'd be a different matter. But if they didn't differentiate... Wackyslav 04:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS--any opinions on the "khan in title" issue? I still see it as superfluous for any except Chinggis and Kubilai. ((EDIT:and perhaps the khans in between))

{{subst:image permission|Image:Balt70s.png}} Liftarn 13:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)