My all-time peeve would be "it's" instead of "its." Actually, it's also the incorrect use of apostrophes in plurals. And you can see that in signage, billboards - the works. Is it really that hard a concept?
Classical Mongolian in Old Uyghur or 'Phags-pa script distinguished between the letters and , whereas the current Cyrillic script has only the former. So represents a faithful transliteration of the Classical spelling (which, as mentioned above, is still in use in some quarters). It's possible that this is a holdover from Old Uyghur and the distinction is subphonemic in Mongolian; I couldn't say without doing a little more research.
I write "Chinggis" in English for the same reason that I write "Caesar" and not "Cesare" (as modern Romans do). Unless I'm actually writing in Mongolian, "Chingis" for me could only refer to an eponymous modern Mongolian.
I have to admit that the Pinyin "Chengjisihan" looks like someone is just being silly, though.
Standard Chinese lacks the sequence gi, since all occurences palatalised to ji in Beijing speech a couple centuries ago. (This, incidentally, explains the Peking/Beijing confusion: The first represents the unshifted pronunciation current in the 18th century when that
( ... )
This webpage (part of a lovely websuite for learning Classical Mongolian) shows you exactly how to write "Chinggis" in the Uyghur-derived script. According to The world's writing systems, the character for was a Mongol innovation and Old Uyghur made do with the digraph + .
Comments 34
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I've seen it as "Peiking" and "Beiking" and even "Beijing" -- which isn't even close to the proper English spelling.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I write "Chinggis" in English for the same reason that I write "Caesar" and not "Cesare" (as modern Romans do). Unless I'm actually writing in Mongolian, "Chingis" for me could only refer to an eponymous modern Mongolian.
I have to admit that the Pinyin "Chengjisihan" looks like someone is just being silly, though.
Standard Chinese lacks the sequence gi, since all occurences palatalised to ji in Beijing speech a couple centuries ago. (This, incidentally, explains the Peking/Beijing confusion: The first represents the unshifted pronunciation current in the 18th century when that ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment