Tod Üsüg (Clear Script)

Abstract

This video is the historical and contemporary overview of the clear script, and the video content is as follow: The history of Tod Üsüg The evolution of Tod Mongolian as a distinct scripture unfolds across three historical phases, as identified by scholars: Classical Tod Mongolian, New Tod Mongolian, and the Contemporary Declining Period. The classical Tod Mongolian, prevalent between 1748 and 1750, marked the zenith of the Oirats’ influence in Mongolian history during the Jungar Khanate governance. Zaya Pandita, adhering to classical Mongolian scripture rules, authored multiple grammar books for Tod Mongolian, providing us with a rich resource of at least three comprehensive books. The strictness of these rules is exemplified by the proverbial phrase, “One suffers from various diseases if you use vowels and consonants incorrectly”. Through religious practices, rigorous rules, and taboos, the Oirat Mongolians, predominantly by the aristocracy and Buddhist lamas, upheld the classical Tod Mongolian authentically and sacredly, with limited usage among the ordinary populace. When the Qing government took control of the Jungar Khanate, the Oirats, along with their culture and religion, fell under the influence of the Manchu Qing government to which they submitted. A widely recognized issue among the Öölds in Ili today is that the Qing authorities forbade the translation of Buddhist sutras from Tibetan to Tod Mongolian. The reasoning behind this prohibition was the belief that if Oirats read the religion in their own language, they might not embrace Buddhism as they would in Tibetan. Therefore, designated lamas were assigned to teach Buddhism in the Tibetan language was considered the most effective way of influence. This policy played a significant role in diminishing the usage of classical Tod Mongolian. Another sign of the decline of classical Tod Mongolian is its diminishing usage among ordinary people. Strict rules became visibly lax, leading to visible misusages and the emergence of new rules. Scholars, including Kalmyk scholars, have proposed various ideas regarding the New Tod Mongolian era, asserting that the appearance of new phonemicizations marks the beginning of New Tod Mongolian writing. However, my research argues that the classical Tod Mongolian writing persisted until the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, as evidenced by pre-1949 writings. For instance, the change from “ts” and “z” to “zhe” and “ch” in Xinjiang occurred after 1949, confusing some scholars in their study. Contemporary Tod Üsüg Contemporary Tod Mongolian usage among Oirats represents the third stage in which it has unfortunately succumbed to the fate of disappearance. Until 1980, Tod Mongolian was actively employed in newspapers, radio, publications, and other periodicals in Xinjiang. However, since 1980, a unification movement advocating for the use of classical Mongolian has gained momentum among Mongols in China. Inner Mongolian representatives strongly pushed for the replacement of Tod Mongolian with classical Mongolian, aiming to unite the Oirats with the broader Mongolians through a united written language. Despite some disputes, this proposal was ultimately implemented, introducing classical Mongolian teachings from primary school to various sectors, gradually side-lining Tod Mongolian. Today, due to this policy, Oirats under the age of forty rarely read and write Tod Mongolian unless they pursue private learning. Conversely, Tod Mongolian is still widely used among individuals over the age of fifty in their daily lives. For the younger generation, while Tod Mongolian evokes nostalgia for recalling their history, it is evident that it remains a historical heritage and is unlikely to be revitalised within the broader Chinese context, given the challenges of using classical Mongolian within the strict Chinese ethnic unification policy. How to understand the Tod Bichig Scholars have engaged in ongoing debates about the Tod Mongolian from various perspectives. Mongolian scholars from both Mongolia and Inner Mongolia have consistently asserted that Tod Mongolian was created based on the Oiratian dialect. Their claim suggests that the intention behind Tod Mongolian was not only to disseminate Buddhism among Oirats but also to lay the foundation for an independent Oirat nation. Despite these assertions, some scholars with comprehensive insights into Tod Mongolian exert different perspectives. Ge Lobsang, a renowned Mongolian linguist, authored “Monuments of the Tod Mongolian,” considered the most influential academic work in recent decades. In his work, Lobsang argued that Tod Mongolian was created for all Mongols, not exclusively for the Oirats. In my view, I consistently argue as follows. First, Tod Mongolian was compiled for all Mongols, not exclusively the Oirats. Biased Mongol scholars from various regions should refrain from persisting in their narrow articulation and acknowledge this reality. Secondly, Zaya Pandita, in the acknowledgement section of his book “The Rules of the Tod Mongolian”, explicitly states, “Tod Mongolian is compiled for the entire Mongols to use it more accurately and conveniently”. It is unacceptable to continue hearing and reading biased arguments when Zaya Pandita himself clarified the purpose of creation in his book. Therefore, I maintain that Tod Mongolian is a distinct Mongolian written language encompassing all Mongols, not just the Oirats. It was created for the improvement and enhance classical Mongolians in many ways. It was not a creation but a compilation. In the last thirty years, scholars have continuously debated the challenges of writing in classical Mongolian on computers and the web due to its insufficient codes in the Unicode system. This prolonged debate highlights the need for Mongolian scholars from both Mongolia and Inner Mongolia to consider modifying or enhancing classical Mongolian. For instance, the distinctions between the letters O and U, Ö and Ü, D and T in Tod Mongolian are more pronounced than in classical Mongolian. I believe Mongolian nationalism plays a role in this context. Why shouldn’t broader Mongols embrace the excellent cultural heritage of Oirats? Classical Mongolian, admittedly adopted by over six million Mongols, served as the linguistic core of the Mongol language. It underwent centuries of study, and its grammatical usage achieved unanimous standardization. Despite this, experts acknowledge that the lack of signifiers in classical Mongolian continues to pose problems for learners and researchers. In contrast, Tod Mongolian has more sufficient signifiers, albeit with fewer studies on grammar rules and standardization, and a smaller user base. Looking ahead, I predict that only a handful of people in the academic field will be reading Tod Mongolian in the coming thirty years. Another dimension of its limited usage among Oirats is revealed in a tale circulating among Öölds, recounting Zaya Pandita’s journey to Lhasa. During discussions with the Dalai Lama about propagating and using Tod Mongolian among all Mongols, the Qing government ultimately denied the decision and restricted its usage to the Oirats. The transformation in language usage is primarily attributed to the influence of a powerful state. Within a year, Mongols, Buryats and Kalmyks transitioned from the Mongolian alphabet to the Slavic alphabet, a clear result of the strict Soviet policy. Since gaining independence in 1990, Mongolia has claimed to implement a recovery policy for classical Mongolian for at least thirty years. This initiative, however, was supported by a smaller group of scholars, and now they decided to use both classical Mongolian and the Slavic alphabet will be used simultaneously as the official written language nationwide. In China, Mongols, influenced by Mongolia in the 1950s, also attempted to adopt the Slavic alphabet for writing Mongolian. However, this move faced opposition from the Chinese government, despite Inner Mongolians being fully prepared to implement it with sophisticated plans, including inviting teachers from Mongolia. These examples illustrate the extent to which language changes need to align with governmental power. Given these historical contexts, scholars should play a critical role in government decision-making regarding language. However, Mongolian scholars have, so far, oscillated between Tod Mongolian, classical Mongolian, and alphabet in both human and natural science, rather than significantly influencing policy decisions. Some argue that Tod and classical Mongolians are the significant Mongolian cultural heritage, while others conceive that using the Slavic alphabet is more fit with natural science. In addition to the preconditions for using Tod Mongolian scripture, among the approximately 180,000 Oirats in Xinjiang, no more than 50,000 individuals can read and write Tod Mongolian. This number would further decline if we considered those above fifty years old who know Tod Mongolian passed away. Therefore, I propose that scholars should acknowledge the significance of Tod Mongolian while studying classical Mongolian. The linguistic skills of Mongolians would be significantly enhanced if combining both scripts. In my many years of collecting Tod Mongolian data, Tod Mongolian studies in the Russian language have never been touched or translated into either classical Mongolian or Chinese up until today. Nationalism and Tod Üsüg There were two arguments actively discussed among broader Mongols several years ago. One argument suggests that one of the reasons for inter-ethnic conflicts among Mongols was the creation of Tod Mongolian. However, would it be a conflict if more than one language exists within an ethnic group? In Manchu archives, it is evident that the Manchu Qing, on the one hand, showed respect for Tod Mongolian by compiling dictionaries combining Manchu, Chinese, Uyghur, classical Mongolian, and Tod Mongolian. On the other hand, they also separated Oirats from broader Mongols, describing the Oirat dialect as the “Jungar language”. From this perspective, the Manchu Qing may have considered Oirats distinctively from eastern Mongols. However, Oirats themselves have never regarded themselves as a different nation since the Chinggis era. Oirats unwaveringly stood by the Mongols' side on the historical stages and played a leading role among broader Mongols at certain periods. Even the creation of Tod Mongolian aimed to finalise classical Mongolian, making it better for Mongolians to use, rather than establishing a distinctive nation from Mongols. The study of Tod Bichig The Second argument revolves around the grammatical rules of Tod Mongolian as observed among Tod Mongolian users. Through discussions among editors of Tod Mongolian periodicals, newspapers, radio, and other publications, I gradually realised that people considered Tod Mongolian a language without clear grammar rules, allowing them to write freely. However, this perception is inaccurate. Although Zaya Pandita established strict grammar rules in his Tod Mongolian compilation, they were loosened with the weakening power of Jungar Khanate. Political power indeed influences the development and disappearance of a language. Among several published Tod Mongolian studies in China, To Jamtsa, a leading scholar at Xinjiang Normal University, has published two monographs on Tod Mongolian, persistently believing that Tod Mongolian is a scripture based on tone rules rather than grammar rules. The Tod Mongolian, in my view, has adhered to classical Mongolian scripture rules, including Ulamjilalt Jarchim, Üg Juigin Jarchim and Avya Juigin Jarchim. Deviating from any of these rules would render Tod Mongolian a peculiar language. Some individuals also consider Tod Mongolian to be a more advanced language in many ways than classical Mongolian, which they believe has numerous misunderstood grammar rules. However, these people are predominantly unfamiliar with Tod Mongolian. My standpoint is, first, scholars should standardise Tod Mongolian. Secondly, scholars should rigorously establish relevant regulations and implement this standardised Tod Mongolian through the Xinjiang government. Otherwise, improvement in any case would be challenging. Additionally, we should exercise caution in contemporary political contexts, as the usage of Tod Mongolian is rapidly shrinking, with only a few elders using the scripture to write emails or letters to each other.