Your comments may be archived here after 48hrs |
Word/quotation of the moment:
Previous:
- The Confederate flag is a matter of pride and heritage, not hatred.
- In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot. (from the WP article Nancy Dorian)
- Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. [...] Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown. (from the WP article 11714 Mikebrown)
- Keep Redskins White!
- "homosapiens are people, too!!"
- Spaghetti Weevil (and also) a sprig of spaghetti
- "I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."
- awkwardnessful
- anti–zombie-fungus fungus
- "Only an evil person would eat baby soup."
Contents
The place for discussing things is on the talk page of the article
Instead of issuing threats it is preferable to discuss things on the talk page of the article. In the meantime I reversed your edit because "removed bullshit" is not a satisfactory explanation to removing information from WP. Contact Basemetal here 19:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- When there is no evidence for a claim, and you remove that warning so as not to "confuse" the "slow-witted", you are engaged in bullshit and I will revert you as a bullshitter. Similarly with the position that anyone who challenges you is a "busy-body". Since you are the one promoting the claim, it's up to you to justify it on the talk page per WP:BOLD rather than edit-warring over it. If you continue your nonsense, I will ask to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- "Unfortunately Vendryes, who was in no way a scholar of Korean, puts forward no source or justification for his assertion."
- Also, this was in 1921. Has anyone notable since cited Vendryes for this claim? If not, what's the point of mentioning it? We can't compare his conclusions with Ledyard's, as apparently all we have is an aside in a text on another topic. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- First of all I don't really know how much Vendryes knew or didn't know about Korean. I had just included that as a warning. I had assumed he was not specializing in Korean as I know he was mostly a specialist of IE but frankly I'm in no position to judge of his competence in the field of Korean. And while it is true that his claim is not backed up with any reference that is no requirement for it to be taken seriously. There is no requirement that quotations from encyclopedias, dictionaries or other second hand sources are first traced for their own sources (and so on, recursively, as the case may be) for them to be included in WP. All that is required is that the quote emanates from a RS and Vendryes's book, a classic on language, certainly fits the description. Also there is no requirement that someone else cites it for it to be considered a RS. In any case, if you claim that Vendryes's book is not a RS as understood in WP then you should present your objection in those terms. The point of mentioning Vendryes's claim is that it was an early (maybe the earliest?) claim that Hangul had something to do (albeit remotely) with Indic writing systems. As such it deserves to be mentioned in any treatment of the history of the scholarship on the origin of Hangul. The same applies in any field. We'll see if other editors agree when I have the time to initiate a discussion regarding this point on the talk page of the article. BTW, I apologize if you felt offended by my edit summary. Since you've been on WP for quite some time I had thought you had grown a thick skin. I personally don't take those things very seriously but if it offended you then, again, I apologize. Contact Basemetal here 20:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
the entering tone
Re Origin of hangul. I think it is an overreach to put forth the statement "the entering tone is not a tone" as a statement of linguistic ground truth, as opposed to a fact about an analysis. This is one of the star examples in Yuen-Ren Chao's The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. In the modern Western phonemic analysis, yes, entering tone is conditioned by the coda stop. But in the ancient far Eastern one, as expressed for instance in the rime tables, the stop allophones of the underlying coda nasals are conditioned by the entering tone, which is phonemic; this is structurally equally valid! And the synchronic phonetics little favour one of these over the other. (To me the unquestioning acceptance of the first analysis seems to have a Eurocentric cast to it: how could a mere tone be superordinate to a good ol' segment?) 4pq1injbok (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is one of translation. Sheng is not "tone". It's translated that way either because people are lazy or because they don't want to get into jargon with an audience that might not understand it. The stop codas may have phonological correspondences with tone, but phonetically [k] is no more a tone than [m] is a phonetic vowel in rhythm. The comment is there because the four sheng are commonly translated as four tones, which implies that if one is unmarked, there needs to be three tone marks. Hangul got away with just two because the third sheng is a final stop, which were already in the alphabet.
- There is a similar problem with translating fangyu as "dialect": the two are not equivalent. ("Topolect" has been proposed as a solution.) — kwami (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Your POV on Indian Languages
Please stop your disruptive editing. You are continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Hindi language and Punjabi language. (unsigned comment by user:PradeepBoston)
- Pradeep, we've had consensus on these issues for years. If you want to change the consensus, do so on talk. WP:TRUTH is not a valid reason for an edit, and certainly not for an edit-war. — kwami (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Leonese
- The move that you made was not to Leonese dialect, but to the unexpected form Leonese dialect () with an empty pair of brackets at the end. A bit before you left your message to me, another user left me a message thanking me for moving Leonese dialect () to Leonese language, so there seems to be 2 opinions on this. If the name Leonese dialect is best, discussion will agree with it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- No. Per WP:BOLD, it's up to you to justify the move, not up to those opposed to it to arrange a RfM to revert it. I couldn't simply revert your move because you gummed it up so that was not possible. — kwami (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Template editor
Your account has been granted the "template editor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.
Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Useful links:
- All template-protected pages
- Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection
Happy template editing! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks! — kwami (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Template:Two-dabs
Hi Kwamikagami. What is the purpose of Template:Two-dabs? It isn't transcluded on any pages, and it appears to be a cleanup template that informs the reader that there isn't anything to clean up. If there are only two topics which a term is ambiguous for and neither of the topics is a primary topic, then a disambiguation page is warranted (per WP:TWODABS). By design, cleanup templates should be temporary and be about fixable issues. A disambiguation page having two ambiguous, non-primary topics is not an issue that needs to be fixed. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's not a cleanup template, it's a message template. We have constant edit-wars with people who think TWODABS forbids WP from having dab pages with two links; no matter how often people point out that it doesn't say that, they engage in edit-warring or insist on starting multiple time-wasting move requests to resolve the perceived problem. I created this to help with such problems, but forgot we had it when I could have used it. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Pre-palatal?
Hi. Does the term "pre-palatal" unambiguously refer to alveolo-palatals, or is it also used to describe palato-alveolars? Laver (1994:136) uses "pre-palatal" to describe consonants articulated in the place "between palatal and alveolo-palatal" (are those even possible? I thought it was an either/or distinction.) On the other hand, for both Jensen (2004:30) and Esling (2010:693) "pre-palatal" is synonymous with "alveolo-palatal". I haven't found a source that uses "pre-palatal" as synonymous with "palato-alveolar", but to me, the description of Maastrichtian Limburgish postalveolars sounds somewhat ambiguous; Gussenhoven & Aarts (1999:156) say that "/c, ʃ, ʒ, ɲ/ are pre-palatal, articulated with the tongue against the post-alveolar place of articulation, the tip being held down." Would it be OR to say that these are alveolo-palatal [c͇, ɕ, ʑ, ɲ͇]? Peter238 (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)