Florian Blaschke

Welcome!

Hello, Florian Blaschke, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Although it seems like you've got it pretty well figured out. Nice job on media lengua. Makemi 01:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Norn substrate

Hello Florian, I noticed your good edit to the article substratum. Would you happen to know a source for the Norn example, so perhaps you could add that as well? I tagged the article with the source tag as the current version does not cite any sources. --AAikio 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There are sources (scientific literature, not websites) listed on Norn language, but I haven't checked them out personally, so I'm not sure which is most appropriate. By the way, your name is familiar - I came across your homepage in April or so. Florian Blaschke 15:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I think I'll try to check these myself sometime if I have the chance; as it happens, I'm also personally interested in cases of susbtrate influence, as this is a topic I do research on. Btw, it's great to notice that there are other comparative linguists around here as well. Maybe we could improve together some articles in this field sometime... I've been planning to edit the comparative method for a while but haven't gotten up to it yet, there are a few things discussed on the talk page that I think would need improvement.`

As for my web site, if you visited it in April it might still have been the older and horribly outdated version. I replaced it with a new version sometime in the summer. And also, thanks for your comment on the Altaic issue on my talk page; there's been quite a bit of discussion on this recently , but this is scattered all over various talk and user talk pages... The original question I've been disputing with user E104421 is whether we should keep the "disputed" tag in the language infoboxes of "Altaic" language articles, as in Turkish language for example. Do you have an opinion on this? --AAikio 07:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting too long, I'm mailing you. Florian Blaschke 11:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Alestormpromo1.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Alestormpromo1.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 22:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Alestorm

A tag has been placed on Alestorm requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stephenb (Talk) 15:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Avant-garde metal and art music

Thank for this great job, you did. I had already checked what you corrected. And I'm satisfied with what you did so far. I didn't checked everything yet. Thank you very much. I wish I could master english like you.

Does avant garde deviate from the basic principles or the tonal language?

Well to reply to this question, it depends what we mean by "avant-garde". Because it's a term that can be used loosely and differently according to certain persons who use it. If by" avant-garde" we called any music ahead of their time or any non standard music then no, avant-garde doesn't necessarilly deviates from the tonal language. However musicologically and historically speaking the term "avant-garde music" has stongly been associated with the radical tendencies of modernist music including atonal music, twelve tone music, Serial music, Stochastic music, Concrete music, electronic art music, spectral music, etc... All these modernist tendencies are characterized by a general rejection of tonal language. So my specification about tonal language concerned the fact avant-garde metal despite its name doesn't necessarilly rejects tonality like avant-garde music often does. In this regard avant-garde metal is closer to the experimental approach of postmodern music than modernist avant-garde in music.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal#Genre delimiters

You're invited to the above. --Bardin (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears as complex as classical music?!

Thanks for your request, But I don't have much time to reply for the moment.But I think I' m going to surprize you, if I tell you I actuallly second many claims by this guy. Actually there's a misunderstanding going on here. He doesn't say" Britney Spears is as complex as classical music" as you seem to believe. No, he says that criterias (such as modulation) used to point the complexity of classical in this article are wrong or misguiding, because use of such elements can be found in popular music. Which is correct. Those criterias in this article are naively worded. Anyway even though he exagerates a little bit concernign BS and even if he omits some specifications, I mostly agree with him concerning things about Modulation, Repetition, Variation. They just are not criterions of compelxity at least the way it is worded. Concerning polyphony/counterpoint, the issue is a little more complciated. Yes even counterpoint is sometimes used in popular music. But that's here the root of another misunderstanding going here I'll have to dissipate when I'll have time. Actually the kind of counterpoint or variation used in popular music is quite different from the classical tradition one . Classical one is generally more codified and regulated than the one used occsaionaly in popular music which is much freer and more instinctive. Which make it far more difficult to master.Frankely speaking I doubt anyone can give an example of Britney Spears using Bach's complex mastery of Fugue. Here's the point. However another latent misunderstanding is to confuse complexity with superiority. Many people hear "superiority", when using the word "complexity". Which is completely misguiding. Because complexity doesn't necessarilly make music superior. This confusion is a source ( I think) of many heated debates. Because people believe by claiming Classical compelxity, one states superiority over their favourite genres...Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminology: Renaissance fair, de:Mittelaltermarkt, Medieval festival

In the process of moving images to Commons and sorting them, I've realized that we seem to have two categories on Commons for the same thing. commons:Category:Medieval festivals seems to cover such events in Europe, while commons:Category:Renaissance fairs covers such events in the US. In this (English) Wikipedia, the articles are named "Renaissance fairs" (or "faires" or "festivals"), and point to the similarly named categories on Commons, while the German Wikipedia calls (what seems to be the same thing) Mittelaltermarkt and points to the Medieval festivals category. As far as you can tell, are these describing essentially the same thing? If so, we should probably merge the categories on Commons; what are your thoughts on which name they should merge to? Commons says to use the English language term, but I don't know what terms are used to describe this activitiy in the English-speaking world outside the US, nor if it is as common elsewhere as in the US. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

They don't seem quite the same to me. commons:Category:Medieval festivals seems more related to historical reenactments in historical places , and commons:Category:Renaissance fairs to the American-style fairs. In the first category, while obviously there's nothing medieval or Renaissance in the US, there are plenty of historical forts, parks, etc. where historical festivals are played out. They may be of later timeperiods, but they share an ambience of historicity and location. However, the Renaissance Fairs are much more like theme parks, and however much they aspire to "authenticity", they are more fantasy oriented. Only the subject matter is the same. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So perhaps Renaissance fairs and Mittelaltermarkt are essentially the same thing, and should both point to commons:Category:Renaissance fairs, while commons:Category:Medieval festivals should be linked to an article on historical reenactment, perhaps Medieval reenactment, and used for more authentically inclined events? cmadler (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent suggestion. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree; this solution makes sense and is even an improvement over the current state, in being more precise and separating events geared towards fantasy from those with aspirations towards authenticity. In my opinion, "Renaissance fair" is a suitable translation for the German term "Mittelaltermarkt". Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I will start making the changes. Could you put a note on de:Diskussion:Mittelaltermarkt about this, explaining the changes and reasoning? My knowledge of German is not at all up to the task. Also, maybe the US Renaissance fair phenomenon should be mentioned in the German article? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've written something on the talk page. Hope it is OK that way. Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact theories‎

Thanks for fixing that, careless of me. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

List of German expressions in English

re [1] - Etymonline is not a particularly reliable source, but the Merriam Webster entry is fine - it's the first reliable citation I've seen (and I have searched previously), even if it only says that it is a "probable" derivation. If you have such a citation, it should be included in the text though, so I've added it.

However, as for your edit summary "rv again: WTF are you trying to say?" - this falls below our project's civility standards. Please consider that the editors you are dealing with can be politely spoken to as reasonable people. Knepflerle (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt offended, but it wasn't meant in an offensive way at all, just to point out my bafflement as your statement didn't make any sense to me. Perhaps it's because of my linguistic training ... but there is no way that foosball could somehow be an "independent development" that I could think of, and that's just so vague a way to put it that I didn't know what to make out of it. (You mean, like, some weird English dialect that shifts [t] > [s] that the word would fortitiously have been loaned from? I just don't see it.) After all, you didn't doubt any of the other entries, either.

Thanks for fixing the article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Moves of Orders of magnitude (length) articles

Hi Florian, I've only moved those articles to import old edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia. The moves of which you speak appear to have been made by John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) in May 2008, and he noted his justification for them at Talk:1 metre#Rename proposal. Graham87 00:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Chenoua language

Hello, Florian Blaschke. You have new messages at Taivo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Florian Blaschke. You have new messages at Taivo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Florian Blaschke. You have new messages at Talk:Pseudoarchaeology.
Message added 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

English "dialects"

I'm moving the discussion here because it does not really belong on the Talk page.

As an aside, I wonder if children raised in (say) rural Southern England without exposure to other varieties of English (through mass media, especially TV), only the local/regional dialect/accent, might not also have major difficulty understanding (say) American English, when first getting in contact with it, just like you had with South African English. After all, American English might conceivably have diverged from Southern British English even more since Shakespeare's time than South African English has diverged from Southern British English, which, after all, has happened much more recently. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

American English, probably not. But they would have major difficulty understanding people from Northern England. If you were to show a film like "Kes" to a hypothetical person from southern England, he'd have as hard time with it at first as an American would, if not more so, simply because of the pronunciation. American English hasn't "diverged" as much as it has "converged", being a "consensus mixture" of southern, northern and West Country accents.

By the way, both the South African boy and I were speaking the same "dialect" of English (Standard English), which is extremely similar whether it's spoken in South Africa, the US, Ireland or Great Britain, except in pronunciation. The difficulty I had was solely due to pronunciation. The only term he used that I didn't understand was "noughts and crosses", which in America is called "tic tac toe".

It takes a lot more than differences in pronunciation to make two varieties different dialects. There have to be substantial differences in lexis and grammar as well. The differences between Standard American, Standard British, Standard South African etc. are far too small for them to be considered separate dialects. On paper, it would be extremely difficult to distinguish them were it not for the minor differences in spelling and the occasional give-away lexical or grammatical differences.

If you want to find truly divergent dialects of English, you will find them only inside Britain, in Yorkshire, for example. Differences between dialects within Britain are far, far greater than differces between Standard British and any oversees variety, including American, with the possible exception of African-American English, which even I cannot understand without focusing, and even then only when they are speaking directly to me, and not among each other.

Strangely, for Dano-Norwegian, the opposite is true. The language is extremely uniform in Denmark, the motherland, and very diverse in Norway, where it is an introduced language. The reason is that Norwegian Dano-Norwegian was highly influenced by the related Norse language which it displaced, whereas American English was not influenced by the completely unrelated Native American languages, except for a few lexical borrowings. Contary to popular belief, American English has hardly been influenced by immigrant languages, except, again, for a few lexical borrowings.

By the way, I studied in Germany (Regensburg and Oldenburg). For comparison sake, the difference between English and Scots is far less than the difference between Hochdeutsch and Niedersachsener Plattdeutsch. It's more like the difference between Hochdeutsch and Bayrisch. The difference between American Standard English and British Standard English is about the same as the difference between Standard Hochdeutsch as spoken in Munich and Standard Hochdeutsch as spoken in Vienna, Berlin or Hamburg.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between the SBE vs. SAE and the SBE vs. SAmE examples. In both cases, the main difference is in pronunciation. Of course I'm not talking about the written language. A "monolingual" speaker of SBE would scan the SAmE pronunciation of, for example, bottle as bardle. Of course the SBE speaker would understand the sound correspondences involved after a short time (and that's exactly what must happen in the case of children first exposed to an accent different from their own), but initially, the unfamiliar pronunciation would stump them as the SAE pronunciation has stumped you. The catch is, even if the differences are small, there is still some learning effort involved, it's just so automatical (and in the case of BE vs. AmE at least, so early in life) that people don't realise they have learned a new system, even if it is mainly only a phonological system.

I know for a fact that people from Northern Germany frequently complain about the accent in Munich (especially subway drivers and policemen are notorious for often having a thick Bavarian accent), and depending on the strength of the accent either find it alien or hard to understand. Bavarian dialect, as opposed to Standard German, is positively unintelligible to them (unless they spend years in Bavaria), although Bavarian dialects do not seem quite as divergent from Standard German as Swiss German dialects are (this may have been different in the past, though), and the dialect of Munich in particular is strongly influenced by the standard language and much less distinctive than more rural dialects. That "Prussian" foreigners struggle so much with the local linguistic features (younger people in particular only speak a very slight, generalised South German accent that I barely recognise as distinctive, though my own accent seems to be stronger even though I tend not to be aware of it unless I get to hear my own voice recorded) is especially curious in view of the observation that through TV, Northerners should have become more familiar with Bavarian, and vice versa (in fact, Bavarian at least in the form of the accent is considered to be very popular nowadays in Germany), and I'm at a loss to explain how it is possible that in practice, the difference is still so momentous.

By the way, I'd like to point out that the terms accent, dialect and language are ill-defined in linguistics and I use them rather intuitively, which is why I prefer the more technical term variety. As closely related as varieties often are, as subtle as the differences between two varieties can be, my point is that despite the significantly varying learning burden, some sort of learning – even if only in the form of barely conscious "accomodation" – is virtually always involved.

A final remark: I'd say you are severely overstating the case if you claim that the authentically (Western) Norse dialects of Norway have become displaced by Dano-Norwegian entirely. Especially in Western Norway, distinctive local dialects that can be shown to have developped from Old Norwegian without any break are still in place and well and alive, despite all foreign influences, and form the basis for the modern Nynorsk standard. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jomon period

Hallo! I found you through your edit comment in this edit. I agree that consistency in dates is a good thing, but am wondering how to achieve this for articles on Japanese history since the dates are not always fixed. With older periods, new archaeological finds are pushing those dates further back in time (in fact in this case there is some evidence for a Jōmon-Yayoi transition as early as 500 BC) and even for more recent periods, different definitions can lead to different transition dates (I started to collect various definitions here in case you are interested). If you have a good idea how to point out (with a footnote,...) that dates in these cases are not fixed, please let me know. Also if you want to add to User:Bamse/Japanese historical periods, feel free to do so. bamse (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem here. There was likely no sudden transition, at least not one that would have taken place at the same time all over the Japanese archipelago. Instead, there was most probably a period of several centuries where the two traditions existed side by side. Presumably, the Yayoi tradition slowly spread towards the east and north, gradually assimilating the previous inhabitants culturally (unless they were displaced or fled to the east/north). Therefore, depending on the exact place in the archipelago, the Jōmon period ended at quite different times, which is exactly what the overlap explicitly indicated in the table implies. In the far north, there was never a Yayoi period at all. That means, even if Yayoi started earlier, Jōmon didn't necessarily end earlier, as well.

Anyway, as long as the discussion is still ongoing and the dating still in flux, it's best to stick to the traditional date. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree. But in some later transitions (Asuka->Nara,...) there are different dates depending on definition and it is not always obvious which to chose in articles or for the infobox. In these cases, I think some kind of note could be useful. What do you think? bamse (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you don't happen to read kanbun, or have a translation of the Shoku Nihongi at hand, do you? bamse (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not a specialist on East Asian languages, literature or history at all, so I can only really apply what I've learned about the subject from Wikipedia itself. But it seems that the start of the Nara period is quite consensually defined as 710, because of the move of the capital to Heijō-kyō in that year. Of course such delimitations are always to an extent arbitrary, but in this case, the periods do seem to have established precise definitions. I notice that the alternative dating at Asuka period is not sourced, so I would be sceptical and hesitate to assume that there is really a difference in opinion in this case. But as I've cautioned, I'm not conversant with the subject. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Gallo-Italian languages

I went ahead and rewrote the page on Northern Italian languages to reflect its title properly and to try and reflect some of the debates. I do agree that the normal grouping of Gallo-Italian is with Gallo-Romance rather than Italo-Romance, and like you I suspect that the tendency on the part of certain Italian linguists to group it with Italo-Romance has an ideological basis. I'm not too familiar with Hull's work but I doubt that the term "Padanian" has currency in scholarly circles beyond Hull himself, which means it probably doesn't meet the notability standard of inclusion. On top of that, the "Padanian" concept seems to have been appropriated for political purposes by northern Italian separatists trying to invent a unified northern Italian ethnic identity, which is a further caution against its inclusion. Benwing (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem with "Padanian" is that it's not a commonly-used term among the specialists. We need to follow standard terminology, otherwise we are veering into original research territory. As for your other statement: The discontinuous territory of the current Rhaeto-Romance languages strongly suggests that R-R languages were once spoken over a significantly larger territory, and later displaced by neighboring languages. In a situation like this, it's natural that words will survive from the former (substrate) language, including e.g. words with palatalized /tɕa/ or similar. But this doesn't imply that Venetian, even the Venetian spoken in former R-R areas, was once more of a Rhaeto-Romance or Gallo-Romance language. It may indeed be the case that certain Italo-Romance features have diffused from areas to the south and overlaid themselves onto Gallo-Italic languages of northern Italy ... Of course, it may also be the case that Gallo-Romance features have diffused from the northwest and overlaid themselves onto languages that were once more Italo-Romance in character, or (even more likely) that there were various waves of diffusion of features coming from various directions at various times.

As an example, Giacomo Devoto, in his book on Italian dialects, relates a traditional anecdote where a Tuscan and a Genovese speaker were competing to see who could produce the most vowel-heavy and consonant-light sentences. The Tuscan said Io vidi un'aquila volare "I saw an eagle flying", to which the Genovese responded E êia e ae? "And did it have wings?". Devoto says the modern Genovese dialect is less extreme in this respect, more like E avea e ale? In this case, features closer to the standard language have clearly diffused from elsewhere in a way that eliminated the more unusual aspects of Ligurian speech. But in general it's difficult-to-impossible to figure out how such diffusion has happened -- and in many cases, to separate out diffusion from internal developments -- without direct evidence of the older speech. Indirect evidence embedded in the vocabulary is often interpretable in various ways.

If you want to insert some statements about such diffusion, you should be careful (1) to try and see which are the prevailing views rather than a particular theory you happen to like, (2) to make sure the statements you insert are actually representative of what individual scholars say, (3) to quote secondary rather than primary sources. For example, claiming that specific Italo-Romance features have been overlaid on specific modern Gallo-Italian languages is very different from a generic statement such as that the "Padanian" languages as a whole were once Gallo-Romance or Rhaeto-Romance. (It's not even generally agreed that the Rhaeto-Romance languages are a subset of the Gallo-Romance languages.) In addition, Hull's PhD thesis is a primary source. These are generally non-ideal for Wikipedia because they are trying to advance particular theories rather than summarize consensus, meaning they are much more likely to be non-representative of overall views. Benwing (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot quite agree here. With proper attribution, sourcing and context, even views that go beyond current scholarly consensus can be mentioned in Wikipedia articles, especially if they are still well within academic credibility and conform to academic standards – truly fringe views coming from outside of the academic/scientific community, of course, should not be mentioned at all unless they are notable. However, there is a wide continuum (hypothesis, conjecture) in between consensus (theory) and crackpottery (speculation – more specifically, unbridled, careless, fanciful speculation at odds with known facts, and often motivated by ideology and wishful thinking). If we were applying your strict standards to all of Wikipedia, Koch et al.'s recent attempt to interpret Tartessian as a Celtic language – which strikes me as rather implausible on the face of it, even disregarding the implications attached to the idea, and, judging by the comments on Talk:Tartessian language, Koch's analysis is so flawed methodologically that this view is unlikely to ever become consensus – should be completely excluded, though even I, despite my profound scepticism of the idea and loathing of its aggressive promotion on Wikipedia, have no qualms accepting mentions in relevant articles in principle, as long as the reader is not misled into receiving the impression that the classification of Tartessian as Celtic were more than a view esposed by a marginal group in historical linguistics. Hull's view, even if perhaps not that conclusive or compelling after all, is clearly reasonable and possible in principle. Koch's views on Celtic, Renfrew's views on Indo-European, or Vennemann's views on Germanic and pretty much everything else, while quite sensational as things go in this field, and well-received outside specialist circles, are, for all their revisionist fervour involved in its promotion, rather lacking in their methodological rigour, violating principles such as regularity of sound change (Koch), the Uniformitarian Principle (Renfrew, by assuming a much more static and homogeneous prehistoric past), and a host of other principles (Vennemann). These are unconventional to eccentric views, even if "fringe science" may be too strong a descriptor (and in the case of Renfrew, very much dependent on the academic discipline). How about Mario Alinei's Paleolithic Continuity Theory? It violates the UP even more egregiously, and leads to assumptions that make Blut und Boden nationalists rejoice, implying that modern ethnicities and languages have essentially been in place all the way back to the end of the last glacial period, that Latin, with various regional forms, has been present in Italy since the 2nd millennium BC – and that Etruscian is an archaic form of Hungarian, apparently. Alexander Häusler, a well-publicised archaeologist, seems to endorse the "theory". Wikipedia respects it, it even devotes an entire article to it, even though the "theory" ventures even deeper into la-la land. Let's not even get started on creationism and other examples of pure bullshit "science". Are you honestly ready to get rid of all that junk completely? I would be on your side, let's make Wikipedia consensus only and throw out everything just slightly without the scientific mainstream – but that would be a radical break and I'm not sure if you'd be willing to accept the consequences of that principle. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Another example is the classification of Austronesian languages, where the results of the Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database have been used in preference to the traditional classifications established through handbooks, and older classifications are frequently not even mentioned anymore. That's quite blatant recentism, spread through hundreds of articles. I'm not particularly happy about the way the older scholarly work has been treated in this case, especially as the results of the ABVD, which are essentially based on lexicostatistics, are given far more credence than they deserve, compared to traditional arguments for subgrouping and the comparative method. This is certainly excessive in the other direction, compared to your conservative approach. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In short, your refusal to allow Hull's views even mere (not even necessarily prominent) mention in the article you entirely contradict the established practice in en-WP which is to give notable non-consensus views not ample, but at least limited mention where appropriate. WP does not limit itself to being a summary of the relevant handbooks in an academic field. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Japanese language

Hi Florian, this phenomenon occurs because the import process links the 2001 edits to the the wrong place. It happens because The previous/next edit links work by revision ID's, not dates, and affects most UseModWiki revisions to some extent. See User:Graham87/Page history observations#Revision ID numbers. Graham87 03:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Florian Blaschke. You have new messages at Quasihuman's talk page.
Message added 10:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quasihuman | Talk 10:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied again on User talk:Quasihuman#Merge "Insight", "Eureka effect" and "Aha! effect"?, thanks. Quasihuman | Talk 15:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've started the merge discussion at Talk:Aha! effect, if there are no opposers after a week or two, I'll merge it then. Thanks, Quasihuman | Talk 15:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Lexikon der indogermanischen Nomina

This is very interesting! Can you tell me where to get the book? The webpage of Freiburg University looks as if the LIN were still underway. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the title has changed to NIL, perhaps that's the reason why you weren't able to find it. Even Amazon carries it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, have you heard about this? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds really interesting. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

RE Talk:Selena

I responded to your comment on the talk page of Selena. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 06:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Word about AfD courtesy

Hello, although not strictly enforced, when nominating articles for deleteion it is a widely accepted courtesy to inform the good-faith creator and major contributors to the article of the discussion. I have informed User:Varsijousi who pretty much single-handedly created Lake numbers in Finland in September for you. Thanks, hydrox (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing that, but forgot about it and also didn't read further in the instructions. Sorry. Thanks for your help. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Tartessian

You should not base your love or hate of a subject on the state of its Wikipedia article. It's only the internet. The internet is full of stupid people, and the subject of Celtic studies tends to attract all sorts of muddle-headed individuals. They all have internet access, and some of them will invariably end up messing with Wikipedia articles.

If this means the Tartessian language article is broken right now, you can either try to fix it if you have the patience and motivation, or you can simply tag the broken article for cleanup and move to some other topic that catches your interest. At some point, the confused and agenda-driven crowd will get tired of Tartessian and flock to some other topic-du-jour, and there will still be ample time to fix the coverage of Tartessian then.

Obscure topics like "Tartessian article" have it comparatively easy. They only get attention at the rare occasions when they make some kind of headlines. By contrast, editing articles that attracts religious zealots (and, most of the time even worse, anti-religious zealots), such as Yahweh is much much worse, as there will never be a time without any confused and/or stupid people messing with it. Also much worse are articles about fringe theories or crackpot ideological movements and the like, say, such as Afrocentrism, Matriarchy, The Zeitgeist Movement or David Rohl, because these will also be invariably be disrupted by adherents.

I will be happy to help fix the Tartessian article once the pov-pushers have moved on. It's usually enough to sit out their interest and then revert to the last sane version of the article, perhaps with a brief paragraph added to summarize the incident that sparked their interest in the topic.

Happy editing, --dab (𒁳) 11:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Kardashev scale

Thank you for editing the article. My concern was that the numerical conversions appear to be done by Wikipedia users. Do you feel that this is acceptable and does not constitute original research? You could comment here: Talk:Kardashev_scale#Source_used_for_numbers. Regards. Shawnc (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The fibula

I left my first reaction on my talk page. Might as well keep discussions together. Ciao.Dave (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Florian. I looked into it a bit and left a reply for you on my page. Bottom line: I think the scientific evidence has epistemological priority.Dave (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Eureka effect/Aha! effect merge

Just to let you know, I've finally merged the two articles, per your request at my talk page. Sorry for the long delay. Because everyone agreed with the merge, and there was no clear consensus about what the name of the final article should be, I decided to be bold, and merge Eureka effect into Aha! effect, mainly because Aha! effect is the bigger article, the merge would be easier that way. A separate move discussion could take place to decide the name if you wish. Thanks, Quasihuman | Talk 13:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine to me. I tried to clean up the article a bit; did you find my edits helpful? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Scythian languages

I'm not sure what's going on in this article. An editor dropped in a huge chunk of stuff he clearly didn't write and with references that don't have enough information to verify them. I'm guessing this [2] is the source, do you agree? If so we don't do massive copy and pastes from other language Wikipedias without attribution, and we still have the verification problem. I've asked the editor to explain their actions on the talk page, perhaps we shoudl wait until he does. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's clearly a translation of the material from German Wikipedia.

At least the Turkic (not to mention Mongolian, Mordvin, Romance and English) etymologies should be treated as suspect – especially given that they do not refer to Proto-Turkic reconstructions, but Modern Anatolian Turkish (or in one case, Modern Bashkir) words, forms which are about 2000 or 2500 years younger. Proto-Turkic was probably spoken sometime in the 1st millennium BC, so – apart from the generally dubious practice of explaining Scythian material as Turkic (or something else) rather than Iranian – this comparison would at least be temporally plausible. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at the history, he's the author of that material in the German Wikipedia. Thanks for your comments. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation help please

Hi there. I'm wondering if you could be of any help at this article: Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow). The editor who mostly wrote the article is a native Russian speaker and his English is poor. The article needed extensive copy edit work to bring it to where it is today, but we have all left the newspaper translation section alone, I suppose because none of us speak Russian (see the talk page #6). As far as I can tell you don't speak Russian either, but I wonder if your knowledge of words and syntax could improve the translation? Thanks for looking at it! Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My Russian is very basic, and my English isn't perfect, either, but I've left a comment on the talk page concerning the expression which you seemed most interested in translating; HTH. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is Florian, I am just so unhappy with the present translation. It is my impression that the news reporter said that the cathedral was just grand! in the style of the old churches that one sees in Europe. He seemed to see it as on a level of great art or great music. If you look at the translation on the article page, IMO, it just won't do! It is my impression that Orange Pumpkin can't see how bad it is because his English is so poor. I asked you on the talk page if you were willing to do a complete translation. If you do not feel quite competent, do you think I could ask on the Wikipedia help page for a person very competent in both Russian and English? Though actually, reading your English and your suggestion to use the word "perfect", I'd guess that you are quite competent... Gandydancer (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm fairly competent in English, but not in (especially literary) Russian. I just went from your translation – I used it to guess at the meaning of the original text without analysing the original itself.

I agree, the best solution would be to consult a Russian speaker with a more than decent grasp of English. It would be useful if he could give us both a fairly close, literal translation and a loose one.

I've just asked a buddy for help. I'll post his suggestion to the talk page. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Florian. Some very good people helped with the article--I'm so impressed with the amount of work that went into it and how well it turned out. Besides Orange Pumpkin's tremendous amount of work, I knew an excellent copy editor that went through it--and then you helped... We should give him a group barnstar? Gandydancer (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea! You have my blessing to act in my name. My own contribution was tiny, after all, it only concerned a single paragraph out of dozens. :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for attention at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linguistics#Requests_for_attention regarding Diasystem

Hi. I am requesting your attention to a dispute over the content of Diasystem. An administrator who is a regular participant at WikiProject_Linguistics is threatening me. Please read my post at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linguistics#Requests_for_attention (the first new post in that section in 12 months!). If, after reading that post and the version of the article as of 5:10, 2 March 2012, you want to know more, please read Talk:Diasystem and/or write me. Thanks. Dale Chock (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Suffix

Hello Florian, I did not write this part, as far as I know, maybe I do not remember, but I would not have written that this way. There are two different suffixes in the ethnic names in French with two different etymologies (VL -ēse and OLF *-isk), that is the reason why some ethnic names are in -ois : danois, gallois, chinois, etc. and others in -ais : irlandais (OF irois), portugais, hollandais, etc. There is a confusion between the two suffixes. The feminine form of some ethnic adjectives in OF was -esche : danesche cf. la danesche parleure 'the Danish language', more danico = la danesche manere, englesche cf. la gent englesche 'the English' (Chanson de Roland), all replaced later by -oise or -aise. Yes, the suffix -esque was borrowed from Italian -esco in the 16th, when words ending this way were borrowed : pittoresco > pittoresque. The Norman-Picard -esque (corresponding to OF -esche) does not seem to have something to do with that : it is only found in toponyms nowadays, such as Englesqueville, Anglesqueville. See further explanations for example (French) .Nortmannus (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup! I was not aware of the difference between those two suffixes. I thought it was simply like était vs. étoit.

Another passage I have found there which is a bit strangely phrased, but which I could not fix:

/r/ becomes uvular sound: trill /ʀ/ or fricative /ʁ/, (replacing the rolled 'r' formerly often used by the clergy).

Apparently, this means that while the change from front (alveolar) /r/ to uvular trill took place already in the 18th century or so, the archaic /r/ articulation survived in the clergy for a longer time – but for how long? Early-mid 20th century perhaps? In that case, it should read "(replacing the rolled 'r', which, in the early 20th century, was still often used by the clergy)". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

De rien ! euh..I do not know exactly what it means too. Yes, I read somewhere, that the royal court used to pronounce the rolled 'r' possibly to the 18th century (later there is no more king..) and the people of Paris did not. The upper clergy did probably pronounce the way it was at the court. I do not think it was the case anymore after the French revolution. Concerning the priests, the lower clergy, I think they pronounced the way it was in their native region. The rolled [r] (in the langue d'oïl regions) was concentrated in Berry, more generally the center of France, Burgundy, some parts of Anjou, the southern part of the Orne and the southern part of the Manche departements in Normandy, and so on.., but I do not know exactly where else, solely among the farmers born before the second world war. In Normandy, that I know better, except the specific case of the south, I do not think that people ever pronounced the rolled [r], because early traces of its total fading (in certain conditions and consonantic environments) are mentioned in the documents for example Thuit-Hébert is mentioned as Tui Herbert in 1216, but somewhere else Pont-Hébert is mentioned as Pons Heberti in 1260, same thing for Le Plessis-Hébert as Plaiseis Herbert in 1190 and Saint-Martin-le-Hébert as Beati Martini le Hebert in 1250. Today modern Norman surnames Hébert, Bénard, instead of Bernard. In the Val-de-Saire patois and in the Cauchois the /r/ disappears totally in all the cases f.i. : French curé 'Pfarrer', Valdesairois tchué [tʃye], cauchois cué. It probably exists in other patois too, but I do not really know. For people with a bit knowledge, the rolled 'r' is still very typical berrichon and bourguignon. For people from Paris, it is part of the stereotypical farmer accent, so that they advertise for Norman camembert with a typical Berry or Bourguignon rolled 'r'. That is the only thing I know about this subject. I never studied the question. Another thing : there is a popular pronounciation in Paris (that tends to disappear) the pronounciation of the 'titis parisiens', where they had developed a sort of prothetic /a/ before the /r/, that is (was) less marked in Paris than in Rouen and in le Havre, where the popular class still use it (myself for example, when I am with people having this /ar/, I automatically get it, because as a kid I used to hear it at school, but my parents do not, because they are from the countryside) : we can call it the Seine valley accent. Good evening.Nortmannus (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see; to me, when I hear formerly, that doesn't mean "more than 200 years ago", so formerly often used by the clergy sounded as if the alveolar /r/ had been used by the clergy in somewhat more recent times, so that linguists of the 19th or 20th centuries or even Wikipedians of the 21st century could even personally remember clergymen using this pronunciation in their childhood, or were even able to document it in current use. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Median Empire

I think this needs to be turned back into a redirect - it had been a redirect for years until someone gutted Medes in January and added it to this. The material was restored to Medes. We also have an edit warrior on both claiming it was a Kurdish dynasty. Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Is all the info in Median Empire already found in Medes? If so, it's a duplicate, and you can simply turn it into a redirect. Otherwise, just merge any remaining useful information from Median Empire into Medes. Wikipedia has no need for redundant articles or even forks. But you know all that already, so I'm not sure what you're intending with your request – are you trying to secure my support, or reassure yourself of a consensus for the merger? Let me assure you that you have my support; in general, having separate articles about an ancient polity and its ruling ethnicity is probably the typical case, but we know very little about the Medes and the Median Empire, and the history of either, so a separate article for the polity is not necessary. I believe there is even serious doubt about what exactly the nature and extent of the rule of the Medes was and whether a "Median Empire" as traditionally conceived even existed. Also, it is unclear to whom exactly the term Medes even referred. Presumably, it was a cover term anyway, or at least the Greeks applied it to (Western) Iranian-speaking groups in general.

There are Kurdish POV-warriors attacking the German version of the article, too, and I have no sympathies for them, but I've never heard anything about Kurdish being Southwest Iranian before. I've never seen it classified as anything but Northwest Iranian and therefore into the same subbranch as "Median" at least, even though there is just not known enough about "Median" to be certain of its status versus Kurdish.

Only if we had good reasons to think that the common ancestor of all Northwest Iranian varieties was spoken about 2500 years ago and not considerably earlier or later, we could identify Proto-Northwest-Iranian with "Median" and draw a direct (at least linguistic) connection between "Medes" and Kurds, but we could not identify them specifically as (at least linguistic) ancestors of the Kurds. Kurdish on its own doesn't seem to have that great a time-depth, so Proto-Kurdish was likely spoken too recently to attempt an identification of the "Medes" with the linguistic ancestors of the Kurds specifically, as opposed to other groups, such as the Baluchi, so yeah, that identification is inherently dubious even if Kurdish and Median are both Northwest Iranian. Parthian is a much better fit on a temporal basis alone, and its intense contact not only with Persian but also Armenian, and Windfuhr does identify Parthian – "albeit with a Median substratum" – as the language Kurdish descended from. However, Jost Gippert thinks Zaza is closer. The problem is that, apparently, Persian has exchanged a lot of vocabulary with other Iranian languages, especially Northwest Iranian languages, which has muddled the distinction between Northwest and Southwest Iranian and wrecked havoc on the isoglosses, with Kurdish and Baluchi appearing most influenced by Persian vocabulary, Zaza much less and Gorani even less. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes

Thanks, careless of me. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. When you recently edited Sinhala language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vijaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Baltic and Belarusian&Russian

To prevent misunderstanding. I've deleted the text because this is definitely an original research. There isn't Baltic substratum in Belarusian and Russian, it's a bare fact accepted by mainstream Russistics. I've read a great bulk of russistic literature including special works which deal with the history of the Russian language but I've never seen that some researchers mention this substratum or that any substratum made an impact if any on the development of the language. There are not any traces (except for, maybe, a dozen or little more borrowings) of Baltic languages in Belarusian and Russian.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Dacian language

Hi Florian, thanks for your hidden comments at the above article; I'm currently copy-editing it and I appreciate your help in clarifying the text. I haven't reached that section yet, though I'll bear this in mind when I do. I'm not an expert in the subject of dead languages so if you see me doing something that doesn't make sense, feel free to revert or correct my work. Sometimes it's all too easy to alter meanings without realising it. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Niue sword

Florian, I believe it is somewhere in the Balkans. John D. Croft (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Star Carr House

Hi Florian, I appreciate your point but I think you'll find that all the relevant material has been merged into the main Star Carr article but just made less prominent as the house is actually one of the less important aspects of the site's findings. The Star Carr house article was created by non-experts responding to the press release and news coverage in summer 2010 - it never should have been created as a separate article. Among archaeologists the house is referred to as a 'structure' as calling it a house can mislead the public about the permanence and nature of the occupation. I ensured I got the agreement of several people from WikiProject Archaeology and WikiProject Yorkshire before I went ahead with the redirect. I hope you understand but am happy to discuss it further. Thanks, PatHadley (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Florian Blaschke. You have new messages at Edkollin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Min / Middle Chinese

Hi,

From what I understand, although Min cannot be traced back to Middle Chinese, that does not mean that it split off earlier. Perhaps it's a contact effect; I don't know the details. I had made that claim in a few articles and had been corrected. — kwami (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Who has disputed that, and on which grounds? Note that Historical Chinese phonology#Branching off of the modern varieties treats that issue in quite some detail, and the description sounds fairly convincing. Also, it makes no sense to say that Min cannot be traced back to Middle Chinese without having split off earlier (and I have no clue what kind of "contact effect" would provide a way out of this conundrum), unless the relationship between Middle Chinese and the modern varieties is completely different from the way it is described in Historical Chinese phonology#From Early Middle Chinese to Late Middle Chinese. Perhaps the person who disputes the issue has a heterodox view of historical linguistics (especially with regard to tree structures), in which case it will be very difficult to communicate and their views are possibly irrelevant for our purposes anyway. Admittedly, I'm not a Sinologist, but still, I have gone through the (apparently) traditional (and consensus) account given in Historical Chinese phonology (as I was initially sceptical, too) and it sounds sensible, while its denial does not – pending the arrival of more detail.

This reminds me of a Tibetologist who, on a talk page in German Wikipedia, voiced suspicion regarding the unity of Tibeto-Burman, suspecting that most of the groups assigned to it were only quasi-relexified forms of neighbouring non-TB groups (along the lines of Siangic, which is, however, isolated), which I can only take as meaning that, for example, Kiranti languages would be structurally Indo-Aryan with TB vocabulary, which possibility I think we can easily rule out. It may well be that, as Blench surmises, Siangic is not the only case of isolates mistaken for TB because of TB loans, but the German Tibetologist's idea just makes little sense and is probably easily disproved, even if people who voice scepticism regarding TB partly have a point. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cretinism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Crip

Hypermedia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stand-alone application

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Etruscan alphabet

I see that you created this stub about the Etruscan alphabet back in the day (so long ago!), complete with various abbreviated references to the technical literature, such as Rix and Jensen, which are still present in the current version of the article, now titled Old Italic script. However, you forgot to add the titles of the works referenced to, and have not done so later, either, so the references are now hanging in the air and no-one knows for certain what you meant, and as a consequence (and due to the dearth of further expert input since then), the article is still left without any proper bibliographical references. Could you recover them from your memory and add them after all this time? That would be awesome! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just reverting to a previous version. I have no idea what those references are to. They were introduced in this edit by Damian Yerrick (t c). (wow, 10 years old.) Good luck. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Substrate languages

Hallo, I see you are interested in the problem of substrate languages. I am not a professional linguist, but came across this issue while researching the background of the prehistory and protohistory of Latium.

I discovered that many toponyms there are neither Italic nor Latin nor Etruscan: e. g. Caenina, Medullia, Ameriola, Amitinum, Tibur, Praeneste and river names such as Astura, Cremera, Albula, Ufens, Arro etc. Since then I read something I found online by Italian and Spanish linguists on the problem. I found that Italian lniguists have been aware of the problem and have written a lot on it since the 1920s, especially V. Bertoldi, C. Battisti, G. Alessio, G. Devoto etc. They have used the term Mediterranean to denote this substrate. It looks that some words may be IE while other not. A new insight has been given by the linear B tablets which bear some word reflected in toponyms, mainly poleonyms (such as Dizo, Vareke, Manth, Othr). The issue is unclear as most words are certainly not IE.

I wish to point that Wp articles on the subject do not deal with the Mediterranean substrate in toponymy. But it is important to explain some phenomena in Latin such as the devoicing of the voiced aspirates where one would expect a voiced outcome such as e.g. rutilus reddish and Rutuli (compare Sicel litra and Latin libra). Alessio sees this as a reflex of a substrate he calls Tyrrhenian due to Sicel-Ausonian influence. He and Ribezzo think Sicanians were the original not IEsized Sicels. Etruscan was a late comer and aspirated the p>f as palatum>fala(n)do.

As far as I can see these toponyms are spread on an area which looks too vast to be ascribed to just one of the known ethnonyms: e.g. Na(h)r (Umbrian river), Ne(h)r which is found in Syria (the river of Antiochia) and beyond for river and also the word nero' Etr. neri for water, found in South India.

As for river names I found at least 4 Albula, Esaro in Calabria and I do not understand why Krahe, according to the Wp article, writes these topnyms are not to be found in the Balkans: I left a note on the talk page of old european hydronymy. Although the ethnicities may have been known with different names it looks there was a great uniformity in usage: In Liguria there are many such toponyms, I would say they form a majority but many are found where no record of a Ligurian presence is extant. Unless one supposes Ligurians had inherited them or they were the same people as the Sicanians as A. Sergi thought, which may well be but does not explain these finds farther to the East, at Creta, in Anatolia and in the Caucasus.

I would suggest adding some paragraphs on the issue in the related articles.

Sorry for being so long.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Dalmatian vowels

Hi Florian. Somehow I missed your message when you sent it.

Unfortunately I don't know much about Dalmatian vowels, although I imagine what you say is true, that it follows the Western Romance (7-vowel) system rather than the Eastern Romance (6-vowel) or Southern Romance (5-vowel) system.

It looks like it has vowel deflections that are similar to the Italian dialects that would have been opposite, i.e. those on the east coast of Italy, about halfway down. These have rather radical deflections that are said in Giacomo Devoto's book on Italian dialects to stem from "Illyrian" (presumably meaning the pre-Latin language of Dalmatia), evidently due to a large amount of cross-Adriatic trade. If I remember aright, these deflections are similar to those of French: e.g. all mid vowels are affected but usually only in open syllables, of the sort /ɛ/ > /ie/ or /ia/; /e/ > /ei/ or /ai/; /ɔ/ > /ue/ or /ua/; /o/ > /ou/ or /au/. Usually there are additional complications caused by metaphony, where a following /u/ (e.g. from -us or -um) or following /i/ triggers raising or diphthongization (in both open and closed syllables), and when diphthongization would already apply, a different diphthong often results. Sometimes final /a/ may trigger a lowering-type metaphony.

From the example text, forms like doi, so, to suggest a Western Romance vowel system (otherwise /u/ would be expected).

Also it looks like:

1. /a/ > /uo/ (/date/ > duote, /tata/ > tuota, santificuot), but /an/ > un in the prayer (pun, cotidiun) but uan in the story (puan, bonduanza), which has other cases of /a/ > ua (puarte), possibly in closed syllables?
2. Final /u/ is usually dropped (but raigno).
3. /ɛ/ > /i/ under metaphony (sil, cf. Italian cielo < *cielu).
4. /ɛ/ > ia otherwise (tiara < */tɛrra/; cf. also malamiant, stiass in the story below; this is similar to Romanian).
5. /e/ > ai, possibly only under metaphony (raigno presumably < */reɲɲu/, venait presumably < venetu), but daic presumably < */deke/ < *de:kit is non-metaphonic.
6. /ɔ/ > ue in nuester (< */nɔstru/), nuestri; both are metaphony contexts although might not matter. /ɔ/ > ua in muar "I die" < *mɔro, a non-metaphonic context.
7. /o/ > au in naun, tentatiaun; but > ua in debetuar < *debetori; possibly a difference of metaphony and/or following n or r? In the story, /loro/ or /loru/ > louro; not sure whether this is metaphonic. Might be the same as ua in the prayer, in a slightly different dialect.

Benwing (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Afanasevo

Hello. Regarding the dating of human and material findings please see p. 247 & 266 (appendix 1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.19.40 (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've checked the sources and they do not support the statement made in the article. There is no contradiction as the dates given are only the upper limit of the range afforded by the precision of the measurement, the range spanning several centuries. Fortson gives 3400–3300 BC as the dating of the earliest wheeled vehicles attested within the Kurgan/Yamna horizon, which period he considers the latest stage of the community speaking the Proto-Indo-European language (the community identified by mainstream thought with the Kurgan/Yamna horizon) prior to its breakup and spread. This is consistent with a migration of speakers of Proto-Indo-European to the area of the Afanasevo culture and the earliest radiocarbon dates, with a lower limit in the 34th century BC, and a migration between about 3700–3300 BC, the deliberately imprecise wording (by David Anthony, who actually supports the Kurgan hypothesis, which is why it is misleading to quote him as witness against it) leaving open the possibility that the migration happened or was completed only around 3400–3300 BC. Note that thanks to the employment of wheeled vehicles and domesticated horses, the migration may have lasted no more than a few decades. "3500±200 BC" or "mid-4th millennium BC" would be a more appropriate description of the period in question, which spans four centuries, as assuming excessive precision leads exactly to such mistakes. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to go to a disagreement and I don't like fights. If you are sure about that, remove the sentence, I will not object to. Now, since you expressed your opinion, I will kindly answer it. The Afanasevo culture is a disturbing issue for the Kurgan theory decades now long before Gimbutas' death, and is a matter of simple arithmetic: One of the problem of the Kurgan hypothesis (has many) is that between the Yamna culture and the Afanasevo (which is roundly the area covered by the Andronovo culture), it became impossible to find anything older than the 1,800 BC which makes about 2,000 years difference from the starting date of the two other culture. To me this is the main problem with the Kurgan hypothesis, and I thought that no ref. is needed for simple arithmetic. It is also a problem to me for years since that, although they had invented the wheeled vehicles as you say, I don't believe the people at the time travelled or migrated upon them. But the speed isn't the real issue, the real issue with the Kurgan hypothesis is that based on the dates, they had to take planes as to avoid inhabiting any of the intermediate places. I don't have myself an answer as to how that happened as to try to implement it, an agenda so to speak, so I don't have a reason to go to a disagreement over that, I only don't see reasons not to present the issue even though I don't have and I haven't seen any answer about. As for David Anthony, I never tried to mislead anyone as you say since both his dates and the ref. is not mine. Since the sentence only have to do with the dates saying "more modern archaeologists are giving more compatible with the evidences dates at around 3700 to 3300 BC", which is true and referenced, I don't think that misleads to anywhere. Again it is the date by itself that is embarrassing for the theory, not me or D.Anthony. Only by misleading about the culture's real date can someone save the integrity of the theory, which is what Gimbutas and her followers really did for some decades now. For me to know it is enough, if you think that it's not good for the readers, go ahead and remove it. It is also OK by me. --94.71.15.10 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The only disturbing and embarrassing thing here is your complete failure to provide anything resembling a convincing (or even intelligible) argument. I have explained to you why simple arithmetics does not cut it when the dates are this rough, and that's why the real experts, unlike you, do not see a problem (Anthony would certainly have had the intellectual honesty – and the prudence! – to admit if this were a problem at all, especially a problem this obvious even to the layman); you've become far too much caught up in excessively precise dates. A difference of a hundred years simply does not matter when it comes to carbon dates many thousand years into the past. The Kurgan people did not need planes to migrate quickly and without having to inhabit the intermediate areas, they had carts and horses, and your assertion that they did not use them to travel is simply your personal belief, backed up by no evidence and no authority I have encountered. Prior to the modern age, people would simply avoid settling in less suited places and concentrate in suited areas (preferentially near open water such as rivers and lakes and at sea coasts, and in particular, close to river mouths and confluences), with vast areas of the continents staying complete wilderness (especially in the Eurasian steppes of the Bronze Age, this is only expected), so your expectation to find continuous settlement traces everywhere with no geographic gaps in between is simply unrealistic. Also, your assertion that Andronovo and Afanasevo cover roughly the same area is simply completely wrong, as a quick look at the maps at Andronovo culture and Afanasevo culture reveals. Your 2000 years difference, too, comes out of nowhere. Yamna: mid-4th to mid-3rd millennium, Afanasevo: mid/late-4th to mid-3rd millennium, Sintashta (recognised as predecessor to Andronovo): late 3rd millennium, Andronovo: most of the 2nd millennium. By the way, the Kurgan hypothesis may not be the ultimate truth, and I do not deny that there may be problems, but it simply fits the evidence better than any alternative interpretation, and affords a reasonably convincing narrative in broad outlines. The Anatolian hypothesis, for instance, has even more serious shortcomings. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I note that with your final comment, you're basically constructing a conspiracy theory of the kind "the truth is suppressed by mainstream academics" (not including Anthony, who's a follower of Gimbutas as well, although while he does not mislead about the date, you are accusing him of ignoring the alleged discrepancy) – I'd recommend to assume good faith. Those carbon dates were not known until recently anyway, so accusing Gimbutas and her followers of consciously misleading about the dating of Afanasevo is an unreasonable accusation in the first place. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

In-migration to Aberdeenshire

Hello! I reverted your change in the Aberdeenshire article from "in-migration" to "immigration". The source quoted uses the word "in-migration", and I think there's a difference of meaning. "Immigration" would imply people moving from other countries, whereas "in-migration" can imply regional movement within a country. Best wishes, --Deskford (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A-ha, I've never encountered this word before and neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary have an entry on it, hence my assumption that it is a spelling error or hypercorrection. Perhaps a [sic!] would be in order. Alternatively, let me propose a term like internal migration or a paraphrase like migration within the UK as clarification. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps "inward migration" would make the meaning clearer. As I understand it, the article is referring to all migration into Aberdeenshire, whether from within the UK or from abroad. --Deskford (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. So in-migration can also be a synonym for inbound migration, and out-migration for outbound migration? (By the way, just curious: Wouldn't you normally say "I've reverted your change"? As a non-native speaker, I reverted your change strikes me as something I often myself say inadvertently but that I thought was strictly speaking wrong, the simple past being specifically for narration and dated events, the present perfect instead revolving around the issue whether something has happened at all.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Classification of Catalan

You might have not noticed that the discussion Talk:Catalan language#unneeded classification is a consequence of your reversion of one of my editions. For this reason, I expect you to give some kind of answer to my comments in that discussion. Cheers Jotamar (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm again waiting for an answer from you in the same discussion (Talk:Catalan language#unneeded classification) Jotamar (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm again waiting for your response in Talk:Catalan language#unneeded classification. Jotamar (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Pytheas

Not sure if you want to help tackle this, but see Talk:Pytheas#Major problems with the Thule sections. Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I lack the (math/science) competency necessary to judge the technical details involved in these arguments. But as a quick fix, how about commenting out the problematic (unattributed and quite possibly OR) passages? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Etymology and borrowing

I wonder if you would care to comment on the borrowing among the Mediterranean cultures during the European Bronze Age/Classical antiquity. Why is there dismissal of borrowing from languages other than Greek and Latin, as exemplified by the contemporaneous use in for example the Regensburg amulets, and I think also Badenweiler find? More specifically, I read your tribe etymology contribution, but an alternative to Latin was not offered Crock81 (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. The standard etymology for Latin tribus sees it as an old derivation from well-attested Indo-European roots, not as a loanword. The derivation can have happened at any point between the Proto-Indo-European period and the Proto-Italic period, but for internal reasons as well as existence of the Umbrian cognate is probably not more recent than Proto-Italic. While it is not impossible that the word was borrowed into Latin, perhaps from other Italic languages or even Celtic, there is no way to demonstrate that; it looks every bit like genuine Latin with regard to morphology and historical phonology; nothing unexpected or suspicious about it, and the morphemes trēs, tri- as well as fu- (as in fuī, futūrus, fuat, forem, fīō) are also well-attested both in Latin and other Italic languages. I have no idea what you are alluding to with the Regensburg amulets and the Badenweiler find. Care to elaborate?

That said, borrowing has been going on all the time, both in the Bronze Age and the Iron Age as well as classical antiquity of Europe, but for natural reasons, borrowings from Greek and Latin are easier to demonstrate and also quite frequent, probably most frequent, in classical antiquity. Nothing in the section you linked to, or in my comment, dismisses the possibility of borrowing from other languages. I am at a loss to understand how you arrived at that conclusion; it's completely out of the blue. I am moreover mystified because it is easy to find lists of words in Wikipedia for example for words from French words which have been proposed to be borrowings from Gaulish. Many words are assumed to have been borrowed from Celtic (and later, Germanic) languages into Classical Latin and Preliterary Romance ("Vulgar Latin"), in particular, so it's clearly not all about borrowings from Greek and Latin. There are even words that are suspected to have been borrowed from languages such as Etruscan or Phoenician into Latin, and many words in Greek are known or suspected of foreign origin, too, but our scant knowledge of most possible source languages remains when trying to argue for or against such proposals. Loanwords from Old Persian, Sanskrit/Middle Indic or Aramaic (or other Semitic languages) are definitely known in Greek, though. There are Germanic words which are thought to be from Celtic, some early (such as the word for iron, most prominently), some later, some mediated through French or other Romance languages; there are lots of borrowings everywhere in the world, in every period, it's simply that it is often not easy to make the case, first that some word is a borrowing at all, second where the origin is. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No one ever spoke "Indo-European", never mind "Proto-Indo-European". Its a theory based on proposed hypothesis about how languages change. Historical phonology is also a guessing game since there are no recordings pre-dating the late 19th century. We just rely on the structure of the human anatomy.

I think that the amulets used three languages, Latin, Greek and Hebrew. You say that "Loanwords from Old Persian, Sanskrit/Middle Indic or Aramaic (or other Semitic languages) are definitely known in Greek, though." Interaction between Greek and Latin speakers with Hebrew speakers predate both Celt and Germanic histories of interaction, or Aramaic as lingua franca. Jewish presence in Greece dates at least to the mention by Strabo in approximately 85 BCE that Jews could be found in all the cities of the eastern Mediterranean (VII 7 4). However, after the Maccabean victory most agree that many Hellenized Jews left Judea. The Talmud records Alexander the Great passing through Jerusalem. Even if only that is taken for a beginning of Koine-Hebrew interaction, it would be enough. However, Jewish sources suggest maritime trade throughout the Mediterranean dating to (suggested) before the establishment of Rome! So why not consider Hebrew cognates?

Perhaps based on the above you have detected that I am not a professional linguist, but I offer a suggestion that evolved over years after a particularly 'heated' discussion with a friend some years ago, so I have been reading a bit since. The suggestion is that the current theory on the evolution of languages is based on establishing logical connections between word A in language X, and word B in language Y and extrapolating the relationship. However, most people don't function logically, and certainly I think in the ancient times those that were not given to study logic borrowed words in a less-than-logical fashion.

For example, a vignette - welcoming a non-native speaker in, and pointing to a chair, while pronouncing please sit, may well be interpreted by the visitor as his cultural equivalent of relax, and when he returns, assuming he has an average memory, he will relate that the word for relax in my language is pleesit. As a novelty, pleesit becomes all the rage in that society, and soon becomes a loanword in that popular culture, just like saying OK for post-Soviet era Russians, displacing the native word for relax (otaru). 1,000 years later a linguist finds that a people who lived 500km from me had a word for a chair which was plast, and extrapolate that plast and pleesit found in the visitor language located 1,500km away at the time are cognates for the word chair!

The reason I mention the tribe, is because I did find a Hebrew cognate of tribus in Hebrew, but I'm not sure it 'fits' the way linguists think just now because it doesn't mean tribe in Hebrew, though a phonetic match.

The original discussion I had wasn't about Hebrew (I'm not a Hebrew speaker), and I only started looking at Hebrew after trying to work out which cultures in the Eastern Mediterranean could be influencers, and the Hebrew speakers were both mobile, 'networkers', and possessed writing, which to me made them prime candidates. Crock81 (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No one ever spoke "Indo-European",

There is no single Indo-European language, but in the sense that speakers of Russian, Czech, Croatian, Bulgarian, Polish (etc.) can be said to speak Slavic, exceedingly many people in the world speak and historically spoke Indo-European.

never mind "Proto-Indo-European".

How would you know for certain? Why should this language (whatever it may have been like, nobody claims any specific reconstruction can be more than imperfect and fragmentary) not have existed? Are you trying to say that Proto-Romance, Proto-Scandinavian, Proto-Goidelic, Proto-Brythonic, Proto-Slavic, Proto-East-Slavic or Proto-Indo-Aryan were never spoken by anyone, either?

Its a theory based on proposed hypothesis about how languages change.

Language development (as current mainstream historical linguistics understands it to work, derived from the direct observation of language change throughout attested texts) is only a theory just like evolution is only a theory. Read Evolution as fact and theory to understand the scientific sense of "theory" –, which is not "a guess(ing game)".

Historical phonology is also a guessing game since there are no recordings pre-dating the late 19th century.

There are certainly recordings, only no sound recordings. Again, analysis and reconstruction is the key. Your suggestion that the phonology (as opposed to the precise phonetic details) of an ancient language such as Latin – or even a recent language stage such as Early Modern English – is inherently unknown and can only be guessed at (in a "shot in the dark" way, the results being of dubious validity, and every proposal equally valid) is, frankly, laughably uninformed. Are you aware that phonology, too, is an abstraction, and in some ways quite similar to the reconstruction of earlier language stages? Do you have an idea how many competing analyses of Standard Modern English phonology exist? Just because a language is attested in sound recordings does not mean that its phonology is certain! On the other hand, it does not mean that phonology is only a guessing game, as long as the language to be analysed is attested at all.

We just rely on the structure of the human anatomy.

What you are saying is essentially the same as creationists who insist that Tyrannosaurus rex is only a wild guess since the species is only reconstructed, not directly observed from living specimens. Or pseudo-archaeologists/pseudo-historians who deny the existence (or relatively early dating, in the case of creationists) of prehistorical societies because they are only reconstructions, not based on direct observations of living people. You have no leg to stand on, and with your lack of basic understanding of science you are venturing deep into the realm of pseudoscience.

I think that the amulets used three languages, Latin, Greek and Hebrew.

More details please.

You say that "Loanwords from Old Persian, Sanskrit/Middle Indic or Aramaic (or other Semitic languages) are definitely known in Greek, though." Interaction between Greek and Latin speakers with Hebrew speakers predate both Celt and Germanic histories of interaction, or Aramaic as lingua franca.

No, it most certainly does not.

Jewish presence in Greece dates at least to the mention by Strabo in approximately 85 BCE that Jews could be found in all the cities of the eastern Mediterranean (VII 7 4).

Speakers of both Latin and Greek have interacted with Celtic speakers at least since the 4th century BC, and in the case of Greeks it must have even been longer, as Herodotus already writes about them in the 5th century and contact with Celts occurred at the Greek colony of Massalia (modern Marseille) from the 6th century on, for all we know. Aramaic had been a lingua franca in the Ancient Near East since the 8th century BC. Even Hellenistic Judaism precedes not a single one of these dates, and I am not aware of any evidence for any kind of Jewish diaspora in Classical Greece or the Aegean. Please do me the favour and at least read up on basic historical facts before you attack historical linguistics.

However, after the Maccabean victory most agree that many Hellenized Jews left Judea. The Talmud records Alexander the Great passing through Jerusalem. Even if only that is taken for a beginning of Koine-Hebrew interaction, it would be enough. However, Jewish sources suggest maritime trade throughout the Mediterranean dating to (suggested) before the establishment of Rome! So why not consider Hebrew cognates?

Cognates are not established through borrowing. You mean loanwords. I am not aware of any evidence for Hebrew (as opposed to Phoenician) contact with pre-Republican Rome, the Etruscans or any other people of ancient Italy that early. Note that Celtic, too, not only Umbrian, has cognates with Latin tribus: Old Breton treb "subdivision of the people", trebou (glossed as turma, which is the Latin word for "crowd, flock" and also designates a subdivision of the Roman cavalry) and Old Irish treb "tribe". Anyway, why should dubious loanword etymologies be considered for words which already have accepted derivations that are in any event simpler and more plausible (as they do not require any – in this case, rather far-fetched – additional assumptions)?

I note that you have even refrained from mentioning what Hebrew word exactly you have in mind. Is this motivated by some sort of rhetorical strategy? I don't see how it is supposed to help your case, and the omission makes no sense I can discern – unless it is accidental, which I will assume just to be nicer than you deserve.

Perhaps based on the above you have detected that I am not a professional linguist,

To say that your lack of expertise was glaringly obvious would be a huge understatement. But lack of expertise is not shameful at all – unless accompanied by know-it-all arrogance, belligerence and a priori complete disrespect of experts. You display a typical case of the Dunning–Kruger effect just like Randy in Boise – you are lucky that you have received another reply from me at all! Also, tellingly, pseudo-etymology is the classic playing field of wannabe linguists. At least you don't try to derive all Latin words (or even all words of all languages in the world) from Hebrew, apparently ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Florian, spoken like a true professional linguist.

The Indo-European and Proto-Indo-European 'languages' are theories, but they in no way can be compared to scientific theories. The former was invented by a clerk amateur.

Yes, I do say that "Proto-Romance, Proto-Scandinavian, Proto-Goidelic, Proto-Brythonic, Proto-Slavic, Proto-East-Slavic or Proto-Indo-Aryan were never spoken by anyone", if only because Romans predominantly spoke Greek in preference to their mother tongue Latin, which the Hebrew sources suggest is 'Semitic' in origin.

There is absolutely no way to compare language theory and the theory of evolution. There is for example no Carbon dating of sound. As for attested texts, they are very fragmentary indeed. Far more so than fossils because of the very late emergence of writing, and the effect social change and production technology effect on the materials used.

When I say that "We just rely on the structure of the human anatomy.", I mean just that, so you should address the common sense meaning and not invent what you think I mean. You know full well that the human sound organs did not change significantly over the past 3-4,000 years, but the accenting of speech changes periodically in many cultures and in fact in many communities within these cultures. Even if written records of these communities exist, we have no way of reproducing these accent changes and the dialects. Even today in England nearly 50 dialects exist, but records suggest that the 17th and 18th century saw many more than that. A similar situation existed on the European Continent, and every other continent on the planet, accounting for the variety of languages among indigenous populations now. There is no way to reconstruct the many extinct and assimilated dialects and accent changes through written record analysis.

I think you are just being obtuse. Language is made in the urban centres that also represent the power cores of the community and society as a whole. Celts were not found in Greek cities, and neither was Aramaic. Greeks are known to be notoriously xenophobic (see, even the word is Greek), and yet Jews are reported in all the Greek cities. It probably meant that Jews interacted with Greeks having learned Greek language. Hellenised Jews certainly did, and the Jewish High Priest was able to converse with Alexander the Great when he entered Jerusalem. That is 4th century BCE. This sort of interaction within the centres of language production was far more likely to generate mutual borrowing than occasional contact with the Celts seasonal trading on the Greek periphery.

I would say that you are not aware of any evidence of pre-Republican Roman contact with Jews because no one looks for it. Since the declaration in the highly anti-Semitic European society of 1863 that Hebrew is not the root of all languages, as was the accepted theory at the time, all works proposing this were simply pronounced unscientific, and eventually archived, so don't look for any mention of them in Wikipedia. The experts, was in fact Müller and not Jones, who now emerged and pronounced what would become the Aryan theory of languages, changed to Indo-European officially after [is it?] 1939. Everything was quite tidy. Aryans emerged from somewhere in Persia, invaded the Indus valley, then turned around and headed to unpopulated Europe. Greeks too arrived from that direction, so could be included. And the Latins? Linguists would make them 'fit in' since they couldn't really exclude the Romance languages and deny 'scientific confirmation' to the romantic nationalism sweeping Europe.

This is why you can now call me a "wannabe linguist" playing with "pseudo-etymology", while the "Language development as current mainstream historical linguistics understands it to work" is "scientific". But, I don't mind ad hominems. I know I'm human and prone to mistakes, which is apparently genetically impossible for mainstream historical linguists.

In your haste to dismiss me ("I note that you have even refrained from mentioning what Hebrew word exactly you have in mind") you even missed the word tribe, which I did mention as the subject of this request for comment. Yes, I do think that the Latin tribus is in fact derived from a Hebrew word. Tarbut, Hellenised Tarbus, that means 1. BH an increase, brood, 2. PBH rearing, educating, 3. NH behaviour, way of life, etc. Teerbut means cultivation, taming, domestication in the Hebrew Bible (Kline, Etymological dictionary of Hebrew), i.e. concepts that at the time would have defined the extent of a tribal domain through physical evidence (dykes, field walls, plantings, and corrales for animals). The root is Ravah, to become much, many or great. Why do I say that Tribus and Tarbut/s are cognates? Because the Hebrews ultimately and always referred in introducing themselves by also mentioning their fathers and grandfathers, and tribe-of-origin in Israel, and so this would have invited constant requests for explanation. Romans did not have tribes! They only needed the word to describe others. The Hebrew word was a perfect loanword as Greeks preferred their city-state as identity rather than tribal affiliations which were rural, and therefore less prestigious, rural inhabitants being less civilised by "living in nature". The difference in phonology is due to the omission of vowels in Hebrew, so the Latin speakers had to rely on memory for pronunciation even if they could read Hebrew, and over time vowels became mangled. And how did an ancient Hebrew speaker introduce himself? For example Joseph bar Ephraim bar David mi'shevet Zebulun. You are correct on the status of Aramaic as lingua franca, and this helps to date the time of contact with Greeks because bar is the Aramaic equivalent of ben, son, in Hebrew. From this we get the Greek BarBar[ian] (yes, I know Greeks referred to Carians)Crock81 (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you're really Randy in Boise and a Hebrew-root-of-all-languages crank, just as I suspected. Haha. It's not ad hominem because I'm not attacking you personally, only the ridiculous views you hold and the "method" you are using, which is able to "prove" anything. You're completely clueless about linguistics and history and have disrespected me from the beginning, how's that for ad hominem? End of discussion, you're wasting my time. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Persian suffix -stan

Hi. Can you review and verify -stan article? I think lead section has wrong and incorrect linguistic details and info. If you can, please add sourced material to this article. e.g. etymology or the history usage of the suffix. Also at wiktionary. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What exactly should be incorrect there? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, but maybe lead section needs more sources to make the article better. Zheek (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Cute Cat video

I think the video is the perfect example of the quote " Web 2.0 was created to allow people to share pictures of cute cats," which is the centerpiece of the 1st half of the meme. If you don't agree feel free to remove it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Aurunci and the Ausones

I am working my way through some problems with citations to EB1911, and I came across your comment of 15 May 2012. I had a look at Smith and have modified the articles Aurunci and Ausones to reflect that work (I also created a couple of others relating to the subject copied from Smith as they were short and easy to do (Aurunca and Ausona (ancient city)). Please have a look and see what you think (as I think it addresses the issue you raised), and if you think that you need to do so please edit my contributions mercilessly :-)

-- PBS (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I did a little proof-reading and tweaking in Aurunci, nothing substantial, though. The names appear clearly related, pointing to a common origin, even if the tribes had become distinct in the historical period. It's very easily possible that the self-designation of the Aurunci was something like Ausones, and Aurunci the name given to them by the Romans. The etymologically identical self-designation Ausones could then also have been transmitted through the Greeks as a name for the tribe in Southern Italy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bactrian language

Would you please review this new changes (diff) on article Bactrian language? Thanks. Zheek (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bactrian happens to be a Bildungslücke of mine (a gap in my education), but the changes look completely OK, nothing suspicious, no warning signs. The IP seems to know more about Bactrian, its history and the relevant literature than I do. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Common name

Hi Florian, just noticed your contribution to Common name. Quite reasonable, but I missed it at the time. I have addressed your objections (I hope) and invite criticism. Rushing at the moment. Cheers. JonRichfield (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The example from Moby Dick does not really fit your explanation, as the common name whale in English contains no hint at folk classification (at least none that would be apparent to the modern-day speaker: it has been suggested that the ancestral form in Proto-Indo-European, *(s)kʷálos or the like – from which the Proto-Germanic form *hwalaz "whale" descends –, originally designated a sheatfish, and was perhaps ultimately borrowed from Proto-Uralic *kala "fish"). In Dutch (walvis), Middle Low German (walvisch) and Modern West Frisian (walfisk), however, the common name does literally mean whale-fish; note that in Modern German, Walfisch exists as a familiar variant of Wal, but is not the most used name.

(As an aside: Perhaps *hwalaz itself still referred to sheatfish, as German terms for them are Wels – plural Welse – or Waller, obvious derivations from the Proto-Germanic word. The Germanic word might have been transferred to the whale only relatively late, as Germanic expanded from Northern Germany into Scandinavia.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Verification request

Hi Florian. Can you verify Scythians lead section? Recent changes does not match with the sources and only support one theory. Some sources like Britannica say they are ancient Iranian peoples (Iranian stock). But recent changes replaced "Iranian" with "Iranian-speaking". I think the lead section is biased and needs editing to covers valid theories. Both "Iranian-speaking" and "Iranian origins". Thanks. Zheek (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Now it's more OK and much better. Edited by Dougweller and has a better lead. But it will be helpful if you contribute. Zheek (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment

Hi. Please comment: Scythians: Consensus for the lead section: Iranian people or Iranian-speaking people. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Retracted sibilants

Hi there. I know it's quite hard to do, but have you succeeded in finding any sources describing the presence of retracted /s z/ in Dutch (=also of course Frisian, Dutch Low Saxon, perhaps northern Limburgian), English in Scotland (got a source only describing Glaswegian), Icelandic, Danish (=also Faroese??), Norwegian etc.? Or any of these? I'm 100% sure I heard it also in Swabian dialect(s?) of German. But I couldn't find any more sources than the Glaswegian one. Perhaps you've had more luck? That would be a major improvement of phonetic articles in my opinion, apart from separating dental sibilants and sibilant affricates from the alveolar ones (which I'm still doing). Cheers. --Ahls23 (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, haven't had a lot of time for Wikipedia lately. Not really, but I haven't looked either, to be honest. Judging from the talk given by Aurelijus Vijūnas, they're present in Dutch (not sure about Frisian and Dutch Low Saxon, but possible if only due to areal conservatism, and even more expectable in the case of Limburgian in the light of both extremely close areal and genetic relationship), Icelandic and Faroese, and as for Romance languages, in Castilian dialects as well as Catalan. I fear this point is severely understudied because linguists and phoneticians do not give enough consideration to the often subtle differences between the sibilants, which they aren't trained to hear, either. By the way, I think the "retracted" sibilants are better described as "post-alveolar", a term not to be confused with palato-alveolar (i. e. [ʃ] [ʒ]) or alveolo-palatal (i. e. [ɕ] [ʑ]), although post-alveolar sibilants are admittedly quite similar to alveolo-palatal sibilants, only the place on the tongue where contact is made is slightly more front (laminal or even apical), which explains why the Middle High German s in particular is often described as alveolo-palatal. Palatal, palato-alveolar, alveolo-palatal, post-alveolar, alveolar – to say nothing of the retroflexes – that's quite a mouthful! Unfortunately, Postalveolar consonant treats a more general class of sibilants, while I mean the place of articulation immediately to the back of the alveolar one only. When there's not even an established term for the type of sound in question, no wonder it is so poorly known and wrongly described. Pace Postalveolar consonant#Point of tongue contact (laminal, apical, subapical), it's not even always apical, and hardly retroflex!

In any case, I don't find the merger helpful, quite the opposite.

The only thing I could do is look for the hand-out I got from Aurelijus and glance through the bibliography. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind a late reply at all. I might be wrong about Frisian, but they for sure are present in Dutch Low Saxon. Only speakers farthest north (Groningen province for example) may pronounce an ordinary alveolar [s], as that's their usual realization of Dutch /s/. Surinamese speakers also don't use postalveolar [s̠ z̠]. Their accent is like a cross of the Amsterdam and general Belgian one. I've never heard it in Afrikaans as well, but who knows - there are so much languages spoken in South Africa. You never know if there isn't a regional accent influenced by a certain language with such feature.

Yes, it's also because IPA is a minimalistic tool. The available IPA symbols/possible sounds to pronounce ratio is like 1:5 or higher.

Indeed they are similar to palato-alveolars. I think "depalatalized [ɕ ʑ]" describe these consonants quite correctly. Yes, it's a very subtle difference, the tongue is one or two milimeters more front when I'm pronouncing the postalveolars ([ɕ ʑ] are in my native language, Polish).

It's also because there's no proper symbol for it. Consonants described [t͡ɕ d͡ʑ] in Catalan are in fact, from what I can hear, slightly or not palatal at all. Therefore they're also rather postalveolar [t̠͡s̠~t̠͡s̠ʲ d̠͡z̠~d̠͡z̠ʲ].

I get it. I like to call postalveolar [s̠ z̠] "postalveolar s-type sibilants", whereas I call [ʃ ʒ] "postalveolar sh-type sibilants", since I'm using these symbols when transcribing Slavic languages (in place of /ʂ ʐ/, as they have only some retroflexion, rather than being full-on retroflex like in Chinese.) German [ʃ ʒ] also aren't palatal at all so I prefer to stick to the old name "postalveolar" (that's how IPA called them about 20 years ago), and use a superscript [ʐ] to indicate some retroflexion when needed. It's not even non-standard to do it... IPA states explicitly that you can use every single letter as a diacritic. Not that I care what they say, since most of what I write using IPA is for myself. I'm not a professional phonetician.

That'd be great. Take your time, and thanks very much for helping. Even one sourced language more would be better than nothing. --Ahls23 (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I managed to find sources for Finish and Icelandic. I've put them both on Voiceless alveolar retracted sibilant. --Ahls23 (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

See now Talk:Voiceless alveolar sibilant#Merge with Voiceless apico-alveolar fricative (again). I'd appreciate your comments, even if you aren't a professional phonetician (although it seems you aren't active on Wikipedia anymore). I've seen that Aurelijus has posted his work about sibilants in Indo-European languages to Academia.edu. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Updating GeoWhen links

Hello, Florian Blaschke. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 55#Updating GeoWhen links.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ricordisamoa 14:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your post to my talk page

Is that ok now? Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, thank you. Seriously, this guy ... People whose command of English (or reading comprehension, or attention) is this poor should not be allowed to edit en-WP. The dab hatnote is prominent enough. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

We do have WP:Competence which is only an essay but we block people at times for very poor command of English. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Corea as a former name

It is to my knowledge that Corea was rather a term used in continental European languages, whereas Korea was the term used in the English language. Therefore, Corea is a name formerly used in non-English languages. What's your take on this? I don't mind Corea being explained in the names of Korea later in the article, but I don't think it belongs to the first sentence. 02:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's take this to Talk:Korea#Corea, OK? I'm copying your question there. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Beaker culture

Just saw your response to an old talk page post, did you see the latest posts? Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually not, thank you. If anything, the genetic evidence actually puts the nail in the coffin of the attempt to identify the origins of the Bell Beaker phenomenon with Indo-European, not to mention Celtic! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, just wondered. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Narmer Palette

The words obverse and reverse appear nowhere else in the article, so I was bold and plugged the tags where they did appear, without bothering to open discussion on what's essentially a trivial matter. What I think is worth citation is calling "obverse" one side of the palette and "reverse" the other. We could, a priori, say that the side depicting Narmer smiting his enemy is the obverse. Is there scholarly consensus on the side of the palette that should be labelled as such?

Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What if we renamed the sides "Smiting side" and "Serpopard side", as I did in the images' names? This would be superior, in my opinion, to "obverse" and "reverse" if there is no scholarly consensus on the naming of the sides. However, if there is a consensus, the obverse-reverse option would be preferable, as we'd want to reflect standard use rather than making up names on the go.

Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Done!

Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Old Persian

Hi,

Regarding OP. /rθ/ > MP. /hl/,[3] isn't it /θr/ > /hl/? I'm not an expert, just asking because I've seen sources has reconstructed the root of MP. gōhr (< early MP. gōhl) as OP. *gauθra-.

According to this, if I understand correctly, MP. gu- is from vu-, but I've read somewhere that generally vV-, where V is a vowel, becomes gu-. For example, MP. gul "rose" is usually considered to be from OP. *varda- (not *vurda- etc. AFAIK), and MP. Guštāsp is from OIr. Vištāspa. --Z 15:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing of this contradicts what I wrote. Indeed, i generally becomes u after word-initial labials, and the example OP. vazrka- > MP. buzurg indicates that the same is true for a (thanks for pointing that out), although in this case /v/ does not become /g/ but /b/ (as usual before /a/), which indicates that you misremembered the rule and it is only the vowel rounding that's general, not /v/ > /g/ (relative chronology seems to indicate that the colouring of /a/ was later than that of /u/). That said, OP. could equally have had *vrda- rather than *varda-, and the fact that MP. does not have **bul seems to point to *vrda-. For OP. /rθ/ > /hl/, compare OP. *prθu- > MP. puhl (with rounding) and OP. *Parθava- > MP. Pahlav (no colouring here, by the way, which indicates that the rounding of /a/ occurred only after /v/, another indication that it's not part of the same rule). Also note that /θr/ is rare in OP. because Proto-Iranian *θr became /ç/ in OP. and /θr/ therefore only occurs in Medisms. I wasn't aware that it also results in /hl/ in Early MP. For example, the already mentioned Čihrfar has the expected /hr/. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, you're quite right. Yes OP. /ç/ becomes /hl/ in MP., actually MP. puhl ("son") is from OP. puça- ("son"), the OP. word is attested. --Z 17:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

But MP. pus is also attested (and even the normal word, which is also continued in ModP. pesar, from the MP. oblique pusar), with /s/ being the regular continuation of OP. /ç/ (don't forget MP. sē "3" and sīh "30"). Therefore both the native Persian form and the Medism (or Avestism, possibly) are continued. The same kind of doublet is found in Book Pahlavi pās ("watch, guard", continued in ModP.!) besides pāhl, where Manichaean MP. has even the Parthian borrowing pāhr. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, I totally forgot pus.

I thought about *vrda- today, which you suggested as the true OP. form of MP. gul instead of *varda-, but there's a problem: we have Sogd. ward, Parth. wār (OIr. ard gives Parth. ār, e.g. *sarda- > sār[4]), and the syllabic r is always recorded as ərə in Avestan AFAIK, while here we have Av. varəδa-, so the evidences point to OIr. /varda/. If we assume what you suggested is correct (MP. gul < *vu... < OP. *virda- < OP. *vrda- ?), then it seems the syllabic *r in OP. *vrda- should have been developed from *ar, is it possible? --Z 05:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that. The apparent fact is simply that OP. reflects the zero grade and the other Iranian languages a full grade. Check Wiktionary: there are possible cognates in other Indo-European languages which also seem to reflect the zero grade, so OP. wouldn't be isolated. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Glockenspectre

Tnx fr yr msg about this item. See the Talk page for my feedback. jxm (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bashkardi language

Could you clarify this, and fix the Bashkardi article to match? Currently we say it's NW Iranian (as does Ethn.) Also, shouldn't Lari be in the box? — kwami (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ethnologue is simply wrong in this case, as in many others. Bashkardi underlies areal influence by Baluchi, being surrounded by it on three sides, but in origin it is closer to Persian. Bashkardi language has already long been fixed, haven't you checked it? Also, why should Lari be in the box? It's a subbranch within Southwestern Iranian. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Michael Corballis

hey florian, we just started a article about [Michael Corballis]. Maybe be you like to contribute! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janus von Abaton (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No substantial changes or additions, only some quick copyediting. Hope it helps! Looks good to me now. Well done. Thanks for notifying me. (By the way, next time simply click the "add section" tab.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Florian Blaschke. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 20:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Pacific Ocean

I saw you had a note in the talk page for the Pacific Ocean about some 'Tepre Pacificum nonsense'. You may be amused to know, (or depressed I suppose) that 'Tepre Pacificum' is now well entrenched in the internet (first page of a google search), it is described in a 2011 book on galleons and is the name of a range of swimwear. Amusingly there are critiques of that book on galleons that judge it to be rushed with a poor bibliography. However, it does mean that there is now a print reference to 'Tepre Pacificum', perhaps I should re-instate it into Wikipedia (just kidding). - Pondfox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.80.175 (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Should you really decide to do that, be sure to add a link to File:Relationship between Wikipedia and the press.svg. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Three Requests

Hi. I need your help on these topics:

1. Please write your opinion about this: Talk:Lithuanian language#Suggestion: Adding an IE words comparison table to this article.
2. Mahidevran Sultan's etymology section is dubious. I'm sure that Turkish borrowed all of her name and her alternative name(s) from an Iranic language (Kurdish or Persian). Your review and verification is necessary.
3. -stan is my favorite article. One editor suggested to me to use an old German book about IE etymologies. I forgot the name of book. Do you know good sources for Persian or Middle Persian words?

• Please reply back at my talkpage. Thanks. Regards. Zyma (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

An article for "Archaic language"

En Wikipedia lacks an article for "Archaic language" term. Are you interested to start an article for that? --Zyma (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on my talk page. Can you discuss this according to genetics and linguistic researches?

• Are Eastern Iranians and Western Iranians two different group? --Zyma (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Iran. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Century spans in the Ancient Greek article

Hi Florian,

I noticed that you had reverted my change in the Ancient Greek article: the switch "nth centuries" to exact century ranges. I think the latter is far more clear, and the date range is immediately clear to the reader (at least it was to me). I was wondering if you wanted to discuss this matter here. I'll go ahead and switch it back, (temporarily) for now. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 14:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No offence, but I just don't think exact ranges are a good idea, and they tend to be avoided in the literature too: they are simply misleading. Usually, periodisations are very approximate, but this is not necessarily obvious to lay readers. Archaic Greek doesn't suddenly switch to Classical Greek in 500 BC, for example, which your phrasing suggests. The text does not even say something like "ca. 500–300 BC". One effect of this illusory precision is to suggest Greek was already written in 900 BC, but there is no evidence that it was. At the earliest, it may have been written at the very end of the 9th century, because the earliest known shapes of the characters are closest to Phoenician letters of the first half of the 8th century. Your conversion was overly mechanic, ignoring the intent of the given dates. I also think that the centuries are clear enough. I think we can expect our readers to understand what "5th century BC" means too when we expect that they understand "500 BC". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Record temperature variations

{{talkback|Joseph A. Spadaro}}

Hello, Florian Blaschke. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you!

Meteorology

Ordspråk

Red sky at night: sailor's delight.

Red sky in the morning: sailor take warning.

Raud himmel kveld, gjetargut har hell.

Raud himmel morgongry, gjetargut vil få bry.

Morgenrøde gir dage bløde.

Kveldsrøde gir morgen søde.

Abendrot, Schönwetterbot.

Morgenrot, schlecht Wetter droht.

--Hordaland (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Latin regional pronunciation

About OE in the Russian tradition. Most Russian textbooks state that it is pronounced as German Ö or french EU, both are [œ] or [ø:] (e.g. [5]). The one edited by V. N. Yarkho uses IPA notation: "as German or French [ø:] or English [ə:]". Some textbooks, particularly older ones, state that OE is pronounced as Russian Э, the same as E or AE. In Russian loanwords from Latin, OE becomes Э/Е (foederatio->федерация) but occasionally Ё (Moesia->Мёзия).

The Ö/EU sound of OE is not the only non-Russian sound in the Russian tradition of pronouncing Latin. There are also:

H. Initially it was equalized to Russian fricative Г ([ɣ] or [ɦ]), which was the norm in some Church-Slavonic-derived words. However, later the sound merged in Russian to the plosive [ɡ], which is also spelled as Г. The tradition of pronouncing Latin retained a distinct sound, so it became to be equalized to Ukrainian Г [ɦ] or to English and German H [h]. In Russian loanwords from Latin, H generally becomes Г [ɡ], but this is considered unacceptable when pronouncing Latin itself.

L. Russian textbooks prescribe the "middle-European" pronunciation of L [l], neither velarized [ɫ] nor palatalized [lʲ]. In Russian loanwords from Latin, it may become either.

AU, EU. There are no such diphthongs in Russian, but there are in Latin. In loanwords they become either АУ/ЭУ (disyllabic) or АВ/ЭВ.

About Latin J in the Spanish tradition. 19th-century books [6] state explicitly that it should be pronounced as Spanish Y. In Spanish, Latin J may become Spanish J or Y when word-initial or after consonants, but always Y when intervocalic. And in Italian, Latin J often becomes GI, but it is not read as GI in the Italian tradition of pronouncing Latin! Burzuchius (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is that there is simply no [ø] in Russian, and Russians usually can't pronounce this vowel, so it makes no sense in a Russified pronunciation of Latin. The usual approximation of [ø] is ë. See Russian phonology#Vowels. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I am Russian, and I know the Russian phonology. OK, [ʲo] for OE may occur when Russians pronounce Latin, like [x] for H, [ɫ] or [lʲ] for L, disyllabic [a.u] for AU, or vowel reduction. But none of these is standard in the Russian tradition of pronouncing Latin. Textbooks prescribe non-Russian sounds. (On the other hand, palatalizing consonants before [i] and changing [i] to [ɨ] after [ts] are not banned by Russian textbooks.) Burzuchius (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. The question that interests both readers and editors: How do Russians actually pronounce Latin in practice? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Which begs the question "what Russians". I suppose quite some of the Russian Latin speakers indeed manage to utter the prescribed sounds. I suppose the page is very much about the tradition among the scholarly, not about the average man in the street. Thus prescribed sounds are interesting, even when correct pronunciation is less common. On the other hand, also common enough "wrong" pronunciation should be noted. --LPfi (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No doubt some Russians manage to produce foreign sounds because they have learned it. I'm not assuming Russians are less apt at learning foreign languages and pronunciations than others. Still, even having the skill of producing a foreign sound does not mean you'll necessarily do it all the time when it is called for because it's easier to stick to the sounds you use regularly; and when pronouncing an ancient language, people are generally even far less motivated to get it "right", or don't even know what is "right". Similarly, when pronouncing a foreign word, name or phrase in the context of one's native language, people tend to ease up and assimilate the word to their native phonology, since switching phonology in the middle of an utterance (even twice or more often in quick succession) is difficult, a strain on concentration, distracting for everyone and prone to mistakes, unless you are truly bilingual (as in, you use both languages regularly and speak both on a native level). For example, even highly educated Germans usually have a more or less strongly pronounced German accent in English. I have a strong accent, too, unless I make a dedicated effort to suppress my accent, but it is very difficult and I'm sure I still make mistakes. There's nothing awkward about admitting that.

So if, say, 90% of Russians (native or even monolingual Russian speakers, not Tatar speakers or something) have trouble pronouncing [ø], [œ], [l] or [h] and further 5% can pronounce them in principle, but often replace them by more familiar sounds, it is misleading and unrealistic to describe the prescribed pronunciation (I understand it is based on the German tradition, and I suspect the palatalisation of consonants and backing of [i] is only not banned by textbooks because the authors weren't aware of these subtleties or didn't consider them important enough), at least exclusively. I support the idea of at least a footnote "often/frequently replaced by ...". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You see, if the table were to give the prescribed pronunciation, you could as well write "for Russian, see German column". That's patent nonsense.

As for Spanish, I'd like to see a concrete citation, because pronouncing Jesus in Hispanicised Latin differently from Jesús in Spanish would be confusing as hell. Latin pronunciation usually follows the pronunciation of Latinisms and, in languages that traditionally use the Latin alphabet, the tradition of reading the vernacular (standard) – which is why the Italian analogue is misleading (j does not occur in native Italian words). A literate Spanish speaker is as used to reading j as /x/ (and never /j/) as a literate English speaker is to reading j as /dʒ/ or a literate French speaker is to reading j as /ʒ/ (and never /j/). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The 19th-century grammars I have shown state that Latin J should be pronounced as Spanish Y. I cannot exclude the possibility that the Spanish ever pronounced Latin Jesus and justitia like Spanish Jesús and justicia, but I do not know any Spanish word where intervocalic Latin consonantal I became Spanish /x/, whereas in English and French, /dʒ/ and /ʒ/ are regular offsprings of Latin consonantal I in any position. For example, English project and French projet, but Spanish proyecto; English majuscule and French majuscule, but Spanish mayúsculo. Did the Spanish ever read Latin projectum and majusculus with /x/?

By the way, there is a collection of old Spanish dictionaries in [7]. In Spanish, the small letter j was already used at the end of the 15th century(!), but Latin in Spanish dictionaries does not appear to be written with j until the 17th century.Burzuchius (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It is true that (even in inherited vocabulary) Latin /j/ is partly reflected as Spanish /j/, but at least in initial position, the most common reflex is /x/ (before back vowels) besides /j/ and zero (/j/ appearing before front vowels, zero in unstressed syllables – where /j/ was apparently secondarily lost –, reflecting a merger of /(d)ʒ/ – from Classical /g/ before front vowels and also /dj/ – with /j/ which may be secondary and specific to Castilian Spanish as Portuguese lacks it, and the development /j/ > /dʒ/ – spelled Z – is already attested quite early, in Imperial Latin inscriptions). As for j, it is simply a Renaissance modification of i and therefore I don't see how the difference matters. As far as I know, Old Spanish uses i and j interchangeable for /ʒ/, and there would still be a tradition as early as the 12th century in Spanish to read i~j as fricative before (initially, perhaps only: back) vowel at the beginning of a word, such as in iuntar or judios (in Jherusalem with jh apparently to indicate /ʒ/, modern Jerusalén /xerusaˈlen/).

I would still like to see concrete citations for your claims: not just "the 19th-century grammars I have shown" (Google searches not being acceptable citations), but a concrete, specific grammar and page number, which could then be added to the article, and a concrete dictionary which consistently (!) shows j (for Old Spanish /ʒ/ = Modern Spanish /x/, but not /j/?) in Spanish but not (for Classical /j/, presumably?) in Latin (another circumstance which would be quite unexpected, as it contradicts J#History and de:J#Herkunft, rendering me sceptical). Is that so hard for you? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

19-th century grammars: [8], page 191; [9], page 4; [10], page XXXVII; [11], page 3.

Old dictionaries (yes, I am also surprised): [12]. The case mentioned by me is used in the 1495 Nebrija dictionary and in some dictionaries that follow. Perhaps Nebrija (see also [13]) was the first to distinguish i and j in Spanish (the majuscules in his dictionary are written identically but alphabetized separately: J before I; on the other hand, Y is alphabetized as I in this dictionary); Trissino did so in Italian, and Petrus Ramus was I think the first to do so in Latin and French. I do not know the situation in Middle High German. Burzuchius (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

However, Nebrija did the same with u and v: distinguished them in Spanish, but not in Latin. In his grammar ([14]) he says something about pronunciation of Latin and Spanish, but for me it is difficult to understand how he distinguished the sounds of Latin consonantal u and Spanish v and whether he did it. It seems that for Latin he advocated a sort of restituted pronunciation (even earlier than Erasmus?). Burzuchius (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Florian asked me to comment. IMO the entire table in Latin regional pronunciation is problematic. To some extent, modern pronunciation of Latin is necessarily prescriptive; it also varies depending on context. For example, the table claims that Latin v is pronounced /v/ in English but this is obviously wrong in the context of a Latin class, where /w/ is used. In English, at least, there are multiple different pronunciations used in different contexts:

• In a Latin class, an approximation to Classical Latin pronunciation is used, although different students will succeed to varying degrees in non-English features, e.g. in distinguishing vowel length.
• When singing Latin, Church Latin pronunciation is used. In this case, the tradition is very strong and singers generally make a strong attempt to pronounce words "correctly" so you will find a lot of consistency.
• When pronouncing Latin words in botanical names, or as species names, an anglicizing pronunciation is used; hence c before i or e becomes s (not /k/ as in your Latin class, or /tʃ/ when singing), vowels are anglicized (ficus has stressed /ai/), etc.
• Latin words in a medical context, as names of stars or constellations, in a legal context, etc. use a similar pronunciation but there may be more idiosyncrasies.
• When Latin phrases have been borrowed as such in English (quid pro quo, de facto, ceteris paribus, habeas corpus, etc.), the pronunciation generally is the same as for botanical names, but will probably be more idiosyncratic. Almost certainly there are conventional pronunciations of such phrases that differ from how the words would be pronounced according to botanical-name rules.

So at the least the table needs to indicate which pronunciation is being described in which language, and under which circumstances these pronunciations are used.

Evidently in Russian there's an additional complication that the prescriptive tradition that corresponds to the English botanical-name pronunciation dictates non-Russian sounds that are probably reproduced imperfectly by the man on the street. Of course, in such cases there may be no real consistency of pronunciation. Similarly, the average English speaker doesn't really have any idea how to pronounce unfamiliar Latin phrases and just guesses or asks someone else. Hence e.g. I'm sure you hear canis with all of [æ], [ɑ], [ei] by different speakers. I think in this case the table should indicate both the prescriptive and common pronunciations with notes distinguishing them -- BUT, you need sources for the common pronunciation! Don't just use your intuition of what you think native speakers will do. Benwing (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Benwing. I'd just like to point out that reconstructed values are already indicated in the first column, so obviously this is not meant. Church Latin pronunciation, if you mean Italianate pronunciation, essentially corresponds to the Italian column, so this is not meant, either. What the table intends to show is indicated in the lede: general features of regional pronunciation, adapted to the native phonology of the main languages. It does not intend to display every detail, only some broad strokes. In the case of English, the traditional English pronunciation of Latin, which of course features some variations in detail, is the tradition which the table seeks to describe. Most other traditions are not nearly as divergent, so they are better to account for. Also, there is the problem that both current prescriptive and common pronunciations do not necessarily conform to the older (for example, early modern) regional pronunciation tradition, and may have been updated in some respects to conform to the reconstructed classical pronunciation more, which is not only the source of the current modern Latin pronunciation of English, but also some of the variations in the traditional pronunciation are caused by academic prescriptions.

That said, if you all agree that the consonantal Latin i (j) is always pronounced as /j/ in the Spanish tradition when pronouncing connected texts, as opposed to Latinisms assimilated to Spanish orthography, and most importantly, relevant sources are added to the article, there will be no more opposition from my part. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Silesian

There is a chance to end the conflict: Talk:Silesian_language#If the name with the words of dialect, language, Polish are POV, what the name of the target. Please vote, which option is better according to You. Regards, Franek K. (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Tiernamen

Ach, Gott! Ich dachte wann ich lies was du sagtest dass Du sprachtest ueber Tiananmen Square, nicht Tiernamen! Ich war mit einem Chinesichen Freund an diesem tage. Es war sehr aufwühlend. Wir beide weinten. Fuer mich ist das nicht sehr erotisch. In jedem Fall, man muss auf Spanisch sprechen um erotisch zu sein. Vergib mir wenn ich nicht gut spraeche. Es gibt mehr als 25 Jahre seit ich Deutsch spreche. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Diese erotische Lied (ohne Hundenamen) ist von La Lupe. Ich wohnte in der gleichen Straße wie sie in New York, bevor sie starb. μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Tut mir leid, daß Du es mißverstanden hast. Es war nur eine Anspielung auf diesen Spruch. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, là, là! ¿Una loba de Cuba? ¡La lingua español me gusta muy también! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, The Far Side! Ich hab alle seine buecher. Kein problaem. Ich missverstand dich nur sehr kurz. Ich wollte nur ein bisschen mehr privat sein, deshalb antwortete ich hier. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Tambien te gusta mucho el español? (Vergib mir dass mir faltan las tildes.) Pues, tendras que escribirme de aqui en adelante en español. Lo hablo casi como nativo. Me enoja que no sabia durante su vida que yo vivia vuelta de la esquina de La Lupe.

Has visto las peliculas de Almodovar? Son mis favoritos, aun mas que de Hitchcock y Kubrick. Las ultimas pelis que he visto en aleman son Untergang y Das Leben Der Anderen, que eran ambos excelentes.

Seran las siete de la mañana donde estas, y aqui casi son la una voy a acostarme en unos minutos. Quiero saber porque has estudiado PIE, y si has leido las obras de Nikolaus Poppe o de Bjorn Collinder. Soy aficionado de ellos. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Siento muchísimo que no haya respondido más temprano – demasiadas pestañas abiertas. A mi me gusta mucho la lengua española sí (y que mi teclado tiene todas las carácteres especiales y diacríticos que hago falta para el español), pero no sé hablarlo tan bien como has visto.

No he visto las películas de Almodóvar, y no he visto muchas películas generalmente. Pero he visto Moebius, en castellano subtítulado, película muy buena. Última peli que he visto yo es Agora, excelente también (gracias a Richard Carrier para la sugerencia). Una de mis favoritas es Dogma. Aún no he visto Das Leben der Anderen, pero los productores son de la misma escuela que yo, aunque no recuerdo sus nombres de antes.

La viñeta no es de Gary Larson, sino del artista alemán Steffen Butz, como indicado a la página ligada. Larson ha influido varios artistas alemanes, creo, p. ej. Martin Perscheid.

¿Qué variedad de castellano preferés? Mi enseñante era porteño. Me gusta mucho la cantadora Tarja Turunen, quien es finlandesa, pero vive en Bs As junto a su marido porteño desde hace muchos años, y tengo amigos argentinos (en la web), que ha aumentado mi simpatía para el Cono Sur.

He estudiado filología comparada porque mi han fascinado las lenguas europeas modernas y antiguas y sus origines, y las etimologias de las palabras principalmente. Con las obras de Poppe y Collinder no soy muy familiarizado. Collinder, ¿es defensor de la afinidad de las lenguas indoeuropeas con las lenguas ugrofinesas/urálicas? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No te preocupes, no me importa el tiempo que se haya pasado. Te defiendes muy bien. Estoy descargando Moebius ahora mismo. Tienes que ver Mujeres al borde de un ataque de nervios, Atame, y La flor de mi secreto. Son increibles. Tambien Sin noticias de Dios, que no es peli de Almodovar, pero que parece a sus obras. Pense que Gary Larson se habia retirado, pero entre Butz y el no hay diferencia detectable. Yo preste Agora de la biblioteca, pero no la complete. Trabajaba en el World Trade Center y no me gusto la tema.

Supongo que prefiero Mexicano y Castellano de Madrid. Por la mayor parte aprendi español por los mexicanos. Hay muchos caribeños donde vivo. Pero confunden sus eres y eles. No tengo ceceo, que me gusta cuando lo oigo. Pero entonces lo mimico cuando miro una peli. Pregunte sobre Collinder y Poppe porque tengo muchos de sus libros, y han escrito much en aleman.

Si, Collinder escribio sobre las lianzas entre PIE y PU. Lo creo por la mayor parte. Si eso te interesa, tienes que leer Languages Relations Across Bering Strait por Michael Fortescue. http://www.amazon.de/Language-Relations-Across-Bering-Strait/dp/0304703303/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1393796469&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=fortecue+bering

μηδείς (talk)

English and that penis length thing

Hi! You reverted my deletion of Pullum's analogy here on the basis that Wikipedia is not censored. I didn't delete the sentence out of prudishness. I deleted it because it isn't useful in the article. The paragraph in which the sentence was written describes the difficulty of word-counting, not the richness or precision of a language. The Pullum reference arrives with no introduction; it's out of place. That's why I deleted it. You said Pullum's analogy is "spot on." Could you please clarify? Qoby (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Pullum's quote elucidates the point made several sentences before: "Comparisons of the vocabulary size of English to that of other languages are generally not taken very seriously by linguists and lexicographers." Possibly, the two sentences should be moved so that they are adjacent, making the relevance of Pullum's comment to the context in the section clearer. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Grassmann's Law and Germanic

Greetings. I noticed you were an Indoeuropeanist. I've long wanted to ask one this question. I'm looking for examples of Germanic words of PIE origin showing Grassmann's Law did not apply in Germanic. So by Grimm's Law Germanic words of PIE origin showing two voiced stops, that is words of the form gw—g, gw—d, gw—b, g—gw, g—d, g—b, etc. I can't think of any. On a related matter what do you think of the following versions of Pokorny on the net: at DNGHU (Incidentally who are those DNGHU people?) at UTexas Austin, or this one I haven't even figured out how to use which resides here and is apparently connected with the name of Sergei Starostin, or this one by Gerhard Köbler. Finally do you have any idea when Leiden is gonna finally deliver the PIE dictionary? (So far they've only published etymological dictionaries of the individual languages). Cheers. Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 05:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Off the top of my head: *bindana-, *bidjana-, *beugana-. Enough as a first sample? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the DNGHU people, I haven't investigated the matter, but I've always assumed them to be hobbyists, essentially conlangers/auxlangers. The idea to use reconstructed PIE as a basis for one's conlang/auxlang is pretty neat. I wouldn't use their materials as source for reconstructions, though. Considering that Pokorny is incredibly outdated (although not completely useless, for an expert Indo-Europeanist at least, as a database or metaphoric quarry for raw material), I haven't really examined the online copies in any depth – what I occasionally saw when I randomly happened upon a web copy of Pokorny (which is sometimes handy if you want to look something up really quickly) looked accurate enough, but I cannot vouch for any of them. Yes, it's Sergei Starostin's website, and his son is now in charge of it. Köbler's dictionaries are quite handy too, but he is a scholar of law apparently and historical linguistics is his hobby, so I would never trust him and his materials over the relevant experts.

Generally, I'd say it's best to consult the writings of scholars with relevant qualifications and specialisations, for example when investigating a Germanic etymology, it's better to consult works by scholars specialised in (medieval) Germanic philology (and preferrably Indo-Europeanist linguists, not medievalists, unless the focus is on a specific attestation and its interpretation), rather than Celtologists or even Iranists because they often, if not usually, get at least details (if not more) wrong, and of course, even the Germanic experts usually disagree on certain details, especially in reconstructions. Fields like historical Germanic or Celtic linguistics are incredibly specialised and that's because there is so much to know, which makes it difficult for generalists to compete with the level of a specialist, so even for a historical linguist it's preferrable to co-operate with one, or at least solicit advice. For example, Slavic accentology (intimately connected with Serbo-Croatian and Slovene dialectology) is a field all on its own, or Old Irish laws, or the Maya script or the Maya calendar for that matter, where there are only a handful of experts in the world, or possibly only one or two (although that's not unique to linguistics; for example, in mathematics such incredibly narrow specialisations exist too, and no doubt in biology and physics and elsewhere).

Sorry, I don't know when the Leiden project is due. I wouldn't be surprised if they had no clue even themselves. A project like this is absolutely huge. Martin Kümmel plans a web version of the LIV, but I wouldn't count on it materialising soon, either. Such big projects take years and years to complete.--Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment

Hi Florian. Please comment on Talk:Iranian peoples (current last section). Both Iranian peoples and Persian people articles need your review and edit because of recent mass changes. Thanks. Zyma (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Which changes exactly need review? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is solved (related ethnic groups parameter). But this one needs some review: Caspian race. I think content does not match with cited sources (the mentioned ethnic groups). That article targeted by some sock puppets and I want you to review it, please. I want a stable/better revision to prevent socks' activities. --Zyma (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If you cannot access the original sources to check them, my recommendation is to go through the revision history with a very fine comb, checking edit after edit from the beginning on to detect suspicious manipulations. As a general rule, you can be confident that the edit where someone first added an assertion with a citation to go reflects what the source actually says; if any user (especially IP user, or logged-in user known to be problematic) later changes the assertion without explanation, you have reason to assume that it is a falsification. Of course, this problem would be much less acute if people always added quotations to citations, especially for books and other sources not available online. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Graeco-Phrygian

I've started a Graeco-Phrygian article if you'd like to add anything to it. — lfddersmitten 00:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Brixhe has a useful rundown of the most striking Graeco-Phrygian parallels (isoglosses) in Woodard, Roger D. (ed.), The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor (2008), Cambridge University Press, p. 72. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 9:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent unreliable changes on Afanasevo culture and Andronovo culture

Hi. Just see Afanasevo culture and Andronovo culture. Edits by user1 and user1 who targeted many articles with ridiculous claims (non-RS, non-expert, non-scholary). Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't stop an edit war. The article needs to be locked. I see you have notified Doug too, good. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Aram Khachaturian

You might be interested in a lively on-going discussion regarding the pronunciation of Aram Khachaturian's name in English at Talk:Aram Khachaturian#"Bastardized" pronunciations. It doesn't seem any closer to resolution than it did five days ago. Perhaps you can help. CorinneSD (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Proto-Balto-Slavic language

There's a question there about a paper that you shared a few weeks ago. Could you give input? CodeCat (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Book: The Origin of the Indo-Iranians

Hi Florian. It's a good source and I think it will be helpful if you want write that new article:

• The Origin of the Indo-Iranians (main link) Google Books

Regards. --Zyma (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know this book. Still, writing decent articles is a lot of work and I don't think this book is nearly enough for this subject. I would have to assemble a small library at home. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Born a broad

[[|right|thumb|upright=0.7|Born a broad, you say? Oh, Mr. Driftwood, how thrilling!]] EEng (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Having been born abroad (at least from an Anglophone perspective) and having grown up there too, I fear I am lacking quite some cultural background to fully appreciate the joke and allusions contained therein. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't let the photo distract you (though I've sugmented the caption, and see A_Night_at_the_Opera_(film)#Cast). The important thing is the diff linked from the caption, and the link that diff contains. Are you being coy with me because of our broken engagement? EEng (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I was inattentive and missed your reply in the diff. (I want a (Annoyed grunt)nut now for some arbitrary reason – the Rule of Punny, probably.) Well done. And half of your income and property, after which I'll magnanimously forgive you (I'm still not sure of your gender and whether you know my gender, but then I don't want to come across as part of the heteronormative patriarchy, and the money is much more important to me anyway). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What's an annoyed gruntnut? EEng (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I (Annoyed grunt)n't know. I wanted a [sic] (Annoyed grunt)nut, not an annoyed gruntnut. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Are we agreed, then, that this man Play-(annoyed grunt) epitomizes all that is fine and admirable, right and just, in man? If so, you may administer my spanking. See also [15] EEng (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing? No? Tough audience. EEng (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I intended to reply but forgot it. Nice one! What search terms did you use to come up with that gem? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: Having dug deeper into the whole transgender business, I just discovered a precedent. Turns out the pun dates back to at least 1953!

Note that it is – increasingly, I think – common for trans women to describe themselves as, effectively, "born a broad", arguing that gender is not determined by the content of your pants.

Apparently we are still engaged (my memory is hazy on that point). So, do you still intend to marry me? :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Well hello again. I do remember vaguely being engaged to you, but I can't remember the circumstances. Have you visited the museums lately? EEng 00:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I have now! I am very amused. So, I saw that, in real life, you bear a female name? And one I happen to like particularly much! I am delighted! :-D --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Just so there's no misunderstanding, it's my last name. My first name is a boy-name. EEng 03:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

JFTR: I did realise that, I was only joking, dearie. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Vikings vs Norsemen

Hello. I've noticed that the discussion on the talk page has degenerated to a debate over the meaning of the term. To avoid any continuation of this argument, I've proposed that we merge those two articles under the name "Vikings" and address the debate over the proper meaning by creating a new page about the raiders/traders/explorers under a name such as "Viking (activity)" or "Viking (pirate)". If this is acceptable to you (or if you have concerns over this being implemented), please weigh in on the issue, as it is difficult to establish a consensus with only two people involved. Thank you, MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm considering asking for third opinions on WP:RD/H. Or would that be considered illicit canvassing? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Vote on Merger of Vikings and Norsemen

There's a more formal vote going on at the bottom of the Vikings talk page. Your vote would be appreciated. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Are these sources expert or valid?

Please see these diffs:

• [16]
• [17]
• [18]

Odd claims. Specially in White Croats and Jasz people. Also, can a genetics researcher judge about linguistics (first diff)?! --Zyma (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, he cannot. It's also a non sequitur because the Azerbaijani and likely also Altai have mixed with Indo-European (Iranian) peoples, too, they are far from representative of ancient Turks (for whom we'd need ADNA). Also, the phrasing is weaselly and dishonest: "It is unknown if the Kurgan cultures spoke IE or Turkic", while literally true, tries to suggest the possibility that they spoke Turkic. 5000–7000 years ago! Nobody spoke Turkic back then, because Turkic did not yet exist, just like Germanic, Persian or Aramaic did not yet exist. That's at least 3000 years too early. Faux's study seems not to have been peer-reviewed, therefore it is not citeable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or on Wikipedia, really good citations. I don't know about that Russian-language source (those place-name etymological speculations bode ill for its seriousness, though), but to expect that readers and editor scan read Russian or otherwise swallow the citation unexamined qua argument from authority (by giving quotations without translations) is inadmissible. Unless the blatantly mainstream-contradicting sources can be shown to be cited favourably in mainstream sources, ideally widely cited, they can be assumed to represent a fringe view.

I'd delete all of them as WP:UNDUE (although the citations on White Croats look better, and the possibility of Oghur influence doesn't sound completely nutty – but since that article is about the White Croats, not the Croats, the whole part about the origin of the Croats is off-topic: it's unclear if there even was a connection). You may wish to consult WP:FTN (and perhaps WP:RSN) because of the Pan-Turkist spin. Those people desperately latch on any study which fits their worldview, even if mainstream science contradicts Pan-Turkism. They regularly fail to pay attention to Iranian-Turkic mixing. Isolated studies with conclusions contradicting mainstream science are irrelevant. You can find such studies for everything and anything, and without examining the studies in detail, also methodically, their merit is impossible to assess. Reading abstracts does not suffice. Compare How to read and understand a scientific paper. I doubt that Hirabutor is an expert who can competently assess sources. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. The main problem is that they use a lot of alternative accounts to push their POVs. As you said, these people are on a quest to reject any scholary facts just because of ultra-nationalistic stuffs and pseudo-history in their countries. I'm tired of them, because that's a non-stop quest and they won't stop their edits. Another problem is that many editors and even some admins don't review and verify their edits. And if you undo their edits, new problems will occur. --Zyma (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

For example. See this diff. Nice summary and conclusion! Pure biased and POV edit. --Zyma (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that the conclusion of the editor is completely different from the conclusions of the sources and (s)he intentionally misleads, hence runs afoul of WP:SYNTH at least. You might wish to check what the sources actually say. As I remember from the TV documentary about Jeannine Davis-Kimball's work that I once saw (I think it was the "Secrets of the Dead – Amazon Warrior Women" PBS one, only in a German version), the striking thing about Meiramgul is that she looks Mongol/East Asian for the most part, but has partly blond hair, pointing to some European (or Western Eurasian) ancestry, which completely fits, not undercuts the European ancestry of the Sarmatians (while Turkic peoples are of Eastern Asian origin with some extent of European admixture). I also noticed the completely wrong link to Eurasian (mixed ancestry) that was added in the same edit. Eurasian in this sense is an essentially modern phenomenon (usually referring to individuals, not ethnic groups – although many Turkic-speaking groups can be described as an early instance of this kind of mixture) and was clearly not intended. I mean, it says "western Eurasian", not "Eurasian"! That means a person from the western part of Eurasia.

I can't really do more than you, though. I'm not an admin, nor a genetics expert, so I don't know why you keep turning to me of all people. You should remind people of the Turkocentric POV-pushing on WP:FTN and ask for advice. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, people need to keep in mind that any East Asian admixture among Iranian- or Tocharian-speaking peoples does not necessarily point towards Turkic presence at all. Uralic and Yeniseian influences are at least equally possible, and there were almost certainly further, now unknown groups once who have disappeared without clear traces, or only in tribal names which do not permit us to determine their linguistic affiliation. So Turkocentrism has no leg to stand on. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This research also supports placing Turkic origins in Mongolia (as traditionally thought) rather than further west (as in Turkocentrism), and it shows that Europeans (probably Tocharian- or Iranian-speaking groups, or both) must have ventured into Mongolia and mixed with the locals. The only way to save Turkocentrism in the face of this is to place the origins of the Turkic peoples in Europe, making the Kurgan horizon Proto-Turkic, which is nonsense, as I have explained. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you please write your opinions about this "Genetics section" on Sarmatians talk page? It will be helpful for other editors. I ask other editors - editors who are familiar with genetics studies - to review and verify the whole section. Should I submit my request on Fringe theories board? --Zyma (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Should I start something like this – Talk:Scythians/Archive 4 – again? If you remember, I asked your help/opinion, and you participated. Good points by you and the others. But the result was not good as what I expected, because one editor rejected other comments and he wanted to insert his personal analysis on the article. Another problem was that he and some others didn't attend to that consensus and everyone of them wanted his/her own version! I think I should remove those articles from my watchlist, because there is an endless battle between Iranians, Turks, Eastern Europeans, Slavs and etc. I don't know why all of them interested on those dead nomadic peoples?! The greatest achievement by those nomads was their attacks against civilized nations (Persian Empire and Roman Empire). --Zyma (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to simply link to this discussion? I see no need to repeat everything. Yes, please do contact the fringe notice board. After all, it's a systematic problem that affects lots of articles throughout Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Good question, by the way. Heh, don't forget the Hungarian nationalists! Although they seem to actually prefer to dissociate themselves from the steppe peoples and associate with the Sumerians and Etruscans, who were much more civilised at least. Perhaps it's the romantic appeal of the steppe peoples – and the importance they have due to the association with the Proto-Indo-Europeans. (And the Mongols.) Had Renfrew's original idea been accepted as correct by the scholarly mainstream, and the whole Kurgan thing been entirely abandoned, we might not have these problems and debates because nobody would give a damn about some ancient steppe barbarians (except, presumably, fantasy fans). Too bad that the evidence points the other way – wouldn't, say, the Minoans be much cooler ancestors to point to? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What many outsiders don't seem to get is that the Kurgan idea is actually not that attractive on the face of it – Renfrew's original Anatolian hypothesis is much neater and, from a subjective point of view, much more preferrable for scholars, I'd say, if there were really primarily political, ideological or other unscientific reasons for the choice, as outsiders like to insinuate. No seriously, if wishful thinking were at the basis, you'd claim that your own people is not just one descendant of some random unimportant tribe in the middle of nowhere that simply got lucky, mixed with various entirely unknown other ethnic groups, but the chosen people of some higher being and inherently superior – oops. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. My points and no need to repeat and I save this conversation (useful if I return to WP). It seems that they started their project: user1, user2, user3, and this Iranian pov-pusher. Then I'm sure we'll have plenty of odd claims in the future and a lot of works for all involved editors. You've mentioned Hungarian nationalists. I should say Turk nationalists are far beyond them! Because they claim "Turkic-ness" of everything on earth. From Asia to Europe, and even America! Admins should decide about this case and participate on those topics, because we can't watch everything on WP. And when they use a lot of alternative accounts, then admins should take the necessary actions. I've experienced bad results on all of those articles/topics, and I think I should abandon all of them. Because as I wrote in above comment, this is a war between different groups for that "HONORARY" Barbarian nomads. There is no place for NPOV editors to easily edit and contribute to those articles and give good info and details to readers. Thanks for your attention. I hope more editors like you, join WP project in the future. I decided to retire and leave En WP, because I don't have enough time to deal with all of these peoples: Arabs, Turks, Azeris, Iranians/Persians, Hungarians, Slavs (my cousins, because I'm Slav too), Eastern and Southern Europeans and etc. Regards. Bye and Good luck. --Zyma (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That's why I keep saying we need pending changes, or even better, flagged revisions, to mitigate the problem of fringe POV-pushing (often motivated by nationalism, but also "PC" pushback where outsiders attacks the mainstream view because it's unpalatable to them and they ignorantly suspect nationalistic – or other ideological – motivations, or happen to align themselves with competing nationalist – or other ideological – interests, evidence and specialist consensus opinions be damned), and subtle forms of vandalism which cannot be detected by lay editors looking out for merely formally suspicious edits. We simply don't have enough expert editors, and our WP:RANDY-enabling policies actively drive experts away. Superficially informed, often well-meaning, outsiders with their own axes to grind (to say nothing of spin-doctors with positively harmful agendas) are far worse threats for the project than outright vandals and schoolboy/schoolgirl nonsense, which is quickly detected and undone. Subtle manipulation is far more pernicious. A little learning is a dangerous thing. Either we bring in thousands of experts (for many areas, college and university students may suffice) to monitor most articles and engage with problematic editors, or we limit editing somehow, or introduce flagged revisions.

Given that Wikipedia has no deadline and the original idea of producing a Nupedia-style encyclopedia collaboratively has been effectively abandoned, we need some other form of quality control. Our articles cannot remain preliminary products forever, if we aim not to misinform the world. Wikipedia has real responsbility now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding images to the article/Circassians infobox

Hi, I want to add some images to the Circassians but I cannot. I have added so many photos to the various atricles but I cannot add this time. Is there a problem with Wikipedia about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamedumal (talk • contribs) 10:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No idea. I can add images myself; I've tried it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting. l am going to try again. Lamedumal (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! l have deleted your reply:/ Lamedumal (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Already restored. Does it work now? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes:) Lamedumal (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Rûm and Southwest Paleohispanic script

Would you happen to have some information regarding these two articles? I have not been able to find much in the way of reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!

	You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Eurovision!
	You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining WikiProject Eurovision. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project. We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like Eurovision and facilitate team work in the development of Eurovision articles.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list, and add the project talk page to your watchlist.
	I hope you accept! - Wes Mᴥuse 23:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Columbus and the Bimini Triangle

You seem interested in Columbus, have you seen the attempts to add him at List of Bermuda Triangle incidents‎? Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Karasuk Culture

Hi Florian, could you check/look at the Karasuk culture? lt seems to me kindergarden. 176.219.137.214 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

lt is same for the articles of Afanasevo culture, Andronovo culture and so forth. 176.219.137.214 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, please? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is using "pending system" in order to prevent these articles from systematic trollings and vandalisms of various ethnocentrist users and ips. 176.219.137.214 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, I can't do jack. Do tell 'em at WP:FTN, you've got my backing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...ok, thanx. l'm going to mention these problems there next time. And you are sophisticated enough to be an admin "according to me". Again, thank you. 176.219.137.214 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to be an admin, it's not that awesome to be one, to put it mildly. User:Dougweller is a better contact person for history-related topics. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

lf the same problems continue, im going to contact with admins to request them for using the pending system. Your link is useful but tiring. l mean WP:FTN 176.219.137.214 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Pending doesn't effect established editors though. Florian, what is going on there? I see [19] and a post on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yagmurlukorfez is apparently triggered by the word "Caucasoid (race)" and didn't like my edit at Andronovo culture, exposing his Turkocentric bias. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, just looked at that. I know nothing about the IP he's complaining about either. I'm off to bed soon. Problem editors usually trip over themselves and fall. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi. Are you an admin? I have a problem with my computer, I cannot add sources to the articles. For example, I want to add these sources to the article Wusun about Tocharians but I cannot:

• The Indo-Aryan Languages

“The historical context and development of Indo-Aryan”, Colin P. Masica, p.48

• Studies in Turkic and Mongolic Linguistics, Gerard Clauson

• Turko-Mongol Rulers, Cities and City Life

p.24,

• Turks and Khazars: Origins, Institutions, and Interactions in Pre-Mongol Eurasia

Peter B. Golden

http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=AOhIAQAAIAAJ&q=wusun+tokharian&dq=wusun+tokharian&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=bpOcU8_iEOTb7AaphYHgDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAzgK

• Forgotten Worlds: From Atlantis to the X-Woman of Siberia and the Hobbits of Flores, Patrick Chouinard

http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=ollnAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT118&dq=wusun+tocharian&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=UJScU_CjJ6qw7AafiYCQCg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=wusun%20tocharian&f=false

• Journal of Chinese Linguistics,

Project on Linguistic Analysis, 1999 p.154

• Ancient bronzes, ceramics, and seals: the Nasli M. Heeramaneck Collection of ancient Near Eastern, central Asiatic, and European art, gift of the Ahmanson Foundation

Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Peter Roger Stuart Moorey, Glenn Markoe p.163

• Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society

1980 p.480 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I have just read your message page. You are not. I am going to ask another, bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not an admin and I have no idea what could be going wrong. The article is not protected, so you should be able to edit it. Simply try again. If the problem persists, check the suggestions at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. And that is just an example. I have many sources about Greeks, EOKA but I cannot add them to the articles. EOKA is wrong title. It is EOK-A. It shouold be changed. How can I change the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help contains useful links, too. As does the box on your own talk page. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I am going to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons. Thanks. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Schwi

Please see Talk section 13 for Stress and Vowel Reduction in English RoachPeter (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replied there. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Occitan - original research

I notice that you have recently made some useful additions to the lead of the Occitan article. I have some useless "Original research". I'm at present visiting my 90 year old French mother-in-law who lives in a village near the Rhone in the Gard department of southern France. She was born in the village as were her parents (and her husband). Her parents spoke the Provençal dialect of Occitan as their first language but always spoke French to their daughter - as did her grandparents. Thus my mother-in-law can understand "patois" (Provençal) but has rarely if ever spoken the language. My wife is in the same position - she was brought up hearing her grandparents (and others of the same generation) speak patois and can understand it. Nowadays Provençal expressions are occasionally introduced in their French. They have never read or written the language. In the village, this appears to be generally the case. Nobody born after the first world war speaks patois as their first language and importantly, nobody born after WWI spoke patois to their children. If this pattern is repeated across the south of France, as seems to be the case, then very few people now speak Occitan as a first language and the only people who can understand the language are old. The number of speakers listed by the article ("Recent research has shown it may be spoken as a first language by as many as 789,000 people") seems grossly optimistic (unless Catalan is considered a dialect of Occitan).

A quiz at meal table this evening gave the following:

• house - maison/casa oustau
• head - testa/cap
• small - petit/pichon (pitchoun)
• buy - achaptar/crompar (achesta)
• hear - entendre/ausir
• to be quiet - se taire/se calar
• fall - tombar/caire
• more - p(l)us/mai
• always - totjorn/sempre

I can't vouch for the spelling. Aa77zz (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That is very interesting to learn. Unfortunately it is not surprising to me to hear that there are only very few fluent native speakers left. They must be from the oldest generation still alive – so they must be centenarians! I thought Occitan was still the common colloquial language until 1950, but from what you say it must have been largely confined to the elders, or at least adults, already in Vichy France. (I wonder if Jeanne Calment still spoke the local dialect of Arles and if anybody ever thought to ask her about that. She would have entered school right at the time of the Jules Ferry laws.) It would be a good idea to study Catalan first for young people interested in their Occitan heritage, as it provides an occasion to learn an actually useful foreign language.

Surprisingly, Alsatian does not seem to have suffered equally. It still has a considerable presence and the older generation in Alsace still speaks it, apparently.

Does the French of your relatives exhibit any peculiarities with regard to pronunciation, syntax, word use or the like? Any peculiar expressions? So they still use some Provençal words and phrases spontaneously?

I wonder if the Occitan dialects are really so well-researched that there is no point in fieldwork, interviewing remaining speakers and semi-speakers – but in any case, it would be a useful practice, or especially dry-run for (aspiring) linguists who plan to do fieldwork in more exotic locales. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat curiously, our article Meridional French does not include any speaker estimate ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Fix article

Can you fix this section? Uyghur_people#Language User:Hzh wants someone with linguistics experience to edit the section because of some problems he had with my edits. This was my corrections to section before they got reverted, I need someone to confirm that the information in there is correct

Right now it has blatant errors like mentioning Old Turkic (which is not part of Karluk) and doesn't differentiate between Old and modern Uyghur.Rajmaan (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

not the first by far

the GM pages have been worked on for quite a while by several folks. nothing there has not been discussed. as per WP:BRD please discuss. thanks.Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please direct me to the section where the hatnote is discussed. It is blatantly opposed to Wikipedia style conventions; essentially a "See also" list of associative links disguised as a hatnote. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Your revert in Galaxy

Hi, I think you are mistaken with this revert, according to the first sentence of the second paragraph in the article Milky Way, it is still classified as spiral with bar(s). Even if some of the data is contradictory, why would the galaxy article have to reflect that? Greeting, --Xario (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

See the next edit. I have reverted myself. I still think the article shouldn't portray the issue as cut and dried. Barred galaxy seems to be certain, but the number of major arms is, I understand, unclear. I'm not a natural scientist, though. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You might ask User talk:Modest Genius or User talk:Vsmith. CorinneSD (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

OMG, I am so blind. The power of notifications. Oh well, thx and sorry, --Xario (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I've informed MusikAnimal that Ragdeenorc is edit-warring again at Kurgan. Since you've been making the same amount of reverts, I guess this will have consequences for you too. For which I'm sorry, but hey, you really should have gone to the talkpage,a nd asked for third opinions. Please learn from this for the next time you get stuck into a dispute. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not a dispute, and there's no point letting yourself draw into endless debates with him. Radgeenorc is a POV vandal inserting completely inappropriate fringecruft. In fact, some highly specific and striking personal quirks, such as bolding quotations, are shared by him with other aggressive Turkophiles. Hence my suspicion that he forms part of a series of sock puppet accounts that have apparently been abandoned in the meanwhile. I wonder why this single-purpose account who constantly hounds and attacks other people personally (yelling "racist", "Nazi" etc.) isn't just blocked for good, done and over it. I have already solicited support, yet nothing so far; I'm left alone fighting this vandal. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused why you think continuing to edit war is a good idea. The edits in question are not obvious vandalism, see WP:ROWN. Before anything else, you should talk to the user, via a talk page, preferably the article talk page. I see that you still have not done this. Continually reverting each others' changes without discussion goes against the collegial spirit of the wiki and is deeply frowned upon. This is why the three-revert rule exists, to prevent this type of disruption. Seek dispute resolution if consensus cannot be established. Beyond that, WP:AN/I might be a good place to discuss disruption from a user as you suggest is the case. If you have strong evidence of sockpuppetry, you may also or instead consider opening a case at WP:SPI. But before seeking any administrative assistance you should talk to the user, or else you are asking for another block. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already talked to the user extensively on various pages and explained things (such as on Talk:Kurgan hypothesis) and it is useless because he ignores the reasons (I've already given plenty of reasons in edit summaries as well, I'm not just reverting without explanation), he only responds with personal attacks and wikihounding. See my statements above and on WP:DRN#Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Kurgan. This user is a typical aggressive POV warrior, I'm already all too well familiar with the type. Why are we so much more tolerant to POV-pushing nationalists than creationists?

Note that I actually sympathise with a few fringe ideas such as Christ myth theory or Aquatic ape hypothesis myself but I know better than to engage in pushing my favourite POVs there, especially since the relevant fields are out of my area of expertise. I support Wikipedia's emphasis of the mainstream and consensus in science even where I personally disagree with the mainstream. Look, I do know that keeping private beliefs and the state of the art separate isn't always easy, but I agree with Wikipedia's principles and strongly believe that its rules need to be enforced consistently to prevent creep of unduly emphasised fringe stuff. It's just harder outside of natural science because in areas such as archaeology, linguistics, Turkology or Indology we have powerful parochial interests, lots of POV warriors and far fewer experts, so it may not be obvious to you that these users' pet "theory" is about as credible as creationism.

Well, so far the user has stopped reverting at least. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Edit-warring is not the right way to do it, but I understand your intentions. Ignore the harassment; keep up the good intentions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

You need some baklava & çay, that's for sure ;) Ragdeenorc (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I like Turkish cuisine, make no mistake ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

translate article

I need w:de:Fünfsprachenspiegel translated into English. (the most commonly used English name of this dictionary is the transliteration of the Chinese name, "Wuti Qingwenjian" so that should be the name of the English article, I know that the German name is a literal translation of the Chinese). I compiled sources and links over here which I will use when the article is created in English.Rajmaan (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

KnowledgeImprator

What do you think about him? I gave him a warning for making unsourced changes and changes contradicting existing sources. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Old Turkic alphabet

I saw some discussions regarding Old Turkic alphabet and decided to read the article just out of curiosity. I made a few minor edits. I found a sentence that doesn't read well, but I'm not sure how to fix it, so I thought I'd ask you. It is the last sentence in the section Old Turkic alphabet#Variants. It mentions "religions, Manichaeism, Buddhist,...". CorinneSD (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you look at my edits in the Revision History, you'll see that I changed "independently" to "independent" in the fourth paragraph in Old Turkic alphabet#Origins. "Independently graphic system" didn't seem to make sense, and I though "independent graphic system" made more sense. But when I went back to review all my edits, I thought perhaps the sentence needed a greater revision than that. I wonder about the adverb "expressly", and I wonder whether "independently developed" would make sense. Can you take a look at that sentence for me? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Valuable idea?

This would be open for rearrangements. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool. :-) That said, I haven't got around to tuning my user page since whenever, so I have no immediate personal need for it right now. Do you still look after the Tarja articles and articles about her albums? Warum labern wir eigentlich auf englisch? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Die Artikel hab ich seit ner Weile nur mit einem Auge im Blick. Da sind ja mittlerweile auch noch ein paar Andere am Werk. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wichtig ist mir vor allem, daß jemand Kompetentes da ist, der die Änderungen überwacht. Es wäre natürlich schön, wenn es zu Tarjas neuen Alben auch richtige Artikel gäbe, aber wenn Du dazu aus irgendeinem Grund nicht bereit bist, ist es auch nicht so schlimm. Hauptsache, der Artikel bleibt ein GA (und darauf achten sollte man schon, daß die verwandten Artikel wenigstens nicht vermüllen, weil die auch eine gewisse Rolle bei den Reviews spielen). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dong Yen Chau inscription

Does Coèdes really say that the Dong Yen Chau inscription is from the middle of the sixth century? I checked Thurgood and he really does say that Coèdes dates it to the middle of the fourth. Can you check Coèdes directly? Perhaps Marrison (isn't that Morrison?) misquotes him there and Thurgood only repeats this there.

By the way, watch out for users who try to claim the inscription for Old Malay.

Hello Florian, I was not aware of this inscription. Thank you for teaching me something! :-) I will see if I can get hold of Coedès's book (I may go to the EFEO's library some time soon). As far as the language is concerned, this inscription seems to reveal an interesting point, i. e. the Cham language, whether in the 4th or 6th century, was still very close to what we know of Malay to the point of being understandable to modern Malay speakers. I will have a monitor that point in the article. Best regards, Humboldt 15:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

How can you not have been aware of the inscription before? You edited the article yourself! The diff I linked to is you editing the inscription's article! As for the observation that the language of the inscription resembles Malay, I find it entirely unremarkable and I explain this on the talk page and warn of POV-pushing. Orhanghazi's bias is a problem, for it is showing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I am of the absent-minded type, especially when I am tired. I agree we must fight ideology to defend science. Malaysian Malays have a problem. It starts with the "abduction" of their country's name since the Malay language originates from Sumatra. As for the understandability of 4th or 6th century Cham, I must agree with you since linguists group now group Chamic and Malayic into the same Malayo-Chamic group in the Malayo-Polynesian branch. It seems this is recent because the classification of Chamic has changed over time... Humboldt 19:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Florian

Do me a favor. I would like to correspond with you (briefly) off wiki, and I see you have an "Email this user" link. For some reason the email I sent you several hours ago came back to me as undeliverable. Can you please send an email to me through wikipedia from my user page, and I will then respond? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I did get a Wikipedia E-mail message from you, and have now replied to it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I, too, hope for a reply some day ... HJJHolm (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Without any sort of deadline, I'm bound to forget things or assume it doesn't matter anymore anyway ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Silk

I've been reading the article on Silk, and I wondered whether the material in the section Silk#Etymology is formatted correctly. The Old English word and Greek word are in regular font, and the English word "silken" is in italics. CorinneSD (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-Latin scripts are never formatted in italics, since the foreign script already sufficiently marks the material as objektsprachlich (i. e., in a language to be discussed, not the primary language of the text). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Florian. I think this has been fixed. CorinneSD (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Horst Mahler

Hi, I've noticed you have had dealings with User:Timothycrice before, so you may want to keep an eye on his edits in light of this.--89.204.139.88 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I'm wondering if you noticed Die Welt shows that what someone has called "two of the comments made by Horst Mahler" is really one quote: "In der Vernichtung der Juden waltet Vernunft...Milliarden Menschen wären bereit, Hitler zu verzeihen, wenn er nur den Judenmord begangen hätte". By the way, Milliarden is always capitalized, so the fact that it's shown capitalized in this context doesn't mean it's marking the beginning of a new sentence if it's a run-on sentence. The quote consists of two sentences, but it is one quote, so that's why I'm wondering if it was a run-on sentence. Even if it wasn't, it was shown this way in Die Welt.Timothy C. Rice (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, we know that you did not notice, because in your edit that made the Horst Mahler article worse, you kept the format as two separate quotes. I, however, eventually went to the trouble of looking up the Welt article, and that's why my suggestion for a better translation than the current article version, made on your Talk page, preserves the Welt formatting with the ellipsis in the middle. (I don't know what the ellipsis stands for: whether it's Mahler's own or whether it was put in by Welt and if so, whether it stands for a few words or several paragraphs.) Timothy, let it go. You are not competent yet to revise translations from German on Wikipedia. In addition, your agenda (proving that Mahler was wrongfully convicted of Volksverhetzung) is incompatible with the policies of Wikipedia.--89.204.139.88 (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Your agenda (giving unconditional support to the conviction of Horst Mahler) of guilt until proven innocent is incompatible with freedom and reason. It's ironic that you fail to see that when you accuse me of a personal agenda, you're letting us know what your personal agenda is. Since you have a personal agenda, how do we know what translation you're going to put out there? Up to now, no one has aligned the Horst Mahler article with what is in Die Welt, to make it one quote instead of two. I didn't separate it into two different quotes, that was someone else's deed. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Timothy, your apology of Mahler (where you are literally assuming the role of his advocate) amounts to pushing a fringe POV, i. e., minority view. Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View, which is not complete balance between opposing views (see argument to moderation), but a bias towards the mainstream (the view of the majority of relevant experts). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Florian, you can remind me that someone can edit using a pseudonym, and I can remind you that they don't have to use one. So what do we conclude after that? I guess I'm thinking of square one again. This is where everyone can tell us what their worldview is, which is useful to think about because we have been discussing the concept of the Weltanschauung.

As for courts of law, we can observe that every man is born free. Then, he suddenly is aware that laws are being legislated here and there. Which one of those laws should be in the books? What is the correct application of the law? So we conclude that the decision of any court anywhere in the world is not anything other than what we know it to be. These are decisions made by imperfect human beings like Justice Martin Rieder who in 2009 accused Horst Mahler of "nationalist whining," even though he was accused in 2004 of Volksverhetzung und Verunglimpfung des Staates. So you start to wonder which one of those two it would be, to their minds. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It is uncivil to badger people for not registering, and falls under ad hominem. Again: Stick to the facts. What people choose to reveal of themselves is none of your business when it is not relevant to the case at hand. The rest of what you are saying I do not see the relevance of, either. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's uncivil for you to say that when I'm bringing out the facts. If someone is a certain way, we can be aware of how they conduct themselves. To "come out to the light" is not positive or negative, it's something you do if you want to, and you can remind us that we don't have to do things we don't want to do. Strangely enough, someone might say they don't know that. If there's light in a room, I can step into it, and if I don't, then you can notice. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You're bringing only irrelevant ad hominem and your personal interpretations. Cut it out. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Kuhle

Hi,

Following up on the Kuhle thread at NPOVN. I noticed it went quiet after Tigona added other sources. I've been traveling and don't feel like I have the time or knowledge to properly vet those sources -- are you planning to pursue this further or is the thread going quiet a sign that there are no further objections (aside from, perhaps, the promotional nature of the account)? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to alert the admins about this because I accidentally found out about it. Glaciology is only a side interest of mine, not something I'm super-knowledgeable in, so I don't intend to pursue this further in the first place. I still think something should be done about it, if only by slapping appropriate tags and boxes (UNDUE, COI warnings etc.) on the dubious and unbiased pages I pointed out, but I feel it's not my job but those of more specialist editors, or admins who've taken up NPOV issues as their field. I've said my piece and that should be enough. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest you had some sort of obligation to follow up. Just curious for my own sake. Tagging the article sounds like it makes sense until we can attract more voices if not specialists. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for asking. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Map

File:Indo-European migrations v02.03.png

Indo-European migrations

I thought you might like this one too. It's based on Anthony. Buy it; it's very good. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: I should also make a black-and-white map, which can be copied easily. Might be helpfull for any student writing a paper on the topic, which may help to spread knowledge. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on "Indigenous Aryans"

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Aryan race

You are wrong about Penka and Gobineau, Gobineau wrote his works on Aryan supremacy before Penka was born, and Penka's work on Aryanism was published the year after Gobineau died.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on "Indigenous Aryans"

Hi Florian. We've re-ordered the comments at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Yours is placed under the header "comments"; is that the appropriate place? If not, can you move it to the correct section? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've placed it under "Support", given your statement "OIT is as respectable now as Afrocentrism [...]that is, not at all. It's purely driven by politics." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on articles related to Central Asian history

I've noticed from the revision history of Issyk kurgan that you've earlier been having trouble dealing with additions of WP:Fringe theories on articles related to Central Asian history by banned User:Tirgil34. I'm currently in a pretty much identical situation at the article Wusun, where my attempts to deal with fringe additions of Tirgil34 have been obstructed by ducky IPs and User:Yagmurlukorfez. If you're a German-speaker the edits of the de:Benutzer:Tsaigankuk might of interest. User:Tsaigankuk is proven sock of Tirgil34 and many of his WP:Fringe edits still still stand on the German wiki. Krakkos (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, German is my native language and I edit de-WP as well. Can you point to any specific edits or articles on de-WP that you are concerned about? I was already aware of his edits at de:Botai-Kultur, but the ref he added is in Russian and offline, so I cannot judge its reliability and simply removing it would never go through. I'd love to help you, but I don't know how. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Tsaigankuk is a confirmed sock of User:Tirgil34. Removal of his edits is therefore WP:Policy in accordance with CFD G5. I'm sure this is the case for German wikipedia as well. In addition to de:Botai-Kultur, he appears to have been pushing similar fringe theories on Kangju and Karassuk-Kultur. Further investigation reveals that a large number of Tirgil34's have been active on the German WP, including Benutzerin:Tirgil34, Benutzer:Maikolaser, Benutzer Diskussion:Xantana, Benutzer:Selga, Benutzer:Greczia, Benutzer:E4024 (suspected sock of Tirgil34, confirmed sockmaster in his own right. Still active on German WP), Benutzer:Aparhan, Benutzer:Sirivsk, Benutzer:Wyspiański, Benutzer:ARIusalan, Benutzer:Alpargon, Benutzer:Rämil Kadyrov, Benutzer:BaratK, Benutzer:Ragdeenorc, Benutzer:Muramidase, Benutzer:Hirabutor, Benutzer:Su4kin, Benutzer:Kleropides, Benutzer:Agaceri, Benutzer:Osgoem, Benutzer:Hydneksia, Benutzer:Xteenment, Benutzer:Wylandd, Benutzer:Julbaxsan, Benutzer:Poikdiyma, Benutzer:Radosfrester, Benutzer:Wailbinds, Benutzer:Greentent and Benutzer:Etymologias. I would suggest tagging these users as socks on the German WP and linking it to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tirgil34 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tirgil34 through Wikidata. Krakkos (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you try it yourself? I'm not an admin and can't do more than you. Be bold! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I notice that one of his suspected sockpuppets is apparently named after me. WTF? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As i'm not a German-speaker, it might a little too bold to do this on de:WP. Adding the parameters to Tirgil34's socks seems possible though. Is it common on de:WP to place socks in categories? If so i could do so if you translate the title's Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tirgil34 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tirgil34 in German. Krakkos (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You may as well use English there, I guess, for this specific reason. Most Germans speak and read English. He does have a sense of humor, using your name, but I understand it's uncomfortable. Just go ahead, and use English. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, most German Wikipedians know English well enough that communicating with them should pose no problem. I have to admit I'm not all that familiar with meta stuff on de-WP, such as how to deal with undeclared sockpuppets, so you'll best ask at de:Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Would "Kategorie:Sockenpuppen von Tirgil34" and "Kategorie:Vermutete sockenpuppen von Tirgil34" be in acceptable German? Krakkos (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, apart from the detail that Sockenpuppen, as a noun, is always spelt with capital initial. Also, I've never seen categories to mark sockpuppets on de-WP before; it does not seem to be usual, that's why I recommended you to ask first about the local conventions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the trend of turanist fringe theory being added on English WP, it seems that much of it is being added from the Turkish WP, whose articles on Central Asian history are so thoroughly infested by turanist fringe that one could consider it a Turanist-Metapedia of some sort. I'm sure the German WP is affected by the same problem, given that the turanist Grey Wolves are Germany's largest far-right movement (WTF). A good example is a discussion you had with the sockmaster User:Tirgil34 way back in 2012, where he adds fringe theory copied straight from the Turkish WP. Suspected Tirgil34 sock User:Yagmurlukorfez has had a virtual monopoly on the Turkish WP article Usun (actually about the Uysyn, not the Wusun) for around a year, in which turanist fringe is pushed to the max as you can check with Google Translate, and has been actively pushing the same theories on the Wusun article at English WP in argue of "neutrality". These issues is something admins should have dealt with a long time ago, and it's very depressing to go through diffs watching the lack of assistance admins have given you in clearing WP of this disruptive editing behaviour.

On the topic of tagging Tirgil34's socks on the German WP, i believe i will have the means to do so later today. Krakkos (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for the interrupting, but User:Krakkos, you have to stop gossip about me with mentioning my name. I'm always taking notification warning from your stupid accusations and also please stop using that stupid "Turanist" term. You guys don't know what is even that mean. If you keep accuse me like that, I will report you for personel attack. Thanks.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please do so! The Turanist problem needs to finally come to the attention of the admins. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems like you've been paying attention to the latest developments in the Tirgil34 situation, but i figured i might give you an update on some measures i have taken nevertheless. The attempt to spread awareness of Tirgil34's sockpuppetry on German wikipedia was a complete failure. Marking sockpuppets as sockpuppets is appearantly taboo on the German WP.[20] I have however created a LTA page on Tirgil34, which i will soon expand with more useful info. As can be seen from my editing history, i have also removed pretty much every problematic edit by Tirgil34 and his blocked socks he has made though more than three years. We are talking about a lot of content, and i'm still not finished. I will however. A successful CheckUser was also performed some weeks ago, which resulted in the discovery and blocking of several confirmed Tirgil34 socks. I have filed an additional SPI against suspected socks, which has also been endorsed with some limitations by the SPI clerks. More will follow. Going through all these diffs by Tirgil34 both for cleanup and investigation, it has been frustrating to observe what a large number of Tirgil34 socks you have been editing warring and having lenghty discussions with. There are several interesting users in the current SPI. Check out Aldrasto11 (talk · contribs). He adheres to the Ultra-Fringe view that the Etruscans were a Turkic people,[21] admits that he's on Wikipedia to make a point,[22] and has made a huge number of edits on the origins of Ancient Rome.[23] I also highly recommend that you read the section at the SPI concerned with the editor ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk · contribs). Krakkos (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am not here to make any point. If you read that quote carefully you can see by yourself that I am talking to another user, on his talk page, about my ideas on hydronyms and their origins. Nothing to do with what I contribute to wikipedia articles. Everybody can check the kind of work I have been doing on the Ashina and Wusun articles, I just made those unreadable messes readable. Unlike some others I mind my work. I am not supporting any agenda and limited myself to notifying on the talk page that suppressing opposing views, when referenced to reputable academic literature, is certainly not in the spirit of wikipedia. And yes the view that the Etruscans may have been Proto-Turks deserves attention and should be mentioned in the relevant articles: I do not say it is so, but certainly there is plenty of evidence pointing in that direction, more than about any other imaginable linguistic connexion. The list of Turkic words in Etruscan is very long, starting with the kinship vocabulary, privileged area of semantics, and then magistracies, weapons etc. If a theory or POV disturbs your sleep you should try to grow up...or just forget about it! On the other topics there is indeed plenty of evidence to support the view that those peoples or tribes may not have been Indoeuropeans, particularly the Ashina (the Wusun may have been Tocharians). And as far as their myths and underlying beliefs are concerned they were undistinguishable from those of their eastern and western neighbors, never mind IE or Tungusic. Language is one thing, culture is another and race still another one. I do not care a fig about the issue of nationalism or politics in general which is by definition just outside the scope of serious scientific research. I suspect that the person who attacks me is he himself a pusher (of his own POV): which is a common occurrence and almost everyday experience by the way.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ehm, sorry, the comparison of Etruscan with Turkic is worse than fringe; it's utterly pseudoscientific, as it involves invalid methodology (collection of random sound-alikes). See Pseudoscientific language comparison. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I humbly and respectfully suggest that you read more, and as far as you can try to be aware of the harmfulness of prejudices. For one thing the article on Etruscan language summarises in an incorrect and biased way an article which is linked and which should be read in full. The Italian uralist Marcantonio in rejecting Alinei's theory acknowledges the lexical correspondences with Turkic: she calls them asystematic, but they are in fact systematic as I said above (we can add the religious area). And after rejecting Alinei's theory she also acknowledges that uralistic studies are themselves biased and unscientific in postulating the ugro-finnic knot which is impossible to prove. Quote: "La situazione dell' area uralica e' delicata e complessa a causa di tre fattori fondamentali: l' assenza di una comune morfologia uralica; la similarita' ai vari livelli linguistici tra le lingue uraliche e le lingue altaiche nonche' quelle paleosiberiane; l' assenza di vere e proprie leggi fonetiche - quelle che sono tradizionalmente definite leggi fonetiche finno-ugricche/ uraliche sono in realta' tendenze fonetiche, spesso condivise, oltretutto, dalle lingue altaiche (si veda Marcantonio 2002:110 ss. con bibliografia ivi citata). Prendendo coscienza di questi problemi alcuni studiosi, pur accettando la classificazione tradizionale, praticamente riconscono l'arbitrarieta' della scelta iniziale di comparare, per esempio, le lingue ob-ugriche (Vogulo ed Ostiaco), con l' Ungherese, o col Finnico, invece che per esempio, con una lingua altaica. Si veda in proposito il seguente passo di Sinor, illustre studioso di lingue uraliche ed altaiche: "I am quite certain that if from all the Uralic and Altaic languages only the [Altaic] Northern Tunguz and [Uralic] Ob-Ugric were known, no one would deny their genetic relationship." Dunque la scelta iniziale degli studiosi considerati i padri fondatori della teoria uralica tradizionale, inclusi Budenz e Donner, era e rimane alla luce delle conoscenze odierne, soggettiva. In effetti, se si leggono le opere originali di questi studiosi, non si puo' non constatare che, contrariamente a quanto generalmente sostentuto, costoro non hanno affatto 'dimostrato' l' esistenza della famiglia finno-ugrica/ uralica (si vedano in proposito Marcantonio, Nummenaho e Salvagni 2001; Marcantonio 2002:37 ss.) Inoltre, anche negli studi di uralistica si riscontra una notevole manipolazione dei dati, pur se non ai livelli raggiunti dal nostro A. (Alinei)...Ma la manipolazione piu' grave, perche' ricca di conseguenze fuorvianti, e' quella che riguarda proprio la presunta ricostruzione del diagramma ad albero finno-ugrico/ uralico. Infatti il nodo uralico ed il presunto nodo intermadio finno-ugrico, non sono mai stati ricostruiti (ne' nel consonantismo ne' nel vocalismo), anche se in tutti i manuali e, purtroppo, talora anche nella letteratura specialistica (Samallahti 1988)si sostiene esattamente il contrario. Per accertarsi di quali siano i dati di fatto basta leggere l'unica pubblicazione che tratta ...nei dettagli e con una rigorosa applicazione del metodo comparativo, della ricostruzione dell' albero genealogoco uralico, il famoso articolo di Juha Janhunen del 1981. ...l'autore mette a confronto solo due dei sottogruppi linguistici che, secondo il modello tradizionale, sono costitutivi della famiglia uralica: il gruppo finno-permiano e quello samoiedo, tralasciando totalmente di mettere a confronto il presunto, fondamentale nodo ugrico.E questo perche'... e' stato impossibile ricostruire tale nodo, nonostante i numerosi tentativi fatti da vari studiosi nel corso degli anni...."In a word Hungarian is not a Uralic language but a Turkic one, as many Hungarian scholars have maintained since the nineteenth century.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

LOL! I've met Marcantonio personally, giving a talk at a conference I attended. None of the specialists present took her seriously, I almost pitied her. She is considered a crackpot by linguistic experts. Even Steinbauer with his unorthodox views on Etruscan does not acknowledge any connections with Turkic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Horrible changes to Dari language

Hi. Can you fix and restore info on Dari language? Good-faith (!) nationalistic editors ruined that article completely. Just compare last good old revision with current unsourced personal writing! Amateur pov-pushing and biased edit to remove every "Persian" or reliable language classification from the article and create a new language! Reminds me Balkan nationalists in 1990, it's in Middle East (different region and culture), but same behavior, same hardcore denials. Awful edits. I don't know why nobody reviews those changes just because they were done by a so-called registered and auto-confirmed accounts?! They did same in Afghanistan etymology section. Changed "Persian" to "Sanskrit"! Too bad for WP. Thanks. --188.159.132.24 (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I restored a slightly more recent version. However, on cursory inspection I cannot see that all mentions of "Persian" had been completely removed, or anything close to it. There were a few unprofessional looking phrasings, and mistakes ("Old Persian" instead of "New Persian"), but nothing that struck me as obviously horrible. Am I missing something? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Dari language

Hello, Florian -- I see you've been working to improve Dari language. Of course I defer to your vastly superior knowledge of linguistics, but I had to attempt to clarify the sentences in the lede. If I got anything factually incorrect, please forgive me. You'll see I have added a "clarification needed" template and a question for editors.

I have a few concerns about the second paragraph of the lede:

1) I think "By way of Early New Persian" does not help a reader very much. I know it is meant to express something very specific, but it doesn't convey much and is thus slightly confusing. It further complicates an already complicated passage. I'm wondering if a more precise phrase could be used here. If not, then perhaps it could be omitted, leaving the explanation of this detail for the body of the article.

2) It is not clear why, toward the end of the second paragraph of the lede, the word "Dari" is suddenly italicized even though it has already appeared several times in regular, or Roman, font. CorinneSD (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Is "Through Early New Persian" clearer? It's just saying that Dari Persian isn't directly descended from Middle Persian, as previously implied, but via ENP. Actually the sequence is quite easy: Old Persian > Middle Persian > Early New Persian > New Persian (or Modern Persian), which is a dialect continuum on which three written languages are based, namely Iranian Persian, Afghan Persian (Dari) and Tajik. For a key difference, compare Persian phonology#Historical shifts. This is one of the features that the description of Dari as "conservative" or "archaic" is based on. However, on the whole the differences are still small and Dari isn't that archaic, especially compared to Eastern Iranian languages like Pashto, which has partly preserved the Old Iranian case system and even traces of the old accent.

2) For the italics, see MOS:WORDSASWORDS. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for stretching your patience, Florian, but I'm still confused (I'm not an expert in linguistics but I have done quite a bit of reading in it, and several college courses, and have studied, and speak, read, and write several languages; I just don't know the detailed history of Farsi or Dari; if it's not clear to me, then it might not be clear to an average reader). You said, above, "It's just saying that Dari Persian isn't directly descended from Middle Persian, as previously implied, but via ENP." I don't see where it was previously implied that Dari Persian is directly descended from Middle Persian. Regarding "Through (or by way of) Early New Persian", are you saying that nearly all the dialects of Persian spoken in Iran and the Tajik dialect did not come through Early New Persian and instead developed directly from Middle Persian? If so, how did they bypass Early New Persian? If not, then I'm still confused and don't see why you wouldn't mention the four "steps" in order. (I read the entire article and didn't see an explanation of this.)

In the section Dari language#Vocabulary, there is a table, or chart, with two columns labeled "Persian-Farsi" and "Persian-Dari". All the words in these columns should be infinitives, to correspond to the English infinitives down the left. They should all end in "-dan". In the Persian-Dari column, two alternate verbs are given in each box. For the English verb "to understand", the two Persian-Dari forms appear to be "fah-mi-dan" and "fa-mi-dan". However, the second one of these does not have the "-dan" ending; it has "-di" at the end. I think that is an error, but since I'm not sure, I thought I'd point it out to you. CorinneSD (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, no, it's really easy: All mainstream New Persian dialects in Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia including the written standards Farsi (of Iran), Dari (of Afghanistan) and Tajik (of Tajikistan) descend from Early New Persian, and via ENP, from Middle and Old Persian.

(There are indeed some dialects that branched off earlier from the mainstream, already in Middle or even Old Persian times, thus bypassing the Early New Persian stage – as it were –, but they are marginal and not counted as part of New Persian dialects. Tat, the language of the eponymous ethnic group, is one such dialect group; it probably results from a pre-Islamic migration from the Persis to the Caucasus.)

It is true that the previous phrasing did not strictly imply direct descendence, but it could easily be understood that way and I tried to prevent that interpretation. If you can find a more elegant way to word this, I'd be grateful.

You are right; the normal Persian infinitive is -dan or -tan, and the ending -di looks unfamiliar. It does look like a mistake; final nun and ye are similar. However, New Persian dialectology is not my forte. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's helpful, consider the history of English. All mainstream English dialects in the world ultimately descend from Early Modern English, which usually means the language of Shakespeare and the King James Bible. However, the traditional English dialects of Scotland (known as Scots), of Northern England (Northumbrian), and of Southwestern England (known as Westcountry English and effectively including the extinct languages Yola and Fingalian in Ireland, as well as Pembrokeshire English in Wales) are not descended from Early Modern English in that sense, but from collateral dialects in Shakespeare's time, which is why they are much more divergent while still palpably related, and at least Scots, Yola and Fingalian are often not truly considered part of the English language in the proper sense, despite being descended from Middle and Old English just the same.

Early Modern English and Early New Persian are thus analogous. Middle Scots is contemporary to Early Modern English, but not considered part of it, nor is Old Anglo-Irish (Old Yola/Fingalian); similarly, "Old Tat" (medieval Tat) was contemporary with Early New Persian, but is not conventionally considered part of it.

To add to your confusion, Early New Persian was basically a late Middle Persian dialect that co-existed with many others. (In fact, ENP was spoken in Central Asia along the Amu Darya, where the original language was Sogdian, and not in the Persis, the original homeland of Persian; ENP was basically the result of a Middle Persian colonisation of the Sogdiana and had a Sogdian substratum, along with an Arabic superstratum and a Turkic adstratum. In the 8th and 9th centuries, you can find both texts in Early New Persian and in Middle Persian in Central Asia, all written in different scripts without any strict association: basically, every language could be written in any writing system at the time in Central Asia.) It's just the one that was heavily Arabised and prevailed over the others, replacing them for the most part (probably because it was associated with Islam and the other dialects with Zoroastrianism). Only remnants like Tat continue the extra-Samanid tradition of Middle Persian into modern times. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the long and detailed explanation and additional information! Clearly written, too. Now I have more articles to read! Can you read all those languages? I will look at the article again tomorrow with rested eyes. Do you mind if I ask Lysozym to look at that table/chart? CorinneSD (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Whew, I already thought I had packed too much info in there. To be fair, the definition of the "Early Modern English" stage is not clear-cut and "the KJV dialect" is a narrow definition, but in practice, when people talk about EME, they generally ignore non-Midlands dialects (although ironically, the typical thou/ye distinction has only survived in these peripheral dialects). Northumbrian and Westcountry English haven't skipped the Early Modern stage, they just had their own Early Modern stages different from the standard (Midlands) EME dialect.

Iranian languages you mean? Not spontaneously, but with dictionaries and grammars I should be able to figure texts in these languages out – I don't have a lot of practice, but at least the older languages (Avestan, Old Persian, Middle Persian, Sogdian) I've had classes in, and a bit of New Persian. The similarities are considerable indeed and having a general idea about Proto-Iranian and some general lines of how it developped into the individual languages is very helpful. Kind of like how when you know Latin and one or two modern Romance languages well, and know the basic developments, major differences and isoglosses, you can figure any Romance dialect out relatively easily, see? It's still a lot of work, but you needn't start totally from scratch. It's a head-start if nothing else.

No, of course I don't mind at all. Do ask him, please. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

All very interesting to me. I don't know much about early stages of English; will have to read more (I always wondered about Scots English, though). I've also noticed that on television programs coming from England that there are some accents of British English that I find very difficult to understand even if I listen very carefully; perhaps they're from northern England. CorinneSD (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello,

You reverted a big amount of edits here [[24]], but you didn't (probably) notice that you also returned an unsourced statement supposing that Dari would be native to Eastern Iran. There's no such source or reference, or on the page itself that confirms this. So that has to be fixed.

Regards

- 84.241.195.240 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

See Dari language#Dialect continuum. The dialects of Mashhad and Herat are more similar to each other than each is to the respective national standard variety. Do you seriously expect the dialect boundaries to cleanly and precisely run along the modern national borders? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Krakkos (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to hear your neutral view on Ban (title)

Hi Florian, I'm contacting You because very much liked your reasoning and NPOV at Talk:Croats#Origins and Etyomology, and as you have studied Indo-European linguistics, would like to hear your thoughts on the origin of medieval title Ban, the top fifth currently cited sources, and especially the discussion which was held almost a year ago, and the saved revision at sandbox which was discussed about. Every question, point out is friendly acceptable, when you have time. Thanks.--Crovata (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I bother you, but I don't know who to contact. I'm already writing a new revision with newer reliable sources in the sandbox which will differ from the older one (but can still be seen in the sandbox). As then, the etymology of the word will not be considerably changed or even touched, actually, what I'm talking about is that title origin and word origin are two different things. In the old one I followed as role model the Slavs#Research history section, was that a good role model, and what you think about it?

I can't avoid to mention, but user Ivan Štambuk could be competent in etymology, yet, he can't control to interfere his personal POV, apparently due to lack of knowledge and which finds some kind of authority and more relevant to that of mainstream by modern academic scholars, in the discussion. Actually, because of him the old revision was dismissed. I don't deny it wasn't perfect, it needed to be additionally edited, but not simply dismissed, and because of it my intention then was even seen as some kind of threat to the article. He persistently and intentionally denies and ignores, among other, those cited mainstream quotes by modern historians and historian linguists, saying that will remove them if will be added. Calling them obsolete, obscure, or citations even my own POV/OR and invents every other possible fictitious reason to substantiate his personal biased POV so that those information will not be mentioned, and to avoid the real issue of the discussion, yet continues to infinitely and aimlessly to discuss.

I am asking you, if he will not be focused, concise, and friendly any kind to the disccusion and me as an editor, can I relate on you to review the revision when will be over (in the sandbox talk page)?--Crovata (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I finished the revision about the title Ban, specifically "Origin of the title" and sub-sections "Etymology" and "Research history". Please give me your opinion in the discussion, and can I include it into the current article revision without any issues? Also would note that in the mean time re-wrote articles on the Origin hypotheses of the Croats and about the title Župan, which more profundly give "the answers" (as there is none official) on the each title origin and whole previous discussion. In the upcoming days will also do a major edit of articles White Croats and White Croatia. Hope for your soon opinion.--Crovata (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Our old conversation

Hi, how are you? If you remember we have a conversation about Slavs and Croats a few month ago. Not interested to improved that article(s) anymore? --Zyma (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article (2015)

Useful for IE-related articles: The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives --Zyma (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Etruscan civilization

Hello, Florian -- Here's a puzzle for you. Can you find a source for T'rasena in Etruscan civilization? See [25]. CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Persian Romani

In case you're interested, Glottolog has added four Persian-Romani languages. I listed them at Para-Romani. — kwami (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it isn't more like that they're para-Domari. — kwami (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Have you read Iranica? Apparently, most of these varieties are (para-)Domari, but some are (para-)Romani. It simply depends, and a term like Ghorbati is more like a generic descriptor (like Popoluca) which doesn't have any connection with the precise classification. We cannot really tease these apart easily; there are so many of these varieties, and they are poorly documented. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you see any improvements to make, please feel free. This isn't an interest of mine, but it does seem to be a rather embarrassing gap in our coverage. — kwami (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Unfortunately, Tsiganology isn't really a special interest of mine, either. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kayla Mueller

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Eh? I only made two minimal edits to the article, actually. Nothing substantial at all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Review requests

If you're interested, please review them. Recent changes: Sintashta, Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex, Andronovo culture, and Chariot burial. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Zyma: Postpone the review. The editor behind these changes, Grathmy (talk · contribs), is probably a sock of Tirgil34 (talk · contribs).[26][27][28] See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34. Krakkos (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Krakkos, for letting us know that there's no need to bother. Thank you for all of your tireless work hunting Tirgil34's sockpuppets.

It's interesting that Tirgil34 identifies as female on German Wikipedia, like confirmed sock Lamedumal and suspected sock ArordineriiiUkhtt, who got me banned, and apparently identifies or poses as a trans woman. I have to say I wonder what's up there. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Tirgil34 has recently been very active on Wiktionary through his sock Hirabutor, with which he is primarily engaged in reconstrucing various Proto Indo-European words.[29] For example he claims that the Germanic and Celtic word for horse are of Turkic origin, proving that the Scythians were Turkic. Is this reliable? I would also like to hear your opinon at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uysyn. Krakkos (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a complete non sequitur, of course. Even if we grant that all of this is correct and the sources have not been misrepresented (which I can't be bothered to check right now), a Wanderwort passing through the Scythians does not prove anything about the language or ethnic identity of the Scythians. All we have is a pre-Germanic/Celtic *marko- (hence, dating to Iron Age Central Europe), which vaguely resembles Asian, especially East Asian, horse words. What the origin of this word is, especially geographically, is by no means clear, as so frequently in putative Eurasian Wanderwörter. Note that Kroonen in his Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic says no more about *marha- than "a Germanic-Celtic isogloss", gives a reconstruction *mark-o-, which he identifies as weur, i. e., common Germanic/(Italo-)Celtic, and makes no mention of the Asian horse words at all, clearly not finding them relevant to the etymology of the word, nor informative. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup.[30] Tirgil34's version was of course full of OR and SYN. For example it claimed that "This might be an Asiatic Wanderwort... possibly originated in the domestication of wild horses by the Botai culture of northern Kazakhstan (3700-3100 BCE)." I have actually checked the accessible sources, and none of them claimed that. It's a complete invention by him. Tirgil34 has a Youtube account with more than 7,000 subscribers, where he is promoting this theory,[31] in addition to claiming that Etruscans, Greeks, Native Americans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, even Celts and Germans are of Turkic origin. He claims that the Botai culture of "4th-6th millenium BC" is of Proto-Turkic origin,[32] and then that the Wusun of the Han-era as Proto-Turkic.[33] That is, the same Proto-language existing for 6,000 years. He's obviously clueless about linguistics. Appearently, Checkuser identified bad sockpuppets qualify for indefinite blocking at Wiktionary, so the policy is quite clear on how Hirabutor should be dealt with. Krakkos (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. Clearly a man (woman?) on a mission. This sort rarely gives a damn for details such as how to use a term like proto-X technically precisely. No idea why no admin seems to care that Tirgil34 and many others of that ilk pollute Wikipedia and Wiktionary with straight-out ultranationalist propaganda, misinformation and lies. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

See now Wiktionary, where Tirgil34 amply demonstrates that comprehension problem. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Semitic languages

Hi Florian, I noticed that you are a German speaker who is interested in languages. Would you be kind enough to help out at Talk:Semitic_languages#German_speaker_needed_-_Eichorn.27s_explanation?

Eichhorn is credited with creating the term "Semitic" in its modern usage, and the 220-year-old work in which he explains his logic for creating the term doesn't translate well via google translate. I have spent a lot of time transposing out the german text (the google books version doesn't seem to have scanned well), so any improvements you can make would be greatly appreciated.

One it's fixed, we will put the most relevant quotes into the body of the english article, and if German editors are interested we could put the same into the de version.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for your help translating at Semitic languages! Oncenawhile (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad I could help! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tirgil34

Hi Florian. Can you please comment on the discussion regarding Tirgil34 and his new socks? here is the discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.165.40 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Mutual relations

Florian, as first, on the discussion above by the IP user, which is by the way a sock puppet accusing many editors for being Tirgil34 socks, wrote "Ah yes, I know Crovata ... He insisted on using outdated, cherrypicked literature to support his fringy ideas. Tedious guy and very Tirgil34-like in his monomania". Do you know how much is disgusting to read something so untrue about by an editor who writes only truth and edits only according the WP:NPOV principles? I am saying again, do not fall for editor Ivan Štambuk lies. Obviously you do not know how much there's propaganda by both sides (right or left) among ex Yugoslavian countries. Yes, he is indeed lying about this certain topic because of personal reasons, accusing and pointing false issues about it, and he's not whatsoever an expert on Croatian Early Middle Age history and Croatian ethnogenesis. In March discussed with him at his talk page, found his total bias and lack of knowledge about the whole topic, nonethless invited him to give his view at my sandbox talk page, he still did not accept, was inactive for months, to be active again this last several days and to do what - again storm the article with false accusations.

You are calling me "uncivil and dishonest", where and on what basis? Did you read at all the discussions and his behaviour during them? Mocking every reliable academic scholar or historian which is against his own personal POV? During all discussions with him, he showed only intentional ignorance of the points of discussion. And you're defending him and his personal POV? Please answer me, why?

The discussion at the Ban (title) talk page is wholly set incorrectly (intentionally). It should not be about "including" those sourced, reliable and important scholars consideraations about the topic, yet "removing" them according WP:NPOV, and not on personal biased editor POV. You were welocmed to give your opinion about the discussion, about the sandbox talk page revision, still did not answer me back then. And waiting for "consensus" with infinite duration due to inactivity of editors (intentional), or because there's no constructive discussion (due to personal editor POV which is no WP criteria), is no good.

Please, sustain from reverting the sourced info from the article, and friendly and constructively join the discussion. And am saying again, the removal has to be based on WP principles (there's none), as everything else is unsubstantiated bias.--Crovata (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

With your begging and whining, and repetition of your accusations and insults against Ivan, you're only making things worse. Spamming people with walls of text is uncivil and dishonest too. Despite your insinuations, I do not always agree with Ivan, but I respect him – unlike you, who is just another aggressive nationalist with no relevant expert knowledge to speak of, instead you're just a WP:RANDY. Which means: There is nothing more to discuss with you, because you're just too thick-headed; Ivan has explained things to you again and again and you just wouldn't listen, so he got tired and stopped pointlessly trying to get through to you. You're a hopeless case. Shut up and stop bothering me, please. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Florian, do you know why I invited you to the discussion in March? I will not comment false accusations (of being aggressive nationalist, hopeless case...) as have years of neutral and objective studying, and done multiple constructive edits about the topic you're not aware at all. Ivan is still respected by me, but his bias and lack of knowledge, and intentional wish to be removed reliable sources from the topic have nothing to do with following Wikipedia NPOV principles as violating them. I am sorry to write that, but that how it is. Please, reconsider what you wrote, and after few days, friendly and constructively invite you to give your neutral and critical view of the topic here, or on my talk page. This reverts and replying on multiple false accusations is tiresome as am working on several articles. Thank you.--Crovata (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it's pointless. Discussions with you always move in circles. You've already been told that the whole etymology stuff with outdated, misrepresented or irrelevant sources does not belong into the article. Your false accusations against Ivan are tiresome indeed. You're not objective, neutral or unbiased at all. So finally shut up and leave me in peace. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussions which lead to truth and construction are not useless. For example, to understand how they are not outdated, misrepresented or irrelevant, or the perspective of my intentions and edits. Understanding that is not futile at all. My friendly invitation is still there. Okay.--Crovata (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh...

Florian, is he our genius? Differing from an average Hindu nationalist, he reject OIT, but preoccupied with Andronovo, lndo-European and particularly lndo-lranian homeland. Also his last comments regarding languages of Scythian-related groups (such as Massagates), BB Lal-remember Grathmy's comments-, Turko-Mongols...are also interesting. What do you think? Read the last discussion that was opened by him and decide by yourself.

Note: Our buddy was interested in Buddhism, and it is not so hard to pretend as if he was lndian. 176.219.160.171 (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Krakkos: You're the expert sock-hunter. What do you think? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"Sigh" again....Florian, i think the hopeless vandal is watching your talk page-not surprisingly. The "lndian"(!) account stopped editing and just after 1 day, an another one was created for the same purpose. But this time, in order not to be noticed, he avoid particular topics that were mentioned above. This guy must be unemployed or have profits (such as money) for these kinds of edits. 'Cause nobody has such a free time. 176.219.133.189 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

176.219.133.189 Surely there is a similarity between the above mentioned users and Tirgil with regards to the rejection of Bronze Age nomadic cultures of Central Asia as Proto-Indo-Iranian,[34] and similarities with Grathmy in regards to both this and rejection of Indo-Aryan migration theory. These accoutns could however belong to a separate "Indigenous Aryans" promoting sockmaster. If you find more convincing evidence i suggest you file an SPI yourself, and create an account while you're at it. Krakkos (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Krakkos: l have created and replied you via e-mail. 176.219.134.165 (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Copulating with a Dead Horse

That is, hands down, the funniest piece of "nerd" humor I have seen in at least a month. I even shared it on Facebook. Thank you for that good laugh. It definitely brightened my day. --Taivo (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure! I'm glad that my inability to resist a pun sometimes amuses people other than myself :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion about this dubious etymology

Hi. I read this article Kunduz. The etymology section looks completely wrong and dubious. This is the last clean revision. Then an IP user appeared and made these changes. Current revision is more similar to a pseudo-etymology. Even if IP's edit is right, the etymology section turned into a confusing and nonsense section, and it needs cleanup. Would you please verify it? Unfortunately, I found many similar cases on other articles (various topics). Not just dubious etymology sections but all kinds of pseudo-scientific things. And I don't know how to deal with this huge amount of forum-like and personal analysis/commentary stuff. Every time we fix and clean an article, theses problems happen again. --Zyma (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is going to be difficult without a source for the etymology that was in the article previously. You could revert the IP additions as unsourced, but then they could complain that the original etymology wasn't sourced either. A citation is the obvious solution. Sorry I can't help more, I don't know where to look (as in books), perhaps you can find something on Google Books or Google Scholar. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

About Arabic ayin(ع)

Here we have some other ideas.

“

Depending on the region, the Arabic ʿayn ranges from a pharyngeal [ʕ] to an epiglottal [ʢ].

”

Which one should be applied?

Huhu9001 (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave it out. Ladefoged is a generalist source, whom specialised sources can override. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, why haven't you checked Talk:Voiced pharyngeal fricative, the obvious to-go place? It's full of discussions on this point. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

To Florian Blaschke: Yes, it is. But as far as I know, the idea of adding "ʕrabi" (عربي) to the article was however the one supported by the editors on that page.Huhu9001 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

One or two editors do not a consensus make. If you are so desperate to add it, even though the Egyptian Arabic example is already there, start a new discussion or continue an existing one on the talk page. However, be aware that there is no such thing as "Arabic" without qualification, and Modern Standard Arabic is hardly anybody's first language and its pronunciation varies regionally according to the native dialect of the speaker. So it is better to have an example from a specific dialect. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

To Florian Blaschke: I am not sure since seemingly there is no one standing against it on that page. On the other hand, is it suggested that the item "Standard Arabic" should never appear in the "Occurance" tables of any IPA articles?--by Huhu9001 (talk) at 14:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Depends – if there is no (or no significant) regional variation in the pronunciation of a certain phoneme, I don't see any big problem with this.

By the way, there is no need to write "To (link to my user page): " (or use the shorter alternative {{ping|Florian Blaschke}}) on this page all the time, because I get notifications anyway whenever somebody writes something on my talk page. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

To Florian Blaschke: Sorry, it might be a habbit arising from OCD.--by Huhu9001 (talk) at 15:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a honey-trap for people with OCD tendencies or actual OCD. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Safaitic and Hismaic are Arabic, not north-Arabian

I request you revisit your changes and read Ahmad al-Jallad's work on Safaitic --Zimriel (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it already consensus in the field or only a lone researcher's opinion? If it's only al-Jallad's opinion (so far), we cannot report it as fact. Not yet. Be patient. For the time being, it's better to persist in treating Safaitic as ANA.

Even if Safaitic may really be more similar in some ways or in fact more closely related to Classical Quranic Arabic than the rest of ANA, it does not necessarily follow that Safaitic is the exact ancestor of Classical Quranic Arabic, which has al-, not (h)an-.

I remain sceptical also because of the region where these inscriptions were found, which is much farther north than Mecca and the Hijaz in general.

@AnonMoos: Do you know more about this? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The Meccan evidence cannot be reviewed by impartial scholars - on penalty of death. So let's ignore all that. We should just be following the philology of the Arabic language(s). It looks a lot like you've just assumed Muslims' own self-understanding (which is, as noted above, untestable), and that this a priori reasoning is influencing your editorial decisions elsewhere...

Al-Jallad deals with the al- question at length. Al- does in fact appear in some Safaitic inscriptions: pp. 15, 294 (this in Greek script). More isoglosses are brought in pp 11-14. So this one bit of evidence you've brought is inconclusive.

I really would like some experts in Semitic linguistics to chime in on this. --Zimriel (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No response. I'm just going to go ahead and wipe out your changes, then. --Zimriel (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Because I'm totally Muslim, right? I still do not agree and remain sceptical. As long as there is no expert input, the old versions should remain.

Wikipedia is inherently conservative (in the scientific, not political sense) and incorporates new ideas as fact only after they have been accepted by consensus in the relevant field. So as soon as handbooks report al-Jallad's ideas as fact, we can present them as fact. So far, they are only a prelimary proposal and should be mentioned only as that: a proposal still to be examined by the expert community. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sredny Stog culture

I'm still reading the article Kurgan hypothesis. As I read, I get side-tracked by reading other articles to which this article is linked. One is the article on the Sredny Stog culture. I am puzzled by something and wondered if you could clarify it for me. The last sentence in the second paragraph in the section Sredny Stog culture#Overview is the following:

• For this and other reasons, Yuri Rassamakin suggests that the Sredny Stog culture should be considered as an areal term, with at least four distinct cultural elements co-existing inside the same geographical area.

The phrase "an areal term" was not linked, but I looked it up and found an article Areal feature, which I read. However, upon re-reading the sentence from the Kurgan hypothesis article that I copied above, I cannot figure out how "an areal term" fits in with anything in the article Areal feature. Did I find the wrong article? What's the connection? CorinneSD (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ha, I guessed correctly that it is you! Well, "areal" in this case is not a strictly technical term, nor meant in a linguistic sense, but it might be a bit similar to its use in linguistics, in that it could refer to cultures co-existing in a particular area and influencing each other. What Rassamakin seems to mean is that "Sredny Stog culture" should be taken as a collective term for these distinct archaeological cultures which used to exist in a particular area side by side. I'm not sure, but perhaps he thinks that the term is appropriate or useful because despite their distinctness, these cultures do have similarities and common features thanks to mutual influences. Similarly, the Altaic languages in Asia (or the Mosan languages in North America) do not form a demonstrated language family (well, I guess the jury is still out on Altaic), but owing to the undisputed existence of long-standing mutual influence between the languages in question, the term is still useful; i. e., even if Altaic is not a family, it is an areal group. So you could say "Altaic" or "Mosan" is more of an areal term when asked what you think of either. And areal groups, whether in linguistics or in archaeology, tend to be linked through areal features. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Florian, for this and the Kurgan culture explanation. This is the first time I have ever heard or seen that word, "areal". I don't even know how it is to be pronounced. If WP articles are to be written in a style and at a level that is comprehensible to the average reader, I think this word qualifies as jargon particular to archaeology and/or linguistics. If the word is not the only possible one for that context, can you think of another word that would convey a similar meaning?

Also, I have a similar concern about a word in Funnelbeaker culture. It's the first word in the second paragraph in Funnelbeaker culture#Ethnicity and language:

• Heterodoxically, Dutch publications mention mixed burials and propose a quick and smooth internal change to Corded Ware within two generations occurring about 2900 BC in Dutch and Danish TRB territory, probably precluded by economic, cultural and religious changes in East Germany, and call the migrationist view of steppe intrusions introducing Indo-European languages obsolete (at least in this part of the world).

I know that "heterodoxically" means in a manner that differs from the "orthodox" view, and I assume that in this case Gimbutas' kurgan hypothesis is the "orthodox" view to which the Dutch publications are being contrasted, but the Dutch publications were published in 1991. Wasn't Gimbutas' 1956 kurgan hypothesis already generally held to be incorrect by then? Why use such an academic transitional adverb as "heterodoxically" for an encyclopedia that's supposed to be comprehensible to the average reader? I'm sure there are other, simpler ways to indicate that the Dutch writers' ideas were in contrast to the kurgan hypothesis. Even the phrase, "probably precluded by economic, cultural and religious changes in East Germany" is a little dense. It's not clear what is meant by that. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

How about "regional"? After all, "area" and "region" are very similar in meaning.

As for Gimbutas's (Gimbutas'? Does Lithuanian count as a classical language?) model, it was never really considered incorrect by linguists at least; if they had an opinion on the Indo-European Urheimat question at all, they usually thought (even before Gimbutas) that an origin in late Neolithic/Chalcolithic Europe, especially in the Pontic steppes, is a plausible if not the most plausible solution (the Kurgan hypothesis article mentions that the basic idea precedes Gimbutas; her main achievement was the compilation of archaeological data that helped support it). My impression is that it is only among modern archaeologists (due to their antimigrationist bent and the tendency to assume that archaeological continuity means linguistic continuity as well) and geneticians (who share the continuity fallacy with archaeologists) that Gimbutas and her theory is unpopular, and who so that many of them eagerly latched onto Renfrew's alternative hypothesis.

Yes, these phrasings are not exactly lay-friendly, but academics love jargony wording when it is concise. If you manage to rephrase it without making it sound cumbersome, but possibly even similarly succinct, kudos. Yes, "heterodox" is the opposite of "orthodox". As for "precluded", that doesn't make sense in context. Perhaps something like "accompanied" is meant. It's about the idea that the change from TRB to Corded Ware was an internal development, which is yet another instance of the continuity fallacy: It's always possible that cultural changes are due to an internal dynamic, but that does not mean that migration cannot play a role. Historical experience tells us that it often does, and that migration is a very common event, in all regions and periods of history, so it makes no sense to dismiss "migrationist" explanations out of hand; at least in this case, I see no reasoning given for the exclusion of this possibility, so it does appear overly facile to me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful replies. Regarding the sentence in Sredny Stog culture#Overview, if we transfer the linguistic meaning of "areal" from the Areal feature article to an anthropological situation, as described in the last part of that sentence, then "areal" has a specific meaning that "regional" lacks, doesn't it? Something about the "four distinct cultures" influencing each other? I could easily substitute "regional" for "areal", but does that capture the meaning intended? Or is it better not to introduce this idea without further explaining it (and I don't see further explanation of Rassamakin's idea)?

In stead of "heterodoxically", how about beginning the sentence with one of these:

• In contrast to Gimbutas's hypothesis, Dutch publications...
• In contrast, Dutch publications...
• van J. H. F. Bloemers & T. van Dorp express a different view: they mention mixed burials and propose..."
• Dutch researchers express a different view: they mention mixed burials and propose... – CorinneSD (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It depends. If it is already clear from the preceding text that these Dutch researchers do not represent the mainstream or majority thinking on the origins of the Corded Ware culture, that suffices. (By the way: Have you seen mention of the new study which now also provides genetic support for a link between Yamna/steppe cultures and the Corded Ware? This link it particular has been a long-standing problem in archaeology, because it seemed difficult to show that the Corded Ware actually derives from the steppe — which, curiously, also appeared to favour the outdated thinking popular in early 20th century Germany that the Corded Ware people were the true Proto-Indo-Europeans! Now we can finally bury this idea, which was always awfully convenient for the völkisch movement; it's more difficult to argue or insinuate, as is often attempted on talk pages, that Western, Central or Northern European scholars favouring the Pontic steppe as the Indo-European Urheimat are somehow motivated by ethnocentrism.) Else, it might be preferrable to state something like "In contrast to Gimbutas's prevailing hypothesis" or "[her] hypothesis, which is predominant in the field" etc.

As for "areal", I agree that "regional" doesn't fully capture it, and doesn't quite fit. The term clearly has something to do with geography, and can suggest interaction (although I'm not completely sure if Ramassakin meant that), but I'm not clear on how to paraphrase it. Don't you think the following clause clarifies the meaning, and that areal is an adjective referring to areas? This bit of technical jargon in an article about a technical subject, not something that novices are likely to read, strikes me as tolerable. But if you can think of a more lay-friendly paraphrase, I would be delighted.

As a final point, names ending in -s in the singular always present a conundrum for me when I want to use the possessive of such a name. According to English possessive, use of the s after the apostrophe is normally mandatory – the only exception being names with Latin and Greek endings. The Lithuanian ending -as happens to be the precise counterpart of Greek -os and Latin -us, so I'm tempted to drop the awkward second s here, too, and use a bare apostrophe, as if the ending were Latinate or Greek. What do you think? Or, better: How do you pronounce the possessive of Gimbutas or (say) Zorbas? Same as the base form or with an additional syllable (as if Gimbutases, Zorbases)? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Re possessive form of "Gimbutas", etc.: I am also often puzzled by the same thing and have read the pertinent sections of English possessive over and over. I think I read in that article that the form that is closest to the way the word would be pronounced (by native speakers) is one guideline that is used. I think in the case of names like "Gimbutas", most native speakers would pronounce it without adding an extra syllable: Mrs. Gimbutas' house (kind of like Achilles' heel). It takes a bit of work to add that extra syllable, and most speakers are in a hurry so would be likely to drop that extra syllable. I don't know the name "Zorbas". I have heard a Greek first name "Zorba", so it would be "Zorba's house", but if "Zorbas" is indeed a name, I think it would be Zorbas' house, like Gimbutas' house.

Re "areal": On Merriam-Webster dictionary on-line, looking up "areal" leads only to the word "area". [35] The adjective and adverbial forms are just added at the bottom and have no separate definitions. I think the only noun definition that would apply is 5b. a geographic region. So, as you said, "areal" would mean something like, "of, pertaining to, or having [something] to do with an area, or geographical region", and I think that's how it is used in the Sredny Stog culture#Overview sentence. Maybe it wasn't meant to suggest anything more than that. I'll copy the sentence here for reference:

• For this and other reasons, Yuri Rassamakin suggests that the Sredny Stog culture should be considered as an areal term, with at least four distinct cultural elements co-existing inside the same geographical area.

If it's just that simple, then this is not a very interesting sentence. It doesn't seem to say much. Rassamakin must have had something specific in mind, somehow contrasting the term with another use, but it's not clear (to me anyway) what that was. Perhaps something like this would make sense:

• For this and other reasons, Yuri Rassamakin suggests that the term "Sredny Stog culture" should be considered a localized term, with at least four distinct cultural elements co-existing inside the same geographical area.

I think we need an anthropologist to figure this out.

Re: Finding an appropriate transitional word or phrase: I'm sorry, I don't understand from your word "Else" what you are suggesting. I think you are suggesting using one of those two possible wordings, but I'm not sure. Shall we just use one of those? Thanks for your explanation about the latest genetic results. I really am only now learning about Corded Ware, etc., but will certainly keep reading. CorinneSD (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Re possessive: When would you use an additional syllable at all? Perhaps in monosyllabic words? Would you say (for example) Hicks's or Fox's or Rice's? I believe the point of the added s in the singular possessive form is to differentiate between, for example, Andrew's and Andrews's, Hay's and Hays's, Fock's and Fox's, or Parson's and Parsons's. If you don't add a syllable, you shouldn't add an s in the spelling, either. As for Zorba, the original Greek name (a surname, not a first name) is Zorbas; not sure why the -s is omitted in English.

Re "areal": I believe Rassamakin rejects the view of the Sredny Stog culture as a single, coherent archaeological culture and thinks instead that there are at least four distinct cultures from the same general area and period lumped together under that term, and that's what he means by saying "Sredny Stog culture" is an areal term. Unfortunately, I don't know how archaeologists delimit archaeological cultures; I think it would help a lot to understand this issue better.

Re "Else": I mean that if the context makes already clear that the opinion of the Dutch scholars in question diverges from the majority of scholars, who basically largely tend to agree with Gimbutas in this respect, there is no need to change the phrasing. If it is not clear, the sentence should explicitly mention that somehow so that the reader is not misled – originally, the adverb "heterodoxically" conveyed that point. I merely suggested possible phrasings, better ones could likely be found. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Re adding an additional syllable: I'm not sure, but I think most native speakers would not add an extra syllable for the possessive form of the name Hicks: "Mr. Hicks' house.. With the name Fox, I think most speakers would say, "Mr. Fox's house". With "Rice", I think most would say, "Mr. Rice's house". "Mr. Rice' house (no extra syllable) sounds wrong. Regarding distinguishing between Andrew's and Andrews's, I think most often the context would make it clear which is meant. "Andrew" is a men's first name, so we would hear things like, "I'm going over to Andrew's house," or "That's Andrew's car." "Andrews" is most often a surname, so we would be likely to hear, "That's the Andrews' house." The addition of "the" makes it clear that "Andrews" is a surname referring to a family. So it could be pronounced exactly the same as Andrew's and there would be no confusion.

Re: "areal", I hope the original writer wasn't thinking that "areal" meant "not real", or "without reality", as in "amoral" or "atypical". CorinneSD (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Like unreal? From the context, I don't think so. As for surnames, in the case of Andrew, I can't find a concrete example, but many if not most given names also occur as surnames, so disambiguation is still a real, valid concern. Also, both Luca and Lucas are given names in real-world use, but of course these were only examples and it doesn't actually matter much for my point if they exist IRL. I would like to know how prescriptive grammarians deal with the possessive of words in [z] or [s]. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen this article? Apostrophe and the section Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an “s” or “z” sound and the subsequent one? CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I have. In fact, this confirms what I've suspected: Even in polysyllabic words, many authorities recommend an additional s, although it is often omitted in pronunciation (probably virtually always in colloquial, not particularly careful enunciation). However, in monosyllabic words, adding s is much more commonly recommended, which is why your comment that most speakers omit it even in Hicks is surprising. Only classical and biblical names are exempted, but I've never had a problem with Moses' or even Zeus' (an exceptional monosyllable!) because I was already aware of that particular exception. (How about Nox, the goddess of the night, then?) James can be included if a biblical character or a saint is meant, but I would tolerate omission in general. (I would also add s if the s, z or x is silent.) I ask, of course, because I have no native pronunciation as a guide. Interestingly, the omission of the s is claimed to be an archaism. I wonder what the pronunciation in the early 20th century or earlier periods was. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen this discussion of James in the third paragraph of Apostrophe#Possessives in geographic names? CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't quite get it. I understand that St James's Park has an additional 's because it's not the park of St James, but the park of the parish of St James, but why does the church have an additional 's then, too? The parish was named after the church, so it is properly the park of the parish of the church of St James and according to the "double genitive" logic, it should be a triple genitive: St James's's Park! But since the church already has an 's, it should actually be a quadruple genitive: St James's's's Park (for St James's Church's Parish's Park)! :D --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Indo-European ablaut

Hello, Florian - I've just read the article on Indo-European ablaut, and I have two questions:

1) In the section Indo-European ablaut#Preliminary considerations, in the first paragraph we read:

• (quantitative gradation: photograph and photography).

In the third paragraph of the same section we read:

• photograph/photography)

this last one in Edit Mode: ''phot'''o'''graph''<!-- the second o of photograph is bolded because it's the one that changes pronunciation -->/''phot'''o'''graphy'').

You'll notice that in the first instance of "photograph" (first paragraph), the first "o" is in bold and in the second instance of "photograph" (third paragraph), the second (middle) "o" is in bold. I just wondered if it was supposed to be different like that. Are they different because they represent two different types of vowel-change? (In the second one, I hope by photoograph the writer didn't mean that the second "o" is pronounced as a long o; I thought it was pronounced as a schwa, but that may be a different issue.)

2) About half-way through the article, I saw "ablaut" in italics. Since up to that point it had been in Roman (regular, not italic) font, I changed a few from italics to Roman. Then it was Roman for a while, and then at the end of the article back to italics. I don't know whether it should be in italics or not, but I think since it's not in italics in the title, and it seems to be an English word, I don't think it needs to be in italics. If you do, let me know and I'll go back and change them all to italics. CorinneSD (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

1) I wasn't the person who originally added this example, and I'm not a mind-reader, so your best bet is bringing this up on the talk page, as the adder may notice it and react (you can find out who the adder was by going through the history, and you can ping him on talk so they are more likely to notice that a discussion about the example was started); if the original adder doesn't turn up and nobody else can make sense of it either, it's better to remove the example entirely. (Perhaps whoever wrote that comment missed that both Os change pronunciation.)

2) I'm not a native English speaker, so I wouldn't know; but my impression matches yours: as a technical term, it seems to be a naturalised word, even though it may not be familiar to laypeople. Again, a question better suited to the talk page. I just don't know for sure what the matter is. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Re (1), I posted a comment on the talk page. Re (2), apparently it is an English word [36], so I don't think it needs to be in italics. CorinneSD (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. By the way, do you know the trick explained at Meta (and just demonstrated by me here)? So, in the case at hand, you can also use a link such as [[wikt:ablaut]]. This trick even works in the searchbox! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh... Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Persian language: Comment request

Hi. Please write your opinion on Talk:Persian_language#SIL_macrolangauge. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous Australians

Hello, Florian - I've been reading the article on Indigenous Australians, and I have a question for you. In the second paragraph in the section Indigenous Australians#Languages is the following sentence:

• In the north, stretching from the Western Kimberley to the Gulf of Carpentaria, are found a number of non-Pama–Nyungan groups of languages which have not been shown to be related to the Pama–Nyungan family nor to each other.

There is something not quite right grammatically with this sentence. Since I don't know what the actual situation with the languages is, I'm going to explain my concerns and then let you choose the best wording. (Please forgive me if I'm explaining something that is perfectly clear to you.)

Because the negative is part of the verb ("have not been shown"), the negative conjunction "nor" is not right. The phrase "nor to each other" is not clear. "Nor" would be right if the negative were before "to be related" (or even before "to the Pama–Nyungan family"). However, changing

• have not been shown to be related to the Pama–Nyungan family

to

• have been shown not to be related to the Pama–Nyungan family

changes the meaning. It means something different. The first one expresses an unsuccessful effort to show relatedness. The second one expresses a specific result of research proving that "a number of non-Pama–Nyungan groups of languages" are not related to the Pama–Nyungan family of languages. So the construction cannot be changed unless the latter is true.

One possible re-wording is as follows:

• ...are found a number of non-Pama–Nyungan groups of languages which have not been shown to be related to the Pama–Nyungan family; nor have they been shown to be related to each other. [negative verb - lack of success in showing relatedness - "nor" phrase expanded so that it is clearer]

Another possible re-wording is as follows:

• ...are found a number of non-Pama–Nyungan groups of languages which have been shown neither to be related to the Pama–Nyungan family nor to each other. [affirmative verb - specific results proving lack of relationship] (can only choose this if it is true)

Any thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The phrasing is a bit redundant (and a comma is missing anyway, because the relative clause is not restrictive, but explanative; missing commas, in such cases, I find myself correcting a real lot). "Non-Pama–Nyungan" (see Australian Aboriginal languages#Classification) inherently refers to Australian Aboriginal languages that have not been demonstrated to be related to Pama–Nyungan, and it just so happens that these languages do not form a single demonstrated group (so the term "Non-Pama–Nyungan" is basically an areal term, or a wastebasket taxon, to use a term from biological taxonomy). Basically, the sentence tries to explain what "Non-Pama–Nyungan languages" are. Perhaps it would be better to split the sentence.

It is a principle in historical linguistics that it is never possible to demonstrate that languages or language groups (families) are not deeply related to each other; the reason is that after an unspecified period (usually, something on the order of 10,000 years is assumed), languages change so much that any evidence of relationship has become statistically indistinguishable from random similarities, i. e., chance, borrowing or other non-genetic reasons for similarities; the noise drowns out the signal. Even in the case of Indo-European, which is probably on the order of 5000–6000 years old, if we had no older attestations but only knew the contemporary languages as they were ca. 2000 AD, it would probably be difficult to show conclusively that Indo-European is a true family and not merely a long-standing areal group. (In the case of the Semitic languages, whose age is similar, but which are apparently slower-changing in some ways, it may be easier. Even Insular Celtic, which appears to be only as old as 2000 years, would be challenging because the Goidelic and Brythonic languages have changed so much, and radically diverged from each other in a clean split with no intermediates nor an outgroup!) So, only "have not been shown to be related" is conceivably correct.

Of those alternatives which you suggest, I prefer the neither-nor solution, but would add a comma to separate the relative clause since it is non-restrictive. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your informative reply. Unfortunately, the neither...nor wording I suggested above uses the construction "have been shown" which you say cannot be correct. The verb has got to be negative: "have not been shown". I think the solution is to get rid of the subordinate clause and split the sentence, and change "nor" to "or":

• In the north, stretching from the Western Kimberley to the Gulf of Carpentaria, are found a number of non-Pama–Nyungan groups of languages. These non-Pama–Nyungan groups of languages have not been shown to be related to the Pama–Nyungan family or to each other.

Grammatically, this works the best, but I think the information in the second sentence could be given earlier, right after the terms are first introduced, immediately following the sentence, "The rest are sometimes lumped under the term "non-Pama–Nyungan". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I missed that. Hmmm, yes, I agree, in fact I think the whole approach is wrong; redundant and stylistically ugly. We need to rethink the entire phrasing. You are right, the information should be introduced after the "lumped" sentence: "These languages and groups of languages have not been shown to be related to the Pama–Nyungan family or to each other." (Or perhaps: "These consist of a number of small families and single languages which have not been shown to be related to the Pama–Nyungan family or to each other.") While it may make sense didactically to repeat information, in this particular example it is a bit overkill, and I think unnecessary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Marija Gimbutas

A lot of material was just added to Marija Gimbutas. [37] Is Rational Wiki . org a reliable source? CorinneSD (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a fan of RationalWiki, but as an open wiki, it is obviously not a RS. See WP:UGC. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

See [38] and several just before it. CorinneSD (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. This user's edits are not helpful, either. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Rus (name)

Hello, Florian - I noticed this edit to Rus (name): [39]. I don't know whether it is correct or not, but I put "Gothland" in the search bar and it redirected to Götaland. Then I put Gotland in the search bar and it went directly to an article on Gotland. I didn't search specifically for "East Gothland", though. Do you think this edit is correct? CorinneSD (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Why haven't you simply clicked on the link "East Gothland" in the text? :-) (Or indeed specifically searched for "East Gothland".) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I should have. Sorry. CorinneSD (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries! We all have a "D'oh!" moment sometimes. :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

redirect from Lion man of the Hohlenstein Stadel to new page Löwenmensch figurine

Sorry, went to follow your instructions, and found a note at the top of the article, is that adequate to make the move? I have made redirects for the pages that should have been affected. What else can I do to complete your instructions? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You should have used the Move function right away. Now it's too late. We'll have to wait for an admin to perform a histmerge.

Don't worry, however. You haven't broken anything. It's gonna be fine. Just remember this the next time you wish to rename an article.

And by the way, it is good form to discuss non-trivial page moves first. See WP:UPT. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have learned a good lesson... move function... not that it would be used very often. I'd be glad to do the heavy lifting to correct this. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The history merge will take care of the problem. Just wait a bit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Vila Franca do Campo

Hello, Florian - Do you know Latin? I think the Latin motto for the town of Vila Franca do Campo has been incorrectly translated as a question, but I'm not sure, and I don't want to change it unless I'm sure. I left a comment about this at User talk:Cplakidas#Vila Franca do Campo, which you can read. I'd appreciate your opinion, and if you think it should be changed to "He who is like God", or something else, please feel free to do so. Corinne (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Aptronym

Hey there, as you were recently on the Talk Page, but I don't know if you're very interested in the article I'm letting you know there's a discussion you may want to weigh in on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aptronym. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Both Aptronym and Nominative determinism are among those endearing amusing oases of quirkiness in Wikipedia that I would be sad to see go. Unfortunately, I can't think of dry factual reasons to keep Aptronym – at least none in addition to those already given! Still, thank you for your dedication, and for your pointer. A merger wouldn't be that bad, though, because it would mean the current version of Aptronym would still be accessible through the history of the redirect at least! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Name: Middle Persian = Sassanian?!

Hi. How are you? Would you please review these changes (diff) on Middle Persian? Some editors added "Sassanian" as alternative/native name and removed the others names. As I know, the other common names are Pahlavi and the Parsig (native name) but not such things like Sassanian. What do you think? --Zyma (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits look competent (note that the alternative names were moved, not removed), but Sassanian sounds odd. Have you checked Iranica? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, see [40] and [41]. Do you see something as Sasanian? The other name is just Pahlavi. But it's also mentioned that Pahlavi = Parthian in another era. And it seems Parsig added by Iranian editors, I searched it but just found this website. IMO, that Sasanian is a recent personal opinion on that article. Even if it's correct in some aspects, Sasanian Pahlavi sounds more accurate. Because there is no language/dialect such as Sasanian. They were just a Persian dynasty who spoke Middle Persian/Pahlavi. --Zyma (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think this is a valid alternative name, either, or at least there seems to be no evidence for this usage. As the first article (which is very interesting, BTW) explains at the beginning (in the section about Middle Persian dialectology), Pahlavi was originally a name for Northwestern Iranian dialects (including but not confined to Parthian) spoken in the centre and northwest of what is now Iran, but the term acquired a connotation of "heroic, old, ancient", and was eventually transferred to Zoroastrian Middle Persian. Considering the numerous Northwestern Iranian (mostly Arsacid-era Parthian) loanwords in Zoroastrian Middle Persian (and which are also found in Early New Persian and New Persian), this happens to be not entirely inappropriate. As the Wikipedia article now explains that Pahlavi refers to post-Sassanian Zoroastrian Middle Persian specifically, this is a distinct improvement. Only the "Sassanian" moniker seems to be wrong. I have no idea where it comes from and I have now reverted it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, many editors add their own personal commentaries to articles. If you have time, take a look at Persian language, Old Persian, Western Persian, Dari language, Tajik language. Because I think all of them have similar issues due to recent contributions. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My advice is to simply revert any edit that smells fishy. Especially if it is uncited, of course. Just be bold. Do trust your own judgment more; I know I trust it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cumans

Hello, Florian -- I am in the midst of copy-editing the article Foundation of Moldavia (trying to familiarize myself with the subject matter in order to be able to voice an opinion about a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the word "Foundation" in the title). In the last paragraph of the section Foundation of Moldavia#Background, I came across a sentence that surprised me. Referring to the Mongols, the sentence reads:

• The conquerors adopted the Cuman language during the next century.

I had already looked at the table in the article on the Cumans, in the section Cumans#Codex Cumanicus, showing the same passage in Cuman, Turkish and English. A quick look at it shows that Cuman is quite similar to Turkish. However, I had always thought (based on the little I had read in college) that the reason Finnish and Hungarian were different from the other languages of Europe was because of the Mongol invasion. I also thought Turkish was another in the same group of languages as Finnish and Hungarian and that all three came from some central Asian (Mongol?) language. Thus, I was surprised to read that the Mongols adopted the Cuman language, which seems to be the opposite of what I had thought had occurred. What do I have wrong here? Can you correct me, or elucidate this for me? Corinne (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken about Finnish and Hungarian. These languages (the Finno-Ugric or Uralic languages, which include lots of "smaller" languages besides) are native to Europe, even if an early form might have been imported from Asia in deep prehistory (see Proto-Uralic homeland hypotheses). You are probably thinking of the Ural–Altaic languages hypothesis, but this hypothesis has been outdated for a very long time now, although it appears to have still been taught in some places until not too long ago (or you may have read a very old or outdated book). These languages all share certain superficial similarities (and lexicon), but this is due to contact (or simply chance, in some respects). Turkish and Cuman belong to the family known as Turkic languages, the Mongols traditionally speak Mongolic languages. Even the hypothesis that Turkic, Mongolic, (Manchu-)Tungusic and (in many conceptions) even Korean and Japanese belong to a big family (known as Altaic languages) is poorly supported. Speakers of Turkic and Mongolic languages in particular have had a long-standing contact (the Mongols dominated the Turkic-speaking groups at their height and in fact the Mongol armies and traders were mostly Turkic-speaking, not native Mongols), which probably accounts for almost all of the existing similarities on its own (apart from the more trivial ones such as the overall grammatic structure, which is only unusual from a Western European point of view). And yeah, usually the direction of the influence (and borrowing of words) runs from Turkic to Mongolic languages because Mongols tended to adopt Turkic languages (as these were more widely spoken and understood). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Florian, for your detailed explanation. It has been so long since I was in graduate school that my textbooks from that time are probably outdated. I will read the related articles on WP with interest. I just skimmed the article on Turkic languages. I want to ask you about something in the section Turkic languages#Schema. There is a bulleted list, and one of the items is:

• Suffix-final -G, e.g. in the suffix *lIG, in e.g. *tāğlığ

I suppose the three letters following the asterisk and the word "suffix": *lIG are properly written, but because the capital "I" looks like the lowercase "l", it looks like two capital I's or two lowercase "l's". Is there any way to differentiate the two letters so that they look different? Also, why is the middle letter, "I", capitalized when in the example word it appears to be lowercase (the "i" without a dot). By the way, what sound does that "i" without a dot represent? Corinne (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the most likely explanation. On the Ural-Altaic areal, this summary (pp. 61–63) is well worth reading, by the way.

The poor differentiation between lower-case l and upper-case I is a well-known issue of sans-serif fonts, including the font (or alternatives) used in the Vector skin. Running text is usually in serif fonts, but in web texts, sans-serif is preferred (in fact, web typography seems to invert the print convention "serif for body text, sans-serif for titles" due to screen resolution typically being lower than paper resolution). This is actually a great point and I don't have a good solution. Maybe you'd like to bring this one up in WP:RD/L, WP:HD or WP:VP. (By the way, the fixed-width font I get in the edit box differentiates lower-case l and upper-case I well, but instead, lower-case l and the figure 1 are too close for comfort!)

In Turkish and related languages, when they are written in the modern Turkish alphabet, the dotless I represents a close back unrounded vowel. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Swiss Standard German

Hello, Florian -- I was just looking at the article on Swiss Standard German, and I came across something that I'd like to ask you about. It's about something in this part of the section Swiss Standard German#Written Swiss Standard German:

There are differences in gender for some nouns:

• Swiss das Tram, Germany die Tram (English: tram, used only in Bavarian and Franconian regions in the South - "Straßenbahn" is used elsewhere in Germany)

• Swiss das E-Mail, Germany die E-Mail (English: e-mail)

In the first bulleted item, I wonder if the "close" parenthesis is in the right place. In the bulleted items just before this, the information about the regional differences is outside the parentheses. I thought that perhaps just "(English:tram)" should be in parentheses. Normally, I would just go ahead and make the change, but with language articles, I am more careful than usual; I don't want to introduce any errors. Corinne (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, you're right. The way it is worded wrongly implies we use the unassimilated English word tram /tɹæm/, but we use the loanword Tram, which is Germanised both in spelling and pronunciation. We say Tram /tram/ or Trambahn here, not /trɛm/ as in recent Anglicisms or heavily accented English. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Kharosthi

Hello, Florian -- I was looking at the article on Kharosthi, and in the section on the Kharosthi#Alphabet, the Kharosthi letters do not appear. Instead, there are just small boxes. How can I enable the appearance of the Kharosthi alphabet? Corinne (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, I've found this – does it help? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I looked through a lot of the fonts and didn't see Kharosthi. I downloaded two of Wood's fonts, but when I looked at the article, that table looked the same. I don't know if there is a font I should have chosen, or whether there is something beyond downloading that I need to do. (At the beginning of Alan Wood's "home" page, there is a note that says he regrets that he has not had the time to update the website, and that many things are several years old. Some links I clicked on (to font-related websites) don't lead anywhere. Thanks, though. Any other ideas? Corinne (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgeable about the font issue; in fact, this is an issue I have trouble with myself, and I'm often annoyed at seeing boxes and the fact that it is not easy to remedy this because you need tons of specialised fonts that cover parts of Unicode, while anything close to a pan-Unicode font does not exist; even the most comprehensive Unicode fonts cover the standard only very partially, and various scripts are not covered by any of these fonts (see the table). This is probably a constant source of frustration for many who work with obscure scripts. Maybe you'd like to ask on WP:HD or WP:RD/L instead. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Indo-European peoples

Hello Florian, i hope you are well. I recently came back from a semi-break and noticed that the category Category:Indo-European peoples was quietly deleted a month ago.[42] What is your take on this? Is there any reason why Wikipedia should have categories on Turkic peoples, Tungusic peoples, Category:Uralic peoples but not Indo-European peoples? Krakkos (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really. You could argue that Indo-European peoples are hugely divergent ethnically and in physical type, but so are Turkic and Uralic peoples. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Odin

Hello, Florian -- Happy New Year! I just want to ask you what you think of this group of edits to Odin: [43]. I never understood which was correct: "X derived (or derives) from Y" or "X is/are derived from Y", or doesn't it matter? If the change here from "derived" to "is/are derived" is correct, then there is one more instance that has to be changed, to be consistent. Corinne (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! I've reverted the edit. Personally, I actually prefer to distinguish between descendance and derivation. For example, French eau descends from Latin aqua (it's the same word, just changed in pronunciation), but Latin aquarius is derived from aqua (two related, but different words). (I wouldn't write derives, because derivation is an active process, even if it may be spontaneous, while changes in pronunciation are often subtle and speakers are unaware of them, until they accumulate so far that synchronic or diachronic varieties become difficult to understand.) These quite different concepts are usually conflated by non-linguists. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. May I ask you, though, what you mean by "derivation is an active process"? Also, what does the preference for "is/are derived" over "derives" have to do with changes in pronunciation? Corinne (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes in pronunciation are something that just happen, uncontrollably. You don't usually actively decide to pronounce words differently from older generations; it's a half-conscious drift at best. Often, people are not actually aware of having an accent that diverges from some standard pronunciation and deny it actively. For example, I've been told anecdotically that even some very educated Icelanders, including university readers teaching Icelandic and Old Norse (but not well-trained in phonetics), swear up and down that they pronounce Old Icelandic exactly the same as in the medieval period, and it is sheer impossible to get them to accept that they pronounce á as a diphthong [aːu] instead of the [aː] current in the 12th century; it's like they just can't hear it. Or Bavarians who have a strong accent in their Standard German will not infrequently claim they speak pure Standard German, and Germans will not really notice a thick German accent in English (whether in themselves or other Germans) because they're so used it (even I often fall prey to that effect, even though I'm fairly well-trained in phonetics and have a pretty good ear for some rather subtle distinctions). When you derive unpronounceable from pronounce, on the other hand, that is something you do actively. You have control over it; words do not derive themselves. That's why I prefer to say "unpronounceable is derived from pronounce" rather than "unpronounceable derives from pronounce". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Florian! Corinne (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

English articles

Florian, I was looking for some information about the use of "a" and "an" before words beginning with "u" in English, and I came across this article, English articles. I still haven't found what I'm looking for, but I noticed a tag at the section English articles#Usage. I don't know if you feel like clearing up whatever needs to be cleared up there. Can you point me to an article, or section of an article, that would treat the use of "a/an" before "u"? Corinne (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

English articles#Distinction between a and an answers your question: It depends entirely on pronunciation. It's not an orthographic issue, it's an issue of morphophonology – young children and illiterate adults distinguish a and an too, and they cannot base their decision on spelling, obviously. So you need to forget spelling. You say an uncle but a US president, a year but an yttrium atome, an outsider and an oud but a Ouija board, a xylophone but an X-ray, a Rolls-Royce but an R, an example but a euro and a ewe, and a house but an hour, where spelling cannot guide you as to whether these words start with a vowel sound or not. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This means, by the way, that a URL and an URL can both be correct, depending on your pronunciation (either you-are-ell or to rhyme with curl), and the same is true for an herb vs. a herb, an historical vs. a historical or an hypothetical vs. a hypothetical – if you drop the h, write (and say) an, else a. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Florian. Corinne (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I've noticed an interesting example in Alexander Archipelago#History: "On an 1860 map of Russian America (Alaska), the island group is called the King George III Archipelago." This reinforces my point that a vs. an is entirely about pronunciation, as "1" is obviously not a letter. Similarly, an & or a + sign, as you cannot tell if a symbol like "&" starts with a vowel without pronouncing it. A writer who blindly trusted in the "word starts with a vowel" rule and checked the spelling instead of the pronunciation would be stumped here.

Interestingly, in Early Modern English (Shakespeare, King James Bible), my/mine and thy/thine follow the same criterion, hence In the Presence of Mine Enemies (a KJV quote), to thine own self be true (a quote from Hamlet). Moreover, the is pronounced like thee only before vowel sounds (or under emphasis). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Carboniferous

Florian, do you agree with the etymology laid out in the first few lines of the article on the Carboniferous? The carbon part I understand, but is "ferous" from "fero", "I carry", "I bear"? To me, that doesn't make sense. Why would a geologic time period be named with anything to do with the first person singular form of the verb? Corinne (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It does make sense! The first person singular form of the verb is the citation form in Latin. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, first, thank you for the link to the article Lemma. I had never even heard that term before and I shall read the article. I can understand how that form of the verb is used to cite or name the verb, but I don't see how that is necessarily the form of the verb that went into forming the word "Carboniferous" or any other word. I've looked closely at the etymology of many words in the dictionary, and I've seen that words are derived from various different forms of Latin (or French, etc.) words, and those forms are often given in the etymology. If I am right, then I ask again why the first person singular would be the form that went into forming "Carboniferous", unless it was a deliberate choice made by a relatively modern scientist (but even then I would be puzzled why s/he would choose the first person singular form of the verb). Corinne (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you read that article, you will see that the first person singular form is conventionally used as the way a Latin verb is cited, instead of the infinitive like in most modern European languages. It's only a convention – it doesn't imply that this form exactly is what the -ferous was derived from. In fact, Carboniferous is merely formed after the model of terms such as coniferous (from Latin cōnifer "cone-bearing") or auriferous (from Latin aurifer "gold-bearing"), and the -fer part of Latin compounds is simply the root of the verb.

The pattern of compounds like auri-fer, lūci-fer, armi-ger, arti-fex, iū-dex etc. is extremely archaic, going back all the way to Proto-Indo-European, where this type of compound was highly productive and is known as root compound, in Sanskrit upapada-tatpurusha. It was used to form the equivalent of the relative clauses in English, and turns up in personal and tribal names (and by-names) relatively frequently. For example, Gaulish Bitu-rīges literally means "those who rule the world (of the living)", and Dumno-rīx "he who rules the underworld", although these names are usually translated as "kings of the world" and "underworld-king". It has been asserted that the Proto-Indo-Europeans did not have kings (as kings presuppose a state-like complexity of social organisation not found in the Chalcolithic or earlier, at least not outside Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Levant – i. e., Syria-Palestine –, and possibly the Indus Valley, Iran and China; there is general agreement that the origins of Indo-European are not to be sought inside these centres of early civilisation, but at most at their margins) and Latin rēx, Gaulish rīx, Old Irish rí, Middle Welsh ri, Sanskrit rāj-, all of which mean "king" or "ruler", were spinned off from compounds like this, which are based on a Proto-Indo-European verb *h₃reg̑- "to straighten, to stretch out; to rule". One can compare this type of name to "(he who) dances with wolves", by the way. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I just saw this; I don't know why I didn't see it before. Thank you. Very interesting. Corinne (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Orpheus

Florian, I'm reading the article on Orpheus, and in the section Orpheus#Etymology there is a sentence I don't understand. The sentence starts:

• Orpheus would therefore be semantically close to goao, "to lament, sing wildly, cast a spell"...

I don't see the connection between what comes just before this in the paragraph and this sentence. I don't see the connection between either "Orpheus" or the two Greek words and "goao". If it is clear to you, could you explain it to me, and perhaps add something so that this will be clear to an average reader? Corinne (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh! I don't get it, either. Feel free to add a {{clarify}} tag. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In the version in which it was originally added it made a little bit more sense, I think. All the refs are only secondary additions, though. One would have to check what they actually say. Maybe you'd like to bring the issue up on the talk page, or on the refdesk. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind doing that, but I would only be able to say what I wrote in the hidden note to editors after the "clarification needed" tag. Would that be sufficient? I don't really understand the rest about the refs.

Can you look at something else for me? I was reading the article on the Circassians, and I looked at a short article about Mervat Amin. I was really puzzled by what I saw in her list of songs. The titles are in regular font, but the letters are interspersed with numbers, mainly a lot of 2's and 3's. What is that? Corinne (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. I had also left a question on Ugog Nizdast's talk page, but his/her first reply was that s/he didn't notice any problem; that's why I left a note for you here; but since then, s/he said s/he had noticed a problem, and then left a note on Talk:Mervat Amin#Filmography section: strange numbers. Corinne (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The hidden note should suffice. The issue you note has been brought up on the talk page as well (see Talk:Orpheus#Please reduce over-sourcing at the bottom of the section), though while the editor said he had edited the article, he didn't do anything to make the passage clearer; I suspect he didn't know how to do it himself, as he didn't understand it, either. Personally, I think the sentence is confused, or at least whoever wrote it had a very poor understanding of etymology and merely went ahead according to subjective associations. Etymology is a field which most people believe they can pontificate on, while there are very few actual experts – Dunning–Kruger runs absolutely wild in this area.

For your second question, see Arabic Chat Alphabet. It does look unprofessional; Wikipedia isn't an SMS, and it is easy to enter the characters for a more professional transcription. If I were competent in Arabic, I would do it myself. Maybe you can find an Arabist on the refdesk or in a Wikiproject. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

An-ar-tica

Hey Florian. I take it the note on the Antarctica page is your baby. I see this is your field, so I stand to be corrected, but I would like a chat about it. Just a few things:

1. In all my many years in the UK speaking English, I've never heard anyone say 'anartica'. I can't even imagine how a British person would say that. Does the book cited as a source say that pronunciation is widespread? In my experience, it's entirely unknown.

2. I take issue with you stating people using a pronunciation derived from the original Greek root of the word, 'Anti-Arctic' were 'less educated'. Is there any reason to state this? Just seems to be having a dig needlessly.

3. Is the note even needed? Wouldn't the article be better without it? I'm sure it's of little interest to the majority of the people who visit the page. Wouldn't it be better suited to Wiktionary?

Cheers, Ubertoaster (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Several American accent areas regularly simplify /nt/ clusters to /nn/. The same sound change affects Sanna Claus, the towns of Sanna Barbara and Sanna Cruz, vennilation (what a vennilator does), and the city of Atlanna, Georgia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it is described as a UK pronunciation. It looks more like dissimilation to me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that could well be an Estuary/M/Cockney pronunciation as well with some glottalization instead of the t.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps. I thought T-glottalization only took place between vowel and consonant (or pausa). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I hadnt actually read the note and thought it was about the t and not the k. Sorry for butting in. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No need to be sorry! We're actually talking about both. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Morning chaps. Hmm, Cockney. I hadn't considered that. Still, I think if a Cockney dropped the first 't' he'd probably drop the second too (and replace them with glottal stops) - anʔarʔica - but really, I'm sure it's not normal to list pronunciations in regional accents on here. Does every article about something that starts with H also list the non-H Cockney pronunciation for completeness? If we scoured the UK we could probably find people pronouncing it a hundred different ways, but (I think) they'd all agree that 'ant-arct-ica' was the 'correct' pronunciation. We could move the 'anartica' pronuncation from the UK to the American side (as you say, 'Sanna Barbara'), but I don't know that Wikipedia should formally recognise what's really just lazy speech. Ubertoaster (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I was not the one to add these details; they were news to me, too. However, they were obviously gleaned from the cited sources; just go and check them.

Yes, it is of little interest to most readers, that's why it's a note so it is easily ignored. Also, it's not a dig. It says that at first the spelling pronunciation was only used by less educated people; nowadays, the perception is likely to be rather inverted. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I do think the note about the education level is probably unnecessary, and it probably could easily well have been adopted by people who knew Greek.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what one would be led to assume, yes. But reality is often counterintuitive. In the UK, it is apparently (or used to be) a shibboleth of the educated (especially the upper class) to know that words and names are frequently pronounced completely differently from their spelling. I'm thinking in particular of reductions in compounds such as housewife to /ˈhʌzɪ(f)/, which are historically regular and centuries old. In the manner of U and non-U English, middle-class individuals expose themselves as fakes and tryhards who only pretend to be upper class through overly "correct" pronunciations (hypercorrection). If you were educated at a public school, you'd definitely say "Antartica" without pronouncing the c, I suspect. Also, the complicated traditional English pronunciation of Latin is something only those have internalised who were really educated in the old-fashioned British way, while using a modern pronunciation – which is closer to the Italianate model or even to the reconstructed pronunciation for the classical period – (unless the occasion calls for it, such as in an ecclesial context, especially sacred music – for example in choral performances, where Italianate or another non-traditional-English pronunciation may be appropriate in HIP, depending on the provenance of the piece) marks you as definitely an outsider to the exclusive club that is the English upper (and upper-middle) class. Basically, to follow tradition even if it seems illogical, wrong, rude or otherwise counterintuitive on the surface is the way of the upper class. Fascinating, isn't it? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I am familiar with the fact that generally hyper correction and spelling pronunciation tends to be the mark of a middle class education and identity (not total lack of education), but my point is that unless we have a source tyhat specifically says this was the case for the word Antarctica adding it here does seem a little like an unnecessary swipe.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Crystal is explicitly given as source for that statement, so I am led to assume he talks about that example. Also, I'm at a loss how you can take "less educated" and equate it with "total lack of education". See, I think the point of the footnote is to point out that despite a widespread perception among people of average education that the /k/-less pronunciation is incorrect and a recent mistake by bumbling fools who cannot pronounce /rkt/, it does have a hoary tradition (including Old French antartique), and it is the pronunciation with /k/ which is the modern affectation (cf. the beloved at Language Log fallacy to underestimate the age of "incorrect" usages in English rather grossly, as if in the 1950s or some unspecified other "golden age" period everybody had spoken polished RP, and exactly the way sticklers imagine it used to be). This is certainly worth knowing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, right. Sorry, not your note then. I assumed it was as you were so quick to notice the change and keen to defend it. This isn't the right place for this chat then, really, but no harm done? Can stick around for a bit? So much more civilised than edit-warring. I'll just do a mass reply, seems there was a lot of chat while I was asleep. You say to check the sources - I don't know how to read books I don't own. Tell me, I don't want those tax-dodgers at Amazon to get another penny off me! The discussion about U and non-U English seems odd to me. That all died out many years before I was born. The page itself says it pretty much died out in the 1950s. You'd never find someone today pronouncing 'housewife' as 'hʌzɪ(f)' outside of a P. G. Wodehouse adaptation, if anywhere. Everyone's favourite posh person is David Attenborough. You can hear him pronounce it 'Ant-arct-ica' 13 seconds into this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiQzls8YQcw. If he'd pronounced it any other way the whole country would have gone mental. Really, I think this hyper-posh thing is a red herring. As to the existence of the note - it is pretty harmless, I'd be fine with it if it was a bit shorter and more correct. Oh, and less sneeringly critical of people's pronunciation whether they exist today or hundreds of years ago. Ubertoaster (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It goes both ways. People now sneer at those who drop the /k/. Unlike you, I see absolutely no need to defend sticklers when they are simply wrong. You can try rephrasing the point, though, if it bothers you so much ...

Well, you could visit a library if you are so desperate to check out what Crystal wrote. Just because a source is not available online doesn't mean it's not valid, you know? (Of course it would have been nicer to include a quotation from the book when adding the ref. Maybe it was an aristocratic meanie who wanted to stick it to the average Wikipedian, who lazily eschews physical libraries.)

Housewife was only an example (and the bag is still pronounced as /ˈhʌzɪf/, apparently). There are tons of words and names pronounced in unexpected ways, we have a whole list. Classics include Greenwich, Fe(a)therstonhaugh and halfpennyworth. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't sneer at anyone. Might have another go at rephrasing it when I'm sober. I'm NOT saying the source is invalid, but how many miles would I have to go to have a punt at finding a libary with that book? Too many, is the short answer. I don't care that much. I'll 'eschew' it until the cows come home, and I don't really consider myself a Wikipedian, just someone who has a interest in things being correct. Nobody says 'hʌzɪf', honestly. I bet even Jacob Rees-Mogg doesn't. Your classics are true (if antiquated in the case of 'halfpennyworth'), but does ANYONE say An-ar-tica? That's the question. Ubertoaster (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The "I don't give a damn!" paradox: You say you don't care but still argue with me. Either you care, then you'll go and try to find the book, or you don't, or not enough, then you'll have to live with the uncertainty, and I'll treat the claim which refers to the book as correct (assuming good faith and all).

According to Wiktionary, the bag is still pronounced that way in Standard English. Also, see halfpennyworth. A "nobody does/says that!"-type claim is refuted by only a single example; experience teaches that such claims are impossible to prove, and often surprisingly quickly disproved. I'll make a point of saying "Anartica" now, so there. :þ --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious I don't care enough to try to find an obscure book in a library miles away. If that makes the note invulnerable in your eyes then so be it, I doff my cap to you as a far more hardcore Wikipedia editor. Slightly disappointing though, isn't it? This Wikipedia thing's no fun :o(

Wow, it's a bag? Never heard of it. I thought your previous 'bag' was a weird typo tbh. How strange. Ok, maybe a few odds and sods ever talk about the bag and pronounce it that way. *Shrug*. Anartica though... (I hope that's not a bag too!) If you can find anyone in the UK saying 'Anartica' that'd be something. I presume you're not, judging by your name and posting times. Ubertoaster (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Petrology

What do you think of this edit to Petrology? [44] Note the edit summary. I'm curious because from elementary school Americans are taught that "-logy" means "the study of", as in "geology" – the study of the earth, etc. Corinne (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP is only half-right (as expected – being a native speaker of Modern Greek, even if you have once studied Ancient Greek at school, doesn't make you an expert on Ancient Greek per se). Check the way I changed the article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks good, Florian. I didn't know Wiktionary had Greek words in it that one could look up! I thought Wiktionary had only English words in it. Corinne (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually every language version of Wiktionary can cover as many languages as editors want to cover (including rarely written languages, ancient languages, reconstructed languages, constructed languages and sign languages). It's just that the local language is regularly treated as primary, listed first, and covered best. And yeah, Wiktionary is actually pretty awesome by now too, and extremely helpful. I edit a lot there, too. However, like in Wikipedia, it's pretty daunting for newbies by now because you have so many conventions, rules and templates to learn. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! Corinne (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I just came across the article on Geology. See what the first line says. That's the way I've always seen "-logy" translated. Corinne (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Technically, -λογία isn't a word of its own, however, but a quasisuffix. And the article petrology said λόγος when I came across it, which isn't necessarily wrong, so I decided to keep it, just change the translation.

See -logy for more detail. Basically, -λογία was reanalysed as a pseudo-suffix from examples such as ἀρχαιολογία "antiquarian lore, ancient legends or history", originally perhaps meaning "collection of ancient things", or ἀστρολογία "astronomy", originally meaning something like "speech/discourse/discussion/argument about stars", itself probably derived from ἀστρολόγος "astronomer", originally probably meaning "somebody who speaks about stars". In Ancient Greek itself, words of this form could have various kinds of meanings, due to the existence of various ways words of this form could be derived and due to the various meanings of the verb λέγω itself. The rise of the meaning "study" for the quasisuffix certainly does not predate the Hellenistic period and may actually have only occurred in modern times in New Latin (Renaissance Latin or even later). In the Classical Greek period, there was probably nobody who perceived the quasisuffix as having a distinct meaning "study of something" (since where at best a few examples where it could have been analysed as having such a meaning) and the connection with the verb λέγω and its senses "to collect" and "to talk, discuss, debate, argue" was still obvious in the minds of speakers. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the explanation. Very interesting. I can just barely make out the Greek letters. I'd like to learn more. Thank you for that link to the Greek words. Corinne (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, for didactic reasons I intentionally used words that should be familiar to you already in their Latinised guise. I could have spelt them in capital Greek letters, that would probably have made them easier to read: ἈΡΧΑΙΟΛΟΓΊΑ, ἈΣΤΡΟΛΟΓΊΑ, ἈΣΤΡΟΛΌΓΟΣ – what do you think?

By the way, if you look at the archaic variant forms in Archaic Greek alphabets#Summary table, you should find it easier to understand how Greek letters are linked to and in fact evolved into Latin letters. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I recognized some letters because years ago I studied Russian, and the lowercase Greek letters are closer to what I remember from writing Russian. Why, in the Greek word for astronomer written in lowercase letters, ἀστρολόγος, does the "s" at the end of the word look different from the "s" near the beginning of the word, whereas when written in capital letters, ἈΣΤΡΟΛΌΓΟΣ, the same character is used? Corinne (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if you were familiar with Russian or Cyrillic in general, but I thought of asking you that, actually. Early Cyrillic is basically Greek uncials with some additional letters for specifically Slavic sounds missing from Greek, much like the Coptic alphabet is essentially the Greek alphabet with additional letters for specifically Coptic sounds missing from Greek, and the Czech alphabet is essentially the Latin alphabet with additional letters for specifically Czech sounds missing from Latin, or the Old English alphabet is basically the Latin alphabet with additional letters for specifically Germanic sounds missing from Latin – you get the drift ...

For your question, see Sigma. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! (Was the Greek alphabet essentially the Phoenecian alphabet with additional letters for specifically Greek sounds missing from Phoenecian?) Corinne (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. :-) If you look at the table with the archaic forms, the similarity to the Phoenician alphabet is still unmistakable. See History of the Greek alphabet. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

New sock

Hi Florian. This user likely Tirgil34. The single-purposed account favours Anatolian hypothesis and tries to undermine widely accepted Kurgan hypothesis regarding PlE homeland. Tirgil also embodied the same thing on his YouTube account. 176.219.168.244 (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious edits on R1a. 176.219.166.131 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Simply revert all their edits as POV-pushing, misleading or whatever may be applicable. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If you need to revert the addition of the Haber study again, point out that it is irrelevant as discussed on Talk:Haplogroup R1a1#New source? Haber et al. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Zither

I would be interested in your opinion regarding pronunciation and pronunciation guides for Zither at User talk:Jerome Kohl#Zither. Perhaps the German pronunciation could be moved to the "Terminology" section, but of course I will defer to your expertise. Corinne (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Bruschetta

The bottom line is that you need to provide a reliable source that gives these misreadings of Italian orthography as hyperforeignisms. The simple fact here is that this is an error of reading, not the addition of a "more foreign sounding" phoneme where it doesn't belong. Otherwise you are simply edit warring, and will be reported for such. See WP:3RR. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Apart from a British English (and increasingly rare) pronunciation of schedule, sch is never pronounced as /ʃ/ in native English words, especially not intervocalically. Therefore, the pronunciation of sch as /ʃ/ is marked as foreign in English, and typical of German. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

George Santayana

Hello, Florian -- I was surprised to see a request for a pronunciation guide to George Santayana's last name. It seems like a fairly easy name to figure out. If you think it would be a good addition to the article, can you provide the pronunciation guide? Informally, I would write san ta 'YA na or san tə 'YA na, but there is probably a more academic way to show this.  – Corinne (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Kwamikagami has already taken care of this. I wouldn't have known, personally, how his name is pronounced in English; it can be difficult to predict exactly how foreign names are adapted. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

R1a

Hi Florian. Can you help me by explaining what this R1a discussion is all about? Did it originate in Iran (Underhill 2014), and did farming Dravidians bring it to India? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your message before. Maybe it did originate in Iran, but it has no relevance for Indo-European origins because the proposed origin of R1a is far too early. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Problems with "Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain" Article

Dear Florian Blaschke, I have brought up several problems in the Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain article, an article of which you added content. These problems I have discussed in the Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain section of this article, but the problems have not been properly recognized nor attended to by anyone. I would much appreciate it if you would take a look at my thoughts for revision. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Gordon410 Gordon410 (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

Hi. What do you think about this edit? Why it should be there? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Barefact is a notorious Turkish nationalist crank, preceding even Tirgil and his zoo of socks ... Anyway, the problem has resolved itself in the meanwhile (through EEng's edit). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34, it seems both accounts are related to each other (similar behavior and agenda). Maybe they're same person. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Alleged "Baltic hypothesis" of IE homeland.

Please note my explanation under the discussion of "Hypotheses". The late WP Schmid (I know this personally from himself!) never intendedly proposed a Baltic homeland and remained always very angry about this misunderstanding in Mallory.HJJHolm (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi. Please write your opinion here:

• Talk:Tajik language#Wondering

Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Case filed

A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. This case is being re-filed. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Gordon410 (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Baltic States

Are you aware of WP:NPA? According to source, which BTW is entire chapter in a book by an Italian linguist, all but one possible origins trace back to that root. The exception is based on a report of a Medieval chronicler, who suggested that the name comes from Latin word for belt even though he was reporting that the name is used by people living near the sea, who didn't speak Latin - it's pretty unrealistic folk etymology. This is article on region and it's about name of region, not sea or linguistic percularities of historical hearsay, it doesn't need to discuss this, the notion that article only mentions the most likely explanation allready should cue them in that there are other possiblities (and if anyone is currious they can read whole story at Baltic Sea), so your first edit was just redundant, but now it's acctualy creating wrong impression, because it's not one of many explanations that was for some reason prrfered here, it's what all explanations, except Medieval one, conclude in the end, even if how they arrive to that is different in each case, plus in both cases it creates impresion that article is lacking information, when most of it was acctualy removed as off topic ~~Xil (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you're simply mistaken. The etymology that traces the term (Mare) Balticum to either Germanic *baltja- (> Danish bælt, English belt) or its source, Latin balteus, is taken very seriously by researchers. If you read Baltic Sea#Etymology, it will become apparent that this is actually the explanation considered most plausible by researchers, and it is, especially in light of what Adam von Bremen himself says. One cherry-picked book cannot be used to establish a consensus.

Just consider this: How should Adam von Bremen have been able to know any contemporary Baltic term? All Balts were still very isolated from the rest of Europe (especially Northern/Central Europe) in the 11th century. It's just implausible that Adam could have taken the term from them, even if indirectly. He knew almost nothing about their lands. Not to mention that there are no secure attestations of any Baltic language material at or prior to this time; not a single word. Also, "white" doesn't exactly make any more obvious sense than "belt" (or "swamp"). Don't let your pro-Latvian/Lithuanian and anti-Germanic/Slavic bias get in the way. You're clearly not dispassionate and objective because you ignore critical evidence such as even Adam's own words. By the way, I don't see where you get the "personal attack" from; pointing out patriotic bias that appears to colour an editor's opinions isn't a personal attack. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The etymology section for Baltic sea is largely based on the same "cherry-picked" source (actually a non-Baltic academic work summarizing multiple opinions) and nowhere does it say that one or another is a mainstream view and other sources there date back at least to early 20th century, so it also doesn't support your claim that it's the current consensus. Thing is that most of it was moved there from Baltic States years ago, because people felt it's too extensive, and what was left was condensed as shortly as possible - these Slavic hydronyms, alleged island names etc. all come from the same PIE root. Where you are getting any Baltic origins is unclear - the article acctualy says that the name, despite simmilarities to some words, wasn't even used in Baltic languages untill recently and asserting that I meant Balts above is pretty much a strawman. There's absolutely nothing here that could give you reason to complain about nationalist bias, at best I can conclude that you didn't read articles carefully and jumped to conclusions ~~Xil (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that any particular etymology is the consensus. (Personally, I'm not even very attached to the Germanic/Latin etymology – the Slavic one actually seems at least as conceivable. But ultimately, I find none of the explanations 100% satisfying.) You are essentially saying that – with exactly one source proposing your favourite etymology, and without surveying the literature first to determine what the actual range of opinions is. You are dismissing balteus as a folk etymology. You are not neutral. I am merely saying that some explanations are more plausible and others less, and consequently favoured by scholars – not necessarily by a great margin, so not necessarily "mainstream", let alone "consensus", because the etymology of Mare Balticum is still considered uncertain, unlike what you insist Baltic states should claim. You are also incorrect that Proto-Slavic *bolto comes from that root – that's not a fact, or consensus, only a possibility, a suggestion; after all, the connection between "swamp" and "white" is not exactly obvious, and explanations to bridge the semantic gap are mere speculation. (The same is true for place-names, whose true original meaning is hardly ever known with certainty, so it's pure speculation to trace them back to one particular PIE root.) You display clear favoritism to the (rather implausible, as I have shown) Lithuanian/Latvian etymology, by presenting only this one in Baltic states as "likely" (or even "most likely", as you claimed at the beginning) and failing to mention any other – and by claiming (on feeble grounds) that all suggested explanations ultimately lead to the same PIE root, just so you can keep your favourite etymology in there. Are you kidding me? What you're doing is POV-pushing at its finest. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see now: You do not even seem to be aware that the text by the medieval chronicler, Adam von Bremen, is the first known source to use the name, ever, anywhere at all! The name Baltic, from which the name of the Balts is actually derived (not the other way round!), traces back to him, and then the track stops cold. So his words actually carry some weight. He's not just some random guy who happens to mention the name Mare Balticum. As far as we can determine, the term was not in use before him. So he might as well have invented it all by himself. And I beg to differ about "pretty unrealistic" – the Belts are the entrance to the Baltic Sea (from the point of view of where the name is first recorded), for crying out loud! That has to count for something. It is obvious that you simply take it for granted that Baltic peoples came up with the name, not Germanic-, Latin- or Slavic-speakers, else you wouldn't be so dismissive. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and you know what's funny? When I wrote "may not appeal to Lithuanian/Latvian sensibilities equally", I was not even aware yet that you are Latvian. But I have seen so much nationalistically motivated peddling of fringy or utterly wild pet "theories" around Wikipedia that I can apparently smell patriotic POV-pushers from a mile. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Palatinate (region)

Hello, Florian -- I was just looking at the most recent edit to Palatinate (region) – this edit, capitalizing the names of dishes. I know German nouns are capitalized, but I don't know if they are supposed to be capitalized in English Wikipedia articles.  – Corinne (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked around a bit, and it appears that in English, they tend not to be capitalised. So I undid the edit, whose summary was misleading as well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Genetic relationship (linguistics)

Hello, Florian -- I don't know if you have Genetic relationship (linguistics) on your watch list, but I thought in case you didn't I would ask you about two things:

1) I was looking at this recent edit to the article, and though removing what looks like an extraneous phrase seems all right – although another possible wording would be "are subject to variation" – I wonder whether changing "internal structure" to "internal structures" was correct. I don't have access to the source so I cannot check it.

2) I notice that there has been a tag at the top of the article since October 2015 saying that the lede is too long for the size of the article. It looks like a valid observation since the lede is quite long and the article is rather short. If you are looking for something to do, perhaps you could work on this. If not, perhaps a (talk page stalker) could.  – Corinne (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

1) The edit looks fine to me. I'm at home so I can't access the source, either. As for grammar, I trust your Sprachgefühl more than mine, since I'm not a native speaker and you are. (Frankly, the criticism doesn't make sense to me. But then, radical criticism of the family tree model and the whole foundations of historical linguistics, like Edzard's, doesn't make sense to me, in general, because it doesn't seem to be based on detailed, careful analysis of the relevant data: language change through the centuries where it is documented en détail, through numerous texts. I doubt that people like Edzard have been able to come up with an alternative model that's also useful in practice.) Something I noticed: Altaic isn't exactly a great example because it is very controversial. Our Wikipedian linguists have even come to the conclusion to describe Altaic as "discredited".

2) I think the first two paragraphs are enough for a lede. For the reader who only wishes to know what genetic relationship in linguistics means and is all about, everything essential is contained in them. It's probably best to separate the rest of the lede off into a separate section, or perhaps more than one section. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I moved everything that was in the lede after the first two paragraphs into the body of the article and I made a section and a sub-section, but I'm not sure I got these right. I also made a few minor edits. I noticed that the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede is:

• These ties are established through use of the comparative method of linguistic analysis.

but there is no mention of the "comparative method of linguistic analysis" in the body of the article. I'll have to leave to you or others the task of addressing that and the mention of Altaic.  – Corinne (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Bangladesh

You might be interested in this exchange at Talk:Bangladesh: Talk:Bangladesh#"de facto national language". Your opinion might be helpful.  – Corinne (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Keep it up! Cheers. Wario-Man (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Re your comments on western Armenian in Gyumri talk

Would you be able to confirm to me that "ghazanchetsi" means a coppersmith. Or direct me to a source that deals with these sort of mixed Turkish-Armenian terms for trades. it is in relation to this article: Qazançı, Nakhchivan. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It means something like "kettle-maker", see qazan ~ kazan and -çi (many terms for occupations end in this suffix, and it is frequently seen in surnames). It's simply a loanword from Western Oghuz Turkic (i. e., Turkish/Azeri or Ottoman Turkish) into Armenian, nothing really mixed about it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have an opinion on the official Azeri "explanation" of the name (which I deleted, but you can read in this edit [45]). The editor who added that content has added similar placename explanations to many articles on Nakhchivan settlements and there are questions about the suitability of the source containing these explanations (or even if the source actually exists). If enough clear examples of the sources inaccuracy can be found, that would be grounds for getting it removed as a suitable source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The book does seem to exist, as it is listed in catalogues, but I cannot judge its reliability. Reading the part you deleted, my bullshit detector deflects too, but I'm not versed in Turkology at all; I'm only informed on a very basic level. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Catherine Hilda Duleep Singh

What do you think about the addition of umlauts in this edit to Catherine Hilda Duleep Singh?  – Corinne (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Fräulein is indeed the correct German spelling. It is the German counterpart of miss, though dated. I'm not sure if titles like "Miss", "Mister", "Frau" or "Herr" would normally be used in this context in English. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks, Florian.  – Corinne (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. I have added more missing umlauts. Thank you for making me aware of this interesting article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Case filed

A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. This case is being re-filed. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain.23Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision_discussion

Thank you. Gordon410 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you think about these edits?

Hi. [46] and [47]. And what about this source (used by him)? Even if that source is reliable, why he removes current sourced info in the lead section and adds a strange translation (شرق فارسی)?! Maybe we need a related discussion on article talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, he doesn't even seem to understand IPA or what it even is. That's not a particularly trustworthy looking source. Iranica is far superior: if it doesn't mention "Eastern Persian", I'd drop the term. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think it's better that you write your opinion here: Talk:Dari_language#Eastern_Persian_is_a_legitimate_synonym_for_this. He opened that new section on talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

For your info

The source you seem to keep adding calls it "Dari" so I'm not sure what the issue is. Otherwise can also add both, though I feel Eastern Persian is good enough.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Bzyp (village) ()

Hi, I'm reverting this edit, which looks almost like a joke, but letting you know in case there's something I'm missing. Uanfala (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke, I simply could not move the article to the intended name because there was a redirect in the way. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

In such cases, you can place a request at the noticeboard for uncontroversial technical moves. Uanfala (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I know, but I couldn't be arsed because there were too many pages to move. I got the idea with the empty disambiguation brackets from Kwamikagami, who still keeps moving pages a lot. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see then. That still earns you a little trout: It saves you a bit of work, but it leaves articles with ridiculous titles and places a maintenance burden on the editors who're going to be looking after these articles in the future. Uanfala (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It's also meant a reminder to myself, but I've been busy with other stuff lately. It was never meant as anything else than a kludgy, temporary solution. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dragostea Din Tei. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. –Davey2010^Talk 04:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• The name has been this way for a good few years so moving it now is simply disruptive, If you disagree with the name then start an WP:RM and gain consensus for it like everyone else, If you move it again you could be blocked, Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 04:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Florian Blaschke. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Florian Blaschke. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Kali Etymology

In Kali Etymology your edits says time as "that which brings all things to an end, the destroyer.". If you have gone through Devi Mahatmya where the great goddess has a form of Kali then you shall know the meaning the force of time or the ancient one. The meaning of Kali is clearly explained in the text (First episode) that she is the destroyer of evil forces viz. Madhu-Kaitabh. Kali does not mean the destroyer it simply means the changing aspect that brings things to life or death. Kali means the ruler of time and Kaal means time (Kaal can be used in the context of death). If you are providing information then please provide them thoroughly . And in which text in Sanskrit Kaalratri means the night of death ??????? It means the black night thats it. UserK (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Polesia

Hello, Florian -- Since there are fewer than 40 page watchers for Polesia, I thought I'd ask you if this addition to the article is correct.  – Corinne (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That etymology looks improbable (the root is not familiar to me, though there is a Lithuanian word pelkė "swamp", and apparently palios too) and leaves the -es- unaddressed, but the citation appears acceptable. I can't check it from home, though, and my Russian is poor. A circumspect editor would have provide an extract and a translation. Foreign-language citations are generally frowned upon, the less familiar the language to editors, the more so (I have provided references in German a couple of times, which in historical linguistics is fairly routine, but a working knowledge of German, especially basic reading ability for linguistic texts, is probably more widespread than the equivalent for Russian, even among Anglophone editors in the field, some of whom are academics). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Copy edits

Florian, thank you for your interest in Fake news website !

Perhaps instead of wholesale reverting, we could discuss individual issues on the talk page?

I started a new section at Talk:Fake_news_website#Copy_edits_to_intro_section.

Maybe you could tell us there specific things you think could improve the grammar of the intro ?

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Florian, maybe instead of choosing to communicate via edit summary only, perhaps we could discuss by talk page, please? Sagecandor (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: As a native speaker, could you perhaps have a look at Sagecandor's recent copyedits? It's just obvious to me in so many cases that the older version was superior and that the copyedits resulted in a degradation of quality that I felt a wholesale revert was justified. I only started to correct the most obvious grammar mistakes at the beginning and then tired of it and made a full revert in frustration. I'm sorry I am quite adamant that Sagecandor tried to fix what was not broken and while well-intentioned did not help, and the copyedits did not result in any improvement. It made me think that Sagecandor is not even a native speaker. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Florian, maybe could we please talk about this between each other please? Perhaps we can go over more specifics? I am indeed a native speaker of the English language and have had schooling for many years on writing and composition. In the future as you can see, now, I'll try to be much more specific in each individual edit summary, for example, it is quite poor wording to have the first sentence of the article start out with repeated redundancy including the phrase "websites are websites...". Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller I need your help here. In response to Florian's request for my review of recent edits by Sagecandor, I carefully looked at the last twenty or more edits by Sagecandor. I determined that, though s/he was well meaning and had included detailed edit summaries – many of them, since s/he was making edits one by one, believing that doing that would convince Florian of the value of his/her edits – most of the edits were not an improvement to the prose. I went back to a version that is about half-way through the many edits this editor has made to the article and reverted. Within two seconds, Sagecandor undid my edit with this edit. I was prepared to write a detailed note to Sagecandor, telling him/her which ones of his/her edits were good ones, and why the other edits were not an improvement (it would have taken a while since s/he had made many edits), but now I am less inclined to spend that amount of time on it. I will, if you think it is a good idea and Sagecandor is open to it, but I think s/he should have left my edit in place and asked why I undid all his/her edits. I don't think I should have to persuade him/her to change the wording back to the way it was before s/he changed it, edit by edit. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I think Florian is right, plain and simple.  – Corinne (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Also see User talk:Corinne#Hello and thank you for your intererst [sic].  – Corinne (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Also, Talk:Fake news website#Copy edits to intro section.  – Corinne (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne:I asked your friend Florian Blaschke to come to the article talk page to discuss. He either refused to do so and or ignored me. I asked you yourself to also come to the talk page to discuss. You either ignored me or refused to do so and are now continuing behavior of original user Florian to now ping a 3rd friend instead of first attempting to discuss with me. Why this behavior? Can we please instead try to talk about this on the article talk page and work it out? Do you see that your revert not only undid my copy editing but also wholesale reverted addition of a large amount of content? Sagecandor (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sagecandor My "friend" is an administrator. I needed the help and advice of an administrator in determining how to handle this. You were really too quick to undo my edit. In the future, before you revert an edit, look at the editor's user page and talk page. Also, your making many small edits, each one with an edit summary, was unnecessary. Florian asked me for help because he did not know what to do when you reverted his edits. I looked at all of your edits going back to the version to which I reverted. You did not add much content. In addition to re-wording many sentences, you added and changed some references. You could have, and still can, fix any references you want to. Except for a very few changes, most of your edits were not an improvement. The wording was better before you changed it. In fact, you even missed some things that were near your edits that should have been fixed. I would be glad to go over each edit, but you really need to put it back to the way it was, i.e., undo your edit that undid my revert to an earlier version.  – Corinne (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne:Please be more careful. I did add much content. Please, I've asked you multiple times now to participate in discussion at the article's talk page. I'm not sure why the tactic of ignoring me about that. But yes, I do feel my copy edits were an improvement, and I would very much like to discuss them. I have yet to hear an individual specific example of why any singular individual one of my copy edits was objectionable to you, Corinne. Just that you feel you don't like them. That's okay, that's your opinion, but I would really like to discuss on the article talk page, please? Sagecandor (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne:For what it's worth, another user Epicgenius has already copy edited more over me anyways to the introduction section. As you can see, that user did not wholesale revert, as you had done. That is why it would be best to please, discuss at the article's talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne:, see for example my content changes that were not copy edits but content changes, fully explained in edit summaries and previously discussed and performed in direct response to comments at the article's talk page at [48] and at [49]. Can you now see that your revert did not just undo copy editing but also reverted content additions? Sagecandor (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sagecandor This article is not of sufficient interest to me to spend a lot of time on it. I will just say that, although conciseness (or succinctness) is one characteristic of good writing, it is possible to cut so much out of a sentence that it begins to lose meaning, the precise meaning that the person who wrote the sentence to begin with wanted to convey on this important topic, and that is what I think you have done, repeatedly. Also, several times, you replaced two words with one word that does not have the same meaning as the two words did. For example, regarding social media in certain countries such as the Philippines (can't remember the others right now), you replaced "widely used" with "widespread". Social media is widespread now in the entire world. Saying it is widespread in the Philippines doesn't mean much. The point is that social media is used by many people in the Philipines to get information – widely used, maybe even more than television news, making the use of false news more effective in those places. Another example is your change from "Concern helped advance legislation" to "Concern advanced legislation". There are other examples. That's all I want to say on this.  – Corinne (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Corinne, I really appreciate the specific examples. In those two cases I happen to feel the meaning was not significantly changed, and is also as per the cited secondary sources which back up the meaning. Now, can you please admit that you wholesale reverted my content additions and changes at [50] and at [51] ? Sagecandor (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to "admit" anything. The content you added can be re-added. You have ruined the prose of this article and you're doing the same at the Michael Laucke article.  – Corinne (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne:I'm sorry you feel that way. I truly do enjoy copy editing and have done so for years. I hope you can see that wholesale reverting, especially the way you did by removing content additions, is not the best way to go. Sagecandor (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Corinne, for supporting me on this, so I know it's not just me. Apparently Sagecandor has been involved in this article for a long time, but those recent edits (I came across the article – which is quite important in light of current events, as fake news sites helped Trump getting elected – only accidentally, and thus these edits, as I noticed the wording was strange and words were missing, and after starting to correct and finding even more errors, that the version before the copyedits was significantly better) were clearly not an improvement and an awkward attempt to fix what wasn't broken.

It sure does appear to me as if Sagecandor isn't a native speaker at all, or at least not as good at English as they believe themselves to be (Dunning–Kruger effect at work here?), or (given their prior involvement) their skills somehow degraded, or (I'm not familiar with the history of the article and am not inclined to go through the version history in detail) poor phrasing was fixed by other contributors and Sagecandor decided to change the wording of the article back into awkward "Sagecandor English". I've never seen anything like this before.

Just let me assure I've never even come across Sagecandor ever before in all my years reading and editing Wikipedia, do not know them, and have no prejudice against them. All I've determined is, by inspecting their edits, that their recent copyedits have changed good prose into worse and sometimes glaringly mistake-ridden prose. That's as unbiased and objective as anyone can be, and I have no personal negative feelings or biases against Sagecandor (I do not know their personal background, life, ancestry or origin) at all; I only applied my experience reading English, my knowledge of English grammar, etc., and the feel for the language I've developed that allows me to spot awkward or incorrect phrasing quite reliably, given that Corinne, a competent native speaker with relevant training, agrees with me. Sagecandor seems to believe we are out to hound them, but this is not a vendetta, this is only a dispute about good and correct prose. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Florian, I'd love to talk with you about our views on copy editing and the English language. I'm just baffled by the abject refusal to talk to me and instead to refer to me in the third person. Sagecandor (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

In the grand scheme of things, the copy editing part should really be no big deal. Sorry if I blew it out of proportion. Thanks for your interest and I sincerely hope in the future we can engage in a more active, polite, and fruitful give and take discussion.

Sagecandor (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sign language

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but there is a huge difference between Manually coded language, which transforms spoken language into gestures, and sign language, which is a language in its own right, with its own grammar and syntax quite distinct from any spoken language. For example American Sign Language has very little similarity to the English language. This distinction has been supported by extensive research over the past five decades. Please read the articles. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If you read the article I linked to, you'll see that proper sign languages like ASL are used for this purpose too. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please indicate where it is sourced in the article that a language such as ASL (not a manually coded system derived from ASL) is used. If it's in an article, it's wrong and needs to be corrected. But I think you are misreading. People who use the systems that you refer to would have little understanding of ASL or any other natural sign language. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

See, for example, Augmentative and alternative communication#Unaided AAC. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Also note that the introduction of Sign language has mentioned before my edit that sign is used by non-Deaf disabled individuals. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The AAC article needs some work (which I may attempt when I have time, but the problem is, I'm an expert on sign language but not on AAC) to correct mistaken notions that I suspect were written by people with little understanding of sign language, but if you read it carefully it makes a distinction between a natural sign language and a manually coded system. It is a common misunderstanding that natural sign languages are derived from spoken languages and thus are simply gestures that represent spoken languages. People using the systems you refer to (unless they are deaf and sign language is their native language) would no more understand ASL than they would Chinese. Please read American Sign Language in detail, as well as William Stokoe, who provided most of the early research establishing ASL as quite distinct from English. One of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and for that reason errors are inserted in articles like Augmentative and alternative communication. Most of the editors who wrote American Sign Language have some expertise in the language. People who contribute to the AAC article probably have little or no expertise in ASL. As for the intro to sign language, does anyone with another disability use actual sign language? Probably, but not very many. It would be a gross inaccuracy to generalize from that idea to the conclusion that ASL is used for many cases of AAC. Again, please read the entire article for distinctions between sign language and manually coded systems. Sundayclose (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I re-read the intro to sign language. You misunderstood. It reads "Although signing is used primarily by the deaf ...", not "sign language". That is a tremendous distinction that is purposely used to make that distinction. People who use signs are not necessarily using sign language. If I learn a few hundred words of Spanish and occasionally use them when trying to communicate with someone whose native language is Spanish, it may augment communication but I certainly am not speaking Spanish. Sundayclose (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: I'm a linguist. I'm aware of the difference between ASL and manually coded English. No doubt most disabled people who have trouble with spoken language (sometimes only temporarily) but have no hearing loss do not use full-blown ASL with its distinctive spatial grammar. But some do, at least to some extent (I know an autistic person who does use ASL to communicate in situations when they are nonverbal), enough to count as users of ASL, and others use at least numerous elements of ASL, which is still noteworthy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. You may be a linguist, but that doesn't make you an expert on ASL. I am an expert on ASL, and I have seen the type of signing used by people with these other systems. Those people would have little understanding of ASL. Years ago as I was a beginner learning sign language and was at the point of knowing about 2000 signs, I could express myself fairly well, but it wasn't ASL. It was signed English. Most deaf people could understand me because they are very skilled at moving from ASL to signed English, but if two native ASL users were signing with each other, I usually didn't have a clue as what they were saying. Yes, a few people with other disabilities use ASL, but it's very few. If you don't have much fluency in ASL, there's no way you can know that. The spatial aspects of ASL are only a part of what distinguishes it from signed English. Like any language, the differences are very complex and nuanced. By the way, on a more harmonious note, I agree with your restoring the sentence about AAC to the lead as it written because you're right, it does in fact state signing instead of sign language. I was too hasty in removing it. All the best! Sundayclose (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Pine, northern Europe

Hello Florian- I wanted to let you know that the English expression "northern Europe" does not refer to any specific group of countries. Some Wikipedians feel compelled to create articles here such as "Northern Europe", even though, as that article itself points out, there is no such officially defined thing. In English, for the purposes of the sentence you and I were working on, "northern Europe" and "the north of Europe" are interchangeable. I chose the former wording as I think it flows better. Eric ^talk 22:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but German is definitely not spoken in northern Europe in any shape or form. Actually, it's not even spoken in the north of Europe (none of the claimants for the geographical midpoint of Europe are even south of Germany, and most are as far north as Germany itself), so the sentence is wrong anyway. I've removed the adjective altogether. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Eric ^talk 00:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

--Mwidunn (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)mwidunn Since many -- if not most -- people consider "Northern Europe" to extend along the southern part of the Baltic Sea, then -- yes -- German and its related varieties (e. g., Plaatdeutsch) are indeed spoken in "Northern Europe." Typically, people don't seem to be referring to Scandinavia (or, Scotland . . . or, Iceland, for that matter) when they speak of: "Northern Europe." Otherwise, the city of Hamburg would be situated in "Central Europe" . . . where the Czech Republic is usually said to be located!

Pine

I was looking at your recent edit to Pine and reading the edit summary. I know you are the language expert, but I am puzzled. I thought German was a northern European language (as opposed to, say, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and Greek).  – Corinne (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC) (I posted this before I saw the discussion above. I'm still puzzled, though.)  – Corinne (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Friulian

Mwidunn (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)mwidunn O. K., understood . . . but, Friulian is an odd choice. Why not Ladin? Or, Venetian? You wouldn't, perhaps, be a native speaker of Friulian, would you?

Trajan

Hello, Florian -- First, let me wish you a Happy New Year! Do you know anything about the pronunciation of Latin names? Can you comment at Talk:Trajan#Pronunciation? I don't know enough to comment, but I believe the English pronunciation of "Trajan" has always been "TRAY jən" (as represented by the current pronunciation guide), but I don't know why, and I don't think we should change the guide just because the "a" would have been pronounced differently in Latin.  – Corinne (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Florian Blaschke!

Happy New Year!

Florian Blaschke,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Wario-Man (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thrace

Hello, Florian - I wonder if you had seen this edit on the talk page of the article on Thrace. This edit adds to a discussion of a year ago, but it doesn't look like the Thrace#Etymology section has changed much. I'm not sure, but, besides the question regarding accuracy, the Etymology section does sound a little confusing, and sparse. Is there anything you could add to either the discussion on the talk page or the Etymology section?  – Corinne (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Turkic languages

Hello, Florian - I was just looking at this recent edit to Turkic languages. While the material added to the two tables may be correct, I noticed that since no color was added, the columns for Qashgai stand out more than they should. If you think the additions are correct, can you select a color so that the columns are distinguished from nearby columns but blend in with the other colors? If you think the material is correct but you don't want to bother with adding the color, I'll attempt to do it. (Just in case you need the color codes, you can find the link to "Web colors" at the end of the Templates section on my talk page).  – Corinne (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

folk etymology

I see you noticed the problem with backformation and reanalysis at that page in 2015. See my comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Folk_etymology#Varieties_section

Redirect of Indian LGBT pages

Please come to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality_in_India#Why_is_this_article_necessary. I mentioned you as a supporter of redirecting it into LGBT rights in India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editmypost (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I'm placing this as a courtesy, as the person placing the notice did not notify you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sprechen Sie deutsch?

Guten Abend Florian! I seek your assistance with some translation work. I studied the German language for some years and can sometimes navigate my way around broad meanings, but this Germanic Gothic script for 1793 has defeated me! It may be clearer to your eyes, as the central Europeans have a good sense of preserving history and you might see this script on signs each day. On the following link [[52]] on page 34, I am trying to ascertain if Meyer stated that the Australian Dingo was wild or not. Could you advise me, please? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@William Harris: I understand you are referring to the following passage:

"Man weiß nicht, ob er die einzige Hundeart in Neusüdwales ist, und ob er auch noch wild sich vorfindet, indeß scheint er bis jetzt noch wenig von seinem wilden Zustande verloren zu haben; auch hat man noch keine Abarten von ihm entdeckt."

I'd translate this as:

"It is not known if it [the dingo] is the only dog species in New South Wales, and if it can also still be found in the wild state; however, so far it appears to have lost little of its wild condition; moreover, no divergent varieties have been discovered."

That sounds indeed ambiguous; the author seems to say that the dingo is not completely wild anymore, but used to be. Other passages do treat the dingo as essentially a wild dog showing little sign of domesticated behaviour. There's also the possibility that several different meanings of wild – "wild", "feral", "in the wild" – are intended, depending on the passage. Further possibilities to explain the equivocation are that first, there are hybrids between dingoes and domesticated dogs, so perhaps the author is referring to the admixture making the dingo less "pure"; second, there's the hypothesis that dingoes are in origin domesticated or semi-domesticated dogs gone feral. HTH! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Florian. (For a moment there I dreaded that you would reply telling me that you were a third-generation Canadian and knew nothing of German!) This description was based on the first record of Europeans sighting the dingo from the voyage of Captain James Cook in 1770. Indeed it is ambiguous, and the debate between wild and semi-domesticated or domesticated still rages. The reason being if it was first recorded by Meyer as wild, it could then be argued that its taxonomic designation is Canis dingo, but if it was semi-domesticated or domesticated it would - under the current ruling - then be Canis lupus dingo. I was hoping for something definitive but it is not so. Thanks for your help. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure! Since I state I'm from Munich on my user page (maybe it's not clear enough, I've intended to make a real user page for years but something else was always more important ...), and I edit German Wikipedia, I'm obviously a native speaker :-) Blackletter script isn't that hard to read, either, it just takes practice. Anyway, I do not understand – can't you simply use the original, or a source closer to the original? Why some third-hand German interpretation? And why is Cook's account so decisive for the issue in the first place? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I did notice the reference to Munich, plus I have come across your edits in other "of interest to Germans" pages, so I assumed you were a native speaker. However, for one moment there I wondered if I was making an assumption :-) If you look in my Sandbox at present, all will be revealed (go to my user page, then top left-hand corner for the tab.) Meyer, and even earlier Blumenbach - the Germans are right in there from the very start of Australia as naturalists and scientists. The original taxonomic name for the dingo is Canis dingo (Meyer, 1793), so that is where Meyer comes into it. My interest is that in 2003, the ICZN ruled in its Opinion 2027 that if wild animals and their domesticated derivatives are regarded as one species, then the scientific name of that species is the scientific name of the wild animal. Therefore, the status of the dingo as a wild or domesticated species is hotly debated because this may affect its species name. The editors of the dingo article fall into two warring camps that get into "dogfights" from time to time. I take no side, all that I am trying to do is give some background as to why the ambiguity exists so they might understand. I will shortly cite Meyer, provide the translated quote in the article and the original German in a note. My interest is in taxonomy and evolution - I will let the others continue to argue over the rest! (You and I have far more important things to do here on Wikipedia.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it! I missed that this is Meyer's original description of the taxon. Personally, although I'm quite interested in this topic too, I don't have a dog in the fight, either :-) I'm just curious as to what the real origin of the dingo is, and yes, I saw the Canis dingo vs. Canis lupis dingo controversy.

By the way, Subspecies of Canis lupus#List of subspecies lists Canis antarcticus (sic, with the first c, and Gmelin, not Kerr 1792) as a synonym for Canis lupus familiaris. Strange! This source has the c, but the citations here do not – apparently Kerr (1792) omitted it originally. I'm also confused by C. familiaris tenggerana vs. C. tenggeranas harappensis. I wonder if you can help clear up the confusion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am no expert but from what I have learned being involved here in Wikipedia, it goes like this: antarticus is an old way of writing our modern Antarctic in Latin, and I have the copy to Kerr's original source in my sandbox that does not have the second "c", so I have amended the subspecies page to show that. The Bucknell source is supposed to be reflecting Mammal Species of the World edition 3 online, however our North American friends appear to be a bit confused in the upload and editing - it was an oversight on their part. (They had me confused for some time as well!) Gmelin was involved in the naming of "species" that later became made synonyms for familiaris, so that is why he gets a mention as does all those others listed there. (And who knows, one day some geneticist might propose that some of these names under familiaris may warrant going back to being recognized as different species or subspecies.) Kerr was not involved in naming any of the species listed under familiaris, and so he does not get a mention there. I have tried to clean up the dingo subspecies over at Dingo (taxon)#Taxonomic synonyms. I have tracked down the original sources for harappensis so you can read about that.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. All that I need now is for an interested German speaker to be able to confirm to me that the classification of C. familiaris variant tenggerana was used in the work "Kohlbruge J.H.F. Die Tenggeresen. Ein Alter Javanischer Volkstamm. Ethnologische Studie. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1901." - Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 19:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It shows how late it was last night when I posted my edits on Subspecies of Canis lupus, Florian - I did not even notice that you had done the previous several edits! Thanks, William Harris • (talk) • 09:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Just for background: The word antarcticus was anciently spelled with the first c, which was also pronounced (it is etymologically correct, as the Greek original has a kappa in the same place), but sometime during the Middle Ages, this c was eventually dropped both in pronunciation and in spelling (cf. Old French antartique), which was followed in Medieval Latin. This c was restored only later after the etymology, both in New Latin and in the French and English spellings. The French still do not pronounce it, but in English, it is commonly pronounced these days, after the spelling (spelling pronunciation), cf. Antarctic and also Arctic, where the same issue exists. Dropping the first /k/ is now usually considered an uneducated simplification, but it was not always so and the "simplified" pronunciation has a long tradition. I've debated this issue on this page before, in fact. I've added a link to the article so that people will find the explanation for the spelling right away.

Is Kohlbrugge 1901 available in digitised form? Since it's already that old there should at least be no copyright-related obstacle ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Florian, educational as always! Now I know how this developed. I think that Kohlbrugge 1901 would be available online, but I assume that you would need to use German resources to do that. Perhaps one of the universities online, or even Guttenberg might have it available. My sandbox chapter is coming along well now. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@William Harris: I recently came across this news item from 2013. I think it is relevant to your interests, but I might not be telling you news. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Florian, I have it covered in the last paragraph of Dingo (taxon)#Sister. Intriguingly, there appears to be two very slightly different "types" of dingo. One is the sister of the New Guinea singing dog that indicates they came in to Australia from the north-east. Another indicates they may have come in from the north-west, perhaps with people who originally travelled from India (it may have not been a direct trip, they may have spent generations moving around the islands as hunter-gatherers. (FYI, a German team looking at the mDNA of ancient dogs in Germany (not released yet) has (1) supported Skoglund's mutation rate, as that of their dogs matched the Taimyr wolf, which pushes dog/wolf divergence out to between 40-50 thousand years ago, (2) rebutted the recent proposal of a dual domestication of dogs in both Europe and East Asia with the European dogs being replaced by East Asian dogs because the descendants of their ancient German dogs were alive and well in Germany, and (3) found evidence of not only some dog migration from Eastern Asia, but also from India. There appears to have been some movement of dogs across Eurasia back then.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! By the way, while many of the reader comments accompanying the article I linked are devoted to side-issues like the (in the context of 2000 BC) evidently irrelevant Indo-Aryan/Dravidian nationalistic rivalry, one of the comments makes the very valid point that the accuracy of the estimate is very much depending on the accuracy of the estimate of generation time. I take the figure of 141 generations as a hard fact here. Assuming a generation time of only 25 rather than 30 years yields a date much closer to 1500 BC than 2000 BC, however. So, which estimate for the generation time is preferrable, considering the strong fluctuation of generation time across history and geography? I haven't been able to find a statement on what the best average or median to use in practice is (for humans). That said, your area of expertise seems to be dogs, so I might be asking the wrong person! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are asking the wrong person! :-) Of interest, it would appear that the Europeans are a bit of a mix from North Africa, South-West Asia and Central Asia. Once the glaciation retreated 12,000 years ago, people started coming in to Europe from all directions. As hunter-gatherers, they got plenty of vitamin D. Then the rain and the cloud came. Then agriculture arrived 8,000 years ago, and so they got less vitamin D and began to suffer rickets. The adaption? The skin turned lighter to gain more vitamin D from the sun. Today, below its surface remains an interesting mix! (This might help explain why my northern European ancestors were so crazy!) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

By ancient dog breeds, do you mean the likes of Molossus or even more ancient dogs? Which time period are we talking about here that the alleged displacement was thought to have taken place? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The dogs reviewed are going back 7,000 years ago, with the displacement sometime between 12,000-6,000 years ago, Florian. The dogs possibly still had wolf-like coats and colours back then. In a published study, the DNA of an ancient dog from Ireland - the "Newgrange dog" - dating back to 4,000 years ago had the gene expressions of a coat identical to that of a wolf today. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Kohlbruge citation now confirmed from another reference, he used the term Canis familiaris tenggerana for the Javan "dingo". It remains unclear why the southern Asian specimen was later named Canis tenggerana harappensis - if the researchers believed that it was the same dog then it should have been called the same name. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 07:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Kumasojin 熊襲

Just blocked another one. Please do not hesitate to ping me or Bbb23 if you see it happen again. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't see what led up to this or what account you blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It was an IP; I was led to Kumasojin after the recent invitation Florian received at ANI. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Invitation.

Hello, Florian Blaschke,

I have noted, that you have contributed to the good Wikipedia article Courage, therefore, as a participant of the WikiProject Wikipedia Awards, I’m inviting you to have a look at the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards.

As this project currently regarded as semi-active, and not visited by many Wikipedians, it makes sense to invite Editors, who contributed right to the field, for which new Barnstar have been created.

The Editor Dennis Pietras offered the idea to create the Bravery Barnstar, and I did my best to help with design of this, as I think much needed Barnstar; thus if you will appreciate both, the idea and the design, please, let other Editors know about that by writing words of support. Regards.Chris Oxford (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

English language

You might be interested in a discussion at Talk:English language#Semi-Romance language. I'd be interested in your opinion.  – Corinne (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Florian, I hope you've got English language on your watch list. See Talk:English language#Recent edits and Talk:English language#Classification.  – Corinne (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edits in the article Tai languages

I've seen your edits in the article Tai languages. You claim that there's no contradiction between Pittayawat Pittayaporn's article and Fan Honggui's which is cited by Edmondson. But I see an obvious difference. Fan Honggui argues that the separation between the Thai and the Zhuang must have happened between the year of 112 BCE and the 5th/6th century, whereas Pittayawat Pittayaporn proposes that Southwestern Tai speakers began to spread southwestward from Guangxi sometime between the 8th and the 10th centuries which is equivalent to saying the Thai and Zhuang separated sometime between the 8th and the 10th centuries. Could you explain why there is no contradiction between these two arguments? Dirtolin1234 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The breakup of Proto-Tai happening by the 6th century AD does not conflict with the spread of Southwestern Tai after the 7th century AD just like the breakup of Proto-Brittonic happening by the 6th century AD does not conflict with the spread of Southwestern Brittonic after the 7th century AD. Southwestern Tai can easily (and in fact should be logically expected to, since Southwestern Tai only arose as a distinctive entity as a result of the breakup of Proto-Tai) have spread after the breakup of Proto-Tai. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point. Basically, you mean that the breakup between proto-Tai and proto-Southwestern Tai doesn't necessarily correspond to the separation between them geographically. After the split between proto-Tai and proto-Southwestern Tai by the 6th century, Proto-Southwestern Tai could still reside in its Urheimat until the 8th century when it started to disperse southwestwards as Pittayawat Pittayaporn points out.

the change of Chinese territories by time

But in Edmondson's article (page 15), he mentions that: "the latest they (the Thai) could have left Chinese territory would have been at this time" (AD 420-589, during the Northern and Southern Dynasties). According to the map, during the Northern and Southern Dynasties, Chinese territory covered the eastern half of the present-day north Vietnam which means that leaving Chinese territory is equivalent to leaving the eastern half of the present-day north Vietnam. Therefore, according to Edmondson's article, after the 6th century AD, they had completely left the eastern half of the present-day north Vietnam (the Sino-sphere). On the contrary, Pittayawat Pittayaporn states in the article (page 64) that Southwestern Tai speakers began to spread southwestward from Guangxi sometime between the 8th and the 10th centuries. So, prior to the 8th century AD, Southwestern Tai speakers still resided in Guangxi. This leads to the aforementioned possibility that Proto-Southwestern Tai remained in its Urheimat until the 8th century after the separation by the 6th century impossible. Dirtolin1234 (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What you're saying is completely confused. Proto-Tai and Proto-Southwestern-Tai aren't even coordinate, so they could not separate. It's like talking of a split between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic. It just doesn't make any sense.

Another complication you've missed is that according to Pittayaporn, Southwestern Tai is a lower-level subbranch of Tai, not a primary subbranch. It did not separate from Tai directly, but from Sepa, much later. In contrast, Zhuang is not a unitary branch, but scattered all over Pittayaporn's tree and includes some of the closest relatives of Southwestern Tai. Edmondson also uses the term "Thai", which is not necessarily identical to what Pittayaporn means with "Southwestern Tai", especially in light of the radically differing trees. We just can't know. It's also unclear what either means with "leave". Did Southwestern Tai speakers remain in the original territory? "Leave" covers both possibilities, that some remained, and that none did.

You're interpreting too much, too; it's like biblical exegesis, which we shouldn't do. How do you know what exactly Edmondson means by "Chinese territory"? He might refer to the borders of modern China here, or something completely different. It's simply unclear. What Edmondson and Pittayaporn write is both too unclear to be sure that they contradict each other. If Pittayaporn doesn't even outright refer to Edmondson and says that there's a contradiction, we shouldn't construe one. Unless we have asked Pittayaporn directly about the intended meaning and if there's a contradiction with what Edmondson writes, we should refrain from stating or implying that. You're engaging in OR and SYNTH here. (That said, there's a lot of confusion in the history of Tai in general. Vietic languages cites both Chamberlain (1998) and Fergus (2009) making seemingly compelling arguments, but their conclusions completely contradict each other. They can't both be right. But the relationship between Tai and Vietic is a crucial issue for the history of Tai. If Chamberlain is right, Edmondson and Pittayaporn could both be correct in a fashion, because the split of Southwestern Tai could have happened right on the border at the time.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I just looked into the original articles (I missed that they are available online). Pittayaporn writes:

"Therefore, the [Late Middle Chinese] layer indicates that [Proto-Southwestern-Tai), the ancestor of modern (Southwestern Tai) languages, was still in contact with Chinese in the late seventh century."

True, the loanword evidence sounds compelling (though, I note, doesn't necessarily mean Guangxi). However, Edmondson writes:

"Not only do we know that there were common origins between the Thai and the Zhuang but we can speculate about the time of separation. In his article Fan (1989) points out that Thai and Zhuang have the same exonym, kɛɛu^A1 for Vietnamese (in Vietnamese called giao, meaning people). This word is taken from the name of a commandary or Chinese garrison called 交址 Jiaozhi, established in Vietnam about 112 BC, along with eight other commanderies: 南海 Nanhai, 郁林 Yulin (Guilin), 苍梧 Cangwu, 合浦 Hepu, 九真 Jiuzhen, 日南 Rinan, 珠崖 Zhuya, and 儋耳 Dan’er (earlier it has been used to refer to varying places just south of the borders of the Chinese Empire, cf. http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=5367&st=0&p=4733473&. But of all of them the Jiaozhi, situated in the Red River basin, was the most important and remained so for 200 years.

This name as a representative of Vietnam and the Vietnamese people is not older than this time and it, therefore establishes the earliest date the Thai could have left for SE Asia. We also know that the northern rulers of the Bai Yue, once established, began giving names to the aboriginal inhabitants, especially during the Northern and Southern Dynasties, AD 420-589. This practice, however, did not happen to the Thai for they did not have the custom of giving family names until the reign of Rama VI, perhaps 100 years ago. Thus, the latest they could have left Chinese territory would have been at this time."

Hmm, this sounds like a compelling argument too, but does seem to be a contradiction, because if the Southwestern Tai were still in contact with the Chinese in the seventh century, why did they then not receive names by the Chinese? Strange. Perhaps the loanwords could still be borrowed without actually being under Chinese rule? I don't know. I'd really like to know what Pittayaporn thinks about this argument. And the ethnolinguistic identity of the Red River inhabitants in the seventh century. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hah-Dayum! You are supposed to read Edmondson's and Pittayaporn's articles carefully before making any edit. So, now what? I'm going to reverse your edit or I have to complicate this by sending an email to ask Pittayaporn? Dirtolin1234 (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk page

Please address the concerns raised on the Dixon Hill talk page before yet again undoing the redirect. You might also solicit additional input at the Star Trek wikiproject talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and just listed the redirect at RfD. --EEMIV (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Lauren Southern. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TheBD2000 (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

*h_ɑéusōs or *h_aéusōs

I know that The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, which was published in 2006 by J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams, the same authors as The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, gives the dawn goddess's name as *h_ɑéusōs (on page 432, if you are wondering), but I can easily see from the link you provided that the Encyclopedia gives it as *h_aéusōs with a Latin "a" subscript. I suspect they may just be variant spellings. I have seen quite few different renderings of the name using different orthographies. Generally I have been trying to go with whatever spelling The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World uses. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've checked The Oxford Introduction and the subscripted letter is definitely not a Greek alpha. It's simply an italic Latin a that happens to look a bit like an alpha in that font (Times New Roman) – just like it does up there in the section header (at least on my computer, which displays the title in Georgia). In that respect, the font used in the EIEC is superior, because italic a simply looks like a slanted version of the regular a and cannot be confused with an alpha. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Zoe Saldana could not win Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films

Agree w/ musdan77. The Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films provides the Saturn Award and no other. There is no separate Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films award as shown on Zoe Saldana's page (without citation I may add). Ms. Saldana ONLY won the Saturn Award GIVEN TO HER BY the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films, so she has only won one award not two as has been shown on her page. Having her shown as winning BOTH the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films award (which doesn't exist, thus no citation could be provided) AND the Saturn Award is like saying someone won two awards: the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences award and, separately, an Academy Award ("Oscar"). Please review Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films and Saturn Award.

Zoe Saldana could not win Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films AND Saturn Award

:@Florian Blaschke: 
    Hello Florian Blaschke. 
    I agree w/ Musdan77 re: 18:08, 23 April 2017‎ Musdan77 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,746 bytes) (-176)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 776715954 by Florian Blaschke (talk). (TW)) (undo). 
    Maybe you did not understand my reason for my edit, but Musdan77 apparently did. I am surprised and indignant regarding your statement, "What? The explanation was incomplete,and this also looks like vandalism." I would hope in the future you will be more cordial and circumspect in your statements about another editor. As has been said, "let my language be palatable and sweet for I may in the future have to eat them." 
    To assist you in understanding my edit and Musdan77's and my reversion, please note the following.
    The Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films provides the Saturn Award and no other. There is no separate Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films award as shown on Zoe Saldana's page (without citation I may add). Ms. Saldana ONLY won the Saturn Award GIVEN TO HER BY the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films. Thus, she has only won one award not another as has been shown on her page and allowed by you. Having her shown as winning BOTH the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films award (which doesn't exist, thus no citation could be provided) AND the Saturn Award is like saying someone won two awards: the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences award and, separately, an Academy Award ("Oscar"). Please review Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films, Saturn Award, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, http://www.saturnawards.org, http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000004/.
     Regards,
     DBManley /tlk DBManley 04:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Mammoth Steppe contribution

Hello Florian, your contribution to the article "Mammoth steppe" around 18 months ago has paid dividends. I think you will be interested in what has been found: Beringian wolf#Haplotype is not extinct. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That's fascinating, William (although I don't feel I completely understand everything), but I'm not completely sure what you mean by "has paid dividends"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You provided the content about the Mammoth steppe continuing on into the present time in a few locations, largely in western Mongolia. I provided the content late last year on the Beringian wolf haplotype discovery in Mongolia (and China, probably their joint border area) but the researchers would not say exactly where. Then yesterday it clicked; the location in Mongolia could only be where the mammoth-steppe type environment has continued on! So I have brought these elements both together under the Beringian wolf. That to me is the dividend.

The finding is of wolves with the same haplotype (that is, a sequence of genes) that match exactly the extinct Beringian wolf. This means one of two things yet to be determined: One - they both share an extinct common ancestor that had those same sequence of genes. Two - these ARE the descendants of the Beringian wolf. It will be interesting to see what a study of their skull and dentition reveals, and especially what they prefer to eat! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't completely follow. Maybe you miswrote? If you meant to write "the location in Mongolia could only be where the Beringian wolf haplotype has continued on" (since the mammoth-steppe-like environment is already covered, hence not a new insight), then your reasoning would make sense to me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Your comment is correct. I cannot specifically say that because the authors have not specifically say where the wolves were (at least not in this report; perhaps in their next one). However, I can at least lead readers towards western Mongolia as it makes sense. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now! Awesome, thanks! Please do keep me updated on this! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

French Sound Changes

Regarding French sound changes.

I'm having trouble understanding the page on the historical phonology. For instance, it's very unclear when certain things happen. Would Petrus do a) or b)?

a) PETRVM [petrum] > [pɛtr~u] > [pɛtr] > [pɛðr] > [piɛθr]
b) PETRVM [petrum] > [pɛtr~u] > [pɛtr] > [pɛðr] > [piɛðr]

It is unclear whether "final ð is devoiced" means strictly final or just in the final syllable. Same for patrem, which could be [pæθr] or [pæðr] as far as I can tell from the article. Old French forms seem to reflect a ð, like padre.
Palatalisation is also very unclear. Some d's seem to yield ð, others d͡z and others simply remain d, despite being in leniting positions.
Challemeinne (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't the one to compile the list, but /ð/ was definitely devoiced only in absolute final position (cf. Old French § Consonants), for example in Early Old French /feiθ/ < /feið/ < /feːðe/ < /fede/ < Proto-Romance */fɪde/, just like the f in e.g. chef or the suffix -if, devoiced from -v-.

As for palatalisation, it's hard to answer without concrete examples. For example, in cuidier the /d/ is actually not in leniting position, as the medial vowel was lost through syncope.

It never results in /dz/ – this is rather the outcome of /dzʲ/ (keep in mind the rule "palatalised sounds lose their palatal quality and eject a /j/ [...]"), the result of the first lenition of /tsʲ/.

If you take a concrete Latin word and go through the rules strictly in sequence, applying them whenever relevant, you should end up with the correct result (although the rule that governs the fate of medial and especially final /a/ after the palatalisation affecting /ka/ and /ga/ appears to be missing). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh I don't doubt the changes are correct, it's just unclear where they happen. I've been trying to find 6th century intermedial forms of the words, but cropped up with results like [pæθr] rather than, as you've clarified, [pæðr]. That said, I fail to see how "onze" from undecim (roughly [ondz] in the period I'm interested in, likely already having lost -ecim, the u having become an o, and the palatalised d becoming dz. Modern /ɔ̃z/, which is expected with dz > z and on > ɔ̃) isn't an example of d becoming dz. Unless the form was somehow different from undecim in Vulgar Latin at the latest. Or, alternatively, that the form was [onθ] by OF and that they replaced the existing ending with one to fit the case system. Challemeinne (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The way onze works is like this: Proto-Romance /ʊndɛki/ > Proto-Italo-Western-Romance /ondeci/ > Proto-Western-Romance /ondetɕe/ > Proto-Gallo-Ibero-Romance /ondedʑe/ > Proto-Gallo-Romance /onddʑe/ > /onddze/ > Early Old French /onddz/ > /onddzə/ > /ondzə/. Clear? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you're specifically interested in the 6th century, I'm not completely sure but I believe the stage the ancestor of French was in would be Proto-Gallo-Romance at the time, roughly at least. So you'd have /onddʑe/ or /onddze/, /piedros/ (nominative) or /piedru/ (accusative), and /paːder/ (nominative) or /paːdre/ (accusative), which becomes (presumably via /paeðrə/) /pɛːðrə/ in Early Old French. Proto-Gallo-Romance appears to have been quite similar to Old Spanish, Old Asturian-Leonese and Old Portuguese. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Challemeinne: It would help if you told me which word(s) you are specifically interested in (and maybe what you need them for – historical fiction, perhaps?). Are you more specifically interested in the name Pierre? It would only be /pieðrəs/ > /piers/ (nominative) or /pieðrə/ (accusative) in Early Old French (approx. 10th/11th century, much later than the period you seem to be interested in). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

North American English

RE: I think that you have misunderstood the syntax of this sentence. It seems that I did. Thank you for fixing it.LakeKayak (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Kitty

Hi Florian Blaschke, in the area in which I work, 18th & 19th century ships, the primary meaning of Kitty is the diminutive of Catherine. So, may I suggest that you figure out a way to include that fact in the disambig page because the version of the page you are defending is at best incomplete and at worst wrong. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to MOS:DAB and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to understand how disambiguation pages are organised on Wikipedia. Disambiguation pages list only one meaning, the meaning judged the primary meaning in general, at the top. As I pointed out, the name is already listed under Kitty (disambiguation)#People or fictional characters. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

RM: Hijra (South Asia) → Hijra (transgender group)

You recently participated in a move request discussion at Talk:Hegira. I have now proposed one of the suggested moves independently. Please it discuss at Talk:Hijra (South Asia) if you care. —  AjaxSmack  00:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yellow people listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yellow people. Since you had some involvement with the Yellow people redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Prisencolin (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Classification of English

Hello, because I don't know whom else to ask and because i saw you commenting on the English language talk page, i wanted to ask you something. Could you please tell me what you think about my version of the classification section of the English language article, which i wrote because i thought the current version of this section is actually pretty bad. I would like to know what you think about it and if my version is better at all. Thank you and sorry that the text is so long.

English is an Indo-European language, and belongs to the West Germanic group of the Germanic languages. Apart from Scots and the extinct Fingallian and Forth and Bargy (Yola) dialects of Ireland (the other Anglic languages), English is most closely related to the three Frisian languages: West Frisian, North Frisian and Saterland Frisian, with which English forms the Anglo-Frisian subgroup within West Germanic. Low German (Low Saxon) (nr. 19-24 on the map), which evolved from Old Saxon, and whose language area also extends over the core region once inhabited by the Angles and Saxons (Schleswig-Holstein with Anglia, and Lower Saxony), is also very closely related; and sometimes Low German, English, and Frisian are grouped together as the Ingvaeonic (North Sea Germanic) languages.

Furthermore, English is closely related to the other West Germanic languages: German, Dutch and Afrikaans. While Dutch and Afrikaans are classified as Franconian languages (nr. 25, 29 and 32), Standard German is based on Thuringian-Upper Saxon dialects (nr. 30), and therefore the three languages are about equally closely related to the Ingvaeonic languages. Since the Central German dialects (nr. 29-31) Standard German is based on, were, other than English, Dutch and Afrikaans (and also Low German), affected by the High German consonant shift, German seems more distantly related to English than Dutch and Afrikaans, since cognates often are not so easily recognizable, but still, English and German resemble each other to a high degree.

Example sentence in 1) English, 2) Low German (Low Saxon) and 3) German (ß = an s-sound):

1) The white wise ghost sat under the elm and ate red and blue berries, and his best friend, the brown owl, began to sing.

2) De witte wiese Geist satt unner de Elm un att rode un blaue Bejen, un sien best Fründ, de brune Uul, begunn to singen.

3) Der weiße weise Geist saß unter der Ulme und aß rote und blaue Beeren, und sein bester Freund, die braune Eule, begann zu singen.

After the West Germanic languages, English is also related to the North Germanic languages: Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Faroese and Icelandic.

The main criterion that differentiates English from all other Germanic languages is the considerably higher amount of Romance derived vocabulary. This can be explained through a heavy borrowing of French loanwords that occurred in the time after the Norman conquest of England (the Normans being Scandinavians that adopted French as their first language). Apart from being the most Romance Germanic language in terms of vocabulary, English also is the most North Germanic influenced West Germanic language, and, as an insular language, it developed independently of the continental West Germanic Frisian, Low German, German and Dutch, and is thus, differing in vocabulary, syntax and phonology, not mutually intelligible with these languages.

Because English through its history has changed considerably in response to contact with Old Norse and Norman French, some scholars have argued that English can be considered a mixed language or a creole – a theory called the Middle English creole hypothesis. Although the high degree of influence from these languages on the vocabulary and grammar of Modern English is widely acknowledged, most specialists in language contact do not consider English to be a true mixed language.

English is classified as a Germanic language because it shares new language features (different from other Indo-European languages) with other Germanic languages. These shared innovations show that the languages have descended from a single common ancestor, which linguists call Proto-Germanic. Some shared features of Germanic languages are the use of modal verbs, the division of verbs into strong and weak classes, and the sound changes affecting Proto-Indo-European consonants, known as Grimm's and Verner's laws. Through Grimm's law, the word for foot begins with /f/ in Germanic languages, but its cognates in other Indo-European languages begin with /p/. English is classified as an Anglo-Frisian language because Frisian and English share other features, such as the palatalisation of consonants that were velar consonants in Proto-Germanic (see Phonological history of Old English § Palatalization). English sing, sang, sung; Dutch zingen, zong, gezongen; German singen, sang, gesungen (strong verb) English laugh, laughed; Dutch and German lachen, lachte (weak verb) English foot, Dutch voet, German Fuß, Norwegian and Swedish fot (initial /f/ derived from Proto-Indo-European *p through Grimm's law) Latin pes, stem ped-; Modern Greek πόδι pódi; Russian под pod; Sanskrit पद् pád (original Proto-Indo-European *p) English cheese, Frisian tsiis (ch and ts from palatalisation) German Käse and Dutch kaas (k without palatalisation) ArchitectMan (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

English language is one of Wikipedia's most popular articles and perused mostly by the general reader, not specialists. There's no need to drown the reader in all that pedantic detail there, as we've told you repeatedly. The current version of the section is fine, and even superior. Knock it off. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It is strange then that the extinct Fingallian and Forth and Bargy (Yola) dialects of Ireland are mentioned in the introduction, and the only three closely related languages which are still spoken and are probably known to the "general reader" (German, Dutch, and Afrikaans), are not. ArchitectMan (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Since you seem to be concerned that the text could be too difficult to understand for laypersons, i'd be interested in if you think it would be an improvement to mention German, Dutch and Afrikaans instead of the extinct Fingallian and Forth and Bargy (Yola) dialects of Ireland. I suggest this sentence: "Furthermore, it is also closely related to the other West Germanic languages, the most spoken of which are German, Dutch and Afrikaans." instead of: "Modern English descends from Middle English, which in turn descends from Old English. Particular dialects of Old and Middle English also developed into a number of other English (Anglic) languages, including Scots and the extinct Fingallian and Forth and Bargy (Yola) dialects of Ireland." Furthermore i'd change the second sentence of the classification section from: "Most closely related to English are the Frisian languages..." to either: "Apart from Scots, which sometimes is regarded as a separate language, and sometimes as a dialectal variant of English, it is most closely related to the Frisian languages..." or: "Apart from Scots, whose status as a separate language or a dialectal variant of English is disputed, it is most closely related to the Frisian languages...". I suggest these changes because: a) German, Dutch and Afrikaans are more of interest to laypersons than two extinct Irish dialectal variants, b) the example section uses mainly German and Dutch as comparison, and therefore it would be logical to inform the reader about how these languages are related to English prior to these examples, c) German, Dutch and Afrikaans are the only closely related languages likely to be known to laypersons, and it is strange that the only widely spoken languages which are closely related to English aren't being mentioned in the introduction, while two extinct Irish dialects are, d) although the status of Scots as a separate language is disputed, it is being referred to as an English language in the current text, e) it is more logical to mention Scots before Frisian, because it is more closely related to English, f) the current text is wrong in that the Frisian languages are being referred to as most closely related to English, ignoring the Scots language dispute. ArchitectMan (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hornet's nest

You may have inadvertently wandered into a hornet's nest at Talk:David Reimer with this edit. If you're interested in this question and not familiar with the policy on synthesis, you should start there. There was edit-warring at David Reimer by the IP in June/July 2016, and extensive discussion among multiple editors trying to arrive at a consensus that would please the POV-pushing IP to little avail. If you really want to engage with this, you might want to see these other discussions first: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

No reason to worry; I have not touched the article itself nor reopened the dispute, nor do I intend to do either in the future. However, I have noticed that the IP dispute appears to have been resolved by the suggestion to add Colapinto's opinion to the article that Reimer's circumcision was unnecessary (p. 17 in his book); puzzlingly, I cannot find it mentioned in the article now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Language dispersion

Hello, Florian - I am trying to find something, in a WP article or elsewhere, that explains the linguistic "rule" that the farther away speakers of a language are from the original location of the language, the closer it resembles the way the language was spoken in that original location. For example, some dialects of American English are closer to the way English was spoken in England in the past, while modern British English has evolved and changed faster. Also, I believe Chabacano is close to 16th-century Spanish. Can you help me find something? I don't even remember what this is called.  – Corinne (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This "rule" appears to be inspired by Bartoli's principles of dialect geography, also mentioned here, but in German. What you propose is not actually a rule, but merely a tendency: conservative traits are better preserved in isolated or marginal regions, far from the centres of innovation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Western Europe Languages

Hello, it appears that you have removed the Italian and Greek languages from the article Western Europe on the grounds that they "aren't spoken in Western Europe" [53]. I shall notify you that the term Western Europe is rather ambiguous as it does often includes not only the languages of the southern European states of Italy and Greece (which you have removed), but also languages of Central and Northern Europe, especially the Danish. The criteria you have used for deciding which language should stay on the article, are problematic at best, as the definition of Western Europe varies depending on geographic, geopolitical and cultural definitions of that term. I am inclined to strongly advice against removing Western European languages on a strictly geographic basis and without at least taking in account other parameters. I am glad you have reverted the removal of Italian, and I myself have restored back the Greek, which is the seminal language of Western Europe today. Have a good day. --SILENTRESIDENT 20:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have used the narrow definition of Western Europe found in Western Europe § CIA definitions – the wider definitions (such as the one which includes all the countries that are members of the EU) are not useful, because they include an unreasonably large part of Europe and overlap too much with Northern Europe, Central Europe, Southern Europe, Southeastern Europe and even reach into Eastern Europe (under some definitions at least), or even extend outside Europe, which is patently absurd. Greek is not an official language nor spoken by anyone but small recent immigrant communities in any of these countries. I have therefore removed Greek again. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Western Europe § CIA definitions are about countries only, not languages. And the section in the article you modified, is about Western European Languages, not about Western European Countries. Like I said, you took a strictly geographic CIA definition about countries and you have applied it on languages even though languages are not same thing as countries. The term Western Europe is not defined only in a strictly geographical sense and it does bear different geopolitical and cultural definitions as well. Greece is considered to be Western European country, not in strictly geographical sense, but in cultural and geopolitical one. And so does its language. Unless the Languages section of the article is strictly geographical, unlike the rest of the article? --SILENTRESIDENT 04:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because otherwise it's not clear what definition should be used and just about any European language can be included, which is obviously unhelpful. That said, maybe the section is better off removed in the first place. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You aren't sure which definition to use, but your edits, as they stand currently, are unacceptable and it makes it worse that you haven't consulted with other editors first before making them. Since your edits didn't solve the problem, only made it more problematic by exluding Western European languages spoken in countries that are not part of geographical Western Europe but are part of the Geopolitical and cultural Western Europe, couldn't it be better that you revert your edits, at least until you seek consensus with other editors, or remove the section? Your edits, as they stand now, are unacceptable. --SILENTRESIDENT 11:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I am vehemently against the removal of Italian and Greek languages using criteria that are about geographic countries and not about languages. I have now reverted your edits again and I hope you will refrain from repeating such edits without consulting with other editors as this can be considered a disruptive behavior. Furthermore, I wont position myself about Northern European languages or Central European languages, as I do not know their cases so I can't take any positions on this. --SILENTRESIDENT 11:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Parthian language

Hi. The Parnis (ancestor of Parthians) were a Scythian group. So how Parthian language were closer to Middle Persian (both classified as Western Iranian) rather than East Iranian languages like Saka/Khotanese and etc? Were East and West branches very close to each other during ancient era? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I missed your question. From the evidence of Old Iranian we have (mostly Avestan and Old Persian, as well as fragmentary evidence of other Iranian languages such as Scythian, mostly names), all the Iranian languages were indeed very similar to each other in the period 1000–500 BC. In fact, during that period, it seems to have been Old Persian that was conspicuously different from the rest in a few points (mostly phonological), including both East and Northwest Iranian, and there wasn't really an evident East–West division; Avestan doesn't even have most of the typical traits, such as fricativisation of (especially voiced) stops, that later characterise East Iranian, and East Iranian does not even seem to have been a clearly distinct group at the time.

In fact, the traditional model with a division into West and East, and further into Northwest and Southwest, as well as Northeast and Southeast, is increasingly seen as oversimplified and poorly suited to describing the Old Iranian dialect continuum (or Iranian language family, respectively, later) at any point in time. Rather, what seems to have happened is that there was initially more a division of Old Persian vs. the rest, both diverging from Proto-Iranian (c. 1400 BC) in their own ways, and later on the way to Middle Persian, the language exhibited strikingly innovative traits (chief among which the loss of final syllables, c. 500 BC, and a ton of morphological distinctions with it) and closely interacted with more northern dialects and languages (especially on the lexical level), drawing the dialects and languages that would become Northwest Iranian into its orbit, and making the boundary between Persian and Northwest Iranian increasingly fuzzy, so that there are languages like Kurdish that are hard to assign to either the northern and southern group, as – more so even than other Western Iranian languages – they represent a mix of Persian and non-Persian traits. But also Persian itself has a ton of lexemes that show non-Persian traits (thought to be borrowed from "Median", Parthian, Sogdian or Avestan), and more northern languages (traditionally assigned to Northwestern Iranian) in turn contain a ton of lexemes borrowed from Persian or exhibiting traits typical of Persian. So, in the modern era at least, it makes sense to think of Western Iranian as a distinct group (though more areal than genealogically based), while Eastern Iranian is a collection of disparate, varied Iranian languages that tend to lack typically Western traits and are more conservative in general.

In fact, however, already in Middle Iranian the west–east division is conspicuous enough, and Parthian is significantly more similar to Middle Persian than it is to Eastern Middle Iranian languages like Sogdian, Bactrian or Saka. For this reason, it is usually classed as Western Iranian, specifically Northwestern Iranian. However, in view of the above, it is not unthinkable that Parthian was originally an Eastern language whose speakers migrated to the west, came into contact with Persian, and thus "westernised" their language. Or the Parni may have abandoned their original language altogether and switched to a local language of the Northwestern type altogether, aided by the similarities between languages of the Eastern and Northwestern group. Or maybe the language of the Parni was of the Northwestern type all along. It's hard to be sure because the only Iranian language of the Northwestern type that's reasonably well attested in the Middle Iranian period happens to be Parthian itself, so there are no other languages of the Northwestern type to compare it to.

In short, we don't really know. In the 3rd century BC, Scythian and "Median" (or its successor idioms) were probably already clearly distinct (as the Iranian names in the ancient Greek inscriptions of the Pontic region already show certain phonological developments also found in modern Ossetian), even though they were likely still evidently similar – considering that only about 1000 years had elapsed since the break-up of Proto-Iranian, and even Middle Persian and, say, Sogdian or Saka were still obviously related about 2000 years after the break-up of Proto-Iranian. So it would have been easy for the Parni to gradually switch to a more "Median"-like language. That Parthian lacks certain traits typical of Eastern Iranian languages, and especially Saka and Ossetic, such as plurals formed with a -t- suffix, does indicate that it is not originally Eastern Iranian. However, Justin's assertion (which I'd only just discovered in Parni as I'd started this concluding paragraph) that the language of the Parni was "intermediate" between "Median" and Scythian rings plausible as a step in the switch from their original language to the one we find attested in about the 4th century AD as Parthian. It's possible that the Parthians, or at least their nobility, were still bilingual at the time, speaking both a Scythian- and a "Median"-like language, the Scythian-like language being full of western loanwords and other influences by this time. Of course this is a rather speculative conclusion, but maybe my explanation has helped you understand the context anyway. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. You didn't ping me so I just read your reply now. Could you recommend some books/articles/websites about the history of Iranian languages or expert authors in this field? --Wario-Man (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello, Florian – On 29 August I undid an edit to Alba Iulia, providing links to WP:OR and WP:CITE in my edit summary. I don't often revert others' edits, but it seemed to me that this edit was pretty close to original research and did not provide any citations. Since this was a new editor, I "welcomed" the editor on his/her talk page with a standard welcome template. Just now I saw the editor's reply. Was I wrong to revert that edit? If so, what would you have done, if anything? If not, can you help me with a reply to the editor?  – Corinne (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Corinne. The user's command of English is so poor that I have trouble even understanding what they are trying to say, but from what I can tell, they are engaging in trivial, bog-standard soundalike pseudo-etymological nationalistically motivated OR that's unfortunately common in Balkan topics. Nobody doubts that lule means "flower" in Albanian, we know that already. It's the relevance to the origin of the name Alba Iulia that's in question, and that needs a cite. Evidently this user – like so many other laypeople – operates on the assumption that such similarities are on their own sufficient to prove etymological speculations, because the connection is obvious to them. But that's not how sound scientific etymological work proceeds, and the naïve sound-alike method is worthless as any number of sound-alike similarities can be considered "obvious", as has been amply demonstrated before (see also here). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you for the detailed explanation.  – Corinne (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Did you read his reply to my welcome message on his talk page?  – Corinne (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I was referring to it. This user takes their interpretation of the name Alba Iulia as of Albanian origin (as opposed to the consensus that Iulia derives from Gyula) so much for granted that they even refer to Alba Iulia as "Alba Lule". That's ridiculous. I suspect the user simply doesn't like the derivation from Hungarian because they do not like Hungarians, so they cooked up this idea that Iulia really comes from Albanian lule.

The only point they got right is that Albanian is really the language longest present in the region and also acts a substratum for the others, especially Romanian. However, Albanian words aren't automatically old; cf. baltë "mud", which can easily be an early borrowing from Proto-Slavic *bolto "swamp, mud", still pronounced as *balta until the 8th century. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. Thank you.  – Corinne (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Gneiss

Hello, Florian – Can you take a look at the recent back-and-forth edits to Gneiss. I think the editor who keeps changing "is derived from" to "comes from" may have a misconception of what "is derived from" means, but I'll leave you to sort it out.  – Corinne (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this, Florian. I have no doubt that it is absolutely correct, but may I ask you a few questions? (My amateur knowledge of linguistics will no doubt be apparent to you.)

I just wonder why you start with "The German word gneis, formerly spelt gneiss..." and not "The English word gneiss [or just Gneiss] is derived from the German word gneis, etc." (Maybe "is derived" is wrong for describing a spelling difference.) Alternatively, you could add "as gneiss" in the last sentence:

• It is attested in English as gneiss since at least 1757.

or:

• The word, spelled gneiss, is attested in English since at least 1757.

if that is correct. (Perhaps both spellings were attested in English around that time, I don't know.) If it is not correct to say that, then I think it would help readers if it were explained how the English word came to be spelled gneiss. I don't think the fact that the German word was "formerly spelt gneiss" is sufficient to make that clear. (Is it possible that the word started to be used in English before the German spelling underwent a change? If so, perhaps that could be mentioned.)  – Corinne (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I just worked off the existing wording. Technically speaking, gneiss is a loanword in English, borrowed from Gneiss, an obsolete variant spelling of German Gneis (found, for example, here). If it is commonly understood that gneiss is of German origin (I don't know if it is), the current phrasing, even if not 100% technically accurate, is acceptable, I think. That said, I try to avoid the lay use of "is derived from" for something that's not actually a derivation, so I'm arguably being inconsistent here, being careful of technical accuracy in one case and not in the other. I've therefore rephrased the section. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It reads well now. Thank you. By the way, how do you pronounce "gneiss" (in English)? I always thought it was "niece" (or "nees"), but the "ei" makes me think it should be pronounced "nice", but I've never heard anyone say that, and I studied geology for a while, so I'm really puzzled.  – Corinne (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

According to Gneiss and Wiktionary, it's "nice" – consistent with the German pronunciation, but without the /g/ because a word-initial /gn/ contradicts English phonotactics. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I just came up with a clever method to confirm this: If "gneiss" is really a homophone of "nice", puns exploiting this homophony can be expected. Searching the web for "gneiss guy" yields a large number of hits. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably all field geologists. Geology humor.  – Corinne (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GeoWhen

Template:GeoWhen has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Persian language

Hello, Florian – I just made a few changes at Persian language, but in this paragraph, the first two sentences still don't sound right to me; normally, I could revise these, but I'm drawing a blank as to how to improve them. I'm wondering if you could take a look and see what you think:

• There is still substantial Arabic vocabulary, but many of these words have been integrated into Persian phonology and grammar. In addition, since the 19th century numerous Russian, French, and English terms have been borrowed, especially vocabulary related to technology. The Iranian National Academy of Persian Language and Literature is responsible for evaluating neologisms in order to devise their Persian equivalents.

I think "There is still substantial Arabic vocabulary" is awkward; it would be good to avoid the "There is still" construction. In the second sentence, it would be good to avoid using both "terms" and "vocabulary". Any ideas?  – Corinne (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: How about "A substantial part of the Persian vocabulary consists of loanwords from Arabic, but many of these words have been integrated [...]", and "[...] words have been borrowed, especially lexicon related to technology"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. What do you think of "A substantial portion of the Persian vocabulary"?  – Corinne (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes! Portion is even better! Excellent. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Arlesheim

Hello, Florian – I made a few copy-edits yesterday to Arlesheim. Among them, I changed a link. Today I see someone changed it back, saying what I put was wrong. I don't understand why it would be wrong. Can you explain? Here is the latest edit.  – Corinne (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't get it either. I've undone the edit. That said, I'm not entirely sure that sentence is needed; what it describes is true for basically every other town in the German-speaking area of Switzerland. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Would it make sense to add a phrase at the beginning to that effect? Here is the paragraph as it is now:

• The official language of Arlesheim is the Swiss variety of Standard German, but the main spoken language is the local variant of the Alemannic Swiss German dialect.

How about something like this?

• Like all other towns in the Swiss German part of Switzerland, the official language of Arlesheim is the Swiss variety of Standard German, but the main spoken language is the local variant of the [insert phrase here?] Alemannic Swiss German dialect.

Also, for the non-expert, would it help to add a phrase that gives some hint as to how different "the local variant of the Alemannic Swiss German dialect" is from "Swiss variety of Standard German"?  – Corinne (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"Swiss German part of Switzerland" sounds redundant. The difference between Swiss Standard German and Alemannic Swiss German is enormous and roughly comparable to the difference between Scottish Standard English and a (broad) Scots dialect. If you have studied German as a second language, you will have little problem understanding Swiss Standard German, but Alemannic dialect will be near-impossible to make sense of, at least at first; the vowels alone are completely different (cf. Standard Schweizerdeutsch vs. dialectal Schwyzertütsch). In fact, many Germans who have never been to Switzerland, watched Swiss TV or heard genuine dialect any other way, believe that Swiss Germans simply speak "regular" German with a funny accent, and do not realise that there are all these radically divergent local dialects, and I think the same misconception exists with regard to Scots.

But this is really going too far. Arlesheim is only one of hundreds of towns in Switzerland. Why Arlesheim of all towns? You could say the same about every other Swiss German town. Also, if you insist on keeping the sentence, you should have a word with ZH8000, who undid my revert again. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Florian, for the explanation. I don't insist on anything. I don't feel confident enough of my linguistic knowledge to delete an entire sentence, but I should think you would feel confident enough. I saw the revert. I don't understand it. Shall we ask TaivoLinguist for his/her opinion?  – Corinne (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe, I don't know. It sounds awfully pedantic to me too to insist that the most widely used official language of Switzerland is "German" only because that's what legal texts literally say, when in reality it is Swiss Standard German, the precise linguistic term; after all, the legal experts that wrote the relevant passages ages ago probably weren't linguists and didn't think that deeply about it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I just noticed about this ongoing discussion. Since I insisted, let me explain.

Yes, the official language is "German" (as an umbrella term of any kind of variety) and nothing else (and far from pedantic). So legally spoken you can interact with the authorities in any variety of German. However, the authorities will use Swiss Standard German in written form. Whether you use e.g. the teutonic or Austrian standard variety does not legally matter. Orally, it is legally totally accepted that each speaker uses his own German dialect. De facto, representatives of the authority will use High German – or what they consider as such – if there seems to be an intelligibility problem.

So the official language is German. Full stop. This is actually constitutional for every German Swiss canton.

Now, you can make clear that there is a de facto standard (the Swiss variety of the standard form). But orally, you will have to expect many different "dialects". In extreme even such ones as the ones of Germany (or Austria), if it (unfortunately?) happens that the office worker you interact with is a German (or Austrian) employee! Normally, of course, it is the local variety.

All these subleties I tried to condense in: "The official language of Arlesheim is the (Swiss variety of Standard) German, but the main spoken language is the local variant of the Alemannic Swiss German dialect".

However to claim that Swiss Standard German is the official language would simply be wrong even twofold (German it is, and orally High German is not required at all) and misleading.

You can like my condense wording or not, but please do not introduce errors or wrong assumptions. -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

And would you mind to move this thread to the Arlesheim talk page, where it actually belongs to? Thanks! -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm glad you joined the discussion. Can you explain how these are different, and why my arrangement is wrong? Here's your edit for reference. In your version, you put "the Swiss variety of Standard" in parentheses before a piped link, where the link is to the article Swiss Standard German, but only the word "German" appears to the reader, so the sentence appears as "The official language of Arlesheim is (the Swiss variety of Standard) German". In my edit, I merely moved the modifying phrase you had in parentheses to within the piped link, so what appears to the reader is: "The official language of Arlesheim is the Swiss variety of Standard German". The only difference, to the reader, is that in your version, the phrase is in parentheses, and in my version it is not. Both links lead to the same article, Swiss Standard German. I didn't change the second part of the sentence about Alemannic. Putting something in parentheses does not greatly diminish its importance. Your comment was confusing and unconvincing. If you really want to say that the official language of Arlesheim is German, then it should say just that, and the link should not go to Swiss Standard German but rather to German language.  – Corinne (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Florian Blaschke. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Finished edit you made to Pottery 18:52, 6 March 2012

In case you aren't watching it, I've completed a sentence that was partly re-added by you on the above data. I'm leaveing you this note in case my edit is incorrect.Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Tocharian languages

Hello. I'm surprised to find almost no information whatsoever about the corpus of these languages. How much do we have? Do we know enough words and grammar to imagine speaking Tocharian and making it a tool of communication, as is done with Latin? Or is the situation more similar to that of Gothic: a sizeable corpus, but nowhere near enough to be able to speak it? Or even less? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:9D2B:D46C:CA0F:8E0E (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you're right, Wikipedia's coverage of the Tocharian languages leaves a real lot to desire. Although the Tocharian corpus is relatively small, and consists mostly of translations and almost exclusively of fragments, as far as ancient Indo-European languages go, the corpus is quite sizeable and our knowledge of the language decent. Although I'm no expert, it seems to me that the Tocharian corpus is definitely larger than that of Gothic and quite respectable, and we know a real lot about both languages (Tocharian B, additionally, exhibits regional variants). As a very rough proxy to gauge the amount of material that Tocharian provides to Indo-European studies, the Gothic verb forms listed in the LIV appendix comprise almost one and a half pages, while both Tocharian languages together take close to three and a half pages (although admittedly, the format of the Tocharian lists is different because every entry – which comprises a single verbal root – takes about two lines on average and not only one, so the overall list isn't a lot larger, and you've got two languages with cognate roots, which makes the comparison additionally skewed) – that's nothing to sneeze at.

By the way, this introduction looks pretty good.

If one set out to make a useable language out of Tocharian, in any of its forms, the obvious problem one would face would be that of any Ausbau language (including lots of languages still spoken today), the need for expansion of the vocabulary and especially countless neologisms for modern phenomena. But if you only intend to talk about things known to the historical Tocharians between c. 400 and 800 AD, for example because you wish to write a historical novel featuring fictional Tocharians and make a film based on it, you wouldn't need these neologisms, of course. So it depends on what exactly you intend to do with the language. But it would certainly be possible without too much conjecture and fantasy; it would be less fictional than a conlang, but more conjectural than most Ausbau or revived languages, I guess (for comparison, not only are there attempts to create a "Modern Gothic" despite the limited size of the corpus, there are "Modern Prussian" projects by enthusiasts too, based on Old Prussian but heavily inspired by Lithuanian, I think, and the size of the Old Prussian corpus is roughly comparable to that of Gothic and certainly smaller than that of Tocharian – the only difference being that Tocharian lacks close cousins). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"hella transphobic"

Can you not say things like this. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Because: a) it's childish and unprofessional; and b) you're accusing me of being something without valid basis. But whatever. Have fun editing. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not, and I'm not. All I was saying is that "ungendering" a trans woman (or man), which is a form of misgendering a trans person, is hella transphobic. It's a fact, like it or not. Facts don't care for your feelings. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Assyrian Neo-Aramaic

Hello, Florian – I hope you had a nice Christmas and that you are enjoying the holidays. I noticed this edit to Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, and while the material added may be all right, I wonder if it was added in the best place in the article. The paragraph seems to be about word stress. I didn't know where the best place to put the information would be, so I thought I'd ask you. Also, does this material need to be sourced? Finally, would you take a look at the formatting of the text? I don't know if bold italics is the right font.  – Corinne (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Corinne. Sorry I missed your message. I hope you had happy holidays too, and wish you all the best for the year that has just started. I've taken a stab at the situation you've pointed out. The statement was in fact not only unfittingly but also misleadingly placed, as if it were sourced by the following reference. I moved it to "Verbs", because that's the best place I could think of. I'm not sure if there is an official Wikipedia-wide convention, but in linguistics it's common to put foreign-language material in italics and glosses in quotes, so I adapted the statement accordingly, but like most Wikipedia articles this one is still terribly inconsistent in that respect. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for looking at it and making improvements.  – Corinne (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Unclean vocals listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unclean vocals. Since you had some involvement with the Unclean vocals redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Natg 19 (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Expressive loan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Expressive loan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expressive loan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Scythian language

Iranica has added some new entries to its website (April 2018).[54] One of them is Scythian language by Rüdiger Schmitt. I think it would be useful if you like to expand Scythian languages. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sprechen Sie deutsch? v2

Guten Morgen Florian! I seek your assistance with some translation work on the Dingo article once again. Regarding Blumenbach's 1780 text titled Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, pages 100-104 here. Could you advise me if there is any mention of the Dingo amongst this Gothic script, please? (The Dingo did get its own section in his 1797 edition). Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@William Harris: Sorry for missing your inquiry and for the late reply, but there is definitely no mention of the Dingo there (not by this name, and I cannot find any mention under a different name, either), which is not surprising for 1780. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Florian. Your assessment supports the same finding by a German taxonomist that someone else has referred to. Much appreciated! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Anatolian peoples

Hey! Your competence in Indo-European studies is deeply needed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 2. For some reason, certain users seem to be unable to understand the difference between peoples speaking Anatolian languages, and ancient peoples living in Anatolia. Krakkos (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

As en editor interested in Indo-European topics, this deletion discussion might be of interest to you. Krakkos (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Here is a similar controversy which would benefit from the input of someone with competence in Indo-European studies. Certain users are advocating moving North Germanic peoples to Scandianvians and turn it into an article covering both speakers of North Germanic/Scandinavian languages and inhabitants of Scandinavia (including the Sami). I have tried to explain the difference between ethnolinguistic groups and peoples inhabiting a specific region, but without success. Will you succeed where i have failed? Krakkos (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Precious

languages

Thank you for quality articles such as Matias Kupiainen and disambiguations, for using knowledge of languages I didn't even know exist, for help with translations, for educational summaries, for service from 2006, for "I'm glad that my inability to resist a pun sometimes amuses people other than myself", - Florian from Munich, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I am deeply honoured to be praised by such a wonderful fellow Wikipedian such as you. :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2018 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder! :-) Happy editing to you, too! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Outdated etymology?!

• Dingir
• Tengri

I have seen Turkish nationalists spam this everywhere. But this claim is not even supported on Wiktionary.[55] So why it should remain on WP? Don't you agree it's time to remove it or make it less pov at least? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It should definitely be de-emphasised. Sumerian and Turkic are not considered to be related in any shape or form. A loan relationship cannot perhaps be completely excluded, but is highly implausible, in view of history and geography (Sumerian already died out about 4000 years ago, while Proto-Turkic was spoken not much more than 2000 years ago in or close to Mongolia, far removed from Mesopotamia, and there is little reason to suspect that this temporal and geographical distance can be bridged somehow). This suggestion is found in at least one RS, namely Eliade (who is, however, not a linguist), so a small mention seems defensible, but it should be qualified as a mere outsider suggestion that hasn't been picked by experts (linguists). It's a rather fringe hypothesis, and the resemblance is probably completely coincidental. See also here, where a loan from Yeniseian into Turkic is suggested; this is vastly more plausible. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Since you're more familiar with this topic, then will you edit both articles? Also, it would be very good if you add used sourced from Wiktionary articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have access to the sources, so I couldn't do much. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Pictish language

Hi, do you have full references for the following that you placed in the lead for Pictish language:

Broun, "Dunkeld", Broun, "National Identity", Forsyth, "Scotland to 1100", pp. 28–32, Woolf, "Constantine II"; cf. Bannerman, "Scottish Takeover", passim, representing the "traditional" view.</ref>

I'm struggling with "National Identity" and "Constantine II" (in Pictland to Alba?) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Got this one:

Broun, Dauvit, "National identity: early medieval and the formation of Alba" in Lynch (2001).

Still trying to find the Woolf reference. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not conversant with the literature. It's a long time ago, but I believe I had copied the paragraph from Scottish Gaelic. I was able to ultimately trace it back to this edit by Angusmclellan. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As for "Constantine II", my suspicion is that it refers to an article in an encyclopedia, presumably Michael Lynch (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Scottish History. Oxford UP, Oxford, 2001. ISBN 0-19-211696-7. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice one... that's exactly what it is. I'm in the process of attempting to update the article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! I see now that you had already referred to Lynch (2001); I must have missed that. I'm too inattentive!

Thank you for your work. I'm lazy, so most of my edits are gnoming edits that arise from spotting – typically obvious – flaws in articles. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Florian Blaschke. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Cançó de Santa Fe

Can you explain what was POV? "Earliest", "Catalan", "dialect"? My concern is that "early work in X that may be the earliest in Y" is likely to confuse many readers without something like the word "dialect" to help them out. Srnec (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Earliest work in Catalan. As the article goes on to explain, it's controversial if the work is in Catalan at all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly it has been too long since I wrote the article... I thought the "catalanity" of the work was pretty much settled. Srnec (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

At this early time, it's unclear if Old Catalan was even already distinct from Old Occitan. It's possible that there were already dialectal differences, but still so slight that assigning individual texts to Old Catalan unambiguously may not always be possible, especially since the influence from the literary Provençal-based language was so strong (there may sometimes be occasional quirks that reveal the dialect of the speaker). Only the Homilies d'Organya – more than a hundred years more recent – definitely exhibit traits diagnostic of Catalan (albeit a distinctly early and archaic form).

I'm afraid it's a bit tricky to explain the issue concisely to the reader, who is advised to consult Old Occitan instead. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Srnec: A grammatical observation I've made is that the Cançó de Santa Fe employs a two-case system, like Old French. This is also typical of Old Occitan. However, as far as I'm aware, this is not typical of Catalan and, in fact, I believe is used as a prime distinguishing characteristic to separate Catalan from Occitan (or even to argue that Catalan is not closely related to Occitan, or that Catalan is Ibero-Romance while Occitan is Gallo-Romance – which I don't think is defensible). However, whether Old Catalan really never had a two-case system at any point I can't say for certain (German Wikipedia suggests that it did at some point). So either the language of the text is a stage of Catalan so old that it still evinces a two-case system, or it's plainly not Catalan.

Another early distinguishing characteristic I can think of is the fronting of [u] to [y] in Occitan but not Catalan, but this is not plainly visible in the orthography, I'm afraid.

In any case, I think it's fair to say that by the mid-eleventh century, the distinction between Catalan and (the rest of) Occitan appears to still have been murky. This is in agreement with the claim in Old Occitan that Catalan began to diverge in the 11th century. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Earliest Albanian text

Hi Florian. There was a hot "debate" recently in the article Origin of the Albanians, with some users insisting to keep ONLY this reference to the supposed manuscript of 1210. You undersand, some have reason to believe that their language is as old as possible. I added 2 references pointing to 16th century for the oldest long text in Albanian, and not only they delete it, but they claim that I need "consensus" to post that info. If you are interested in improving article on linguistics, you may want to contribute to the discussion of that article. No doubt, they will complain for "canvassing". WP is encouraging team work if it is to improve articles.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Albanians

Hi. I have been reading your edit summary in your addition there and you seem to be a constructive editor with an interesting background on history and linguistics. The two sides of the dispute need more community input to achieve consensus. I suggest taking a look at the latest discussion where some editors claim that the specific edit needs to be removed (see "back to stable version" argument). Giving a solution to a long dispute indeed benefits this projects. Cheers.Alexikoua (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Mayer (name)

I am not sure your revert of my edit on Mayer was beneficial. Whether John is notable enough for an article is irrelevant, but whether someone looking up (as I was originally and why I added him) his name needs more information is the relevant piece of information. I am going to change it back, if you disagree, please respond back to me. Thank you - speednat (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You should at least give his nationality ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

From my source I wasn't sure, obviously I am going to have to do some research because someone else reverted but thank you for not mindlessly re-reverting - speednat (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to re-revert, but please see MOS:DABRED. You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of disambiguation pages. Your entry is almost certainly going to be removed again and again if you don't bother to write an article on John Mayer, the priest. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Source summary

Hi. On Pamir languages; do you think this sentence:

• No features uniting the Pamir languages as a single subgroup of Iranian have been demonstrated.

summarizes the cited source accurately?[56] You can access the full text as PDF. --Wario-Man (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, right from the start, in the abstract, the source says:

The Pamir languages [...] cannot be traced back to a common ancestor. The term "Pamir languages" is based on their geographical position rather than on their genetic closeness.

The conclusion, Chapter 4, says:

Exclusive features by which the Pamir languages can be distinguished from all other East Iranian languages cannot be found either.

I'd say that's pretty damn clearly exactly in agreement with the summary offered by our article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't you think it's better to add those details from abstract to clarify the current sentence? --Wario-Man (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, but you can add the quotations if you think so. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the reply. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Pamir Mountains

Why did you revert my edit?![57] Didn't you read my edit summary? Only one source may be legit and it was misrepresented. See the talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

PIE culture

None of my edits are unsourced, please read the study linked thoroughly and comment again. Yamnaya one clearly shows the low prevalence of SNP A for TYR (94% of the samples lacked the allele that is responsible for blocking melanogenesis pathways and hence had pretty high melanin produced by their melanocytes). The Andronovo one is pretty clear, that is why HistoryOfIran did not reply to it. Please read the whole study and refrain from commenting on just the abstractAbh9850 (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Maldivian language

Hi Florian,

Just wanted to ask why my edit was reverted? Most linguists agree that Maldivian (Dhivehi) can't be descended from Elu, which was spoken in Sri Lanka, as the languages had already diverged, and the Maldives were not settled by Sri Lankans, rather settlement in the Maldives from India took place at around the same time as Sri Lanka --Theudariks (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Non sequitur. How do you know the languages had already diverged (since the local languages of the Maldives aren't attested in the 3rd century BC), and that whatever languages that may have been spoken in the ancient Maldives weren't replaced by Elu Prakrit later, in the first millennium AD? Sinhala and Maldivian are closely related Indo-Aryan languages, too closely to make the claim plausible that they were distinct languages already in the 3rd century BC. See Maldivian language#History.

Anyway, you need to cite your sources. According to our article Maldivian language, the language does descend from Elu Prakrit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Bzyp dialect () listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bzyp dialect (). Since you had some involvement with the Bzyp dialect () redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

kill yourself worthless snownigger subhuman

just do it already.

@Doug Weller: can you block this ip? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: done. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, guys!

Snownigger is pretty funny and weirdly cute, though (I hadn't encountered that one before), I've got to give that to them. (I'm really pale indeed.) Although personally I prefer the more "politically correct" and also more technically accurate cumskin or pukeskin. Insulting white people effectively is hard – unless they are fragile, of course. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

RFC about Tilda Swinton

I started an RFC on the talk page. Standard policy with BLPs is to leave out any potentially controversial information that has been challenged until after a discussion is done.

On a completely unrelated note, I think that it might be a good idea to archive some of the old conversations on this talk page so that it's easier to navigate. There are even bots that will do it automatically do it for you. This is just some friendly advice that I'm offering you. If you don't want to do that, that's fine. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Engrish

An article that you have been involved in editing—Engrish—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 04:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hurro-Urartian languages

Hi Florian! Are you really sure about Laroche being a proponent of Hurro-Urartian being related to IE? I deliberately removed him and his "Glossaire" from that sentence, because he writes on p. 14, §3 of his monograph: "La langue "du Mitanni" est apparue immédiatment comme etrangere aux families indo-européenne et sémitique. Sa structure générale la classe dans le genre dit "agglutinant" (langue suffixante), sa typologie précise la rapproche des families finno-ougrienne, turque et dravidienne. Isolé dans le Proche-Orient, sans lien avec les langues dites "asianiques" (sumérien, élamite, cassite, hatti), le hourrite devait, au debut, être déchiffré par la seule méthode combinatoire, ou bénéficier, le cas échéant, de bilingues explicites." As far as I can see, he only accepts the obvious relationship to Urartian. –Austronesier (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You can remove him if you want. I only added him because he was mentioned in Urartu#Language, where I removed the debate about the classification of Hurro-Urartian as a whole as UNDUE. In fact, this only proves my point: duplicating irrelevant fringe-y classification debates in loosely related articles is not only poor form but also increases the workload, as one has to monitor and keep synchronised unrelated pages, which wouldn't happen if the issue stayed limited to a central, relevant article, in this case Hurro-Urartian languages. There's no reason to repeat it in pages like Hurrian language, Urartian language, Hurrians (where I just removed a mention in the introduction, and an editor has recently edited the language section to spam it with Hurro-Urartian external relationships stuff, including Laroche), Urartu, etc. Can you help keep the Hurro-Urartian classification spam out of articles other than Hurro-Urartian languages? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely get your point. I have reviewed the edit(s) starting from "Hurro-Urartian languages" (which is on my watchlist), cleaned up the misinterpretation of Laroche, and then followed the track of the editor's history, unfortunately missing the edit in Urartu. And yes, this a perfect unvoluntary case study of what can happen when articles are spammed up with unnecessary redundancies, here having resulted in a collosion of your formal cleanup and my incomplete content cleanup. I'll gladly help with cleaning up all that stuff. Suggestion: remove all classification info except for the undisputed relation between Hurrian and Urartu, and add {{main}}-pointers where necessary. –Austronesier (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! Will you do this in the mentioned articles (and possibly others if you encounter them)? I think you'll be faster doing that, and you also seem more competent (Hurro-Urartian is outside my expertise: I haven't studied either Hurrian or Urartian in any detail, I'm less familiar with them than with many other non-Indo-European languages in contact with Indo-European ones, and in general the Ancient Near East in the Bronze Age is a bit outside my regional and temporal focus, which is Europe, primarily from the Iron Age on). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not fully done yet. Especially the Hurro-Urartian article gives too much weight to the NE Caucasian hypothesis, so I'll also fix that one later. I am currently also fact-checking about the article Alarodian languages, which strongly smells like terminological misuse – a topic which you know I take very seriously. (Hey, look at this, I have just extracted an object from an embedded clause in a spontaneous utterance. Swear, I haven't made it up to prove some useless generative theorem!) Actually, I am just a curious amateur when it comes to anything other than Austronesian languages (and a few Native American languages). But I have just become super-critical after having seen so many factual errors in articles about Austronesian lgs, that I take the same critical approach to all language related articles, especially the more "exotic" ones, which per se attract more attention from the fringe than well-studied language families. – Austronesier (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd missed that you'd already got to work! I agree that there's a lot of POV-pushing surrounding the HU+NEC hypothesis, which, as mentioned, is rather fringe and championed mainly by Moscow school academics who take it as fact that in Eurasia, all language families are ultimately related and that this is almost as easy to prove as Indo-European, and with the same methods to boot. (They refuse to understand that thanks to the wealth of the ancient textual material, the time-depth of Indo-European is effectively more like 3000 than 5000–6000 years, and similar considerations apply for Semitic. No wonder these relationships are fairly easy to demonstrate. Austronesian is actually a much more amazing feat.) You think that Alarodian for HU+NEC is a misnomer, do I get that right? You mean "misuse"? I'm not sure; you know, non-restrictive relative clauses, especially in more or less spontaneous (if quasi-formal) language, often feel like coordinating clauses, effectively. But I'm useless as a syntactician. Yes, I'm essentially a curious amateur myself when it comes to non-European languages – even IE ones (especially modern IE languages outside Europe). I can assure you: even language-related articles from well-studied language families that cannot be described as "exotic" by any means attract the fringe and the downright nutty, the POV warriors, ultra-nationalists, religious fanatics and fascists (even when they hide behind various smokescreens). Well-studiedness doesn't stop pseudoscientific language comparison, it's just that there are far more resources to smack down the crackpots. Indigenous Aryans, anyone? Paleolithic Continuity Theory? You won't believe what's out there. The most persistent crank I've ever met on Wikipedia is a far-right Turkomaniac, who is so hell-bent on pushing the idea that the Scythians were Turkic rather than Iranian (and the Yamnaya culture was Proto-Turkic, of course!) that he has created, over the last decade or so, a zoo of what seems like hundreds of sockpuppets that are active until the present day, because Wikipedia isn't designed for this level of persistence. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I share your doubts about long-range comparisons, but I think they also deserve to be adaquately presented, as long as they appear in peer-reviewed RS. E.g. I have cleaned up the mess in Austric languages which was severly distorted by sock and IP edits, although personally have strong doubts about the hypothesis itself. I have also already made a bizarre sock encounter, and currently almost weekly report one after the other from that sock factory (WorldCreaterFighter).

As for Alarodian, I'll do some reading and fact-checking first, and will ping you and a few others to a discussion on the article's take page. Apparently, the term originally referred to a waste-basket group of non-Semitic and non-IE languages in the Caucasus and the ancient Near East, encompassing e.g. Georgian, Elamite, etc. I want to check whether the term ever had been narrowed only to mean HU and NE Caucasian only, and whether any proponent of the modern HU-NEC hypothesis ever has embraced the Alarodian label. My gut feeling is that the historical Alarodian label was creatively and falsely attached to a modern hypothesis (regardless of the latter's actual validity – that's another story). – Austronesier (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not that I hate the whole idea of long-range comparisons and don't want them to be true or proven, it's just that the arguments in favour are typically really weak, data is misrepresented or misanalysed (as in pseudoscientific language comparison), outdated reconstructions are used, mainstream experts aren't involved to double-check everything, there's too much focus on lexicon in general (and known or likely loanwords are too often treated as inherited), methodically rigid reconstructions are missing (the Moscow school at least does reconstructions but their basis is questionable) and there are principled reasons why the traditional method is hard to get to work at this kind of time-depth, and no other known method has the same strong probative value.

Although I believe that Indo-European and Uralic are ultimately related, for various reasons that's really difficult to demonstrate conclusively. Uralic and Eskimo–Aleut also look like they could be related, but I've been told by Uralicists that the purported evidence is sketchy ... the objective conjugation in East Uralic, for one, cannot be reconstructed to Proto-Uralic, apparently. Eurasiatic does feel "truthy", at least in parts, like there could or even should be something to it, but truthiness doesn't mean fact.

It doesn't help that even well-known proto-languages like Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Semitic are moving targets and there are good reasons to think that traditional reconstructions aren't quite correct in many ways. (What this ultimately shows is that even reconstructing some 3000–4000 years back isn't exactly easy. Even "shallow" reconstruction projects are huge and an immense amount of work; after some 200 years, science is by no means done with even the best-researched families because the amount of data to be considered is so vast and keeps growing, and the number of scholars who engage in traditional comparative work has always been small and even seems to be shrinking. With the help of modern IT and databases, which partly already exist, this might be compensated for, but building comprehensive databases is a huge amount of work, and at this point automatisation of this highly complex and creative line of work still seems elusive, except perhaps partially. Also, even if we had rich attestation of languages all over Eurasia from, say, the Bronze Age, including various extinct languages and families whose former existence we might not even guess at, proving macrofamilies like Eurasiatic would probably still seem far-fetched since their time-depth is so huge; we might just be able to demonstrate parts of it.)

Personally, I would love for Austric to be true, it would be pretty awesome, but wishful thinking isn't enough. For example, Austro-Tai looks pretty suggestive to me, to put it mildly, but then, I'm by no means an expert in the area and I don't know what the problems with the proposal are that explain why it hasn't found mainstream acceptance ... And now it turns out that what everyone thought was Proto-Austronesian doesn't even cover all Formosan languages, from what I've read.

When there's a truly intriguing proposal for once, it comes totally out of left field. Nobody suspected Ongan–Austronesian, did they? I don't know what you think of it, but it looks quite impressive. And anthropologically, it's a complete mystery how that's possible. (There are reports of "Negrito"-like peoples existing in at least one corner of Taiwan, among the Saisiyat, but the usual thought is, as you know, that some ancestor of Austronesian was spoken on the mainland and brought to Taiwan, presumably to replace any pre-existing languages; could it have been the other way round and Austronesian have been the language of the indigenous people, taken over by the newcomers? It's all very odd.) However, considering the time-depth that has to be assumed, it's surprising that the connection – if it is real – is still so evident: Ongan in particular must be highly conservative then. That's not completely implausible based on external circumstances, but would be very unusual for Eurasia.

Similarly, Dené-Yeniseian appears to be more reasonable than most long-range proposals (although it's hard to evaluate the proposal for me and most scholars since familiarity with the involved languages is virtually completely absent), but this specific relationship too was never suggested by long-rangers, professional and amateur alike, or at least it was never popular with them, probably because the languages involved are relatively obscure or unfamiliar, even to most linguists, but are not "the usual suspects" that attract a lot of interest, like Sumerian or Ainu, either.

There's actually suspicion that WorldCreaterFighter belongs to Tirgil34's zoo, too.

Interesting about Alarodian – there are indeed sources that confirm your suspicion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have learned a lot about Alarodian last week, and have been able to give a short overview of the pretty wild proposals of the early 20th century. Very Marr-ish stuff. And I have found the article where Diakonoff "reinvents" Alarodian for the "modern" definition of it.

As for the external relations of Austronesian, Austro-Tai is definitely favored by most of us in AN linguistics. One problem is that Laurent Sagart has loudly blown up the hypothesis with odd speculations about the the extra-Formosan Malayo-Polynesian languages, and has nested it within his dubious Sino-Austronesian hypothesis. On the other hand, Ostapirat – the father of no-nonsense Austro-Tai – is a very careful low-profile scholar, and makes very slow progress in publishing his evidence. But I am sure sooner or later even Hammarström will become convinced. Ongan–Austronesian however was ripped apart by Bob Blust, and I fully agree with him.

My main problem with most long-range studies is their "inclusive" approach (collect as much potential evidence as possible, even if it's doubtful; the more, the better), instead of carefully building up a corpus of "safe" correspondences. It seems as if some of their proponents deliberately wanted to make scrutiny as difficult as possible.

And there is still so much work to do e.g. in the Americas, after all the "harm" done by Greenberg. It is a pity that Penutian and Hokan studies have completely fallen out of fashion. I don't believe that Penutian as a whole is a valid language family, but it still is an interesting "laboratory" for comparative studies. –Austronesier (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You mean the so-called Japhetic theory? So Alarodian was originally the linguistic equivalent of a wastebasket taxon (like Paleosiberian or Papuan), in effect, except that there were Dené-Caucasian-style attempts to link them somehow? And Diakonoff then reduced the increasingly wide-ranging proposals to a "core" that he believed was a real relationship.

A-ha, that's reassuring to hear. Something that I thought was a bit odd is the fact that Proto-Kra–Dai and also Proto-Kra reconstructions are usually monosyllabic or at most sesquisyllabic, while Buyang (also Paha?) has apparently retained bisyllabic forms that do seem to match Austronesian. However, I now see that Ostapirat (not low-profile to me, probably because Wikipedia cites him so often) is actually reconstructing bisyllabic forms for Proto-Kra–Dai, but monosyllabic forms for Proto-Kra. Either he has revised his Proto-Kra reconstructions accordingly, or Buyang isn't actually Kra, but more basal in Kra–Dai. However, fuller word lists do not seem to clearly confirm the supposed extremely conservative character of Buyang. Maybe the bisyllabic forms are actually secondary. It seems that the first vowel at least has been lost throughout Tai–Kadai, and outside Kra, often the complete first syllable. And all Kra–Dai languages are still tonal for some reasons; where do the tones come from if Proto-Austro-Tai did not have them? Or maybe it did? I have a lot of questions. (Also, is there a good estimate for the time-depth of Kra–Dai? Just curious.)

That's a bummer. When I read Blevins (2007), I was very surprised, and initially sceptical, but it did not seem like bunk. Clearly, Kwami didn't think so, either. But then, not being an expert does matter. I'd like to read Blust's argument, and understand how Blevins (who seems to be a serious historical linguist otherwise) could be so mistaken, and fool readers with experience in historical linguistics, as well.

I think a common problem with these proposals is confirmation bias, causing scholars to fudge reconstructions in order to make them appear more related than they would be otherwise. Therefore, I think you should, at the beginning at least, avoid as much as possible to resort to your own reconstructions and stick to the reconstructions of a particular scholar who is considered highly mainstream. This seems to have happened in the case of the Proto-Ongan reconstructions of Blevins too: she (probably unconsciously) made them look more Austronesian-like than actually warranted by the evidence, because she was already convinced by the link at the outset, at some point before starting to do proper reconstructions.

That's a really good and important point. I've had similar thoughts. For example, when it comes to Indo-Uralic, one lexical comparison that I find promising is PU *käte 'hand, arm' : PIE *ǵʰes- 'hand'. Schrijver has argued that **kät : **ǵʱes appears to display the same correspondence final PU *-t : PIE *-s also found in grammatical suffixes, and (especially because this correspondence is not found otherwise in probable borrowings) it makes true inheritance (as opposed to borrowing) much more likely. (I wonder if and how *gʰed- 'to find; to hold; to take, seize' fits in here.) Kümmel has listed further equations, such as PU *jäŋe 'ice' : PIE *(h₁)yeg- 'ice', that display a remarkable correspondence of PIE *d : PU *n and PIE *g : PU *ŋ, which also seems to reduce the probability of borrowing. (PU *käte and *jäŋe are not found in Samoyedic, but since almost no Uralist considers Samoyedic a primary branch anymore, that seems irrelevant.) Although the notorious PU lexemes *wete 'water' and *nime 'name' are now widely considered early borrowings from PIE, morphological considerations on the PIE side make me a bit doubtful: the PU lexemes seem oddly primitive, and don't match up-to-date reconstructions very well, and maybe we shouldn't rule them out as potential evidence for Indo-Uralic just yet. All in all however, it's really hard to build up a "safe" corpus of Indo-Uralic lexical correspondences, disappointingly, because of all the early loanwords. And the morphological correspondences are iffy too, because the morphemes involved are so short, though Schrijver has pointed to the alternation of the PU plural morpheme *-t ~ -j- as having a parallel in PIE that seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

You're certainly right about Penutian and Hokan, and the like. Although I'm effectively a "splitter", that doesn't mean that I consider it impossible to show any larger-scale relationships. It's just harder than "lumpers" appreciate and I take issue with declaring these relationships as fact prematurely. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ostapirat is quite visible here in WP because User:Stevey7788 had access to the few publications which Ostapirat has published so far and included all of it in the Austro-Tai article (and also included too much of Blench, imo). I think Ostapirat has revised Proto-Kra to be bisyllabic just like Proto-Kra–Dai. Proto-Hlai has also been reconstructed with bisyllabic roots solely based on internal evidence. The origin of tones is still opaque, most reconstructions with AN cognates have Tones A and D. There is not enough material to explain tonogenesis of B and C.

Here is Blust's paper where he debunks several long-range proposals involving Austronesian. Blevins is an authority on sound change and thus on the "historical" part of historical-comparative linguistics, but her application of the comparative method to AN and Ongan has serious flaws.

Do you have good and recent source which gives an overview+assessment of Indo-Uralic? The WP article has too much detail and is somewhat unencyclopedic in style. –Austronesier (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see, that makes sense. Blench is pretty interesting and fun to read, but his visibility is because he is so active publishing his papers on the web, and even though he often has interesting facts and ideas, I wish his methodical rigour were greater, for example with respect to reconstructions. Okay, if bisyllabicity is now so solidly established in earlier stages of Kra–Dai, that changes the situation quite decisively. (The reconstructions for Proto-Kra and Proto-Hlai found on Wikipedia are still all mono- or sesquisyllabic at best.) And that makes an Austro-Tai relationship much more intuitive. Oh, and by the way: What do you think about the idea that Kra–Dai may actually not simply be a relative of Austronesian, but a branch of it? As for the tones B and C, they could, of course, be the traces of consonants, or consonantal distinctions, that haven't necessarily been preserved by Proto-Austronesian. It would be interesting to know if it possible to reconstruct the contours of B and C (at least approximately), or compare them to their Middle Chinese analoga and their history, to see what (per tonogenetic rules) they could have developed out of.

Too bad I don't have access to JSTOR at home ...

Unfortunately I don't know of any such source; I'd love to examine one myself! Kümmel seems to consider Indo-Uralic valid, but as far as I know, he hasn't published a case for it. Considering that he is super mainstream, I'd really be interested in his take/analysis. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) By the way, the problem with confirmation bias seen in the Austronesian–Ongan comparison is also why I'm sceptical of Dené-Yeniseian, and why Vajda is ill-advised to produce his own reconstructions before the relationship is established. That's simply unwise, and exactly why I've suggested myself that Vajda actually compare other people's reconstructions first, made by specialists who do not already believe in the hypothesis, for the first step, to establish the relationship or at least try. Always take steps to eliminate bias. Then, if and when that step has been successful, and the relationship been demonstrated to the satisfaction even of sceptics, Vajda can go on and publish his own reconstructions.

By the way, this is a good demonstration why a comparison like this is so much harder than demonstrating Indo-European by showing Greek and Indo-Iranian to be related: you can simply compare Ancient Greek and Vedic instead of having to produce Proto-Modern-Greek and Proto-Indic reconstructions first. In contrast, there's unfortunately no analogous comparison possible between "Ancient Yeniseian" and "Old Athabascan", a comparison where the bias of the reconstructing scholar wouldn't be relevant; the relationship would probably be plain as day, if it is real (and not too distant – but then, Vajda likely wouldn't be able to show it, either).

To be fair, though, we have the same problem in the Austro-Tai case. How do we ensure that Ostapirat's reconstructions are not coloured by his bias towards seeing Kra–Dai as related to Austronesian? I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just really difficult – except for specialists in Kra–Dai historical grammar ... but there are very few around who are anywhere as competent as Ostapirat and who are unaffiliated with him, I suppose. Just saying ...

In other cases at least, there aren't so many languages involved which are additionally poorly documented (this is probably also the reason why Sino-Tibetan is so beset with problems and uncertainties). Blust has to deal only with two Ongan languages, having the Austronesian side already covered. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have become sceptical of Blench's work after reading his paper where he claims that Enggano has to be reclassified as an isolate. Unfortunately, this view was uncritically adopted by SIL, and Enggano is still listed as "unclassified" in the Ethnologue. Blench has completely ignored earlier research, and failed to recognize that Enggano is actually fairly conservative in its retention of AN pronouns and bound morphology. He also missed the weird but regular sound changes, and thus overlooked quite a number of cognates. As most of his online material on SE Asian languages, it never went through peer-review (and would never have passed). The correct interpretation of Enggano data is found in a brilliant paper by Owen Edwards.

In the case of the peer-reviewed Blevins paper, I think the editors of Oceanic Linguistics wanted to give the hypothesis a forum for discussion, as they did with Sagart's work on Austro-Tai and Sino-Austronesian. Although I am convinced that the current team of editors of OL would take a much tougher stance...

Personally, I cannot see evidence that Kra-Dai is nested within Austronesian. Sagart's evidence is methodologically unsound, and Blench just has an opinion and a scenario, but zero evidence. So the safest position is to link KD and AN in a higher node. Bisyllabic KD is not only supported by Ostapirats reconstructions, but independently supported by Norquest's reconstruction of Proto-Hlai. So I am pretty convinced of AT, but that is still POV. For WP, I consider the matter still as controversial.

Dené–Yeniseian fares quite better in peer support than AN-Ongan, including from leading Athabaskanists like Leer and Krauss. Campbell objects, but that's "his job". But, yes, it would be much more assuring if Vajda had built on unbiased earlier reconstructions. But then, in so many areas there are no comprehensive reconstructions available yet, so that's a high standard often hard to fulfill.

Btw, there are still a lot of WP articles about proposed language families (including obsolete proposals) which need major cleanup. Often, similar proposals are conflated, resulting in an unsound synthesis. And some are much too detailed given that the proposals are still tentative or even "debunked" (cf. Paleo-Sardinian language or Austronesian–Ongan languages). I intend to fix Macro-Mayan languages and Penutian languages (among others) if time allows. –Austronesier (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, as an Africanist specialising in the languages of Nigeria, Blench is really stretching his competence too thin there. Collaborations like the one with Paul Sidwell are a better solution. I was specifically thinking of his habit of employing quick & dirty "eyeball reconstructions"; the standard of sophistication of historical-linguistic research generally seems to be rather poor in the languages of Africa, which is why I take no more stock in Greenberg's work in Africa than in the Americas.

That's exciting. I didn't even read our article on Proto-Hlai closely enough; it does describe both Norquest's and Ostapirat's reconstructions as essentially bisyllabic, at least in part, though it could be clearer on this aspect. If Proto-Kra–Dai is a sister of Proto-Austronesian, it may help with the task of integrating (if necessary) Rukai, Puyuma and Tsou into PAN reconstructions. Does this mean that Kosaka's comparison of Kra–Dai with Hmong–Mien is bunk? And what about Vovin's comparison with Japonic?

I don't expect Vajda to build on the earlier reconstructions – I'd just prefer him to use what already exists, even if it isn't a lot, and compare it, in order to establish the relationship first, before going on to reconstruct details. Or, at least, he could work together with other established experts in Yeniseian, and experts in Na-Dené. I can't really comment on Austronesian–Ongan, beyond noting that Blevins' paper was not obviously unsound to me and I was completely unable to spot the flaws. This is highly concerning, however, and makes me suspect many other trained linguists might not see the flaws either, including in Vajda's work. But if Leer and Krauss are supportive, that's certainly encouraging. It would be great if our article listed comparisons of Proto-Yeniseian and Proto-Athabaskan / Proto-Na-Dené reconstructions.

Interpretations of the Sardinian substratum are often very strange, but I don't think the substratum itself can be denied; just like Pre-Greek, however, it was certainly not a single language, but rather consisted of several unrelated languages, most or all of them non-IE, and some of them may even be identifiable languages, especially Phoenician. (The comparison with modern Albanian was nonsense, of course; if anything, only Pre-Latin Proto-Albanian reconstructions could conceivably stand in for "Illyrian", although it cannot be verified that Pre-Latin Proto-Albanian was part of "Illyrian", and in fact, Duridanov's hypothesis of a close relationship rather with Dacian makes more sense to me.) The rest of the article that remains looks acceptable, though.

Conflation of similar proposals is understandable (separate articles are probably not sensible then, and confusion easy) but yes, it's a problem. I thought Macro-Mayan boiled down to simply a comparison of Mayan with (if real) Totozoquean, and the possibility that Huavean might belong here, too. And Penutian simply seems to have a lot of "versions" or variant proposals, similar to the way Altaic has variants like Macro-Altaic and Micro-Altaic, but is arguably essentially the same hypothesis. But that's only my own take, as an outsider. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Florian, just curious, have you got my mail? I haven't done much on WP lately, except for reverting vandalism and fringe POV-edits, and being engaged in an extremely tiring debate defending basic textbook knowledge against a sophistical attempt of redefining the latter (cf. my Talk page).

I have another topic which has caught my attention: the subdivisions of Balto-Slavic. What is the current state of opinions regarding the validity of Baltic as a branch of Balto-Slavic? The articles Balto-Slavic languages and Baltic languages mention the alternative model with three branches Western Baltic, Eastern Baltic and Slavic quite en passant. In Balto-Slavic languages, there is one sentence in the lead, and the rather badly written section "Modern interpretation". The latter is very deficient since it does not mention e.g. Kortlandt's work at all, but insteads cites "evidence" from computer-generated (aka dumb) family trees. The same holds for the Baltic article.

I am a complete outsider, but I always wondered how Baltic could really be an innovation-defined branch of Balto-Slavic ever since I had read in Bräuer's Slavische Sprachwissentschaft about the criss-crossing distribution of Balto-Slavic innovations. So the three-branches hypothesis appears to be quite compelling to me. I am aware from the Talk page of Balto-Slavic that you also accept the three-branches model. Now, in the two articles, this model is presented as a somehow marginal and still tentative proposal. So my question is: does this really represent the actual current reception of the three-branches model among Indo-Europeanists? – Austronesier (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I got your mail, but I didn't have any specific questions left and couldn't think of anything relevant to say, that's why I didn't reply.

Thanks for mentioning that debate, I have been really irritated by the fact that people want to get rid of "Germanic peoples" as a modern category while "Iranian peoples" and "Turkic peoples" remain unchallenged. We should treat all of these cases the same way.

As for Baltic, there's an attempt to defend it as an innovation-defined branch here, but it is true that Proto-Baltic is in any case almost completely identical to Proto-Balto-Slavic, so it's not very useful for reconstructions and the like. (Proto-Balto-Slavic appears to be much more recent than traditionally assumed, not much more than 2000 years old.) It reminds me of the case of "Late PIE", where the evidence is very thin, and doesn't even include any obvious phonological innovations (even some patently late sound laws don't seem to be clearly missing in Anatolian), while most innovations adduced by Kloekhorst seem rather trivial, which makes me highly suspicious – and I'm inclined to believe that "Late PIE" is best thought of as a language area, with innovations spreading through an already slightly differentiated dialect continuum, of which Anatolian and Tocharian were not part anymore – although Tocharian actually does share most of these innovations, too, as far as can be discerned, if I recall correctly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Following up on my musings above, I've wondered aloud if both "Late PIE" and Anatolian might really have been polyphyletic, each consisting of several independent genetic units branched off IE, which, if correct, would make me wonder if the homeland was really in the steppes and might not have been further to the south, in Southeastern Europe or in fact in Anatolia after all. "Indo-Hittite" (more properly "Indo-Anatolian") in the strong sense, however, is highly doubtful (Anatolian is definitely not an independent family only remotely related to "IE proper" or "traditional IE"; if anything, it is really closely related, as it is not radically different), so it cannot be used as evidence for an Anatolian homeland in the early Neolithic.

Oh, and to arch back to your questions, I share your disdain for computer-generated trees: even Don Ringe's trees are all not credible in view of the way they group Albanian with Germanic, and Greek with Armenian (and further with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian), which makes no sense (see Graeco-Armenian#Criticism), and it rather seems that the "satem" group (especially Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic and Albanian) is relatively close-knit, and possibly an actual genetic unit – although the only common innovations I can think of would be the development of the (traditionally reconstructed) palatal stops into alveolo-palatal affricates, as still to be assumed for Proto-Indo-Iranian (one complication is the way Proto-Indo-Iranian has alveolo-palatals e. g. before *l where the others have plain velars), and possibly (but not in Armenian, apparently, which is however more deviant overall) the merger of all laryngeals into a unitary *H /h ~ x ~ ʔ/, so "satem" may be more comparable to Baltic in that way, or maybe Italo-Celtic. Be that as it may, "quantitative comparative linguistics" is an unconvincing endeavour at best, and although computer assistance (with digital databases, especially) is highly sensible, in view of the overwhelming amount of data to be considered in historical linguistics, automatisation or even semi-automatisation looks far off. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Quantitative comparative linguistics is a shamelessly overblown promotional piece, and definitely shouldn't be left standing like this. We minimally should add a "Criticism" section.

As for "Germanic peoples", "Iranian peoples" etc., I think as long as they are presented as in the lead of "Turkic peoples", I am fine with that. I just strongly object when people abuse the term "ethnolinguistic group" for a collection of diverse ethnic groups that happen to share a common linguistic ancestry. And even if modern ethnic groups do share more than just linguistic ancestry, like arguably the Iranian peoples, "ethnolinguistic group" is simply the wrong label for it. The rest is not my "Baustelle" anyway, although personally I pretty much agree with kwami in this respect.

Thank you for the link to Hill's article. I had seen the reference in a new article by Kortlandt, but hadn't checked for it yet. Hill's paper is very helpful for two reasons: first, it has a very good intro about the debate; secondly, it illustrates an interesting shift of paradigm which IMO shows that the presentation in the article Balto-Slavic languages is outdated. Although Hill eventually defends the unity of Baltic and the assumption of a Proto-Baltic stage post Proto-Balto-Slavic, he nevertheless accepts the tripartite split of Proto-Balto-Slavic into W.Baltic-E.Baltic-Slavic as default hypothesis, and clearly acknowledges that the burden of proof for Proto-Baltic lies with him and other modern proponents of Baltic like Villanueva. If time allows, I will try to sketch an alternative to the sections "Historical dispute" and "Modern interpretation" and put an incubator version in my sandbox for discussion.

High-order subgrouping like the question of "Late IE" always carries the risk of cirularity. Sometimes the puzzle can be solved if the proposed innovations have a clear direction of change, but one should always keep in mind that all kinds of typological oddities can occur. With Austronesian languages, we are lucky that the "Formosan" languages largely fulfil our expectation of conservative first-order branches: structurally similar to extra-Formosan Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, but displaying more sound contrasts. On the other hand, Anatolian languages are presumedly archaic and abberrant at the same time: subgrouping rests on questions like e.g. whether the lack of the masculine-feminine distinction is an innovation or a retention. This is quite similar to the case of Tsou and Rukai among Austronesian languages (-> the Nuclear Austronesian debate). – Austronesier (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. At this point I'd say the conservative interpretation is the three-branch hypothesis; you can't really go wrong with that one. Baltic may be a valid genetic unit but it seems little more than a technicality so far, since it is barely distinct. West Uralic (Saamic + Finnic + Mordvinic) may be a similar case. It is interesting that it was formerly thought that Balto-Slavic was rather the same way, but I think it is now obvious that the common traits of Balto-Slavic have been vastly underestimated.

By the way, what do you think about the concept of linkages? I have serious trouble with the concept. Are there examples in Indo-European that you think fit the bill? Are linkages considered to go back to a common, reconstructible proto-variety at all? I'm confused by the presentation in Linkage (linguistics). It's highly reminiscent of the wave model, but that model doesn't actually conflict with the tree model, but complements it.

And I think the example from Romance given at the talk page is misleading as well: when you look at the medieval texts, it becomes apparent that Castilian is quite obviously much more closely related to Portuguese than to Catalan, which basically started out as a southern Occitan dialect (that may have become influenced by Ibero-Romance), and in the high medieval period, Occitan, French (plus Arpitan) and Rhaeto-Romance formed a quite close-knit Gallo-Romance unit contrasting rather sharply with Castilian-Portuguese. (Astur-Leonese is in fact very closely related to Portuguese, not even a transitional variety between Portuguese and Castilian as often suggested.) In Western Romance at least, I find it very evident that the tree model does work when you look closely, and consider the medieval evidence.

I agree, Anatolian is weird. One problem I have is the dilemma that there are generally no traces of the missing categories in Anatolian, which contradicts the "loss hypothesis", but also there are generally no clear traces of the constructions or materials used to create and grammaticalise the missing categories, which you'd expect if they were innovations in "Late PIE". Maybe Anatolian is simply too fragmentarily attested. And sometimes "Late PIE" does show hints that it was formerly more archaic too: for the feminine gender, see here; Gąsiorowski also once argued, on morphological grounds, by trying to show *-eh₂ stems as derived from the same proto-category as *-ih₂ stems in the prehistory of PIE, that the feminine gender might actually be much older in IE than now widely assumed, even if it may not have been fully grammaticalised yet in PIE (especially in adjectives, although I wonder how distinct adjectives were in PIE from nouns in the first place).

And yes, secure common innovations are often trickier to find than you'd think – maybe the fact that the innovations in question would have happened so deep in the past is the reason why it's so difficult to be sure about them, because it's a lot harder to discern what was going on, and there are fewer examples. In Taiwan, an additional difficulty, I suspect, is that there must have been a lot of interaction between the Formosan branches, making their reconstruction much more difficult than that of Malayo-Polynesian, which is relatively straightforward despite its considerable time-depth (some 5000 years, right?). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Linkage (linguistics) does not give a good picture of the concept (man, that'll be another piece on my to-do list!). The concept of a linkage only makes sense if taken in contrast to languages that are not included in the linkage, and this aspect is completely lacking in the description in the article.

The general idea of a tree-model subgroup is that is innovation-based, i.e. defined by a set of innovations exclusively shared by all members of a subgroup (ESI's). A linkage on the other hand is innovation-linked, i.e. we have innovations clustering between overlapping subsets within the linkage, but not a single innovation shared by all its members. As a corollary, the proto-language of a linkage will be indistiguishable from its next higher parent proto-language.

To illustrate the concept, we minimally need four languages ABCD. There are some features exclusively shared by all four languages (with all necessary regularity and non-triviality to preclude borrowing and independent parallel shifts), so they must be genetically related (a family, or a subgroup within a language family). Language A does not share any further features with B, C or D. But then B and C share innovation(s) α, while C and D share innovation(s) β. If α and β each are regular and non-trivial, we have a subgrouping conflict if we apply the tree-model. Based on α, we could posit the subgroup B-C and reconstruct Proto-B-C with α as defining ESI, and likewise reconstruct Proto-C-D based on β. The linkage concept says that even though BCD are not an innovation-based subgroup of ABCD, it is a linkage within ABCD to the exclusion of A (NB: A could of course be expanded to mean numerous other languages/subgroups, without changing the status of BCD as a linkage). In any case, a reconstruction of Proto-BCD will indistinguishable from Proto-ABCD.

Malcolm Ross encountered numerous of these situations when he tried to classify the Oceanic languages of Western Melanesia. If he had chosen to stick to the strict tree model, he would have treated A, B, C and D as primary descendants of Proto-ABCD, at the expense of ignoring the innvations α and β. Or he would have been forced to give priority to e.g. α over β, thus reconstructing Proto-B-C and brushing off innvation(s) β as the result of later contact/convergence. Instead, he introduced the concept of linkage, together with a model to explain it. Basically, it is the classical wave-model applied to what originally was a dialect chain which had not yet produced common innovations that would set it apart from other lects geographically and socially dissociated from the dialect chain. When the dialect chain further evolves and breaks up into distinct languages, the result will be a linkage.

In my opinion, the linkage concept should be used with care after all other attempts of internal classification fail, and not be taken as default case. In some case, careful inspection of innonvations α and β in our example will show that e.g. β is indeed the result of later contact/convergence, so we are actually dealing with a subgroup BC to the exclusion of A and D. I think the claims in the article citing François seeing linkages everywhere are exaggerated. With IE I am not sure if there is a good example for a linkage in the strict sense. As you said, Portugese-Spanish-Catalan is not a linkage as defined above. Within Austronesian, a recent example for the application of the linkage concept is Alex Smith's treatment of the Barito languages. –Austronesier (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that makes more sense. Still, in the Indo-European area, historical-comparative research has developed quite refined tools, such as relative chronologies, and common innovations do not automatically count – some are trivial (especially in the light of typological research), likely to be accidental or unrelated, or just not relevant, or the relative chronology does not fit, for example, for Grassmann's law shared by Greek and Indo-Iranian, where it is now widely accepted that it is secondary both in Greek (and was still not present in Mycenaean Greek, possibly not even in Homeric Greek) and probably also in Indo-Iranian. In this case, it is unlikely that there is any connection at all, even contact or convergence not being plausible. (Graeco-Aryan is, in my estimation, almost certainly completely spurious, and more likely to be a mirage created by the early and abundant attestation of Sanskrit and Greek. Alternatively, certain contacts of the "satem" group with Greek might be responsible for some shared traits not reconstructible to even "Late PIE" – these shared traits may simply not be demonstrable in the remainder of "satem" anymore, seeing as it is attested so late.) A comparable depth of analysis, I understand, has not generally been reached in Austronesian linguistics yet (length of scholarly tradition and especially manpower being much less there), and that's why there are no good examples in IE. With the field progressing it's quite plausible that more and more linkages will eventually just be abandoned.

Methodically, I, too, would indeed prefer a conservative classification of A, B, C and D as four independent primary branches of ABCD as a preliminary solution until the innovations in question have been inspected more closely so that it is possible to dismiss some of them as irrelevant and solve the conflict. In fact, that's what is standard in the field, and I'm not sure why Ross was apparently not taught this principle, or decided to ignore it. In numerous cases, language families have only relatively recently been dissolved into a large number of primary branches ("comb model") and work can commence, and has commended, after this cleaning of the plate that tries to establish new subgrouping models again. IE is still at the comb stage, essentially, but promising proposals have been made in other cases. Similarly, it's easier to first sweep away traditional or just unsupported groups like Altaic or even Nostratic so that careful examination might be able to uncover links again. It's important to sacrifice dogmas and stop worshipping figurative holy cows and golden calves (such as the traditional binary-branching tree of Uralic – neat, but implausible, and more than a little Finnocentric).

In the case of Western Romance, I have to admit that however intuitive, the demonstration of the Ibero-Romance and Gallo-Romance subgroups is not as easy as it sounds. I haven't been able to find many conclusive phonological isoglosses shared by Portuguese and Spanish, despite their high similarity (especially in the high medieval period), which may be due to their conservative nature (especially of Portuguese). The best candidate is probably the merger of /lt/ into /jt/. The peculiar development of /kl/, /pl/, /fl/ seems to be shared as well. The apocope of /e/ after a number of consonants (especially the liquids, but also /n/ and /(d)z/, if single) is less distinctive. Gallo-Romance is tricky itself, especially in light of the divergence of Occitan (to be on the safe side, one could separate Occitan off as a primary branch of Western Romance). The characteristic apocope of all final vowels except /a/ appears to be shared (maybe through a stage /ə/), as well as at least some of the changes related to palatalisation; Occitan shares the first, but lacks the second lenition (Spanish has undergone a second lenition as well, but certainly only after the Old Spanish period). Rhaeto-Romance actually seems more like intermediate between Occitan and French-Arpitan (I'm not completely sure about the status of the second lenition in Rhaeto-Romance), but its resemblance to early Old French is remarkable. That said, Galician, mentioned on the talk page, is a good example for a spurious linkage: it is by no means intermediate between Portuguese and Spanish, as observers only familiar with Standard Portuguese and Standard Spanish are usually quick to conclude, but simply part of Northern Portuguese; Galician is more closely related to the Portuguese dialects of northern Portugal than it is to Standard Portuguese, which belongs to the southern dialects, which implies that it does not possess any privileged position and is essentially a branch of Portuguese (therefore the term "Galician-Portuguese" is redundant; we can simply call it Old Portuguese). It is mainly political reasons that have obfuscated the issue (and also the classification of Astur-Leonese). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

In defense of Malcolm Ross, he built his concept of a linkage as a well trained comparative-historical linguist facing unusual challenges in the subgrouping of the Oceanic languages of PNG, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. He is quite aware of the comb- or rake-model, which he applied e.g. when he discussed the western Malayo-Polynesian languages and divided them into 24 branches. But for some of the Oceanic groupings he described in his monograph, the linkage approach makes good sense, and not just as a preliminary solution for want of an in-depth study, but most probably because the languages in a linkage indeed diversified from an L-chain or L-complex, which was characterized by overlapping innovations before the diversification into distinct languages took place. It is certainly not a general solution to all intricate or opaque patterns of distribution of innonvations, but I wouldn't brush it off as a solely preliminary device.

Although frankly, I am personally not in the best position to defend the linkage concept, since I myself have never felt the need to apply it in my own research. So far, I have only proposed well-behaved subgroupings which neatly fit into a tree-model. – Austronesier (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why the agnostic comb model should not be used in such a case. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I think that your input could be very valuable at Talk:Germanic peoples (modern). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been watching the discussion in both the "original" article and the "spin-off", and have long felt an itch to contribute "my mustard" (forgive the calque!), but I am still struggling how to formulate my position. Both parties are overdoing it: one stubbornly denies something which is a common and useful matter-of-factish terminology, and the other one cherry-picks from any sources he could get to prove that there is a deeper meaning to these handy matter-of-fact denotations like "Germanic peoples" etc., when actually there is none. Look at this defense of the flawed use of the term "ethnolinguistic group", which says it all. There isn't even a scientific term for an entity like "Germanic peoples", so why put so much weight to it?

"Germanic peoples" etc. sensu lato et hodierno is a nice'n'easy shorthand for "Germanic-speaking ethnic groups that display a certain degree of continuity in their ethnogenesis going back to the Germanii of ancient sources". Nothing more, nothing less, and hardly worth an article of its own, since the ethnogenesis of the modern Germanic peoples has washed out most of what may have been common among them, except for the linguistic affiliation. Yet, this endeared (liebgewonnen) shorthand is sufficiently notable to be mentioned in a paragraph or a section of an article Germanic peoples which for the rest definitly must focus on the ancient "Germanic tribes". Btw, this of course also applies mutatis mutandis to Iranian peoples, Turkic peoples etc. (An article e.g. that opens with "The Iranian peoples [...] are a diverse Indo-European ethno-linguistic group" is inherently flawed.) – Austronesier (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. How much do the modern Romance-speaking ethnic groups (even if limited to those in Europe) still have in common with the ancient Romans, beyond speaking a language descended from Latin? Not that much. Even the ancient Roman religion has been replaced by Christianity. Just like the modern "Germanic peoples" generally don't believe in the ancient Germanic deities anymore.

To be honest, I think a better term would be panethnicity, which has both the association to pan-nationalism and race, given that the ethnolinguistic groups collectively associated with individual language families have for a long time (especially in the 20th century) been thought of in these terms. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Austronesier & Florian Blaschke - There is a relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic peoples (modern) (2nd nomination) which could benefit from your expertise. Krakkos (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Krakkos: Sorry, I had a semi-wikibreak (or wiki-semibreak?) and could only partially react to pings and mentions. I have seen, the milk is spilled now. But frankly, in spite of my seemingly firm views expressed in this publicly private conversation with Florian, I would have kept neutral anyway with regards to the article Germanic peoples (modern). –Austronesier (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: I have taken a look at the concept of panethnicity. It is quite different from pan-nationalisms insofar as the former is a more-or-less organically grown group identity whereas the former mostly are the creations of academics-turned-ideologists. And I would also hesitate to apply the term to such loosely defined entities like the "modern Germanic peoples", which only exist in encyclopedic overviews etc., but not in inter-group discourse/interaction in the "real world" (unlike e.g. panethnicities such as "Asian Americans"). –Austronesier (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Frontiers

Is not a suitable source as listed as predatory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Your recent contributions appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

High quality refs are required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Then where should Intense World Theory point to? Removing the information wholesale leaves a hole in Wikipedia's coverage, and a redirect that leads nowhere. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Indo-Uralic languages

Hi Florian! I have just had a deeper look at Indo-Uralic languages and couldn't believe how utterly bad the article is. Full of OR/synthesis (mostly by "VikSol"), virtually no inline citations, and written like an essay. I have dropped an appropriate tag-bomb. IMO the article should re-written from scratch according to WP-standards. What do you think? –Austronesier (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the literature to be able to tell with certainty how much of the article is really OR/synthesis, as opposed to a mere lack of inline citations. However, I like your suggestion. Just turn the article into a stub so that it can be expanded again. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Quick note: Besides Kümmel (who isn't so explicit about it), Kloekhorst and Kortlandt also support Indo-Uralic, much more emphatically even.

Also note that this sceptical handbook cautiously mentions the comparison of the lexemes for 'hand' as a particularly promising equation, since it is much less easy to explain away as a borrowing than other candidates. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the supportive answer and the supplementive material. I'll do it soon (but then: how soon is soon?) Pfiat eich! –Austronesier (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Philippine Negrito languages

Hi! Are you sure about this reinsertion of content which had been forked out to Philippine Negrito languages? Philippine languages is strictly about the proposed genetic subgroup (or linkage, Sprachbund?), so IMO overview material about the Negrito languages which do not form a subgroup of their own and which even show minimal evidence of a pre-AN subtratum should better be mentioned in Languages of the Philippines, ideally in a rudimentary section with a hatnote pointing to the main article. –Austronesier (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I wasn't aware that it had been forked out. Do you think it's best to move it over to Languages of the Philippines, and perhaps leave a more prominent link to Philippine Negrito languages (I think it's too easy to miss in the further links section, and turning the re-inserted section into a short summary subsection would be better)? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have inserted an empty subsection in Languages of the Philippines with a {{main}}-hatnote pointing to Philippine Negrito languages. In this way, the topic gets some prominence by appearing in the content-box. –Austronesier (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, looks fine to me, thanks! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Semitic

Hi! You have removed a Bomhard citation because Nostratic stuff should not be taken as evidence for the ejective nature of the Proto-Semitic emphatics. Agree in principle, but here, "Bomhard & Hopper (1984)" (actually "Bomhard & Kerns (1984)") only served as tertiary source for citations of solid Semitology (so I assume based on the names evoked). I was able to restore Cantineau (1952), but couldn't find Martinet (1975[1959]) and Steiner (1977). Do you have an idea about these two of Bomhard's citations? –Austronesier (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, but don't Cantineau (1952) and Kogan (2011) suffice? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I was able to find the following citations in Bomhard (1984), Toward Proto-Nostratic:

Martinet, André. 1975(1959). "La palatalisation 'spontanée' de g en arabe", in André Martinet, Evolution des langues et reconstruction. Vendôme: Presses Universitaires de France. Originally published in BSL 54 (1959).

Steiner, Richard. 1977. The Case for the Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. New Haven: American Oriental Society. (This citation is also found in Kogan.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I wonder what phones the presumable Afroasiatic relatives of Semitic show in supposed cognates where Semitic has emphatics. (Personally, judging from the numerals anyway, excluding obvious Arabic – and also Phoenician? – loans, of course, a relationship between Proto-Semitic and Proto-Berber seems credible to me, but I'm less sure about Egyptian, let alone languages further afield.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, Steiner (1977) is in Kogan (2011), but then, Kogan (2011) is THE overview source for Proto-Semitic. I don't know much about Afroasiatic correspondences, but in all overviews, Semitic emphatics are equated with Chadic/Cushitic ejectives and Berber pharygealized "emphatics". But then I wonder how much these overviews maybe only compare sound inventories, without any "beef" in the shape of regular and consistent lexical correspondence sets. Cf. the four chapters in Weninger (2011) that precede Kogan's chapter. –Austronesier (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't get it – it should be feasible to produce decent, vocalised reconstructions of lexemes in Proto-Semitic, Archaic/Old Egyptian, Proto-Berber, Proto-Chadic, Proto-Sidamic, Proto-Agaw, etc., and then simply compare them. It's not that complicated. But I've never seen such a comparison actually done. It would likely settle the issue once and for all: either there are evident cognates (not just random, unsystematic matches and noise), or there aren't. Even a small number of solid and widespread cognates, lexical cognates as well as cognate morphological patterns, would suffice to establish Afroasiatic as a language family, and should probably allow us to check if "emphatics" really match. However, when the research in this area is still on a level where Arabic loanwords crop up in "Proto-Nilo-Saharan" reconstructions, that does not bode well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ratcliffe (2012) sums it up quite niclely:[58] "whether the Proto-Afroasiatic lexicon and phonology can ever be reconstructed with the same confidence as for Proto-Indo-European remains entirely in doubt". It looks as if in their endeavor to reconstruct a large corpus of PAA, Ehret (1995) and Orel & Stolbova (1995) ended up doing the same mistakes as the Nostraticists and ended up in arbitrariness. I have been hoping to find a source that presents a corpus of unabiguous reconstuctions for the core vocabulary, a minimal consensus version, so to speak (just like Ostapirat had boiled down Benedict's Austro-Tai fantasy with hundreds of nonsense correspondences into a credible corpus of a little more than a few dozen items). Instead, I have found self-asserting statements by Frajzyngier: "The larger etymological studies have been criticized for the choice of items taken for comparison and often for the validity of postulated cognates. The cumulative effect of these studies, that of reconfirming the genetic unity of the phylum, is not in doubt." (2012); "As of 2017, the unity of the phylum is noncontroversial" (2018). That's not reassuring, but I still think it is not an impossible task, if someone were really comitted to it (Frajzyngier is a typologist). After all, the morphological evidence is very compelling. –Austronesier (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the morphological evidence in any detail, although I have a rough idea of what it involves, so while at this point I'm not 100% confident that the possibility that AA is a mere Sprachbund is excluded (a friend once voiced scepticism about AA as well – we studied together and I remember that he was studying at least Aramaic in more detail, and seemed to be much more familiar with Semitic than I was, but it's a long time ago and he later specialised in Cariban and Tupian), I concede that I have to study that evidence first in closer detail to form an educated opinion. But if the morphological evidence is solid (as solid as the reflexes of the PIE paradigm *h₁ésti ~ *h₁sénti), it would be sufficient proof that AA is a real family, even if PAA was never reconstructed any further and no certain lexical cognates were ever identified.

There is little doubt that PAA would be considerably older than PIE, PU or PAN, whose ages appear to be comparable to PS; therefore, it's also not surprising that finding solid lexical cognates is challenging, much more so than in IE. (For instance, there appear to be no cognate numerals at all, or barely any cognates across the well-established clades – the one possible exception I'm familiar with being Semitic and Berber.) But a small handful would be a start, at least.

Really, I'm puzzled to not find appreciation of the magnitude of the task of demonstrating such a deep relationship and reconstructing fragments of a proto-language that is much older than PIE. I'm not saying that AA, Niger-Congo, Penutian or even higher-level relationships in Eurasia can in principle never be demonstrated conclusively, but similar to Austro-Tai, Sino-Tibetan or Je-Tupi-Carib (even reconstructing PAN appears to turn out trickier than thought), it's hard, and not quite like comparing Hittite, Luwian, Vedic, Avestan, and Greek and showing that they are related, which is much more evident – the most recent common ancestor of the apparently contemporaneous Rigvedic and Mycenaean Greek appears to be no more than 2000 years older than either, so it's more like showing, say, Romanian and Portuguese are related, or Hawaiian and Tongan. Once European scholars familiar with Ancient Greek and Latin studied Sanskrit, they couldn't help noticing the similarities – it's not the kind of relationship that's necessarily immediately obvious, since the languages have diverged so much phonologically, but evident once you study the languages in question in detail, especially the morphosyntax. AA is nowhere that obvious, I'd say. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Uralic is a good example because at the time the relationship between Saamic, Finnic and Hungarian was first realised in the late 17th century, there was not much in the way of significantly older attested texts (only Old Komi, which wasn't explored yet), and little material older than about 1000 AD exists; certainly nothing ancient. So Uralic is only really attested in the second millennium AD, and per Aikio (2019), PU is older than PII, possibly by quite a bit even, so the gap to bridge is definitely more than about 4000 years, and was certainly so for the first scholars to realise the relationship. Considering that the resemblances between the primary branches aren't that bleedingly obvious in many respects, where AN and especially MP are much more obvious even to the layperson only superficially familiar with AN languages, reconstructing PU is a much more remarkable achievement. Indeed, material solidly reconstructed to PU (even without requiring it to be attested in Samoyedic as well) is scarcer than I thought. People really, really underestimate the effect of millennia of language change. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Fun fact: I once discussed with a friend in the 90s about the non-obviousness of the relation between the Uralic languages. He protested: being a Kaurismäki fan, he knew a little Finnish, and told me that when he went to Budapest, he saw a film poster of Leningrad Cowboys Go America which read Leningrad Cowboys menni Amerika, and concluded that Hungarian and Finnish must be pretty similar! –Austronesier (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's the infinitive, so it's even deliberately incorrect (foreigner-talk) Hungarian (to imitate a Finnish accent?), right? Nice anecdote, haha!

To be fair, Finnish and Hungarian are conspicuously typologically similar, but it turns out that at least some of that is accidental – several Finnish noun cases are inherited from PU (it's not clear how many), and the Proto-Finnic system of local cases would probably at least be highly transparent to a PU speaker and quickly understood, but few Hungarian cases are inherited, and most of them were formed out of postpositions only in the high medieval period or so. Vowel quantity and to some extent at least also consonant quantity are independent parallel developments too. So, while some of the points of similarity are due to inheritance, such as vowel harmony, others are accidental (or possibly areal?). This is already a nice illustration of the pitfalls of relying on superficial similarities. It has been noted that typological similarities are rather a reason to think that languages are unrelated (or at least only remotely related), especially if the similarities decrease as you go further back in time (as in Korean and Japanese), and genuinely related languages (especially if their relationship is not close) are often enough strikingly typologically different. As an example somewhat outside the usual suspects, I'd like to name Eastern Balti and Standard Burmese, or even Standard Chinese, or even Balti and Standard Tibetan (which are closely related). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Germanic peoples / Germani

You might not have noticed discussions on the talk page of the new split-off article Krakkos made, such as this one (I suggest starting at the bottom instead of wading through from the top!) [[59]]. Maybe helps clarify what is happening.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't even tell what the hell you two are arguing about. It sounds like pointless, pedantic bickering. I'd suggest you both cool off. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You posted at the talkpage of Krakkos about potential ways of breaking the topic up in the future, so I presume you have an interest. Please see this post above as only about that. I expect/hope that this topic will need further discussion soon, so the more people have thought about it the better.

Concerning the pointless and pedantic discussions I have been having with Krakkos so far, we at least need to reverse the situation of having two articles about the same thing. The dumb discussions are because Krakkos has been putting enormous effort into avoiding that, and changing the discussion subjects constantly. Both articles are now frozen.

Actually in early January I had some time to start work on trying to make this article better, and then suddenly this new article was made. Germanic peoples has had a long-run problem because of these types of distraction, so I figure it is worth getting my hands dirty even if I look pointless and pedantic for a while! :) The aim is to get sustainable topic definitions, and a better understanding with Krakkos generally if possible.

Do you agree that the new article Germani should be merged back into Germanic peoples? (Unless the two articles get a clear set of differentiated topics.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Obviously I agree ... But the differentiation and delineation of the topic is the whole problem here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

RE: Democratic socialism

Thanks so much for your thoughts here. I'm replying here because I find this discussion interesting, but I don't want to write this wall of text on the talk page or go too much off topic, although I believe it's still discussing the article in better understanding the topic.--Davide King (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

I pretty much agree with everything you've written, especially the final phrasing; and I've reflected this on the Democratic socialism, Social democracy and Third Way articles. On Sanders, I agree that it shouldn't be whether he's a democratic socialist (used to mean socialist economics while respecting liberal democracy) or a social democrat (used to mean the Third Way) but whether he's a social democrat (socialist) or a social liberal (liberal). I also agree that “[the] desire to overcome capitalism entirely, in the long run, but do not consider it realistic (or even desirable?) to achieve it directly” is what separate social democracy from social liberalism, besides the latter's advocating of more market-based policies with the state guaranteeing both fairness (social welfare) and competition (antitrust). In practice, many social democratic parties have been social liberal too, but that desire is still what separate the two, otherwise there would really be much difference. In the case of Sanders, it probably will not be know whether he really is a socialist or a liberal, for he simply can't express that desire due the way socialism is treated in the United States, although I see him perfectly fitting the European tradition of social democracy. On the Third Way, I agree with you and I think one distinction is to be made between the Third Way as adopted by liberals and social democrats, respectively. As an ideology, the Third Way is basically a liberal one whereas in the case of social democracy it was more of a development and response to neoliberalism and one definition was literally a third way between traditional social democracy and tradition neoliberalism, although critics point out that in practice it was much closer to the latter. I've read that Third Way social democrats were more concerned to fight laissez-faire capitalism and the New Right, stopped mentioning socialism not because they necessarily stopped believing in it but because they saw it as political nonviable. Furthermore, they realised that traditional Keynesian and social democratic policies weren't going to work in the always more globalised world (capital flights, offshores, etc. would all weaken the welfare state), or perhaps that policies to reduce that (wealth tax, efforts to reduce capital flights, etc.) were electorally a dead end or nonviable; and let's not forget the collapse of Bretton Woods and the post-war consensus (whether the latter really existed or not, there indeed was some consensus toward Keynesianism, full employment, a mixed economy and the welfare state, reversing the Nazi privatisation consensus in the 1930s). In other words, pragmatism like traditional social democrats who didn't consider it realistic to achieve socialism directly. Again, critics point out that in practice it was neoliberalism or Thatcherism-lite. Supporters cite the halvening of inequality and the improvement of social indicators from Thatcherism in Britain, where it likely would've continued to be in power for years and lay more progressive reforms were it not for the Great Recession; or the 20+ of uninterrupted growth and less concentration in Australia, where it was also able to avoid most of the Great Depression's effects. On the other hand, they also helped in cementing the rise of right-wing populism, with many former centre-left voters moving either to traditional social democracy and Left parties or to right-wing populism and other far-right parties. All in all, democratic socialism and social democracy are pretty close. The whole spectrum moved well to the right ever since the 1970s and this can be easily and more prominently seen in Britain, where Corbyn's traditional social democratic economics are seen as far-left, when before neoliberalism they were mainstream and pretty much centrist while neoliberalism (now the centre) would be seen as fairly right-wing on the political spectrum. As for the New Deal, I think it was in line with 1930s social democracy (that came to fully embrace reformism as a better way to develop socialism than the Soviet Union) and was also the major inspiration for post-war social democracy as it seemed to prevent capitalism's typical crises and avert mass unemployment whilst endorsing Keynesianism to provide this and reconcile democracy and capitalism as a compromise between capitalism and socialism. Again, many social democrats, especially in Sweden, also saw the welfare state as a necessary development of socialism. Finally, one issue is that the Soviet Union et all is taken as given or fact that it actually was socialist, but by using the same standard one could say that post-war Western Europe was socialist too. Both still had commodities, private property and wage labour, but the latter had both prosperity and civil liberties, so it couldn't possibly be socialist under some definition simply because for right-wing anti-communists socialism mean bad, even when on many social indicators the Soviet Union et all compared favorably with Western states, despite being much less developed; on the other hand, Soviet apologists take it as a given that it was a socialist state which merely stopped to be socialist when Khrushchev et all somehow turned it into state capitalism. So there's been too much polarisation and I always found it amusing that is mainly Marxist–Leninists and right-wing reactionaries (among others non-left anti-communists) that actually agree the Soviet Union et all were socialists, albeit for drastically different reasons, but I digress. To be clear, post-war Western Europe wasn't socialist, but neither is so sure that the Soviet Union et all actually was either. It just seems that the Soviet Union et all are said to be socialist because they're considered to be bad rather than to actual analysing the economy and not make the simplistic equation of central, state planning with socialism. You can see this in how social democratic countries in Western Europe, especially the Nordics, are emphasised to be capitalist (social democratic) whereas Venezuela (democratic socialist) is emphasized to be socialist, which is even the more absurd considering it doesn't have a Soviet-model economy (hence why, if Venezuela is socialist, then the whole Western world is, with the Nordics above all) and it actually has “privately-owned, profit-oriented enterprises predominating.” This can seen with China too, which economically has been closer to traditional social democracy with its state involvement and SOEs but is now seen as (state) capitalist when in practice it actually was that since the common program set up by the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in 1949 (“Whenever necessary and possible, private capital shall be encouraged to develop in the direction of state capitalism”). Since pre-1970s China is considered bad, then it was or must've been socialist. I think this actually go back to Stalin (surprised? Me neither) co-opting state capitalism to mean socialism, claiming that socialism had been achieved with the 1936 Soviet constitution (coincidentally, right before the Great Purge; and in line with the theory of intensification of the class struggle under socialism) and then claiming in the Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR that the law of value somehow still operated in the socialist economy, along with commodity exchange. I actually remember reading (I don't remember whether here, with sourced content) that the Bolsheviks themselves knew it was state capitalism but they couldn't tell the workers, or something like that. Really interesting.--Davide King (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Davide, thank you so much for your thoughts! I see you describe yourself as an anarchist. Personally, I would label myself as a socialist in the broadest sense, in the light of our discussion, without committing to any specific ideology. I have great sympathies for anarchism though and I would tend to call myself an anarchist myself. Recently I saw someone say that they are an anarchist but in order to avoid misunderstandings they usually call themselves a liberal socialist (if I remember correctly) – although libertarian socialist would probably be the more accurate term. I remember thinking that we're likely on the same page, basically, and I might as well label myself the same way. But I find plain socialist best because it's the most comprehensive term and I find myself undecided and fluctuate between sympathising with various ideologies, depending on my current mood, ranging from anarchism and revolutionary Marxism when I'm in a more defiant, radical mood, up to social democracy and even social liberalism when I feel more conciliatory, and often lately I think I'd just Balkanise the countries of the world so that every ideology of every stripe can have its own countries to run and people who agree with the ideology and don't get along with others can live in their ideal country, with non-aggression pacts between all countries; and also we could see which ideologies really works better than others. Sort of like the Jesusland meme, just more extreme and diverse. I know that's not feasible for various reasons, but I often feel like there's no other solution either.

First off, I essentially agree with what you've written above. A vital point I'd like to make is that it has often been remarked that the rightward shift in Europe and North America coincided with the decline of the Soviet Union, with the Anglophone countries shifting already in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was still around but not a significant threat anymore, and after the rivals of the Eastern Bloc had disappeared completely, in the 1990s the shift also reached Germany, with Schröder's SPD, in a red-green coalition, championing policies that were more associated with the Christian Democrats and the neoliberal (by that time) FDP, or even exceeded their policy proposals.

The whole episode was a major turning point in the history of social democracy and led to the current deplorable status of the SPD as almost a minor party. And as you point out, it gave a huge boost to right-wing populism as well, as many disappointed and enraged workers fell for their propaganda. (Most of the issues the far right whinges about are really ultimately mostly the fault of the Christian Democrats and liberals though, despite them attacking and blaming anyone from moderate Christian Democrats, social liberals and social democrats to leftists as naive linksgrüne Gutmenschen.) The neoliberal turn of social democracy was a disaster in Germany, as it led (through a sequence of Grand Coalitions, only interrupted by a conservative-liberal coalition during whose tenure the far right AfD appeared) to the stranglehold of austerity-obsessed conservatives on the country. Conservatives who also demonise anyone who is to the left of the Third Way, but have never credibly distanced themselves from the far right, having agitated against "foreigners" and other minorities and engaged in stark racism and other forms of bigotry already in the 1980s and 1990s, pioneering the populist tactics of the New Right. This makes me suspect that the only motivation of (at least in West Germany, mainly Roman Catholic) conservatives to support welfare capitalism after WWII, coming up with a religiously-based justification for it (Catholic social teaching) and thus creating Christian democracy, as a religious alternative to social democracy, was the fear of a socialist revolution in West Germany, not genuine compassion with the poor and oppressed (at least in the leadership of the movement). But I digress.

I'm not sure about the Soviet Union. Going by the (fairly minimal, admittedly) "collective ownership of the means of production" definition, I thought the country was genuinely socialist (at least for the most part). Not the most progressive or radical form of socialism, but still, if barely. Just for clarity, an example: Owning a house you use for yourself or your own family is personal property; only houses you rent to others are private property. Basically, means of producing capital. I thought that landlordism wasn't allowed in the Soviet Union, but I could be wrong. There might be other forms of private ownership I'm overlooking.

I completely agree that Venezuela's economy is not socialist; it's probably more comparable to the Nordic model than Allende's Chile, from what I've heard. Key resources have been nationalised, the oil industry especially, but not everything (and I see that the nationalisation of the oil industry already happened in the 1970s). It's all quite transparent propaganda, drumming up a Red Scare out of nothing.

As for China, it's an unusual hybrid from what I've heard, with a market economy with heavy state involvement. Iran, too, is fairly sui generis, a theocracy where about 60% of the economy is centrally planned. The vision espoused by Germany's Left Party, nationalising only big industry, including banking corporations and the like (probably what the SPD originally envisioned as a step on the way to full socialism, given that infrastructure was already nationalised), would also effectively result in a true hybrid between socialism and capitalism. From my point of view, that's the only true mixed economy and the only true centrism. :-) (Personally, however, I favour collective ownership of companies by their workers.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Genetic history of Europe

Hi! Have you ever seen this[60]? It stayed there unchallenged for almost two years after a hoaxer had added it. The Aryan Magi/Druids and Slavs/Sarmatians of Cantabria are pure gold. Usually I am annoyed by hoaxers who just want to "prove" that WP is shite, but this one me made burst into uncontrolled laughter. Behind it is a pretty tragic story though, viz. the lack of competent editors for archaeogenetics. Luckily, our field is much better off, at least IMO. –Austronesier (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Wikipedia's coverage of archaeogenetics is a real trainwreck, at least in large parts, because many articles are evidently not watched by competent editors and every nationalist crank can meddle there freely. Linguistics is definitely better off, yeah. I don't exactly consider archaeogenetical research uninteresting, but I keep my distance from it, admittedly not only because I'm highly sceptical of the often bold conclusions drawn from it but also because the research is less accessible than archaeology – which is, after all, also outside my training. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Same here. I often purge obvious archaeogenetic WP:SYNTH-stuff from linguistic and ethnographic pages, but I refrain from edits in articles about genetics proper because I don't have expertise in it, and not even general overview knowledge. Many editors involved there are over-excited about every piece of primary research, even before any peer discussion about it as started. Consequently, many of these pages look like a dump of indiscriminate information, and if there is some structured presentation, it often appears like an OR-ish self-made review article, which is fine principle, but is prone to producing undue weight, even more so if the editor has an agenda to promote. ([ˈɪʃ b̥ɪn ˈhɛz̥ə ˈɑβæ ˈkʰɑ̃: fæˈb̥ʁɛʒ̊æ]) –Austronesier (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Coptic

You might be interested in what an IP-hopper quietly keeps to restore on Coptic language. Just asking, are you sure that the IP's sources aren't reliable? If so, one could assume that they no longer act in good faith, and the page might deserve semi-protection. Khruner (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm not an admin, so I can't protect the page. For the unreliability of the sources, see the extensive discussion on the talk page. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke and Khruner: We should have a watch on the frequency of these insertions. As long as it can be handled with reverts that are non-3RR, I think semi-protection is premature. But I'll join having a closer watch on it from now on. –Austronesier (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier and Khruner: Good. By the way, I've wondered for a long time now if the Pi-Solsel thing (see German version) is worth mentioning. It does look like a credible case of recent survival to me. I also wish there were better sources on the revival efforts, so we could cover them in more detail and deflate the POV warring. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The article by Vycichl is very interesting and deserves mention, but with the caveats expressed by later commentators. I have found one source where the author mentions Vycichl's discovery about "a supposed semi-speaker community in an Upper Egyptian village still discovered in the thirties of the twentieth century" and cites doubts by Peust (1999) (= Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction to the Phonology of a Dead Language), a source which I do not have at hand. –Austronesier (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Do you have Vycichl's original article? I have it. He names four semi-speakers whose parents still spoke Coptic (a dialect apparently descended from Bohairic), presumably as late as the early years of the 20th century. I'm not a Coptologist of course, but the thing looks genuine and I can't think of any other explanation than a real late survival. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have found an online link to it[61]. The data looks very authentic (and the information about the game counting is cool, too; reminds me of Yan Tan Tethera). The only question is whether the infomation about the parent generation is reliable. We might as well be dealing with a case of fading L2-compentence in a heritage language. That's why I'm still very interested about what Peust's "doubts" actually are. Maybe we can insert the information in a similar way as Richter reports it. –Austronesier (talk) 9:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Not sure how "a case of fading L2-compe[]tence in a heritage language" is different from the semi-speaker/rememberer situation he reports?

The only remote possibility I can think of is that Vycichl might have played an elaborate hoax on the Coptologist community by simply constructing parts of a "Modern Bohairic" dialect and making the story sound plausible enough for linguists to fall for it. He even admits basically constructing the Lord's Prayer at the end.

Still, his claim that (Bohairic) Coptic survived in Egypt as a first language in various – mostly rural – locations as late as the 19th century at least, while being reduced to fragments in the 1930s, is not nearly as hard to believe as the idea that it survived into the 21st century in an isolated family in the middle of a major Egyptian city as a first language.

I've made the observation that a language can survive the start of its decline (at least if the start of the decline happened in the Late Medieval or Early Modern period – especially in Europe; languages in other continents were often intentionally suppressed or even "murdered" by Europeans, so their decline could be much faster, although vergonha-like policies and other special factors – such as disasters or economic pressure – could speed up decline even inside Europe) for several centuries, so that after an event that causes a second language to gradually replace the original language, 300–400 years can elapse and there are still at least semi-speakers/rememberers. Cornish, Vegliot and Norn do show this pattern. If so, we should look in the 16th and early 17th centuries for potential causes of decline. It turns out that the Ottoman invasion and takeover of Egypt is indeed judged to be a cause of decline, and the Ottoman conquest and fall of the Mamluk Sultanate happened in 1517. The famines of the late 17th and 18th centuries were certainly significant factors, but are too late to be the original cause; they're rather symptoms of the decline. In view of these considerations, I consider it much more likely a priori that Coptic became extinct as a traditional vernacular around 1900 than in the 17th century. Therefore, it was plausibly still a living language in the 18th and 19th centuries, but it is significantly less likely that it survived the Ottoman invasion for more than 500 years. This adds credibility to the idea that in the 1930s, there were still traces of living Coptic, while 21st-century speakers are not from an unbroken vernacular tradition but probably L2 speakers drawing from a written tradition. I conclude that the hypothesis that Vycichl played a hoax seems unlikely, but our reservations about 21st-century speakers are justified. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The only part that puzzles me is this one: "Der Dialekt ist als bohairisch zu bezeichnen. Mit der Verlegung des Patriarchenthrones vom Wādi Naṯrūn nach Alexandria und dann nach Kairo eroberte dieser Dialekt ganz Ägypten." I cannot figure out to what events he is referring to here. I thought the Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church had always resided in Alexandria, and still does. It would be important information about Late Coptic that should be added to the article Coptic language if an event like this led to the Bohairic dialect replacing the others, but I cannot verify the cause he gives. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I would rule out a hoax or anything of that kind. It's just that the information "Die Eltern aller haben noch koptisch geredet, wenn auch nur untereinander" is a second-hand account given by the semi-speaker generation to Vycichl. My understanding is that Vycichl suggests that their parents still were L1, and that's simply unverifiable. They might just as well have been L2-speakers that were more proficient than Vycichl's informants. –Austronesier (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is true. However, this still seems to imply to me that there were L1 speakers as late as the 19th century, even if it is uncertain if by the dawn of the 20th century any had been left, so my argument and conclusion above is not significantly affected by this point. It would be entirely implausible, judging from parallel cases of language death, that there were no L1 speakers left by the beginning of the 18th century, with Coptic somehow lingering on as a L2, yet essentially independent of the literary tradition, for more than 200 years. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

References

I guess you have noticed the latest addition to Coptic language—I was compelled to revert it because of misinterpretation of facts. The paper cited is very interesting[62], and it matches my understanding of Vycichl, who is the primary data source for Worrell's analysis. Quote: "It was once the custom to teach both boys and girls to read and understand, and also to “speak” [Coptic]". I think we should add Vycichl and Worrell's obesrvations to the page, also in order to prevent further misrepresentations. –Austronesier (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't really watch any pages consistently or check my (small) watchlist, so I didn't notice it, no, thanks! I've always wondered why we haven't added Vycichl before but I hesitated thinking that it might prove too controversial. Would you take care of that? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion on gay icons

Hi, Florian. I noticed a while back that you commented on one of the discussions of the talk page for Gay icon. Just wanted to ask for any opinions you might have on the standard I have tried to devise to fix the page at Talk:Gay icon#Gay icon standards. Thanks! WhinyTheYounger (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Entry for "Olavi Paavolainen" in List of Karelians

Dear Florian,
In your edit summary at 08:47, on 25 July 2020, you asked: "Citation for what?"; here is the explanation:

• the entry for Olavi Paavolainen was added as a red link at 14:05, on 1 January 2019;
• I added the {{cn}} template at 19:41, on 2 January 2019;
• the article on Olavi Paavolainen was eventually created at 16:17, on 22 January 2019, but the creating editor probably forgot to check "What links here", and therefore did not remove the {{cn}} template after the link had turned blue.
  

I hope this helped clarify why there was a residual {{cn}} template alongside a blue entry in the list.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 13:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ardhamagadhi Prakrit

I saw your edit at Ardhamagadhi Prakrit article. It seems some unsourced content have been added after your last edit without any new accompanying sources [63]. I'm unable to check the Cordona source. Would you kindly verify the new content? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have access to the book, but the edits look a bit suspicious. Adding content before a footnote to make it look as if the footnote supports the content is a widespread deceptive practice. To be on the safe side, I've reverted them. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk and Florian Blaschke: The idea that modern IA languages can directly traced back to Prakrit variants goes back to Chatterji. Ardhamagadhi Prakrit is indeed held by him to be the ancestor of Eastern Hindi, so Awadhi was ok, but Bhojpuri not, which he traced to Magadhi (like all other Bihari languages, plus Odia and Bengali-Assamese), cf. this diagram. –Austronesier (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sappho's manuscript tradition

Thanks for your edit to Sappho here – as you correctly observe, the latest ancient manuscripts are from the seventh century AD. As I know that I wrote that sentence, and I was pretty sure that I had written it correctly, I went and checked – the error crept in here, when an editor decided to change all of the ADs to CEs and BCs to BCEs. I've just been through that edit to make sure that no other similar errors slipped in at the same time, but it looks as though that was the only one. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ugh. Per WP:ERA, that edit should have been reverted right away, and in fact, we'd be completely justified to change all the instances of BCE and CE back; see this edit. The edit was borderline vandalism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

In fact, the edit was effectively vandalism, because it apparently employed a semi-automatic search-and-replace routine, without meticulously checking if a BC or AD really appeared within a quotation or title, or even a word: witness how an instance of "had" was changed to "hBCE" – why not "hCE", as expected? Evidently the editor incorrectly changed certain instances of "AD" into "BCE", apparently out of pure sloppiness. Even more reasons to strongly discourage this kind of tomfoolery. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and if I'd spotted it at the time I would have just reverted it. Frankly, looking at the edits since the only one which actually seems to have improved anything over the version before the era change was this bot edit. The more I look at this, the more tempted I am to just revert back to this version, which is the last before the era change, and re-invoke Citation bot... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I've wondered the same, given that the edit wasn't even that long ago. Maybe just revert then and redo the bot edit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Your revert at intersex

I noticed you reverted Leonard Sax from here. Stating “Leonard Sax is not an expert on intersex conditions, but a conservative activist whose goal it is to downplay the prevalance of intersex conditions. He should not be cited in this article. He doesn't even accept Klinefelter's and Turneras intersex, which is absurd.”

I had to revert it. CycoMa (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop edit warring on this topic. His personal political views are completely irrelevant. This estimate was published in a highly respected peer-reviewed journal - the Journal of Sex Research - and that is where the reliability comes from. WP:NPOV does not mean "only views I personally agree with". Only putting Fausto-Sterling's estimate is POV, since reliable sources dispute that. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sax's political views and his conservative views on gender are very much relevant to this issue since they form his motivation to minimise the prevalence of intersex conditions. He's deliberately misleading readers by pretending that conditions like Klinefelter's and Turner's are not intersex, even though there is no debate about this point, and Wikipedia is misleading the reader by citing his opinion as relevant; his view is not taken seriously among experts on intersex conditions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Concerning this edit: just saying "However deHaven-Smith's theory has been criticized." is not a useful statement. Criticized for what reasons and by whom? I've reverted your edit because it is incomplete and unhelpful as it is. Please expand it if you plan on restoring it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compound.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Anglo-Frisian

I'm sorry that I could not address your arguments more directly. You are right, my counter arguments weren't very constructive. I've tried addressing your points at first, but I just ended up citing the mentioned article in an inaccurate manner. The article is a fun read, it contains lots of evidence, addresses many arguments for the Anglo-Frisian grouping while being very polemical and easy to understand, even for a layman like me. I'm very much interested in your opinion as a linguist, especially since the author seems to be so sure about his standpoint. Liekveel (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've replied in detail. Should be helpful. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Help:IPA/Latin

There's a disagreement between me and another user about the use of the Help:IPA/Latin key on the articles Manlia gens and Romulus. Thought you might perhaps be interested since you've contributed to that key in the past. Libhye (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I agree with you. Wikipedia needs tons more pronunciation guides, not only for names from ancient languages. Not only is the pronunciation in the original language often unpredictable, the Anglicised pronunciations are often unpredictable too. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Astyonym

I had never come across that word before, so I had a look in Wiktionary, only to find that Wiktionary has never heard of it either. So now's your moment to rectify that omission. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Iranian languages

Hi. Would you please take a look at Template:Iranian languages? It may have some errors and wrong classifications. Cheers! Wario-Man ^talk 13:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

My favorite Wikipedia edit

Hi, you'll know me from the Zimbabwe page but I thought you might appreciate my favorite Wikipedia edit ever. The article intro just got so clean after being messy for like 6 years and even now a year later no one has changed it. 😊

Before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annuit_c%C5%93ptis&oldid=983361930

After: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annuit_c%C5%93ptis&oldid=983363426

Human-potato hybrid (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice work! By the way, you can also use the prettier solutions Template:Diff or Special:Diff instead of the links. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

How many Sudans claim the Halaib Triangle?

Just the one, I'm pretty sure. What am I not following in your edit summary? Pathawi (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I was alluding to the missing comma (which I added in my edit) before "which": "the area still rightfully belonged to [the] Sudan which had 'never relinquished' it", read very literally, implies that more than one Sudan (such as South Sudan, arguably) claims the region. See English relative clauses § Restrictive or non-restrictive relative clauses. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ha! All right. I was reading & re-reading looking for some mistaken implication that South Sudan claimed the Triangle. Glad it was nothing that egregious. Pathawi (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Average human height

Hello, this edit may be factually wrong and deserved to be reverted, but it is definitely not vandalism. The editor in question is still active in 2021. --Coldtrack (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary tampering with cited figures is absolutely vandalism. See WP:VAND. It's utterly irrelevant if the editor is still active. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It is very relevant if the editor is still active because if he vandalises then he should be banned. However, I see no evidence that he has vandalised. You have offered no proof that the change was as "arbitrary" as you make out. To me it looks like a simple rounding up, which is a departure from "tampering". You don't know whether he was following a different source which was not adduced, and moreover you never messaged him asking for an explanation. So the edit may have been erroneous, but nothing comes remotely close to WP:VAND. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Even "simple rounding up" is vandalism in this context, with the height average generally given to the millimeter (in human height averages, 4 mm are a highly significant difference, not at all negligible, as can be gleaned from the table). One might as well round up 1.75 m to 1.8 m, which is patently a falsification when we're talking about human heights.

You just don't manipulate cited figures. Full stop. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

In fact, we've deliberately created Template:Significant figures to be able to round figures while still staying true to the sources. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, so whoever entered Bosnia & Herzegovina "vandalised" did he? --Coldtrack (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Whataboutism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Poppycock. There is no tu quoque here because I haven't done anything. But if you are admitting being the person who added the earlier Bosnian entry then you are admitting vandalising per your own interpretation of it. The source says the male figure is 1.8387, whereas the editor states 1.839, a clear round-up. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I said whataboutism, not tu quoque. You almost literally said "but what about this other editor"? They do not matter here. At all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You're also disregarding the difference between 4 and 0.3 mm, and the fact that the figure wasn't originally accurate in the article and then changed. Adding cited info can't be vandalism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Manlia gens

Just letting you know of the discussion on the talk page of this article, cf. my earlier message in March. Libhye (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Dark Ages (Europe)

There a deletion discussion you may be interested in WP:Articles for deletion/Dark Ages (Europe) ThuDauMot (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Levantine Arabic FAC

Hi Florian, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to Proto-Arabic language and other related articles in the past, I thought you could be interested in reviewing this nomination. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Florian Blaschke. You have new messages at Template_talk:Contradict-inline#Section_linking_broken?.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Debresser (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Rongorongo FAR

I have nominated Rongorongo for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. A455bcd9 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

November songs

my story today

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" --

"Bzyp (village) ()" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bzyp (village) () to the article Bzyb (village) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 24 § Bzyb (village) () until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"Ausgleichssprache" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ausgleichssprache has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 25 § Ausgleichssprache until a consensus is reached. NotAGenious (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Irish Anglo-Norman

Hi - I reverted your removals of this on Yola and Fingallian because I was a bit baffled by your justification:

1. Not having an article doesn't mean something is not notable. Tons of languages refer to small subfamilies that don't have articles (yet). Irrespective of the name used for the subfamily, the existence of relicts from Middle English that existed in Ireland separately from Hiberno-English is clearly of interest.
2. Multiple things can go by the same name. "Irish Anglo-Norman" is clearly referring to the Irish Anglo-Normans, not the Anglo-Norman language (see Normans in Ireland). The fact that Anglo-Norman exists as an unrelated language isn't relevant, despite the similar names.
3. You complained about Glottolog being unreliable, but removed three citations without comment.

Theknightwho (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no evidence that anyone has ever formally posited a branch of West Germanic called "Irish Anglo-Norman" outside Glottolog. I don't have access to Hickey's book, but he probably doesn't do that either. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, yeah. He clearly doesn't. It's just Glottolog making shit up. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke The name isn't the most important issue. Theknightwho (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

But that's what the citations are for. And they need to support it. A term like "Southwestern Anglic" or the like (which would also encompass West Country English and Pembrokeshire English) would be more appropriate (see Anglic languages), but unfortunately doesn't seem to be established. Nobody is saying that Yola and Fingallian aren't interesting; I'm a bit baffled by that implication myself. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke Citations can exist to support a grouping, irrespective of what we call it - though I agree it would be good to use a term that exists in a reliable source. Hickey's Irish Ennglish: History and present day forms (section 2.4) doesn't use the term "Irish Anglo-Norman", but it does give a comparative discussion of Yola and Fingallian, positing they are (a) both relicts of Middle English, and (b) have a large number of traits in common that suggest a close relationship, though the amount of material for Fingallian is sparse. Theknightwho (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I wasn't saying you thought they weren't interesting - I was saying that notability isn't determined by whether we have an article. Theknightwho (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Are we sure, though, that there is an exclusive Yola–Fingallian node (that's what I'd call it, frankly, even if that's a bit ugly – maybe "Pale English"? But that would be a neologism and Yola–Fingallian wouldn't be) separate from West Country English and Pembrokeshire English? I'm a tad sceptical there. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke So we know that Yola had a very conservative phonology that in many ways resembled Middle English, which was likely due to its relative isolation; it also has signs of influence from Irish and (interestingly) Flemish. Hickey in A lost Middle English dialect (1988) states: "On analyzing the dialect of Forth and Bargy [Yola] it becomes plain that it does not represent some special development with the diachrony of Irish English but is a remnant of the oldest period of English in Ireland (i.e. from the time after the Norman invasion in 1169 up to the demise of English (outside of the 'Pale') in the late 15th and 16th centuries." Note that the attestations date primarily from the 19th century.

Drawing the connection with Fingallian is difficult due to the paucity of data, but as stated above, Hickey considered them to be closely related. Given that Yola was linguistically divergent for a period of a few hundred years, and Fingallian is apparently similar, it seems they do form a clade. Theknightwho (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Clades are defined through common innovations, though, not through retentions, i. e. conservative traits. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yola and Fingallian were certainly closely related, given that they both descend from Southwestern Middle English. However, I see no evidence here of any trait that was specific to both and not to their closest kin in Britain – not even a hint. What I've seen doesn't look strikingly different in any way from 19th century West Country English. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Florian Blaschke!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Why were recent supercomputers reverted ?

I am approaching with respect to your deletion of recent ones in History_of_supercomputing If your concern was their popularity, I was surprised that you didn't delete Frontier or Fugaku too which are actually lot lesser known.

If your concern was missing link, instead you should have added the missing links to these: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(supercomputer) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_DGX - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South_(disambiguation) Ishandutta2007 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You had reverted all my edits, and even many further edits that weren't mine, without even giving the slightest hint of a reason and while marking your edit as minor. That's effectively vandalism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking closer, it looks like you merely tried to add to the table but you really blundered with that one edit. You should ask for help editing Wikipedia. Try WP:TEA. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:MENTOR and WP:ADOPT. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

only table addition was mine.

the above texts in summary weren't mine.

I have no issues with them, they seem fine. Ishandutta2007 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

And the last 5 lines were not added recently, I added them long back starting in 2022.

Only the last line was recent. Where were you all these years ? Didn't they look blunderous all these years ? Ishandutta2007 (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

For some reason, you did revert plenty of edits too, however, even if accidentally. I have no idea how this could happen, but it looks like you're still very inexperienced at editing Wikipedia. You don't even seem to quite understand the problem with your edit. Hence my suggestion to seek help. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea reverting which edits you are talking about. I don't remember reverting anything, that too you come back several years later complaining about it. As far as my recent changes are concerned my suggestion is to revert my recent changes back unless you have strong reason to delete them. Ishandutta2007 (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

When you tried to add to the table, you (evidently accidentally) undid all sorts of other edits, including all of my edits from mid-February (not years ago!). See here. It's you who has come to my talk page to complain, not me.

If that doesn't convince you, get someone else to explain the problem to you, and how editing Wikipedia works; I don't have the patience. You've made a mistake, so own it – a combative attitude doesn't exactly help. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It still didn't answer by question, I didn't add the table, I added only the last 4 lines each line was added with 6 months to 1 year gap. So which year did the overwrite take place ? If you are talking about only yesterday's edit it should affect only one line, why are you reverting my changes made 2-3 years back? Ishandutta2007 (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyways never mind, you carry on, you had many more useful edits than my couple of lines. It seems "This is a minor edit" checkbox should be avoided at all cost. Ishandutta2007 (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I simply restored the state immediately before your recent edit. I didn't deliberately undo any changes you might have made years ago; if you had checked the history yourself you'd have found that they were undone in this edit.

Apparently you simply wholesale restored a really old version long before my edits. Don't do that. You undid all the dozens of edits that had happened in the meantime, which is a span of months.

"Minor edit" is only for edits that are actually minor. See WP:MINOR.

You evidently turned out doing something completely different than you intended to do. You have trouble with the technical side of Wikipedia. You have trouble with the rules. You don't understand how things work here. You don't know how to use the history. And you didn't even know what the minor edit box is for. You clearly don't know how to edit Wikipedia competently. But competence is required on Wikipedia. That's why I suggested mentoring. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As for why this other editor may have removed your additions, have you noticed the following comment in the wikicode of the article?

<!-- Please do not add new computers unless they appear as #1 on the TOP500 list. See discussion page.--> --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Another idea: You could ask an experienced Wikipedian to cross-check and make an edit for you. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"Minor edit" is only for edits that are actually minor - my edit was indeed minor, just one line.

As you said if this edit reverted it then how could the publicly active page still have them? As I said I only added one line to whatever was visible publicly. If it applies that edit on some old version then there is something wrong with wikipedia's system. Ishandutta2007 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Look, you really have issues. You didn't even read what the page I linked to said. A minor edit isn't the same as a small edit – e. g. changing a number willy-nilly (something vandals often do) is technically a small change, but absolutely not minor.

As I already said, I don't have the patience to explain everything to you into the smallest detail. Find someone else to explain it to you. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Lumpers and splitters

It had no relevance to article improvement. I often remove article talk sections with that edit summary. Sorry I combined things in that instance... AnonMoos (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the confusing edit summary only made it worse. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks King2hamster (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)