User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 57

Irish IPA

Hi Angr,

Dubhaltach MacFhirbhisigh has a rather garbled transcription that I've tagged for IPA cleanup, but you're probably the best to ask. I don't know if there is an English pronunciation, but what we have doesn't work well for either language. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

All About Eve

In terms of the phrase, the main meaning could be different, depending on geography. In the US, perhaps the main meaning is the movie (not sure if it still is, the movie is 60 years ago, almost). In Asia, the main meaning is definitely a Korean drama program of the same name. Therefore, I think it is only fair to set the main All About Eve page as a disambig page, and transfer the current movie page to the (film) page that I moved it to. That way, we will be able to reflect a global meaning of the term, and not make it US-centric. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 05:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Any other usage is going to be derivative of the film, and at the English Wikipedia, we need to consider what the primary meaning in English is. If you make All About Eve with no parenthetical a disambiguation page, are you willing to go through the probably hundreds of articles that link to it and change their links to All About Eve (film)? At any rate, you can be sure such a move will be controversial and will need to go through WP:RM rather than being done unilaterally - and the previous state of affairs, with All About Eve being a red link, is definitely unacceptable. +Angr 05:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to have this go through RM. However, I will point out the Korean drama has absolutely nothing to do with the US film (either in content or inspiration, based on the plot). Therefore, I think it is simply a case of coincidence. However, both the film and the drama are popular in the US, just among different social circles. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 06:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Otheruses4-->About

Please do not use {{otheruses4}}. It redirects to {{about}}.174.3.123.220 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And using a redirect is bad because...? +Angr 08:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tartessian

Hi Angr,

An editor has classified Tartessian language as Celtic based on an author he has cited in that article. I don't know anything about Celtic, and so can't evaluate the claim, but it seems dubious to me that it would be as unambiguously Celtic as he claims, and yet that no-one would have noticed until now. What do you think? Or should we bring it up for comment at WP:languages? — kwami (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Which Geoffrey?

Re your message: Sigh. That was a mistake. I've struck my warnings and apologized. Thanks for looking into this. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

IPA for Burmese

Hey, thanks for this! Now if I could just remember where all the Burmese transcriptions are ... (Burmese cuisine for one, and articles linked from there.)

I've added /N/ to the table, since it's included in the examples. However, IMO we should stick to a phonetic transcription. When I've tidied up Burmese transcriptions in the past, I've retranscribed /N/ as either a nasal vowel or a homorganic consonant, and I think that would probably serve our readers better. The /N/ is probably best left to the language articles. — kwami (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm replacing both /N/ and nasalized vowels with /ɴ/ as I encounter them. We're already using /ɴ/ for the placeless nasal of Japanese, so why not that of Burmese? +Angr 22:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not phonetic. In Japanese we transcribe it [m, n, ŋ] per the following C, except when final, in which case it often is realized as uvular [ɴ] (or sometimes [m͡ɴ]). It may be nasalization between vowels; I can't remember off hand if we transcribe it that way, but generally we only use [ɴ] when it's pronounced [ɴ]. AFAIK, in Burmese it's either [m, n, ŋ] or nasalization, not [ɴ], which is merely a transcription convention. Or have I misread that? — kwami (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but all of these transcription conventions that we use for various languages are broad transcriptions. Our use of /ɨ ɵ ʉ/ at WP:IPA for English isn't phonetic either, but merely a transcription convention. The realization of /ɴ/ in Burmese is complicated: when it isn't [m n ɲ ŋ] before a homorganic consonant, it's nasalization of the vowel, but it's also a raising of the tongue toward the alveolar ridge after monophthongs and toward the velum after diphthongs. The velar sound could be transcribed [ɰ̃], but I'm not sure how to transcribe the alveolar sound. The only symbol for a nonlateral alveolar approximant I know of is [ɹ], but transcribing it [ɹ̃] would make people think it was somehow r-like, which it isn't. Another option would be to use [n ŋ] with the "more open" diacritic, i.e. [n̞ ŋ˕]. But using any of these would be OR since no published source transcribes the placeless nasal that way. I don't mind if we use [m n ɲ ŋ] as appropriate word-internally for Burmese, but word-finally at least (as well as before [h ʔ]) I really think we should stick to [ɴ]. +Angr 08:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable. If a pure nasal vowel doesn't capture the pronunciation well, perhaps that's the way we should go. It would also make transcription and tone marking easier.

As for the English conventions, well, that's English. Our readers are pretty familiar with it, so we can work off their familiarity. Very few are familiar with Burmese, and the ones who are won't need the IPA anyway. It's the general reader that I worry about; since they will hear [m n ɲ ŋ] as four distinct sounds, transcribing them as one would IMO be confusing. — kwami (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymological dictionary rev.

Hi, about your revert from 12:27, 15 May 2010 - The Anglo-Saxon Dictionary is not just a synchronic dictionary of Old English, it gives you older forms and Germanic cognates. Besides, it's one of the basic resources for English etymologists, I think it should be either linked externally or incorporated into the text via an internal link to its own article. Otichy (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Lots of dictionaries include etymological information. That doesn't make them etymological dictionaries. +Angr 14:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

IPA

I rather like your vegan story. It has very much in common with the imperfections in Wikipeia's current use of the IPA in article lead sections, and the arguments in its defence. I'm sorry you introduce a combative tone and see me as being anti American just because, especially in a topic as international as the IPA, I try to be as informative as possible, for, and on behalf of, all editors and visitors to the Wikipedia, wherever they come from.--Kudpung (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian it is!

After a somewhat stressful monthlong sojourn in the Old Country during which I was largely out of my element literally and figuratively, I now feel properly back in the swing of things -- thanks to your quick pickup of my Language Ref Desk query (and nice to see others chime in too). See you! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Berlin

since you instated a complete edit-protect, would you mind making the following (should be non-controversial) edit in the 'Climate' section on my behalf? I have coded these additions, so this should be a simple task for you.

Information to be inserted (between the precip data and the precip days info):

|Jan_Sun= 46.5 |Feb_Sun= 73.5 |Mar_Sun= 120.9 |Apr_Sun= 159.0 |May_Sun= 220.1 |Jun_Sun= 222.0 |Jul_Sun= 217.0 |Aug_Sun= 210.8 |Sep_Sun= 156.0 |Oct_Sun= 111.6 |Nov_Sun= 51.0 |Dec_Sun= 37.2 |Year_Sun= 1625.6

Code for the second source (obviously at the very end of the infobox):

 | source2 = HKO 
 | accessdate2 = 2010-05-20

Thanks! ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 00:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please use {{request edit}} on the talk page. +Angr 06:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict?

Did you get an edit conflict here? [1] DuncanHill (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I've restored your comment. +Angr 09:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I find it best to start again when I get an edit conflict, the software is really not up to the job. DuncanHill (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Parable

Hey. I'm a vegan and I'm intrigued by your parable, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. Are you making a commentary about the quality of Wikipedia? I'd be very interested to hear your explanation. --N-k (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I just realized that there are links explaining it. Sorry! --N-k (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma dialect

I understand (and at least partially agree with) your criticisms of this article[2]. But it seems to me that tagging it as a "hoax", in the face of edits and comments supporting the article from other experienced, respected editors, is excessive and might be misconstrued as as an assertion that these other editors are engaging in a hoax, even though I am sure this was not your intention. For my own part, I don't see anything fraudulent in the article (in its current state), though the sourcing is certainly sub-par and I share your concerns about WP:OR. Rather than opening a discussion of this one tag on the talk page, could I please request that you delete the "hoax" tag? Thank you. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hoax" is perhaps too strong a word, but it is certainly true that the article's "truthfulness has been questioned" in that the article implies there is such a thing as an Oklahoma dialect, a claim no reliable, academic source has been presented to support. +Angr 20:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Le-Peguelyon1.jpg

Salut ! This user box on your User Page completely explains your position about images on Wikipedia:

This user feels that fair use images have no place in a free content encyclopedia.

There is simply no point in me wasting my time making my case for this image, or any other image on Wikipedia, with an attitude like yours. Best regards, Charvex (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Salut ! I am writing this at the behest of a (non-English writing) non-Wikipédian colleague as a favor to him (and against my better judgment). He feels the image you plan to delete is an important contribution to the article because it is a very rare, real-world publication example of contemporary Arpitan language in use; not just a line of contrived text. It provides visual proof that a major publisher is printing works using the Conflans orthographic method. Please note: There are only a tiny number of popular books published in this very rare language each year using ANY orthographic method - fewer than five - outside of a few political and local associations news, dictionaries, websites (most of which are phonetic transcriptions that don't follow orthographic standards), and a few posters. For all practical purposes, the Arpitan language is extinct outside of the Aosta Valley. Also, all orthographic methods for the Arpitan language now in use in modern publications were created after 1960, so no "free" examples exist in any form. --- The use of one panel (partial image) from a fully illustrated 62-page book used in an educational, free, non-commercial context at low resolution does not constitute copyright infringement, and certainly does not limit the copyright holder's rights to market or sell his work in any way. (In reality, it is a benefit to the copyright holder to show the general public this exists at all.) --- You believe the « Comic Fair Use » license is inappropriate because of the very narrow definition Wikipedia has assigned to the tag itself, which as stated, I will not dispute. My colleague wants to know: Does a suitable Wikipedia licensing tag exist so the image can remain in the article? (Please reply here to keep the conversation together.) Best regards, Charvex (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Other endangered minority languages are illustrated with free images, for example photos of street signs (see Upper Sorbian language and Lower Sorbian language for examples of languages that have even fewer speakers left than Arpitan does). In general, it shouldn't be necessary to use an image to show written text, because text can always be written directly into the article. At any rate, my talk page isn't the best place for this discussion, as the administrator who will decide whether or not to delete the image won't see the discussion here. I would recommend explaining your position at File talk:Le-Peguelyon1.jpg. +Angr 13:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I copied this conversation to that page. As noted there, I thought you were an Administrator which is why I replied here. Best regards, Charvex (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin, but I'm not the one who will decide whether the image is kept or deleted. In this discussion, I'm wearing my "editor" hat, not my "admin" hat. +Angr 11:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Peadar Ua Laoghaire inappropriate external link

Hi, Angr. You deleted an external link I put in from the Peadar Ua Laoghaire page to my site at www.corkirish.com, which contains a full transcript of that book. Can you explain what a valid external link is, and whether there is anything I could do to meet Wikipedia guidelines to put a link to my transcript of that book on that page? Thanks for any hints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.123.211 (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please read WP:EL. +Angr 13:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read that link before posting on your user talk page. I would have thought a page giving a full transcription of a work by PUL would fall well within the guidelines. Can you be more explicit, please, about what particular rule I have transgressed? Thanks. Go raibh maith agat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.123.211 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

See in particular point 11 under "Links normally to be avoided": "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." The page is a personal web page not written by a recognized authority. There is no way for the reader to verify the accuracy of the transcription. This is incidentally also the reason why I'm not using that site as a basis for the works of PUL at Wikisource. +Angr 13:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I see your point - and yet my personal transcription is the source of the Wikisource transcription of Mo Sgéal Fein and Na Cheithre Soisgéil - as those chapters of those works on Wikisource were uploaded by me after transcribing them. I know you will eventually check them against your images of the original books in your proofreading process - but I expected that all along. Anyway, at least you have explained your view. Regards, DJW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.123.211 (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Aibreán Abrán

Hi, can I raise a different subject? On the Munster Irish page, someone has edited to say there is no epenthetic vowel in Aibreán/Abrán. I can't work out from the page edits who is responsible for this assertion. The Irish of West Muskerry , paragraph 234, says there is an epenthetic vowel, and the phonology section of the article on Munster Irish is specifically sourced to IWM. IWM is Cork Irish. The book Gaeilge Chorca Dhuibhne paragraph 27 says there can either be or not be an epenthetic vowel in Kerry Irish - speaker 1 in that book has no epenthetic vowel, but speaker 9 (a man born on the Great Blasket before 1920) has an epenthetic vowel. What do you say on this subject? Should the section be edited to make clear that the assertion is at variance with IWM? I am afraid Wikipedia is plagued with these unsourced assertions.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.123.211 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We should probably discuss this at Talk:Munster Irish so others can join in. +Angr 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the page history, I see that the assertion that there is no epenthesis in Aibreán was already there on the first day of the page's existence, which means I'm the one who wrote it. I'll look through my books and see if I reconstruct why I thought that was the case. BTW, since you obviously haven't left Wikipedia, why not just log in under your username rather than edit under your IP address? +Angr 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaelscoileanna article - rename?

Hi Angr. As you are both an admin and a contributer to Irish-related articles, I'd appreciate your input on the topic of renaming the article Gaelscoil. Here is the discussion page: Talk:Gaelscoil#Mistake. Thank you! Conorbrady.ie (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Language redirects

Do you really want me to write the bot task you mentioned? If you continue at this pace, there will be no redirs left by the time the bot is ready :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of continuing at this pace. I just wanted to get a feel for it. I did come across one potential problem: sometimes we have two articles on the same ISO language, e.g. Mescalero language and Chiricahua language were two separate articles until I merged them. I don't know how your bot would handle such a case. +Angr 21:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I answered at WP:Lang. Could you tell me if you come across some more unusual cases? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Russian

Thanks for mentioning my name at the ghetto question, Angr, but my Russian gets shakier by the day. My first guess was Ukrainian, because there appeared to be a dot above an i-like letter in the lower set of words. But this was probably just the light shining the wrong way on a random hunk of rock. So much for my self-proclaimed Russian language skills. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I have just read your profile and you seem a very learned person and interested in (small) languages and cultures so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this has not been approved up to this moment because it does not belong to one state. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

ROFL

Hi, I decided to browse your user page after your recent edits to wp:rd/l, to find out who that guy is that asks questions about my beloved Swabian language. ;-) And I must say, your parable really made me LOL. Köstlich! (pun intended). -- 109.193.27.65 (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The [[Shadow Casts]] AfD

If User:Angr would explain why User:angr considers that the WP:Articles for deletion/Shadow Casts was not language related, perhaps I can learn to avoid including in [[WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language]] AfD's that are not wanted there. I put the question in the talk section of [[WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language]] but there was no response. It seems to me that the article was trying to define the phrase "Shadow Casts" as some kind of recreational acting done while a movie is being projected. Why was that not language related? --Fartherred (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to use the second person singular pronoun when addressing me. The article was about the phenomenon of movie fans reenacting movies. The article was not about a language, or the human language faculty, or about anything relating to linguistics, or anything else language- or linguistics-related. WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film would have been a more appropriate place. +Angr 05:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Fartherred (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hello, Angr, can you please help me with this Location map? There seem to be some problems with coordinates, and I can't correct it unfrtunately... Thanks beforehand!--Gaeser (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, there's a reason I gave up trying to design location maps, namely that I could never really figure out how to get the coordinates to work right. +Angr 18:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies

Is there any unambiguous way of determining which morpheme in the nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies is the stem, and which are prefixes and suffixes (despite this being an artificial nomenclature)? The authorities are somewhat confused at this point (but then, they aren't linguistic authorities -- the American Medical Association calls the middle morphemes 'infixes', which is definitely wrong). Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say anything that contributes semantic significance is a stem, and if there are two of them, then the word is a compound, though the page's term "substem" seems good under the circumstances. "Infixes" is a poor name for them. As far as I can tell from the discussion in the article, the prefix and suffix do not add semantic content, and so are probably adequately called affixes, though they're really neither derivational nor inflectional. +Angr 18:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The "suffix" -mab does have semantic significance as it defines the drug to be a monoclonal antibody (as opposed to, say, the antihypertensive drugs known as ACE inhibitors, which end in -pril). In fact, the WHO describes -mab as a "stem placed as a suffix", which supposedly means it's placed word-finally. The collection of such class defining morphemes is called the "stem book". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nahuatl in German

Hey Angr,

How do you pronounce "Nahuatl" in German? — kwami (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

[ʔatsˈteːkɪʃ]. Seriously, I've never heard a German say this word. Duden's Aussprachewörterbuch gives [naˈu̯atl] but labels it a Spanish pronunciation. +Angr 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I was wondering if it would get a [v]. There's a debate on eo-wiki how to transcribe it; IMO it should clearly be navatla as eo conflates [v] and [w] as de and ru do, but some people want naŭatla because of the orthography, or maybe because a lot of en- & fr-speakers try to 'correct' eo by introducing a /w/. — kwami (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

[naˈu̯atl] is about as close as you'll get for German. certainly more than accurate enough for a dictionary or encyclopedia entry.--Kudpung (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung. I was under the impression that most monolingual Germans would have trouble with a [w] sound at the onset of a syllable. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

They do. [naˈʋatl̥] is the only pronunciation I remember to have heard (seldom enough, though) – I'm from a region where the Standard German [v] is pronounced as [ʋ]. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Danke! — kwami (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It is true, and as for no-one...

try putting "world cup finals 2010" into Google, and note the 120 thousand no-ones.

Note the second sentence of the article for the current tournament, this ("The first round of the finals began in Group A, where Italy were held 1–1 by Bulgaria") from the 86 article you linked to. Kevin McE (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You try putting "world cup finals 2010" into Google and seeing how many of those 120 thousand hits refer to the actual finals coming up on July 11. 95% of them? 99%? But the main point is that even if one person in 120,000 does refer to the entire tournament as the finals, it is extremely misleading to write [[1986 FIFA World cup|finals]] so that the reader just sees the word "finals" linked without knowing where the link is going to take him until he clicks on it. It's a complete violation of the principle of least surprise, not to mention being unfair to those users who are reading the article offline and therefore don't have a link to follow. They will have no idea what's being talked about. It's confusing and totally unnecessary to write "finals" in the article rather than saying explicitly what we're talking about. +Angr 19:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Name change

Hi, thanks very much for that tip. I'm a bit confused, though. The page on changing usernames has this to say: "Once you have been renamed, your old account will no longer exist and could be recreated by a third party. To guard against impersonation, you may wish to recreate the old account yourself and make redirects." I see that the redirects are already in place, although I didn't make them myself – I assume they were made automatically as part of the renaming. So am I safe with the redirects in place? Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Those are just page redirects, but the user name itself is still available for registering. Someone could appropriate the name and then make regular user pages out of the redirects. +Angr 15:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks again for the help. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 16:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)