User talk:Umofomia/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


← Archive 2 Archive 3

This archive consists of older conversations I've had with other users (including those that appear on their talk pages) from June 2005 to December 2006. Entries are ordered by the date of the last comment.


Issues around mainland China and Republic of China

Thanks so much for your help during the discussion on naming conventions on China-related issues. The ArbCom case that I was involved in was closed, and it's not likely it would be considered to reopen it on technical grounds. (It was closed when there were four support and one oppose vote, i.e. less than the required four net support votes.) After all these, I'd like to know your opinion how on mainland China- and Republic of China-related issues should be dealt with, and how the naming conventions can be implemented and enforced. — Instantnood 15:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Instantnood 23:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem seems to be coming back already.. anyways.. Enjoy the Wikibreak. :-) — Instantnood 18:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Diglossia page

Please check if standard Hindi shows a diglossia with its local dialects (such as Bhojpuri, considered by some linguists as a language) or not. If so, please add it on the diglossia page.Cygnus_hansa 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Magicalsaumy 06:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Diglossia

Hello Umofomia. Would you consider the case of Cantonese and Mandarin in Hong Kong, and probably in Macao and Guangdong Province, an example of diglossia? I understand that the relationship between Cantonese and Mandarin is not as close as Swiss German to Standard German, and Cantonese is used in formal occassion such as council meetings, TV news and at law courts. (But Vernacular Chinese, which is closely related to Standard Mandarin, is the written standard.)

And by the way is it true that French was once considered superior to English in England at some point of history, that the nobles spoke French instead of English? — Instantnood 14:47, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Instantnood 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Was French the language used among the royal members and nobility, as in the case within the palaces of other European nations? — Instantnood 11:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Replied 08:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks anyways. :-) — Instantnood 13:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Standard Cantonese

Posted on User talk:HenryLi 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (corrected 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC); corrected 08:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

The list is not authority source about on Cantonese term. As the author mentioned in the introduction ([1]), "本人將隨時把蒐集到的詞語補充進來。". It is just a compiled list from several books. Is it possible to told who first suggests 蚊 is a loan word of money? How accurate is the soruce? Some other authors suggested other origin. 蚊, unlike the others, is not clearly a loan word. It is nothing good to introduce something uncertain to wikipedia.
For a serious work on a language, IPA should used be throughout the passage. Language journels are transcribed in IPA no matter that they are published in Western world, China, and elsewhere. It is the common "language" among linguist. Romanisation scheme is good for general use but not for serious linguistic article. It is far too inaccurate. For example, for a person not well-trained in jyutping, zi is mistakenly pronounced as /zi/, not /tsi/ as expected.
Moreover, as you mentioned there is no common transcription for standard Cantonese. For many foreigners learn their Cantonese based on Yale system. On the contrary, a loose system introduced by Hong Kong Government is widely used as the transcription system in Hong Kong. For Chinese dictionaries, S. L. Wong transcription is employed . It is worth to noted that the manual of style suggests IPA for ease of understanding. I know there are some advocates of jyutping adding the jyutping transcription and deleting the IPA one over Cantonese related topics, but the act violates the official policy. — HenryLi (Talk) 15:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Replied 06:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply on User talk:HenryLi by Instantnood 13:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've responded at user talk:HenryLi. — Instantnood 13:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuous and progressive aspects

Posted on User talk:Ruakh 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong, China

Please be informed there's currently a non-binding straw poll on whether an article specifically focuses on the designation (in other words, terminology) should exist, at talk:Hong Kong. — Instantnood 17:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Instantnood 00:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to say that, and you don't have to agree with my position. The above was just meant to be a mere invitation, regardless of what your position might be. I was not soliciting for support (nor objections) by sending such invitations. :-D — Instantnood 13:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Replied 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Academic Celebrity

With regard to Stata Center and Richard Stallman you wrote:

> (although he has an office there, he's not an academic celebrity)

According to this logic, however, neither is Tim Berners-Lee. I think you need to address this inconsistency or revert it to the way it was for the sake of simplicity.

thanks.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.30.24.68 (talkcontribs) 22:27, 18 June 2006

Replied on User talk:128.30.24.68 01:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Berners-Lee is plainly recognized for founding and running the W3C (an industry consortium). His celebrity status is not derived from the academy, much like Stallman. However, if we are to use your definition that a celebrity who publishes is an academic celebrity, then RMS qualifies as well:
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6255
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=800209.806466&coll=portal&dl=ACM&idx=SP946&part=series&WantType=proceeding&title=Proceedings%20of%20the%20ACM%20SIGPLAN%20SIGOA%20symposium%20on%20Text%20manipulation%20&CFID=11111111&CFTOKEN=2222222
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1083985
The man wrote gcc for crying out loud. The gcc spec alone is worthy of academic celebrity.
I recommend that you either label them all academic (or otherwise) celebrities for the sake of brevity and simplicity, or distinguish each of them for their opera. Right now, its just an awkward and inconsistent mess.--128.30.24.68 15:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I fixed it.--128.30.24.68 15:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Replied 03:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Aymara language

Posted in User talk:Rikdzin 04:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism

Posted on User talk:Ideogram 06:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cantonese vowel chart

Posted on User talk:IceKarma 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I just double-checked the source material I used to create that chart, and it lists [a]. If you can provide me information that says otherwise, I'd be happy to change it. IceKarma 08:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Replied 09:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Replied 09:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Did you go to MIT? So did I! (you can reply to me here, I'll watchlist you) Ideogram 06:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Ideogram 09:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply by Ideogram 09:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Replied 09:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply by Ideogram 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Replied 09:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ten thousand years reversion

Posted on User talk:Sumple 06:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply by Sumple 09:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They've killed the List of famous failures in science and engineering! You Bastards!!

Mmx1 is taking the fight that I have over the F-14 and F-111 to the failure page, and he has nominated them for deletion. The wiki-thugs are all voting to delete the page. Mmx1 has reversed the F-14 page to state that it is not, and has never been designed as a maneuverable air superiority fighter, and is not accepting any contrary citations up to and including a F-14 test pilot, Janes Defence, and Aviation Week. He is apparently taking revenge against other pages. Please go to the deletion page and tell the administrators what is going on. Look at the patterns of MMx. He regular accuses others of gross misinformation and summarily reverts most edits as a self-appointed judge of all truth, but in fact should not be allowed this leeway. --matador300 10:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

1st Preliminary meeting of Wikimedia Hong Kong