User talk:Gilgamesh~enwiki

proto-semitic affricates

are you sure about this? it's not in keeping with a bunch of references that i've seen. Benwing 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary has a Proto-Semitic phonemes chart that specifics alveolar affricates and alveolar laterals. The emphatic alveolar lateral may or may not have also been an affricate (this can be noted), but it would make sense considering that both its Hebrew and early Arabic descendants were affricates. - Gilgamesh 07:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

are you sure the early arabic descendant was an affricate? wikipedia used to say so because i put that in; but i recently discovered i was mistaken, when i tried to verify this -- all sources clearly described it as fricative, not affricate. This is why Daad and Dhaal merged in dialects that preserved the interdental fricatives; the pronunciation with emphatic /d/ came about as a result of all interdental fricatives becoming dental stops. Benwing 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do what you think is best. - Gilgamesh 07:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Galwegian versus Gallovidian

Galwegian won in my perfunctory search of historical works, being 4:1 ahead over Gallovidian when I lost interest. So I moved the article back to Galwegian Gaelic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you certain the "Galwegian" references weren't about Galway? - Gilgamesh 00:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely certain ! The material in question was about Galloway and not Galway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems so counterintuitive to me. - Gilgamesh 11:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No more so than Moravian referring to Moray. I still haven't managed to find more than one writer (R. Andrew McDonald) who uses gallovidian rather than galwegian. On Google, galwegian + galway gets rather more hits than galwegian + galway, while gallovidian + galloway gets less again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Simeon and Levi in Category:Mass murderers

From my talk page:

Why did you revert this category inclusion? I'm talking about Genesis 34, where Simeon and Levi murder all the men in a town while they were sleeping after a circumcision, in revenge for Dinah's rape by Shechem. Is this not understood to be an unrighteous act? This is the only context I'd ever known it to be judged in. The category should stay. - Gilgamesh 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As I noted in the comments to my edits, I believe that just as categorizing Muhammad as a child abuser for marrying a nine-year old would be true, but unecessary and inflammatory, the Simeon and Levi categories are inappropriate. Certainly, Simeon and Levi are not known as murderers, but as founding fathers.

By the way, there is a tradition of which I am aware that Simeon and Levi's actions were justified, though inappropriate. (Since the people knew about the rape and took no action, they were accesories to the crime.) This justification, if valid, would remove their act from the category of murder.

--Eliyak T·C 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions

Hi, how have you been? Just notifying you that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew) is heating up again, this time a user is trying to change the transliterations into ultra-modern transcriptions, like KH for Het, which I strongly oppose, and you probably will as well. Please insert your 2 cents.

Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okina, again

It looks like someone removed all usage of {{okina}} with a normal typographic mark in several articles, I replaced them in Hawaii and Hawaiian language so far; but there may be more. Ryūlóng 06:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I replaced it in Kahoʻolawe. This is incomprehensible... - Gilgamesh 07:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we may be done... I can't find any more. Ryūlóng 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I found the user responsible: 72.235.2.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Ryūlóng 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You good at fixing that? I'm like a zombie right now. Besides, I put in most of the {{okina}} tags to begin with, and it was exhaustingly repetitive. X3 - Gilgamesh 08:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ardennes and Eifel

You reverted my removal of the category from the parent category of Category:Volcanoes of Luxembourg. The reason that I removed it from that category is that the articles within the category are not actually articles relating to volcanoes. For the most part, they relate to the Ardennes Offensive and the French région of Champagne-Ardennes. Consequently, by putting Category: Ardennes and Eifel in Category:Volcanoes in Luxembourg, you are implying that the région of Champagne-Ardennes is a volcanoes in Luxembourg (as are all of its towns, etc), which it is clearly not. To correctly categorise it, one should put the articles of 'Eifel' and 'Ardennes' in Category:Volcanoes in Luxembourg, as Eifel and Ardennes are volcanic regions of northern Luxembourg. Bastin 17:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then if you see that issue, make sure that it is done—move the category tags to those two subjects so that Category:Volcanoes of Luxembourg doesn't go needlessly empty. - Gilgamesh 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiberian Hebrew

Hello. Some time ago you added a Tiberian Hebrew translation/transliteration of the name Mt. Ararat to the Mt. Ararat article. There is a regular Hebrew translation, and the Tiberian Hebrew doesn't seem to add much. Is there a reason why the article needs the Tiberian Hebrew translation of the name? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because "regular" Hebrew tends to be Modern Israeli Hebrew, which is phonologically simplified. Tiberian is the more inflected vocalization prescribed by the medieval Masoretic Text (and indicated originally by niqqud in the Tanakh), and of very good usefulness to scholars. - Gilgamesh 03:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but it just looks like ʾĂrārāṭ, which just looks like English, with a bunch of accent marks to me. Tiberian Hebrew uses Latinate letters? Also, is Mt. Ararat mentioned in Tiberian Hebrew texts? Thanks for the linguistics lesson!  :-) -- Ssilvers 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a scientific transcription of the Hebrew word אֲרָרָט, for linguistic consumption, similarly to how Athênai is a scientific transcription of Classical Greek Ἀθῆναι for Athens, which is different from "Athens" or the Modern Greek Αθήνα, transcribed Athína. And yes, the "mountains of Ararat" are mentioned in Book of Genesis as where Noah's Ark sets down—the reference in the Masoretic text is הָרֵי אֲרָרָט, scientifically transcribed Hārê ʼĂrārāṭ. Mt. Ararat is named after that reference in the traditional belief that the mountain was the spot that the Bible refers to. - Gilgamesh 21:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

אֲרָרָט is what the Hebrew word says. I hate to seem obtuse, but if the Tiberian Hebrew word is the same as the Hebrew word, why do we need to express both? -- Ssilvers 02:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Because linguists often work with transcriptions, and focus on the phonology rather than deal with the writing system. Besides, Modern Hebrew words are also sometimes written with niqqud points to indicate the vowels, but Modern Hebrew pronounces them differently from the prescribed medieval pronunciation used to write the Hebrew Bible. Israeli Hebrew has five vowels and four diphthongs—the Tiberian Hebrew of the Masoretes has four schwa-quality vowels, five short vowels, seven long vowels, and no diphthongs, and nearly all diverging Hebrew dialects derive from this original canonical phonology given regular mutation. Israeli Hebrew would take the same snippet of Hebrew text and render it "Ararat", while traditional Ashkenazi Jews would use "Arorot"—ʼĂrārāṭ is a very descriptive scientific representation of the consonants and vowels that leaves no real ambiguity as for its Masoretic form and its derivatives. - Gilgamesh 04:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, my friend. Although I'm an Ashkenazi Jew, I can't see how a pronunciation difference based on older forms of Hebrew is of any interest to a reader of the article on Mt. Ararat. However, I'm no scholar, so I yield to you, if you think it is of interest to readers to give both the transliteration of medieval Hebrew and the modern Hebrew translation. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm very glad I came across this conversation. For quite a while, I've been bothered by articles which offer the Tiberian version of a word, and it appears to be nothing more than another style of transliteration. And I registered that confusion at Talk:Tiberian vocalization. But this conversation has shed new light on it. If I'm understanding Gilgamesh correctly, Tiberian is a more complex (perhaps more nuanced would be a better term) way of pronouncing Hebrew than modern non-scholars are used to, and the many articles which had bothered me are attempting to show those differences. But that is NOT the impression which I get from the article on Tiberian vocalization. I would like to suggest that Gilgamesh should take the above paragraph ("Because linguists often work with transcriptions...") and rework it a bit and add it to the Tiberian article. Even better, take a quote from an article, and explain it. For example, the article Jacob begins with "Standard Yaʿaqov Tiberian Yaʿăqōḇ". Could you explain, in non-technical language, the differences in how "Yaʿaqov" and "Yaʿăqōḇ" sound. (Some transliterations specify the IPA scheme, or some other. Is that what's happening here?) --Keeves 23:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFD

I have nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Canaanite languages, a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject, for deletion. You are welcome and invited to share your views at WP:RFD/Log/2006-10-16. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Victoria Island

I've removed the "devided regions" category from the article. I don't think that it really fits. If you look at Category talk:Divided regions#Divided regions - an outline #2 i indicates that the division of sovereign states would not really be included. If Victoria is included in the category then why not the rest of the NWT/Nunvaut split area or indeed all of Canada? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

about Greek place names

Hello Gilgamesh. Congrats for all the Wiki work you're doing. Apparently you're into Hebrew very much, but I think you were also one of the main contributors (the creator?) of the entry Greek place names, which is great. However I left a comment last week which had no answer, so I thought I would talk to you personally about it. It's not that a big deal, just a little bit of discussion. Let me copy my question below:

["America" doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for inclusion in this list (...) Adam 03:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)...]

Well, "America" is just one example of the problem. But the same issue is raised by a number of other forms in the list, such as Australia Αὐστραλία, Hamburg Ἁμβοῦργον, Berlin Βερολῖνον, Bloemfontein Μπλουμφοντέïν, Καμπέρα Canberra, Καζακστάν Kazakhstan, and so on and so forth. What's the point in having these names (and many others) in this list, esp. the supposedly Ancient Greek column?! OK it's great fun to imagine Plato or Homer saying 'Kasdakstán' [and perhaps Βῶρατ ‘Borat’ ;-) ], but as far as encyclopaedic accuracy is concerned, I find it problematic to introduce fake ancient names that just never existed. Do you see what I mean? Needless to say, the rest of the list is great, and incredibly useful; and of course, having ancient names listed for Ireland, Aethiopia, Caucasus…, is perfectly OK, since these words appear as early as Herodotus or Plato (even Homer for Aethiopia!), if I remember well. Womtelo 15:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me add one line: I'm not even sure the inclusion of these names is justified by their use in Modern Greek either, at least in those cases when they are no more than a phonemic transcription of the vernacular or international form (exception = Berolinon). Otherwise the list should include all names of countries, capitals, important cities, and so on, which would be just too much. [interested people should visit the Greek wp in that case].

I hope you get my point. Cheers, Womtelo 14:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that the "ancient" column is not all that ancient. It also covers Attic Greek (which continued to have literary and academic value and continues to have religious value) and Katharevousa (which is an intentional archaism that was the official language of Greece, until only a few decades ago). It is still of academic interest. As for America, Australia, Kazakhstan, etc., they are places today that have significant Greek expatriate communities. Kazakhstan especially—the ancient Greek communities on the former Soviet Black Sea coast were all but completely deported to Kazakhstan by Stalin. Also, sorry I never gave a reply about Hebrew, I can't even remember what your comment was about or when. I've been having real life to deal with. - Gilgamesh 17:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I got your point, however I still have some reservations about several of these names (e.g. does Bloemfontein really have a significant Greek community?); and also about the Katharevousa transcription. For example, as far as I know, the transcription of /ζ/ as [sd] corresponds to a very ancient state of Attic phonology; as early as κοινη times (see Zeta), this phoneme had already evolved into [dz] or more probably [z]; and obviously Katharevousa does not have such a pronunciation. Even if I understand the difference between phonetics and transliteration, I find it problematic to transcribe a place name of the XXth century like Kazakhstan using transliteration conventions that date 25 centuries back in time (Kasdakstan). Note that /ζ/ is just one example, then there is also the issue of iotacism, and more generally the choice of an archaic, Pericles'-time spelling to transliterate place names that are not even pronounced that way in modern katharevousa -- e.g. modern terms Ινδονησία Indonēsía or Μικρονησία, Mikronēsía, which have always been pronounced [-nisia] since their creation; likewise Μπλουμφοντέïν transcribed with an aspirated [ph], although such consonants turned into constrictives about two millennia ago. What I would have chosen probably is to leave the Attic column blank for those names that are clearly too modern to be compatible with an archaic-like transliteration. Anyway... [incidentally, I never wrote to you about Hebrew, you misunderstood my sentence]. cheers, Womtelo 20:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For starters, Bloemfontein is one of the three capitals of South Africa, a country with a significant Greek immigrant community. Whether Bloemfontein itself has a significant Greek population is something I can't recall, but it seemed relevant on a national level—even Greek South African citizens go to Bloemfontein for supreme court matters. Also, I am not inflexible, and I could understand /ζ/ being retransliterated to /z/ (and to /zz/ after a vowel). Similarly, I could understand /ξ/ being retransliterated to /x/, and I would also probably not object to /χ/ being retransliterated to /ch/. However, even Katharevousa and the modern Greek Orthodox Church kept full polytonic orthography, including markings no longer pronounced for millennia. These systems (either only recently discontinued or still used together, depending on field) intentionally preserve archaisms in their writing. As such, leaning towards detail, I would still transcribe aspir as /h/, /η/ as /ē/, /ω/ as /ō/, /ευ/ as /eu/, /φ/ as /ph/, etc., and this is to be understood as a detail-preserving systematic transcription and not necessarily a modern phonetic realization, and therefore the context should be clear. Considering that archaisms in Classical Greek phonology were still carried into these modern systems either demonstrates that the standards themselves are frivolous, or that it is not at all frivolous to reflect the same amount of detail in our academic transcriptions. Since I am in no position to judge the frivolity of any surviving modern uses of polytonic orthography, I am inclined to believe that there is no harm in keeping these highly-detailed transcriptions the way they are. - Gilgamesh 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gilgamesh. Because our discussion I think is of interest for the readers of the specific topic 'List of traditional Greek place names', I've copied it into the Talk page of that topic. Cheers, Womtelo 16:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I noticed you were the one who originally added the Hebrew name to the Sidon article. There's a current discussion about this at Talk:Sidon#Hebrew name...would you be able to have a look? Thanks, Khoikhoi 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks (and for adding the Phoenician name as well). That was very interesting. Speaking of which, perhaps you could check out my comment at Talk:Phoenician languages? :-) Thanks, Khoikhoi 00:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lake Superior

Hello. What is the source for the statement that the Midcontinent Rift was formed during the Paleoproterozoic era? The sources indicate that the rift occurred c. 1,100 million years ago. Regards, Kablammo 01:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A minor mistake. I'll change it to Mesoproterozoic. - Gilgamesh 06:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Kablammo 12:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew request

Hi. I saw that you did the original hebrew translation on the article about Aaron, and I'm looking for someone to verify something I have is correct. I've been told that hebrew in standard written form is not necessarily precisely like its printed form, and I'm trying to find the more standard written form of the name Aaron. What I've managed to find is here: http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r87/nosferotu2/aaron.jpg.

That name is not Aaron at all. I don't think it's even a name. It looks like an inflected verb of some kind. Its academic transcription is ʼēlệḵā, probably with stress on the second-to-last syllable. - Gilgamesh 08:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Double Redirect

Hi,

You created a double redirect on the Mt. Holly, New Jersey page which I fixed. I assume you already know that wikipedia shouldn't have double redirect but still letting you know anyway. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 13:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Osher

This page redirects to Asher, though I'm not sure why (perhaps an alternative spelling?). There is apparently an American mathematician called Stanely Osher - do you think it should redirect there instead, or perhaps be a disambiguation page? Richard001 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation. Osher is a common Ashkenazi variation of Asher. - Gilgamesh 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Szechuan vs Sichuan

Check out Talk:Szechuan_cuisine. The debate has been reopened. The monster is out again! Read what I've had to say. Djwatson 05:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dellys

Hi, while cleaning up categories for WikiProject Volcanoes, I noticed that you had added the Category:Volcanoes of Algeria to the article Dellys. That was a long time ago, September 2004, but did you have any reference or source for any volcanic activity in or near this town? I can't find any evidence, so I am planning to remove the category tag from Dellys, which would also make Category:Volcanoes of Algeria empty and subject to deletion shortly. I've never heard of any volcanoes in Algeria. Please provide some reference for this claim of volcanism. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My source was User:Mustafaa who came from the region. Please consult with him for more precise sources. - Gilgamesh 18:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits

I am not going to revert your addition, but I am thinking that someone else might, as it constitutes something called Original Research. Your views cannot be included, which is a mistake that a lot of users make. Everything in Wikipedia is from outside sources. We just put it all tohether. Of course, if you had written a review of the film and had it published in an Reliable Source, we could indeed include it, but as it is not sourced, it will probably be removed. I am sure you are familiar with these rules, since you seem to have been at this since '04. If you revert yourself, you can ask on the article's Discussion Page about what needs work or simply ask for help there. Cheers, -Arcayne 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't really intend to get that deep into it. I just thought it worth mentioning. Besides, they were never really my views...I'd read about it and seen it in documentaries for years. I'd have to dig up more to find concrete sources to cite. Oh, and please don't condescend. - Gilgamesh 18:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Found you in the gay wikipedian category

I'm gay to,well mostly.Lookin for more friends,if interested contact me. (Natthegreat 09:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC))