User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 3

Archives
– July 2006 – September 2006

Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece

I saw you're interested in the project! Well, it's now open and it is waiting for volunteers! In (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Greece) you'll see what I've done and what is left to be done according to my opinion. I tried to set a basic plan of work, but I was very tired to go into details. Right now I feel exhausted! Please, check the page and the talk page, and I think you'll find areas for contribution and creativity. Make your suggestions and additions, express your thoughts, your critics and anything else you feel appropriate. I believe that through co-operation we'll find our way. I think the most important thing is to keep the project alive and imrove its quality and its importance. If possible, spread the news and recruit other users. I'll come back, when I'll feel less tired! Cheers!--Yannismarou 17:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What is commonly accepted about the ancient Macedonians

Please have a look at Ulrich Wilcken's Alexander der Große or Griechische Geschichte im Rahmen der Altertumsgeschichte, and Egon Friedell's Kulturgeschichte Griechenlands, and maybe you'll see where I'm coming from when I say "commonly accepted". They're all German sources and it will be easy for them to find them. Skip to the section of ancient Macedonia. The last one is worth a read in any case. I'm not making up my edits. Miskin 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article itself only a few sentences further down (or was it further up?) contains well documented views that contradict that hypothesis, which makes it exactly not "commonly accepted". And as long as the dissenting views are held by people as preeminent in the field as Borza, like it or not, there is no reason to play them down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wilcken and Friedell are by far more preeminent by Borza, the only setback is that they're not as recent. O. Masson, Lane Fox and Hammond on the other hand, are alive and kicking, and much more mainstream than Borza. It's probably some 1-5 support against Borza's thesis, hence the "majority". My claim is also verified by the Britannica article (which I can cite for you). Miskin 11:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I still can't see how that would support "commonly", even if your assessment of the relative positions of these people in their field is correct (which I cannot judge right now). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Check talk:Eugene Borza (plagiarized bio). He's been categorized as a category:Romanian-Americans. If that is true (is it?) can he be considered 'third party' or 'non-partisan'? His name flashes everywhere in the worst blogs I've ever seen for once... •NikoSilver• 12:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what his ethnic background or his political bias would be. He's entitled to have it, just like anybody else. Why would only a "third-party" scholar count here? He is evidently a respected and prolific author in the field; if the Macedonian nationalist websites have been taking him hostage that's not his fault. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, I didn't mean to imply he is biased. I just asked if you know. I am sure we can't list all those Greek (Greek-American or whatever) prominent scholars that appear in Google scholar as 'non-partisan', so why can we treat a Romanian (if he is) differently? He still can be the NPOVest person in the world. Anyway, about the blog thing, you're right. But how do we know for a fact that he is prominent? I did my search and haven't found anything. Maybe you could direct me somewhere, since you're in the field... •NikoSilver• 13:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to rewrite this. Miskin 12:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[Rest of comment moved further down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)]

Thanks FP! I am sure you'll make it as neutral as possible...NikoSilver 20:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, sorry, my refactoring was misleading. The above promise to "rewrite this" was actually Miskin's, not mine. And I must disappoint you, I really don't feel like seriously entering the Macedonian topics. Don't think I'll find the time and energy any time soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. having seen the discussion, thought to drop some lines as well. i think it is a blatant POV-pushing to dispute the mainstream opinion about the Ancient Macedonians. a minority of scholars indeed dispute them having been Greek. however, the majority should prevail, and the thoughts of the minority should be presented in a paragraph in that article, and not in everything linked to the ancient Macedonians (e.g. Ancient Macedonian language, which is listed as a Greek dialect, as related to Greek or as unrelated at all). there are minority opinions in almost every wikipedian article (e.g. Armenian Genocide, Graeco-Armenian language, September 11 attacks, etc etc-i can think of many many more articles...). but in no other case the opinion of a minority has been promoted that much as in the case of the Ancient Macedonians! just because some users do not want to see the ancient Macedonians as Greek, it does not mean that all the related articles should be in a mess... In no case am i talking about a censorship, of course. i am saying that every opinion should take the place it diserves, based on the evidence, references and appeal it has. And the most widely accepted theory is that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Regards Hectorian 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, from all I can see from those portions of the literature I've had access to until now (mind you, that's mostly the linguistic angle, not the historical one), I'm not convinced of your assessment that the non-Greek view is a clear minority, let alone such an insignificant one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you don't have the energy, but your position seems certain. Care to point out which other neutral portions of literature maintain this opinion (even by a linguistic angle)? I mean, if it's just Borza, then he clearly is the minority, both in prominence and in ...population. •NikoSilver• 21:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My position certain? Well, let's say, it's certainly agnostic on the issue. As for the linguistic literature: The article quotes Antoine Meillet as a proponent of a non-Greek view. That alone is an absolute showstopper. Look him up, a view endorsed by that guy can almost by definition never be non-mainstream. More or less every linguistic reference work I've ever seen has retained an agnostic or skeptical view of XMK-Greek unity. Horrocks (1997), my favourite up-to-date history of Greek, has not a word endorsing XMK-Greek unity. I must admit I don't clearly remember the position taken by Brixhe/Panayiotou (1994) - I read it years ago. The most advanced treatment I've recently come across is the article by Garrett (1999) that I quoted in the XMK article. He basically declares the question moot. Good read, but very technical. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

From the respective article: the 5th century lexicon of Hesychius of Alexandria, amounting to about 700 words and proper names. Most of these are confidently identifiable as Greek, but some of them are not easily reconciled with standard Greek phonology. Many more info is there as well. the theory of Anc.Mac. not been a greek dialect is a minority opinion, not to mention a very recent one (just a century old theory). If u have studied linguistics that much, u will have seen that many of the differences between Macedonian and Attic are identical with the diffs between Aeolian and Attic... However, noone has ever dared to say that the Aeolians were not Greek (i am afraid that this with also happen some day...). in addition, minority opinions also exist (surprisingly originating from the same country) suggesting that the Greeks are sub-saharans and that the Bulgarians are not Slavs, but Mongols... Letting the articles about the Ancient Macedonians being so confusing (i doubt if in the end, the reader will understand which is the mainstream opinion and which is not), will gradually lead in making Wikipedia less informative, in the name of NPOV (apparently, this is not what NPOV means). Presenting a minority opinion is encyclopedic, but giving it the same validity with the majority is not. --Hectorian 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not the place and time here to discuss whether you or I find this or that piece of evidence convincing. It's just about our perceptions what is mainstream in scholarship, and I can only repeat, my perception of that is very different from yours. And I'm not talking about cheap nationalist websites. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that neither u nor me are talking about cheap nationalist websites. we are just making a discussion. as i see in that article, 8 scholars claim it to be Greek (A.Fick, O.Hoffmann, Kretschmer, E. Schwyzer, M. Sakellariou, N.G.L. Hammond, O. Masson, Ahrens, F. H. L.) and 4 consider it to be non Greek (K. O. Müller, G. Bonfante, I. I. Russu, A. Meillet - without this meaning that these 4 agree with each other...), without including ancient and/or medieval sources, but only modern ones! In this form, the majority of the article's sources justify my point. if u, or anyone else have valid sources to favour the other position, it would be interesting those to be added. but in the current state, the article seems to contrantict itself, that's why i am thinking of tagging it. --Hectorian 22:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, scholarly consensus is not a majority vote, let alone a majority vote between just those authors who happen to have been quoted here. Unless someone comes up with massive amounts of additiona material, the names quoted clearly offer only one reasonable result: in Wikipedia jargon, no consensus. Why the hell not just leave it at that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There would be many reasons for me not leaving it just like that... from the fact that i am a Greek living in Thessaloniki, to the fact that it is unencyclopedic and 'rude' for the readers forcing them believe that majority=minority and that a minority opinion should be mentioned as a fact (cause, yes, my friend, a minority opinion has led this article to be in fact 'disputed'). That's why, i think that two templates (Template:Contradict and Template:Confusing) are the suitable for that. Hectorian 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What the? Sorry, but this makes me almost angry. What has the fact that you are a Greek living in Thessaloniki to do with ancient linguistics? And how on earth does the article present a "minority opinion" as "fact"? First, you haven't proven it's a minority opinion in the first place, and second it's not presenting it as fact but simply as one serious opinion among others. Which is absolutely appropriate. I very strongly object to your two templates, there's nothing either self-contradictory nor confusing about taking the opinions of some of the greatest linguists of the 20th century seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say that i study linguistics in Thessaloniki, and the fact that i am Greek makes it easier to me to find the similarities between the ancient Greek dialects. A minority opinion has led this article to present 'dispute of classification' as a fact. i think i have proven it's a minority opinion from the references in that article (note again: only modern references). I am not saying that it is not a serious opinion, nor that these linguists are not important. i am just saying that they must have a specific section where their theories will be fully explained, without making their presence in the lead as valid as the opinions of the modern-day majority (and apparently the opinions that have been all-times majority). --Hectorian 23:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Chill! :-) Both of you! Hey, FP, I'm from Paxi, does this count? :-) Back to business: I thought there was a third language hypothesis: that it was a sister (not daughter) language of Greek, from Proto-Greek. So we have 12 refs? What's the tally of sister/daughter/alien? •NikoSilver• 23:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any problem with Future Perfect at Sunrise and i am sorry if i made him 'almost angry':). it is a just difference of opinion. I believe that in the current state, the general meaning of the article is: 'it is commonly accepted that noone is sure about the classification of the ancient Macedonian language', despite of the majority of sources and references. certainly, this is not what the majority of scholars have and still think... Regards to both --Hectorian 23:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it helps, FP had found a decent solution for the infobox, and someone just had to go ahead and change it... •NikoSilver• 23:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that Borza was a Romanian-American, but I could always smell a bias. Someone who concentrates so much on an ethnic debate cannot be coming from a neutral background. A Romanian-American cannot be considered less non-partisan than a Greek-American (see Macedo-Romanians or Phanariotes to get the picture). In any case, his work has not been criticised as biased so we don't have the right to treat it as such. However we don't have the right to give him more credit than other scholars either. Lane Fox, Hammond, Masson (a preeminent linguist) and many from the German school are definitely the mainstream scholars on the topic. There have been hundreds of other theories on the origin of XMK but none of them have gained substantial support (if any). I'm not asking to ignore them, I'm only asking to give priority to the more popular ones (which is definitely not Borza's). The greater part of the current article was compiled by Alexander_007 (coincidence: another Romanian-American) who used Borza as his principal source, along with a good deal of OR to fill the gaps. Make your own conclusions. Miskin 12:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Borza was a historian, not a linguist. I'm talking here of the debate about the linguistic classification of XMK, not of the ethnic/cultural character of the Macedonians. Two different kettles of fish. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem! i also lost my temper and that's why some of my comments had been somehow 'poisonous'... Sorry... But in anycase, thanks to yours and the work of the rest of us, this article is better now. That is quite an achievement, no?:). Ciao Hectorian 05:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles on Greek language and Greek dialects

Your initiative to rename Category:Hellenic languages and dialects and generally to make categorization for articles on Greek language and Greek dialects more systematic and not sircular is highly useful. Another possible renaming would be that of Category:Hellenic scripts to Category:Greek scripts. Also, there is an incosistency concerning the heading and the content of articles on Greek dialects. This incosistency, of course, is a matter not only of Wikipedia but of their linguistic analysis too. I firmly believe that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy. But Greek dialects are generally known as dialects and not languages. This has nothing to do with purely linguistic criteria, mutual intelligibility or whatever. The sole reason is that they lack an army and a navy. But that's how there are generally refered to. What is more, there isn't consistency in Wikipedia between heading and content. So, Pontic language (heading) is (first line of the article) "a Greek dialect ". On the other hand, Cypriot Greek mentions nothing at its heading for its status. In my opinion, Pontic, for example, or Tsakonian would, on linguistic grounds, easily qualify for a language status. But, whatever our choice, we have to be consistent. This problem is also mirrored in the greek wikipedia, where it is also unresolved. Maybe we can do something about it. --Michkalas 13:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use the word "Hellenic" - I hate that pretentious word. Use the word "Greek". --Telex 14:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. Let's use article titles that steer clear of the silly language-dialect issue, which is really a non-issue in the case of Greek. For the purpose of Wikipedia article naming and categorisation, let's just have Greek language as a single-language unit, with several subarticles for its different standard forms (Classical, Koine, Modern etc.), and all the rest treated on a par, as dialects. Leave whatever discussion of seperate language status might be necessary (Pontic, Tsakonian etc) to the article text. I'm currently quite busy working on the main series of articles for Modern and Classical Greek, which need restructuring. We can tackle the minor varieties articles later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Greek language. I believe Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template should be followed.--Michkalas 18:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Greek language article series (2)

Let me first of all say and stress as much as possible that you are doing very serious work and you are really spending a lot of time to reoraganize Greek language article series. Greek language articles prove to be a hard issue. I had the chance -because I contribute mainly to Greek Wikipedia- to read the archive in Talk:Greek language and see the "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" attitude of most Greeks. There was also someone insisting that there is a dative case in Modern Greek! There was a determination too to include as many "Greek language is the first that..." as possible and then fill the "that-clause" part with whatever convenient.

Now, as to the detailed proposal you make. My feeling is that the content of "Greek language" article you propose can be fully merged to "Modern Greek language". "Modern Greek language" can and should be a lenghty article. The "Greek language" article you propose is, in fact, minus the language infobox, a sketch of "History of Greek language", which (the sketch) will fit nicely in the "MG lg" article. If we try to write the "history" section or other parts of the "MG language" article as you propose it, we will see that there we need the same kind and amount of information intended for the "Greek language" article. What is more, the language infobox is designed for the modern, living languages. This comes to the conclusion that "Greek lg" and "MG lg" should be one article and "History of Greek language" another one with a more detailed account of the language, the alphabet and the demographics of it's speakers. Because of the importance of the History part in the Greek language we can modify the template proposal by putting the "History of G lg" section after the "classification" and "geographic distribution" part, instead of putting it at the end (this is also the way things are arranged at Portuguese language, a featured article). I don't know, do you believe that "Greek language" article can have significantly more or different information than a comprenhensive "MG language" article?

Finally, I also believe we need both a Category:Varieties of Ancient Greek and Category:Varieties of Modern Greek. The "History of Greek language" infobox is also straightforward without the hide/show option.

BTW, the other users who have expressed their opinion back in June don't seem to follow this conversation so far. Maybe we have to ask them to do so.--Michkalas 10:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would definitely be nice if we could get input from the others again (and I'm saying this not only because they were supporting "my" position :-) ) - Right now it looks like almost evenly divided, with you, Peter Isotalo and Adreas on the one side versus dab, Miskin, Macrakis and me on the other. Perhaps we need to make a handy comparison of the two models so that outsiders understand the issues better. It would also help to see what, according to your model, needs actual changing in comparison to now. Basically, your suggestion means to leave the scope of Greek language more or less as is. That leaves us with the following issues: What to do with the current Modern Greek article - merge completely into Greek language? Or merge only a summary part of it into Greek language and expand the rest into a new (Modern) Greek dialects article? It currently has the varieties-and-sociolinguistic things about Modern Greek, but not the structural sketch things. Apart from that, I guess we'd only need to rename some of the subarticles to make the naming consistent - in particular, we should move the current Greek dialects to Ancient Greek dialects to make place for a new one.

I'm still not happy that on "your" model, we'll never have separate, easily disambiguated link targets for "Greek as a whole", "Greek, specifically ancient" and "Greek, specifically modern". Let's say, as a silly example, that in an article on Polygamy I wanted to write: "the term polygamy comes from the Greek word γαμώ 'to marry'". Now, that link leads the reader to an article that is essentially about a language where γαμώ means something rather different. ;-) Or even worse (though even less seriously): Imagine I wanted to write the following: "The term polygamy comes from the Greek word "γαμώ", which means 'to marry' in Ancient Greek but 'to f..k' in Modern Greek." Ρε γ... το, οn your proposal, the first and the third link would necessarily go to the same article, which would be confusing to readers. We have these kinds of confusion now in many instances, I think.

As for the categories, I think that should be uncontroversial, we can just go ahead and do it if you feel it's a good idea.

The show/hide buttons in the navigation box were just an experiment of mine, I liked them because they made the thingie smaller. We have so many infoboxes in these articles already. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Just to give a less silly example of the problem outlined above: Hypothetical text from an article about Cyrillic: "The Cyrillic letter Θ (Fita, [f]) occurs in words borrowed from Greek containing the letter Θ, which was pronounced [tʰ] in Ancient Greek but [θ] in Modern Greek." - Again, we really need three different link targets here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to make clear what exactly I mean. All the content, in my opinion, of Modern Greek can be merged with Greek language. The "Evolution from Ancient to Modern Greek" section can be summarized for the history section of the "Greek language" and/or be added as it is in "History of Gr language". An article such as Modern Greek dialects is still possible and should be created only if it is to contain significantly more information than the section in MG article. Greek dialects, I agree,clar should become Ancient Greek Dialects with a disambiguation page for "Greek dialects". (BTW, the confusion you mention with "γαμώ" and Θ is possible, more or less, eitherway)--Michkalas 11:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Greek language article series (3)

[thread moved from further up]

Concerning the Greek language, I believe in "if you want something done, do it yourself". This consensus has been going on for some months and the majority is clearly in favour of the reformation, so there's no point to await any longer. If you agree with it as well then help me balance the two articles and consider the matter closed. Miskin 12:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I can take full responsibility for it, if someone is fanatically against it, then let him just revert back. Miskin 12:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at a few (very rough) drafts with some restructuring ideas that I put up here:

• User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Greek language
• User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Modern Greek
• User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Modern Greek phonology
• User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/History of the Greek language (Navigation infobox)
• User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Varieties of Modern Greek should follow shortly.

Also see the discussion on User talk:Michkalas and further down here on this page. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's not very different from the current condition. It only separates the Greek language historical periods into sections, and suggests a new article on Modern Greek phonology. IMHO, varieties of modern Greek should be kept in Modern Greek and there should be a separate article on Demotic Greek (standard Greek). At the moment I'm not sure what to do with all the links and references in the Greek language article. Miskin 13:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, the suggestion about "Demotic Greek" makes things even more complicated. Especially since the equation "Demotic Greek"="Standard Greek" isn't that straightforward either. You are not suggesting moving the whole system-sketch yet another step down, from "Modern Greek" into "Demotic Greek", are you? Phonology and all? I'd say, keep the central things at "Modern Greek" and treat that like other modern-language articles: System sketch about the modern standard form; summary sections about history including dialects etc., series of subarticles for details. In that sense, the "Modern Greek" article should definitely have a summary section explaining both the Katharevousa-Demotic split and giving a short discussion of the regional dialects, but then there's definitely space for sub-articles on those topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, their is no need for an article like Demotic Greek or Katharevousa. We need a section in "Modern Greek" explaining the Greek diglossia, as FPaS says, and then, after the Greek language articles series is settled, something like Greek diglossia or Greek language question for a detailed account.--Michkalas 15:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, another valid point. Demotic and Katharevousa are certainly easier to treat substantially together in a single article. We just need to make sure the many incoming links to Katharevousa and Demotic Greek are redirected to something sensible, and we don't irritate readers with having both these links side by side close together in a text when they effectively lead to the same target. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Greek language article series (4)

hm, so where is the bulk of this discussion going down? Best to keep it all in one place. Wikiproject Greek? Make sure to post a digest of any results to a permanent place, such as a Wikiproject, or a MoS page, so people joining the topic have a chance of finding them (nobody reads talk archives) dab (ᛏ) 17:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the discussion is actually now here, right above - but I had to refactor it a bit to make it more easily recoverable. See also User talk:Michkalas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Κωνσταντινούπολη

Wow! this was an excellent analysis!:). exactly what i desperately wanted to say, but cause of my lack of how and when to use english linguistic terminology, i would never had made it... (in greek it would be ridiculously easy for me:p) Hectorian 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just fishin...

...Like the bait? -> Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece#Members •NikoSilver• 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin. noticeboard

Although I'm not an admin, I've left a message on Deucalionite's talk page. Please let me know if you find another instance of plagiarism involving this editor. I am an impartial observer, who neither knows nor edits with any of the parties involved. I have also promised to request a siteban on this user if it happens again. Durova 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on Deucalionite's Talk page. His Treaty of Björkö article is very poor. --Macrakis 23:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Greco-Turkish relations

Ah yes, you simply create an image similar to the ones at Greco-Armenian relations and Armenian-Turkish relations. :) Perhaps Clevelander could make the map for you... —Khoikhoi 01:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tetrastyle

Thanks for your praise. I believe what they mean by "tetrastyle" is normally rendered in English as "four-pillared" or "four-columned" or (better still) "a church with a single dome supported on four piers". Best regards, Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Turkish name; "Selanik" for "Thessaloniki"

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise, Yes you are right. If we add all foreign names to a city there would be a huge list. But except Turkish and especially for Selanik. Selanik was an Ottoman city during several hundreds years. Cultural roots of city (like as many other Greek cities) is Turkish and Greek. There are historical relations of many hundred thousands of Turkish people with Selanik.Like me, as my grandpa born at that city.Also, Ataturk . So,.. to add Turkish name to that city is not fanatism nor vandalism. I will add again with my respects to you. Regards.

Mustafa Akalp 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Phonetics

Hi, OK about the secondary stress marks and the e̞s and o̞s. I think you may also have a point about the /c/, I mean its not like the κ in και which definitely is a /c/. It could even be something like [elini'kʲi]. --Tzekai 17:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hosios Loukas, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Spiritus Asper

I saw your revision regarding Ayin and wanted to discuss it. I take my information from the following locations:

• Ayin entry in Wikipedia - "It is usually transliterated into the Latin alphabet with ʿ, a symbol based on the Greek spiritus asper "
• [Jewish Languages Mailing List] - (Regarding various pronunciations of Ayin): "One could argue that the initial "h" was simply a transcription, akin to greek (...) spiritus asper,"
• Gesenius Hebrew Grammar - (Regarding the transliteration of 'ayin') - the LXX reproduce (ayin) by a spiritus (lenis or asper) (sic).

Given the wikipedia description and Gesenius (who is considered an expert in such things), it seems reasonable to say that the spiritus asper mark us used to represent the Hebrew 'ayin'.

Why do you disagree? --Blue Tie 18:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that spiritus asper is a diacritc, while the latin version of 'ayin is its own proper symbol. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there is a difference in how it is used. But it is still a "spiritus asper", is it not? At least that is how the literature in such things refers to it. --Blue Tie 19:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, its adoption in Latin transcription of Hebrew may certainly be based on the Greek spiritus, as the Ayin article says, but they are still distinct signs. And I can't follow you in saying "that is how the literature ... refers to it." The jewish languages discussion forum you're quoting seems to be discussing the use of the actual Latin letter "h", *not* the spiritus sign, in some pre-modern systems of rendering Hebrew. The Gesenius grammar notes that the spiritus asper corresponds in pronunciation to a different Hebrew letter (an actual /h/ sound). Where it's saying that Ayin was rendered by way of approximation in Greek by either of the two spiritus, that's different on several counts: First, we're dealing with usage in Greek, not with the usage of adopting the spiritus-based sign in Latin. Second, saying that it was rendered by either of the two spiritus basically means it wasn't rendered at all - in Greek writing, you just have to have either of the two spiritus on an initial vowel, and by the time the LXX was written these no longer made any actual phonetic difference, as far as I recall. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Can you help me out? What is the symbol (ʿ) typically called when you spell ʿayin with it? When I look it up, I find the term "spiritus asper" most frequently. And it seems right also because of the pronunciation. But evidently that is not what it is called. I know it is not called "an apostrophe" (in fact that would be the wrong mark). It seems that wikipedia in one place calls it a spiritus asper, but from what I can tell based upon your knowledge this is wrong. So I am confused. I see that both this symbol and the spiritus asper symbol are defined as "left half circle" marks. To me they both look the same and indicate similar pronunciations, the difference being that sometimes it is used in Greek and sometimes it is used in Hebrew or Arabic. But if it is not the same thing then what is it called? --Blue Tie 00:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Greece Newsletter - Issue I - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the WikiProject History of Greece newsletter has been published.

You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 07:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, welcome to the project! I didn't have the chance to welcome you earlier.--Yannismarou 07:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh hi!

Like the disguise? :)) — I'd been meaning to do this for some time anyway, now I can look cool like User:Charles Matthews, User:Jimbo Wales and all those other guys with spaces in their names! (I mean you of course!) - FrancisTyers · 11:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha, too late now :) They already did it. Maybe someone will put me up for nomination in a month or so (when I have the requisite amount of edits -- currently stands at 45) :) - Francis Tyers · 15:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the policy is to only give out adminship again through an RfA. Plus, I want to make sure that the community feels I am suitable for adminship, not just the people I work with (As much as I love you all) :) But seriously, I'd like to give it a month of editing as a normal editor. Perhaps when I come back from Serbia/Macedonia in November? - Francis Tyers · 15:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

IPA

We never agreed on what to do with the IPA on the Greece article. --Tzekai 08:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. These days, I keep hitting unto topics that need debate, and then never find the energy of actually following them through to the end. :-( As I said, I'd prefer a broad phonetic transcription on a (liberally) phonemic level. See the tables in my temporary User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Modern Greek phonology for the symbol repertoire. Instead of [c] we might also use [k̡] (k with palatalization hook) - not standard part of IPA, but quite widely used in phonological treatments of Modern Greek, or [kʲ]. Both are easier to understand for the lay reader than [c], I think, and they might actually be more exact than [c]. If you like [kʲ], then ɡʲ instead of [ɟ] would be the obvious analogous choice. The voiced stops can be [mb, nd, ndz, ŋɟ (ŋɡʲ), ŋɡ] or [b, d, dz, ɟ (ɡʲ), ɡ] according to their most common standard realisation (intervocalic or otherwise). [j] rather than [ʝ], for simplicity. Stress marked by a single [ˈ] primary stress mark. Vowels simply [a,e,i,o,u]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

List of insular languages

There's no reason to waste time and resources to let this go on in AfD. I strongly dispute your ruling, and I want a second opinion from another admin. I've seen you do this before, because I remember that pic with your sloppy long hair. Billy Blythe 12:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Answered

Hi. I've answered your questions on my talk page. Redux 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ban

Thanks for clarifying; your edits were very good. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Check your email. Miskin 13:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hey Fut.Perf, would you be able to answer a question for me? I noticed at the Trabzon article the transliteration of "Τραπεζούντα" is "Trapezoúnda", but at List of traditional Greek place names they give "Trapezoúnta". Can you tell me which one is correct? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 22:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"nt" is pronounced "nd". IMO the transliteration should be either etymological or phonetic: in the former case it would be Trapezoúnta, in the latter Trapezúnda. --Tzekai 22:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I also noticed at Names of European cities in different languages a third one, "Trapezúnda".

Also, when you type in "Trapezoúnda" -wikipedia, it seems as if you only get Wikipedia mirrors. —Khoikhoi 22:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Could well be. I think Tzekai is spot on here: "Trapezounta" (with ou and t) is a good transliteration, "Trapezunda" (with u and d) is a good phonetic transcription, "Trapezounda" is sort of in between and neither. As for the background to the "nt/nd" thing, see my draft article (still woefully incomplete) at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Modern Greek phonology. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. Nice article btw! —Khoikhoi 07:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Greek Motto

Hi. I never questioned if that phrase is the greek national motto in my whole life! but i will try to find a citation to make it clearer. Ciao Hectorian 21:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that I responded to you on my AfD. I'm curious to know what you have to say. Cheers, AdamBiswanger1 16:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin?

Now, you polyglot and Niko's compatriot, would you like to give it a try for an admin re? I thought you were one and you certainly act like one (if it quacks...).

If you disagree, I will block you for good, of course. Duja 15:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

What would you require me to do to prove that I will not be abusive again? I am prepared to accept some kind of suspended sentence if this is what you want. I have admitted I was wrong. I will try to change.--GreekWarrior 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)