User talk:Aeusoes1/Archive 3

The following is an archive of debate between various editors of Wikipedia and User:Aeusoes1 regarding the awful things he's done on Wikipedia. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on AE's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Occurrence for various sounds

Since most languages of the world have the sounds: [p], [b], [t], [d], [s], [n], and [m], I have lately been finding the occurrences of the less common sounds of the world such as [θ], etc. If we included occurrences of [m] worldwide, the list would grow to 5,000! ;) Azalea pomp 08:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Only Modern Languages

Usually I agree with you, but I don't agree that only modern languages should be included as there is no reason to exclude them other than they are extinct. Azalea pomp 09:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I just think the [ɸ] and [x] of Vedic Sanskrit should be included since those are two unusual sounds for an Indo-Aryan and in the case of [ɸ] in particular for an Indo-European language. I agree proto-languages should be excluded as well as most artificial languages. Esperanto has enough speakers where it would warrant an inclusion. Azalea pomp 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian IPA

Hi, could you help me to provide IPA transcriptions of the names of the following two Russian writers?

• Иван Алексеевич Бунин [ɪˈvan ʌlʲɪˈksʲeʲɪvʲɪtʃ ˈbunʲɪn]
• Борис Леонидович Пастернак [bʌˈris lɪʌˈnidəvʲɪtʲʃʲ pəstɪrˈnak]

I’ve already tried myself—without being an expert, as you see. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Thanks in advance! Christopher ♒ 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I think I’m never gonna figure out how palatalization in Russian exactly works. Christopher ♒ 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My Altlang

I have an Altlang, Anglisch, and I'd be hono(u)red if you checked it out.Cameron Nedland 13:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sesotho phonology

I'd like to just alert you to the fact that I've replied on my talk page.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 14:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to answering my reply, could you please also take a look at the most recent edit as well as Talk:Sesotho phonology? Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 10:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vowel tables

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. In the Australian and New Zealand dialects the same vowels are used. By having them separated you are saying that they are different when in fact they use the same vowels in both dialects, but both the vowel qualities are quite different. see Australian English Monophthong chart for the origins of these vowel positions.
It is standard practise to use [ɜ] for this vowel in Australian English, that is why I put a raised ( ̝) beneath it, indicating it is raised, this is the same case as in the RP. – Marco79 8:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The reason I'm using [ɜ] and not [ɘ] is because Australian Linguists use this symbol for this sound in AuE, but by using [ɘ] symbol we are heading into original research territory, I understand why you used it ([ɘ]), but I still have a problem with it because of where it could lead us.
2. Ok, I think I understand what are on about and I'll pick one word.
3. Same as above.

Anyway here are some more links, if your interested:

• RP English Monophthongs
• New Zealand English Monophthongs
• American English Monophthongs

– Marco79 8:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-native pronunciations of English

Thanks for your words of support! —Angr 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Russian language FAR

Russian language has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Colchicum 18:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Esperanto

On the Esperanto pieces, although I don't speak the language, I do know about how a beginner may make mistakes.

Firstly, one can get muddled especially on the <g>, <ĝ>, and <ĵ>. Take the word, “ĝangalo” meaning jungle, the ĝ is pronounced like a soft j sound and one can forget that there is a circumflex over the first g so one could pronounce it like “gan'galo” rather then “jan'galo”.

On the diphthong <eŭ>, you wrote about about <eu> which isn't an diphthong at all, an Esperanist would say the letters separately. Also, the sound comes from Belarussian, an anglophone would not have used it.

However, we both recognized that the letters <ĥ> and <c> would have problems, as they both have sounds that English doesn't use. The letter sound [ts] isn't used, I have used the symbol [ʦ] as it more widely known. 159753 16:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Better?

indeed. But then I suppose the matter of that other homophone, the one meaning women whose favors may be bought, might be raised. I'm not shy about that, but its mention might excite the nitwits, and I'd much rather they stayed asleep.

If you have some time and effort for related matters, take a look at my new suggestion for garbage reduction elsewhere. -- Hoary 08:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for converting the HTML tables of Persian consonants (for Persian language and Persian phonology) to wikitables. They actually look nice now. –jonsafari 16:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Aspiration marks in Abkhaz alphabet

I saw that you removed the aspiration marks in the table on the pronounciation of the characters of the Abkhaz alphabet. What for? Abkhaz has a three-way distinction between voiced, glotalised and aspirated consonants. sephia karta 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have Chirikba's book on Abkhaz here, I'll check it again and try to reference it. sephia karta 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

harv vs. harvcoltxt

...in this particular case, the main point is the placement of the parentheses: Blust (1999:325-329) vs. (Blust 1999, pp. 325-329). But I personally do prefer the colons over the periods... Ling.Nut 19:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rotuman

Hi thanks for your recent edits to the Rotuman language page. I started trying to add bits and pieces to give it a stronger sense of technicality, but don't have a great knowledge of linguistics, despite my knowledge of rotuman. One thing, you reference Blevins work a lot, although I understand that that document has bee superceded by this document. Let me know what you think, if you get time... thanks again --Mattbray 02:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great work you've done on Rotuman language... the page is looking most impressive!! Noa'ia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbray (talk • contribs) 09:55, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Catalan phonology and orthography

I thought a Catalan ISO specific letter was a good picture for this article. Why did you reverse?--Paco ✉ 11:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the only image of a Catalan letter available at Commons, as far as I know, and the image is there since June 2006 How can it be vandalism? How do you see it? Can you imagine a better image to illustrate this entry? What you say seems to me amazing. --Paco ✉ 14:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind. That was the idea.--Paco ✉ 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Voiceless retroflex fricative

I can't find a proper example... only things you hear in movies and such. Maybe when I have more time... I just got my new apartment on the 11th and just got the internet yesterday. I'm still unpacking. I do know, however, that the sound occurs after frontal-vowels such as /y/ because it's difficult for the mouth to move back and produce the /ç/ sound as proper German would have you say. This occurrence is especially common in every-day, rapid speech but may show up in more careful speech simply because it's more pleasing to the listener and more comfortable to the speaker.

Sorry I couldn't give you more info. I have to leave for the first day of my new job in 30 minutes. Take care! ·:RedAugust 11:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I interfere, it's also my impression that, especially in NRW (I know it from the Eifel) part of Germany people tend to produce /ç/ as [ʂ]. So at least phonetically this is true. I would've written it as [ˈbyːʂɐ] though, but I don't speak Eiflerisch myself. ;) — N-true 20:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Gilbertese

If you need any help about the Gilbertese pronounciation, do not hesitate to ask me.--Enzino 17:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

¶ on Portuguese in Standard language

Hi. I thought your edit really improved the text and the references were a nice touch. But I think the edit also blurred the boundaries between two different claims in the paragraph: (1) Lisbon speech is the "de facto" standard for European Portuguese; (2) A mix of regional southeasterns speeches is the "de facto" standard for Brazilian Portuguese. ("De facto" here as used by actors and journalists of the respective national TV channels). Its hard to keep things clear in just one paragraph, I'll give another try and perhaps you can help me? SaintCahier 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Arabic dialect

Masri is by far the most dominant in all areas of national life. While it is essentially a spoken language, it is encountered in written form in novels, plays, poems (vernacular literature) as well as in comics, advertising, some newspapers and transcriptions of popular songs.

• Zerida clearly claims its a language, thats why its has to be clear that its another Arabic dialect. look at the version Zerida keeps reverting.--Skatewalk 20:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Editorial We I Presume

How did you determine that "We" do not need justified alignment? Lycurgus 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Kabardian

Thanks. My knowledge on Kabardian is not that good, but I can go through other pages, yes. I could only say that what was written there couldn't be right, cause the spelling didn't match the IPA. Maybe I will be able to find better (and correct) example words... but this takes some time. — N-true 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

when an IPA symbol is just a ?

Where/how to figure out why an IPA symbol is just a "question mark". Is that a wiki-issue, the browser, the Mac OS? or all three. (sigh).--75.167.200.57 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? It shows up as a question mark? Maybe it's actually a question mark and somebody hasn't bothered to fix it. Can you show me an example? There's also [ʔ] which looks very much like a dotless question mark. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Haida language

Hi!

Why did you remove the three orthographies from the consonant table? I think they give valuable information and make the language more "respectable" by showing that it is written. For languages with sufficiently phonemic orthographies, this is often done in Wikipedia (compare Navajo language).

It would also be great if you could cite or link to sources or provide some discussion of your edits on the talk page.

Also, was it you who removed the tie bars from the affricates? They are required in the IPA: in phonetic transcription to show that something is an affricate, and in phonemic transcription to show that it's a single phoneme rather than a random consonant cluster. I'll put them back.

I will also immediately restore the font-family specification, which is required to make the table (including the tie bars!) legible in Internet Explorer 7 (but strangely not 6).

David Marjanović 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Polish phonology

Why are you reverting my edits? I explained the reasoning behind my changes on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.104.146 (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

underlines and IPA

1) Underlines are a way to make a link visible (so that the reader knows there is a link there). 2) Links for IPA signs, I find often useful and convenient.

So, I conclude that using something like class="nounderlines" would often be an admissible thing. Compared to having no link at all:

• no link at all: 1) is satisfied for all other links in the article; 2) is not satisfied;
• link with no underline: 1) is not satisfied for the new link, but still equally satisfied for all other links in the article; 2) is partially satisfied (well, at least a link, perhaps, not conforming to the current style; but anyway, the defalt style doesn't have underlines for links).

So I would choose to do a link with no underline. What do you think of this? Will you bear it?--Imz 17:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can bear it. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why revert my changes

Hello, I noticed you reverted my changes here, why? --203.220.170.62 01:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
PS: Answer here on your page would be best.

I was going to thank you for pointing out the inconsistancy, actually. You aptly pointed out a discrepancy but the method of having AuE and NZE (or any pair of dialects) in separate cells even when they're identical is the "newer/better" method that I've been moving towards in editing the articles. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I just wanted to know why it was changed. As my reason for changing it in the first place, was for consistency with those other articles. If you like I can change some others that I've spotted to the new format?--203.220.170.62 01:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

By all means. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: YECism and alleles

Hey, I was busy with a new project so I wasn't able to reply to your question for a while. If you want a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) to stop claiming that they're speaking for science, then you have to point out that when they're making a positive claim (like "X exists") then the burden of proof lies on them if they want anyone else to believe it. So, the question to ask them is, what peer-reviewed science journals support what they're saying? The answer is: None. Then you can usually watch them spiral off into conspiracy land where "the Materialist Establishment" wants to discredit all religion or whatever by keeping them from publishing their nonsense as science. The other response you might get is "it was published," in which case it either wasn't, the results were misinterpreted/taken out of context/exaggerated, or it was published in a creationist journal, not a science journal. I'm only aware of two science journal articles that seemed to support some of the creationist claims, and they both have been the subject of widespread criticism for their lack of scientific rigor.
Regarding Ken Ham's claims about the number of alleles present today vs. "the time of Adam and Eve", that runs into the problems that:

• There is no objective evidence that "the time of Adam and Eve" exists as they describe it.
• Almost all evidence regarding the makeup of genes is based on the study of existing genes.
  • That evidence does not support their claims. In fact, there is evidence of recent (relatively speaking) evolution that has been discovered by comparing existing and closely related species.
    • However, most (if not all) YECs will automatically disregard such evidence since they claim that new species can't evolve, so they won't believe any science that is based on the fact that two different species once had a common ancestor.
  • Since we can only look at existing genes also means that they don't have the "Adam and Eve" DNA that would be required to show that only loss has occurred.
• There are mountains of evidence of billions of years of evolution prior to the existence of humans.
  • This means that in order to prove their argument they'd need to know what the DNA of the first DNA bearing organism was.
    • Considering science doesn't know exactly what the first DNA bearing organism was, and it hasn't existed for billions of years, they clearly don't have that DNA.
• It's possible that their claim is trivially true up to a point, since all proteins formed by DNA are based on 64 combinations of three base pairs, called codons, producing only 20 different proteins (plus START and STOP messages).
  • This means that once the first organism appeared that had all 64 possible codons, no new codons could appear. However:
    • There is no proof that this happened right at the beginning.
    • While the codons of each allele may be ancient, the particular combinations of them into alleles may not be.
• Furthermore, the Bible claims that there was a flood that wiped out all life on Earth except for what was on Noah's ark, so that would make a more recent "genetic bottleneck" than "the time of Adam and Eve".
  • However, there is no evidence of a global flood nor any "genetic bottleneck" such as we'd see if all species were descended from 2 or 7 of each unclean or clean species, respectively, in recent history.

In short, there's plenty of evidence against that Ham's claim, and diddly-squat to support it. Hypothetically speaking, it is technically possible for species to evolve simply by subtracting from the original DNA, but that is highly improbable in reality because there is no evidence for any such thing occurring and plenty of evidence that life evolved in other ways. However, since YECs don't mind disregarding the probable for the improbable if they like the improbable more, so I highly doubt even all of that will convince her.
Regarding your request for a "easy and straightforward refutation", I hate to say it, but there isn't one. That's the beauty of these kinds of claims in the Creationists' eyes. I could, for example, claim that you're an adulterer, but there is no "easy and straightforward refutation" for that either. It's easy to make claims with no easy refutation, so by making such claims they feel that that they've "won" the argument. That's why it's important to point out that the burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim, not on everyone else to prove them wrong. This is why you have to demand rigorous, scientific, peer-reviewed evidence when people make these kinds of claims, and thus show that their claims actually have no basis in science.
Sorry for being long-winded. Hope that helps!  :-) -- HiEv 08:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Islands Creole list

I don't think it's a good idea to delete it, because when it comes to dialects, I think the translations are a good way for some people to understand what the dialect is about, rather than a simple description. However, I noticed on some language pages, like the French language page, there is a list of English translations of French phrases. I will do the same for the Virgin Islands dialect and the Saint Kitts dialect pages I noticed you had revised. Also, you asked about citing references, which is impossible at this point, because not a lot of scholarly research has been done on the modern form of the dialect. -- Vgmaster —Preceding comment was added at 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Polish phonology

I've put in my two bits regarding palatal stops on the talk page. Perhaps you'll be able to get to the bottom of it, time allowing. Regards -- Bmucha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.32.45 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Turkic Peoples Maps

The second map seems to ignore that Kurds live in Southwest Turkey. I have been discussing it, but I think we need an expert. Can you help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples Azalea pomp 05:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Parlay

Hi Aeusoes1, please look up the entry for "parlay" in the OED and M-W. Both list [pɑrleɪ] as the primary pronunciation; in fact, for UK English, it ('s non-rhotic equiv.) is the only pronunciation. Thanks, --Atemperman (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Parley" and "parlay" are different words. The one with "ey" is only /pɑrli/; the one with "ay" is primarily /pɑrleɪ/ and secondarily /pɑrli/. Also, what kwami said on my userpapge. --Atemperman (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

BarnStar

		The Original Barnstar
		Keep up the good work !! Mr.whiskers (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

hiiii...

im kind of new to wikipedia... but i saw your page from another user's talk page. I see that you are interested in linguistics... espcially the IPA... well, me too... but I thought it might be a good idea for me to fully understand the IPA before I actually start engaging in it... i near enough understand about all the consonants. However, it is the vowels I cannot grasp.
As far as I can see, there are these vowels (and these are in a British accent, not an American one by the way lol)
(and im not going to bother getting the IPA symbols for the vowels as im not entirely sure what corresponds with what yet)
-back
-buck
-beck
-book
-bird
-boom
-beam
-ball
-bit
-bot

(Im not sure where youre from, but i think that in an american accent, the 'bot' vowel would be more like the 'buck') well anyway... I know that there are far more vowels than that, even in english, including the schwa... but I dont quite understand, and was wondering if you could give me some sort of list (like the one i did) of all the vowels, so I actually do understand their pronounciation... as I would like to help make the articles for the vowels on wikipedia easier to understand and give more examples. Thanks Iamandrewrice (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks... however, I took a look at the page, and for some reason, could not see a mentioning for the vowel used in the words 'school', 'tall', and 'mall,' in a recieved pronounciation in England (which, by the way, is in general similar to that of Kent). Is there are reason for this? Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

hmmm...

about the vowels in 'paw' and 'school'... they certainly don't seem to be the the same to me. If you say out loud: 'Pool', and then 'Poor'... it is immediately apparent the vowels are different. (Poor is pronounced the same way as paw... and pool has the same ending as 'school'). Do you agree? write back on my talk page. Thanks Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

yes yes... i understand that paw and poor have the same vowels(in a received pronuncition anyway). But in a received pronounciation, this is different from that in 'pool' and 'school'. Ok, ill try explaining it this way... imagine word 'poor'... and then, if what you are saying is true, and that pool and poor have the same vowels, adding the 'l' sound onto the end of 'poor', to give in effect 'poorl', according to what you are suggesting, would be pronounced the same as 'pool'... but it is immediately apparent from saying these out loud that the vowels in poor and pool are therefore not the same, as they do not sound the same when adding the 'l' sound to the end of 'poor'. Are you understanding what Im saying about this? i hope it does make some sense. But I think that it should certainly be discussed as to whether that vowel needs to be investigated more and added to the table. Iamandrewrice (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)