User talk:

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

June 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to American Indian Wars appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I don't see anything non-neutral about my edit. You should have specified what it was that you find no-neutral. Just informing me of the fact that Wikipedia values neutrality is rather useless, even assuming that I didn't already know that.-- (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

The section in the Acholi people article is marked "Unsourced" so that someone will, at some stage, add sources. Maybe you should have read what the template says, instead of attacking me. Denisarona (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. It sounds as if there has been some kind of misunderstanding. The section is not marked as "unsourced" any longer, because you have deleted the template. If I'm reading you correctly, it sounds as if you think that I deleted the template and you restored it. But it's the other way round. Or did you mean something else? -- (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to K'iche' language may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • K’iche’ (Quiché)] by Michael Dürr - an introduction to Classical K'iche', in German)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Classical K'iche' language may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • K’iche’ (Quiché)] by Michael Dürr - an introduction to Classical K'iche', in German)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Romanian palatalization[edit]

Hey, please add the source that you noted in your edit summary on Romanian phonology to the Bibliography section of the article, and add a footnote. If you don't know how to do this, just post the ref here and I can do it for you. — Eru·tuon 17:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, the transcriptions in the article are not going to show palatalization, if it's merely allophonic, so cannot be used as evidence for it not occurring. — Eru·tuon 17:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Listening to the file shown on the above (dicaziu), it sounds like there is palatalization. — Eru·tuon 17:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is Schane, Sanford A.: 1971, 'The phoneme revisited', Language 47, 503-21 (the specific claim is on p.505). It's available on Jstor, too. Yes, I would appreciate it if you add it. Note that this sourcing isn't actually necessary: I didn't add a new claim, I just removed the assertion that palatalization takes place in front of extant /i/ - an assertion not found in the cited source (The Phonology of Romanian by Chițoran) - and left only the claim that it occurs as a realization of an underlying absent /i/, so technically, the burden of proof or sourcing (WP:BURDEN) is not on me but on anyone who wants to keep the broader claim.
What Chițoran says on the cited page (10, currently viewable on Google Books) is that "The inventory presented above is the one commonly assumed for Romanian. On the surface, however, palatalized consonants also occur, derived from underlying sequences of a consonant and the high vowel /i/: C + /i/ → Cj". Note that she doesn't write "C + /i/ → Cji". The /i/ disappears, or rather surfaces as palatalization. This is explained in more detail in a separate chapter (173-200). The rest of the text confirms this and shows that this happens only word-finally; the exception is that final /e/ in some grammatical functions causes palatalization without being dropped. Neither of these things happens morpheme-internally, so Chițoran even entitles the relevant section "Morphological palatalization"). (There is also a more subtle and cross-linguistically very common allophonic palatalization of velars only before front vowels, which occurs regardless of morphological context, but that isn't discussed in the Wiki article). The editor who was retelling this seems to have read the assertion of synchronic allophonic palatalization of all consonants into the text.
As for the sound file - using this as a criterion in editing the article would be OR in any case. Apart from that - I'd say the [ka] seems velarized and this may influence one's perception of [di] and [zi] (or is it [zj]?). There may or may not be a slight coarticulatory effect exerted by the [i] (a laminal /d/ could seem palatalized to someone used to apical /d/); but the crucial point is that the real Romanian palatalization discussed in the Wiki article has much more drastic effects, and it would have transformed /d/ into /zj, as mentioned in the section entitled "Palatalized consonants". -- (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
In saying that /di/ in dicaziu doesn't have palatalization because it hasn't become /z/, you're confusing phonetic palatalization with the the palatalization sound change. Phonetic palatalization, meaning /di/ pronounced as [dʲi], can occur without the palatalization sound change (i.e., /di/ > /zi/), and I think the audio file shows this. I could be wrong, but I think the palatalization /di/ > [dzi] > [zi] in Romanian has already happened and is no longer an active force in the phonology, only remaining in morphology. What you say about the /d/ being laminal rather than apical, because of the /i/ after it, is basically the definition of phonetic palatalization (as opposed to the sound change), so you are confirming my point. — Eru·tuon 22:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
However, the source you cite does indicate that consonants are not palatalized before an actually pronounced /i/, and I've added it. I have to call Peter238 over here, though, to see what he thinks, before adding it to the text. — Eru·tuon 22:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I have not confused anything. The sentences that I changed, and all the mentions of palatalization in the article, were clearly about a specific well-known sound alternation in Romanian between, e.g. singular lup, soldat, brad and plural lupj, soldatsj, brazj - a synchronic morphophonemic alternation, which originated as phonetic palatalization and still preserves the phonetic charateristics of one to a great extent, but is no longer purely phonetic. That this is indeed the subject of the claims is obvious, among other things, from the fact it is the subject discussed on the page by Chițoran to which the claims are sourced. If Romanian also has, synchronically, a simple phonetic, non-morphologized palatalization of anything other than velars, that has to be confirmed by a source; if so, that would be an omission on the part of Chițoran, who only mentions a synchronic phonetic palatalization of velars, but not of /d/ and /z/ as found in "dicaziu". "Laminal articulation" does not equal "palatalization" and is usually not due to the surrounding sounds, but rather is a characteristic of the coronals in a language regardless of position. -- (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, go ahead and add it then. The only thing I objected to was changing the meaning of a sourced sentence, which you simply can't do without providing another source. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 23:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You can, if the sourced sentence actually misrepresents the source it cites (and therefore isn't truly sourced), because some editor at some point has misunderstood the source or else changed the sentence after the sourcing. Unfortunately, this is a very common occurrence, and it is the case this time as well. The original source (Chițoran) is on Google Books, the cited pages are still visible (knock on wood), so anyone can see the difference between it and the wiki text prior to my edit.-- (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but then you need to mention it in the edit summary (it seems that you did that in one of the earlier edits though.) It seems that you're right about the original source. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 00:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC) after actually looking at the article, I see you were not actually confusing phonetic and historical palatalization, because /s t d/ change to [ʃʲ t͡sʲ zʲ] through the morphological palatalization, showing more than simply phonetic palatalization. My apologies for not reading carefully enough. — Eru·tuon 00:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad the issue is resolved now. Best, -- (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)