User talk:Aeusoes1

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

From article about constructs to article about term[edit]

I don't doubt that this edit of yours to Ebonics was well-intended, but somebody who's skimreading the latter and wants to know about the word now has to click on "Ebonics" in order to find this material. The edit has made the link to an article about the word a lot less conspicuous. (Maybe it was just because I was sleepy, but anyway I didn't notice the link myself when I happened to look at Ebonics a couple of hours ago.) I understand that there was something of an edit war going on at the time; perhaps the annoyance slightly distracted you. Could you perhaps consider tweaking the Ebonics (non-) article to make the link easier to find? -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I can whip up a change to address that. Do you think the gay disambiguation page that served as inspiration is equally confusing? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]

I have to say that I do find that article rather odd. But first, "Ebonics". Currently, it's

Ebonics was originally coined to refer to the language of the African Diaspora.

How about a simple change to the following?

The word Ebonics was originally coined to refer to the language of the African Diaspora.

And on to Gay (disambiguation); currently:

Gay originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" but since the 1960s (by reapprobation) has most commonly referred to a male (and later also female) whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex.

I fear that "reapprobation" is going to mystify more people than it will help; this aside, I might have:

Gay originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" but since the 1960s (by reapprobation) has most commonly referred to a male (and later also female) whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex; see Gay.

Incidentally, if one clicks through to the latter one's given such nuggets as:

At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay.").

Interesting implication there that "rubbish" is an adjective; this minor matter aside, is it simply a use, or is it a connotation (which I'd expect would go with a denotation)? And if "some parts of the world" and "the Anglosphere" have the same referent, why use both; and if they don't, how do their referents differ? But alas my paying job beckons. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

PS on what I kind of called an edit war: Here's the perp; I am not particularly surprised to see the way in which the "contributions" stopped. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you discussing article changes with related WikiProjects?[edit]

Hi, Aeusoes1,

Are you asking other Wikipedians with backgrounds in linguistics, especially Wikipedians with backgrounds in Chinese (like me) about your many changes to articles about languages spoken in China? I see you have a statement on your user page about the importance of reliable sources. So I wonder what sources suggest treating (for example) Hakka as a "dialect of Chinese" rather than as a language? And so on. The changes I'm seeing recently from your keyboard to many articles about languages spoken in China would be good to check with relevant WikiProjects. Have you asked for other editors' opinions on these issues? Do you have a comprehensive source about Chinese dialectology or classification of languages spoken in China at hand as you edit? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've brought it up at the Chinese Wikiproject. I've also researched the matter for contributions I made a short while ago at Chinese language and varieties of Chinese; the process involved the input of a few other editors and came at the tail end of a failed move request that brought up the issue of neutrality on the language/dialect question: it has long been agreed that e.g. Hakka should be referred to as a "variety" of Chinese, rather than a language or dialect, since sources are not in complete agreement on the matter. As I have already told you, this is the nature of my NPOV changes regarding Chinese. I repeat: I am not changing language to dialect.
Anyway, at this point, I am mostly just changing links to avoid redirects. For example, since Hakka language redirects to Hakka Chinese, changing a link from the former avoids redirects. While changing links just to avoid redirects is generally proscribed, in this case it's being done in the process of identifying further POV language. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply here and on my user talk page. I'll review the previous discussion on the Varieties of Chinese talk page, which I have looked at already. There seems to be a severe paucity of speakers of Chinese (any variety) there. Meanwhile, I've been gathering sources, which I will post that talk page. I agree that you are doing important clean-up work by checking how other articles wikify to the terms under discussion. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Voiceless palatal fricative 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:
  • |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Voiceless labio-velar approximant 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:
  • | {{lang|got|[[Gothic alphabet|𐍃𐌰𐌹𐍈𐌰]]}}/{{lang|got|''[ai'''ƕ'''a''}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of important note.[edit]

That note exists there to let readers know that that using /f/ for th sounds is proscribed and nonstandard. Tharthan (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought that was already obvious. I don't see any standard accent listed there. Peter238 (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The other thing is that the use of that phoneme in that way is common in infants and small children, hence why that is mentioned.
Plenty of people consider Estuary English a fairly standard dialect of English, and if th-fronting is entering that dialect, then perceptively it might be reckoned by some that th-fronting is standard. Tharthan (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The note rubbed me the wrong way and your elaboration of its importance makes me feel more confident that removal was warranted. In addition to the heavy-handed implication that th-fronting is akin to the speech of infants, stressing the non-standard nature delves too far into prescriptive grammar, which we are not in the business of doing in linguistics articles. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, it IS akin to the speech of infants. And in most English dialects of the world, it is limited to the speech of infants. Implying that it is anything more than a rare, nonstandard occurrence outside of Cockney and the like would be lying. For most English speaking people, it is associated with the speech of infants who have yet to learn how to pronounce "th". It is absolutely nonstandard.
Perhaps one day, the entire world with speak like that and there will be no "th" dental sounds. But until that day, it remains nothing more than a nonstandard speech quirk that is recognised as such in most English speaking dialects. Tharthan (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at descriptive grammar. Your characterization of th-fronting goes against the core thinking of linguistics that prestige given to certain varieties is social, rather than objective. You are also likely inaccurate factually in your assessment of its distribution, though we would need sources to verify that. I'm sure you don't mean to be offensive in calling nonstandard speech features infantile baby-talk, but it certainly can be construed that way, especially in the notes column where there isn't room for nuance. Because your assessments are incorrect in theory, in fact, and in manner, that note has no place there. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It goes in the opposite direction as well. If we try to imply that th-fronting is a part of standard speech, we would be lying. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with noting that it is typically found in the speech of infants, as (again) in most places that is where it has been noted. And no, I'm not saying that nonstandard speech is baby-talk. What I am saying is that th-fronting is well known to be a typical feature of infantile English speaker speech, and that that, rather than its appearance in Cockney English, is something people are more familiar with and can understand. The notes should be clarifying things to the reader, so that they don't leave the page confused about what they just read. The note does just that.
I should also point out that Cockney English changed "v"s to "w"s in the 17th and 18th centuries, if I do recall correctly. That feature was parodied in a popular form of Pennsylvanian English at that time. However, save for Bermudan English, that feature died out and never became a standard feature of the language. To speak quite frankly, Cockney English seems to have new innovations to the language every century or so. We can't go around claiming that Cockney English's latest, newest, most happening thing is anywhere near standard. Tharthan (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is no implication that it is part of standard speech. The second column in the table clarifies where it appears. Many of the example tables of different sounds outline non-standard or dialectal sounds. It would be inappropriate and irrelevant to mark every non-standard feature as non-standard.
And, like I said, I understand that you're not saying that th-fronting is intrinsically infantile, but there isn't room on that table to provide the nuance you need to not strongly imply that. Moreover, you would need a reference to not only claim that it is not normally found outside of Cockney (which, again, is not true) but that it is a common feature of children still in the early process of English acquisition. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
You can find references galore that point out that it is a common feature in the speech of infants. If you insist upon removing the note again and again I will go and find a source for that but it is very easy to find plenty of sources that show that.
Also "it would be inappropriate and irrelevant to mark every non-standard feature as non-standard"? No it wouldn't. Why would you think that. If something is non-standard it needs to be marked as non-standard, lest it give the impression that it isn't non-standard. What are you saying? Tharthan (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to ask you to bother finding a reliable source that backs up that claim because of the other problems I outlined. These are supposed to be brief notes. If, for example, it is stated somewhere that something is a feature of AAVE, California English, or Estuary English, it doesn't need to be explicitly stated that it's not part of Standard English. This is particularly true for that notes column. The importance you are placing on marking what is and is not standard English (which itself is a problematic myth, since there is no one single standard pronunciation of English) is characteristic of prescriptivism, which doesn't have a place in linguistics articles. It's actually an NPOV issue, meaning that presenting prescriptivist ideas anywhere at Wikipedia should be done as an indication of what prescriptivists favor, rather than an endorsement of what is and is not proper or correct. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I will accept your compromise, but understand that the fact that we have had the same th-sounds since Proto-Germanic shows what the correct pronunciations of those sounds are. The standard pronunciations of those sounds are the ones that have always been known to correspond to those sounds. Tharthan (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not my edit. I still dispute its inclusion. Also, while it's irrelevant to the current discussion, you're not quite right on your historical phonology. Proto-Germanic did have dental fricatives, but their phonemicity and incidence has changed over time. See Pronunciation of English th#History of the English phonemes for the details. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but English has kept both dental fricatives till the present day. It even restored some where they had temporarily gone away ("father" is a good example). Tharthan (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
To say that English has "kept" them is an oversimplification. Going with your father example, the word had an intervocalic [d] from the West Germanic period up to Middle English. But this is irrelevant. We're talking about is, not ought, and you're trying to turn one into the other. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glottal stop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uh-oh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Portuguese-based Creoles[edit]

Sorry for the late answer. Besides beeing very busy, the access to the internet in Cape Verde may be difficult.

I am preparing my argumentation regarding the edits of Pedro. I generaly assume a good-faith regarding other people's edits but in the case of Pedro I seriously doubt his intentions. See you later!

Ten Islands (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way...[edit]

That is a filter that I have on my computer that made those censorship changes to the Norfolk dialect page. I have it on because I have grown tired of next to no one watching their own mouths, so I have to watch it for them, as they have no filter upon what they say.

I sometimes forget to turn it off when editing Wikipedia. My bad. Tharthan (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, makes sense. No worries. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Close back unrounded vowel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese phonology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)