User talk:Rua

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:CodeCat)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


An Administrative Discussion Involving You[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Altaic_languages_Warring

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AltaicNPOV (talkcontribs) 01:12, 6 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Revert talk (Glagolithic)[edit]

Hello, please bear in mind that this:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glagolitic_alphabet&oldid=650600745 is the original text that was changed by ip user 114.76.36.69 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glagolitic_alphabet&diff=637449731&oldid=637449460 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glagolitic_alphabet&diff=637449460&oldid=635483154 for no reason, despite it being sourced. (agenda editing)

Thank you for understanding.

Ablaut[edit]

Dear CodeCat,

Thank you for checking my work! I agree that I confused ablaut and Szemerényi's law (I am new at this) but is it true that "all categories that were distinguished by ablaut were also distinguished by different endings"? What about:

'night'

nominative singular: *nókʷ-t-s

genitive singular: *nékʷ-t-s


'thought'

nominative singular: *mén-ti-s

genitive singular: *mn̥-téi-s or *mn̥-téy-s


It seems to me like ablaut is the only thing distinguishing them.


Thanks for you help,

Jackpaulryan (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

In the case of *nókʷts you're right, ablaut is the only difference. CodeCat (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Jackpaulryan (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Balto-Slavic languages[edit]

Hi. You ejected my changes. You didn't want to read my explanation on talk page: "Unexplained removal of sourced information. Talk page message is OR." Ok, my explanation is "Incompetent or deceptive information". Why? I can't replace my comment about it. --Ed1974LT (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Your talk page post is original research, which has no place in an article. The information given is sourced, so you should use sourced information also. CodeCat (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
My sources are the books:

Do you need I refer to the pages? This isn't WP:OR--Ed1974LT (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Do these books specifically discredit Hill's theory? CodeCat (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they really do. So do you need quotations (in Lithuanian) and pages numbers? I have wrote why Hill's theory is a nonsense.--Ed1974LT (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"You haven't provided any specific passages that concern the matter." Do you want I provide Lithuanian text? If you can't refer to more authoritative source that Hill's article, don't prevent me make the changes in the article.--Ed1974LT (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Rua. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war notice[edit]

Hello, I read the edit war notice you've placed on my talk page. I'm sorry for the many article-moves, as it seems to have misaligned the talk pages but would like to stress my efforts in discussing the matter cordially. Talk:Netherlandic languages, Talk:Low Franconian languages and Talk:Old Dutch are clear evidence to my commitment in resolving the issues surrounding these pages in a civil and constructive way. I have asked Kleuske why she approaches me the way she does, but have yet to receive a reply. May I also ask why you've placed the edit war notice on my talk page, but not on that of Kleuske? Is she not also involved in this 'edit war'? I ask because I don't want other Wikipedia users to think that I'm being the unreasonable or disruptive party in this discussion. Cheers, AKAKIOS (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason I placed it on your talk page is that you are not discussing and coming to a consensus before making your edits. They were reverted, which means that they are contested and should not be redone until the dispute has been solved. Yes, you did start discussions on your talk page, but then you reinstated your edits regardless, without waiting if it's ok. You need to try to establish a consensus first. Rua (mew) 19:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
User:AKAKIOS again reverted after a) several (ignored) requests for sources b) various explanations (including sources) that "netherlandic" simply refers to Dutch and a suggestion I should take a hike, since it's snowing here. The latest is berating me about my "style of communication". I'm fed up and at 3RR, so I won't revert again, but I *do* still disagree (strongly). How do we proceed here? It's not the first time this user seems problematic and has peculiar ideas on surcing ([1]). Kleuske (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, if they do not self-revert and engage in consensus building first, then I'll have to revert and report them for 3RR. Rua (mew) 20:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kleuske, I've reported your latest remark to the administrators here. It's really beyond acceptable, especially because it was in responds to me trying to extend a hand to you. I hope they will be able to get through to you, as I've clearly failed. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2017

Aanaar Sami[edit]

Dear Rua,

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inari_Sami_language, you reverted the endonym Aanaar, asking "Are they called that in English?". The answer is: not traditionally, but nowadays increasingly so. Actually, scholars working on Aanaar Sami – especially native scholars – tend to favor Saami instead of Sami, so that the spelling Aanaar Saami is preferred, but Wikipedia has chosen the other way. See, for example, http://casle.fi/ and https://books.google.fi/books?id=nN6_Zkqr6EcC – or search for "Aanaar Saami" or "Aanaar (Inari) Saami" on the Internet. I'd be happy if this would convince you and the endonym favored by the leading specialists would be accepted (I didn't dare to rename the entire article). Best, Skiret girdet njozet (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I would be ok if you can cite a source that says Aanaar is used a lot (not just a source that uses it itself). Rua (mew) 12:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Lule Sami[edit]

Which source did you use for the description of phonology in Lule Sami?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Primarily from a modern edition of Grundström's Lulesamisk ordbok, and from 101 lulesamiska verb, and entries in the Álgu database. None of them give exact IPA, but the general structure can be inferred. Rua (mew) 09:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I have Spiik's Lulesamisk Grammatik and he seems to have quite a different vowel inventory, probably because some of what you describe as diphthongs are considered monophthongs å and ä. It would be very useful if you would cite your sources in articles you work on in the future, and also the urge (which I understand) to infer phoneme inventories from data should probably be avoided since it is a form of original research which is not permitted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is how do you describe the rest of the language if there's no phonology? Rua (mew) 09:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
101 lulesamiska verb describes ä as a diphthong and even gives a phonetic representation: "Bokstaven ä representerar en diftong fast den bara skrivs med en bokstav. Den uttalas ungefär /iä/ eller /eä/.". It describes four diphthongs in total: ie, uo, oa and ä.
The modern edition of Grundström's dictionary says: "Originalbokstäverna som beskriver långa vokalljud är: ā, ē, ī, ō, ū, ǡ och ǟ." Further along, it says: "Referensgruppen har valt att beskriva dessa långa vokalljud (e:, i:, u:, å:, ä:) i uppslagsord och övrig kontext med kolon (:) direkt efter vokalen och inom hakparentes". Examples in the dictionary itself are:
  • hijoj [i:] hájoj [hījoi-hājoi 84] adv.
  • skurisj skuritj- [skūritj 295]
  • jågåsj [å2:] jågåtj- [å2:] [jåkǡtj 127]
Rua (mew) 09:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I have the same problem with Pite Sami as well. Joshua Wilbur's grammar of Pite Sami clearly states that there are no length contrasts other than a~á. But http://saami.uni-freiburg.de/psdp/stavningsregler/main.php?content=other states: "Ortografin skiljer inte mellan långt å och kort å, som t ex i båhtet ‘komma’ (med långt å) och båhtjet ‘mjölka’ (med kort å)." Wilbur makes no mention of this. Likewise, the same page describes a difference between overlong and long consonants, which Wilbur doesn't mention either. Long vowels are also described in Pitesamisk grammatik by Ann-Charlotte Sjaggo:
  • "Den långa vokalen ä (grad III)/ie (grad II) i första stavelsen övergår till långt e om andra stavelsens vokal är u eller i t.ex. äddne>iednes>ednijn"
  • "Långt å i första stavelsen övergår till långt u om andra stavelsens vokal är u eller i t.ex. båhtet>buhtiv"
  • "Den långa vokalen á i första stavelsen övergår till långt ä om andra stavelsens vokal är u eller i t.ex. várre>värijda"
Wilbur makes no mention of the vowel of ednijn, which is different from both ä and ie. In the section on vowel harmony, the rule "ɛ/e → i" is given, but this contradicts the spelling and description given here: [2] "uttal: mellansluten främre monoftong; uttalas som svenskt e i efter fast inte så spänt, och lite mer mot svenskt i". This also agrees with the pronunciation audio at [3] [4], which are clearly [e] and not [i].
So, how do you reconcile all this? Rua (mew) 10:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Spiik also mentions that ä is often pronounced iä, but also as just ä in some areas. But he describes the pronunciation of å as the same as the Swedish å. I agree that it can be a challenge reconciling information like this for little known languages, but really I think the best strategy is to avoid making a phoneme table unless there is a source for the specific inventory, and then instead describe the sound system in prose, which makes it easier to describe discrepancies between different sources without adopting the view of one or the other. The best approach for questions like this is either to actually do the analysis and publish it (if one is able) or instead to wait for some other linguist to do so. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you think you could have a go at it for Pite and Lule Sami, so that I know what to do in the future? Rua (mew) 10:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Ack, I don't know, that is a lot of work. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Rua. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)