User talk:Evlekis/Archive2

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

 Slovenia - Please do not modify; you may start from fresh on my current talk page.

Thank you[edit]

WikiThanks.png I thank you for the assistance just now. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of suggestion[edit]

Just why did you remove a valid suggestion for inclusion of a related issue inside relating article from Talk:The Fame Ball Tour? A talkpage is not like an article where you can freely remove other people's edits, and it wasn't vandalism either. -- (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting your removal. -- (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem :) ----User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

New republic edit[edit]

Evlekis, I'm new to Wikipedia and am not sure about the protocol of doing edits. I deleted the section about me on The New Republic page because it makes unfounded and inaccurate accusations against me and a family member. And it appears to have been written by someone with an obvious personal vendetta. It didn't seem, therefore, like it belonged on Wikipedia. Given all this, what's the best way for me to proceed?Jasonzengerle (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Jasonzengerle

Thanks for replying. I went in and undid your change. I really don't have any other changes to make on the page, so I didn't make any. Basically, my only issue is with the section about me, which comes under the heading "controversies." The only controversy about me is one that's been manufactured by Peter Heimlich who, I presume, is behind the original entry about me in the section. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonzengerle (talkcontribs) 19:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Evlekis, it looks as if I may be in an edit war. A user has come in and undone my edit, restoring the contested section. This user, Seafood:mama, has done no other edits besides this one--so I have a sinking suspicion I know Seafood:mama really is--but I'm not quite sure what to do from here. Any advice? Should I undo again? Or is that something you or another editor can do? Thank you for any assistance. Jasonzengerle (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Jasonzengerle

Hi Evlekis, Thanks for your help. And I appreciate your suggestion about doing other edits of my own. Right now, I don't see anything on the page that needs an edit, and I don't want to make changes just for changes' sake. Basically, I'm obviously most interested in defending myself against baseless attacks. But I'll keep an eye open for things that don't involve me and, if I see something that could use some editing, I'll do so. Again, thank you for your help. Jasonzengerle (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Jasonzengerle

Evlekis, Seafood:mama undid your edit and suggests "mediation by Wiki third party or Wiki." That sounds good to me. How do I go about doing that?Jasonzengerle (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Jasonzengerle

Seafood.mama (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of the account that originally added the material discussed; I filed a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dubious.achievement. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding football related infoboxes.[edit]

Hi. I had noteced you have been adding "SR Somerepublic" between the birth city and country for players born before 1992. The problem is that a discussion regarding this already took place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and the agreement was to use only city+country formula. One of the main reasons was because the lenght of somne republics names, as SR Bosnia and Herzegovina for exemple, would be extremely complicated to incorporate in the infobox. I know that some ex-URSS countries have been using, exemple Tbilisi, Georgian SSR, Soviet Union, but regarding ex-Yugoslav players, the agreement was to use only, again, city+Yugoslavia. You can see that in most of the cases of ex-Yugoslavia footballers. This is just a reached compromise I am following as an editor. Thank you. (This is a impersonal message sended to a number of editors)

Hi Evlekis, don´t get me wrong on this, but that was really agreed there. Poz! FkpCascais (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy Murray[edit]

The description on the Andy Murray of his residence (and nationality) has been a frequent point of dispute. Never the less, the description of United Kingdom had been in place since last July until you changed it in April without consulting anyone. Please, if you wish to change it take it to the talk page and explain why.

Now you are simply edit-warring. I invite you to revert your latest edit and discuss the matter.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tek da znaš...[edit]

Love 2 B Fair is blocked indef as WP:DE sockpuppet of User:Sinbad Barron. --Tadijaspeaks 20:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, after all those socks, i will find him in 1000000 other disruptive ones. So, just to let you know, be good! :) --Tadijaspeaks 20:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac[edit]

Hi, yes I thought that was the reason, haha! I've done the same kind of thing myself before. It looked a lot like vandalism from that IP and you just think "Revert" ;) I knew you're not the type to cause trouble! Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect height[edit]

[1], Hahaha... FkpCascais (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Own error[edit]

Evo ti pa se uveri: —Preceding unsigned comment added by DjoleP (talkcontribs) 20:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, u redu... izvini! Pogrešio sam. Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


So now, could you tell me what the reason those Taiwan or Taiwnese related Categories must be treated as a subgroup below the categories of China ? Is this the current policy from wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you again. It really is impolite to cancel the contributions of other users without so much as a single word of description in the edit summary. Although I am not now engaging in an edit war with you, I assure you that once some other users return to their screens and catch up with the activities on those articles, you may very well find you have a battle on your hands. Then you will have no choice but to discuss the affairs; failing that, the less favourable version will stand and you (and all your future IPs) will be blocked one by one as you are seen to return. This is why I say - use the edit summary while being free to edit, or atleast use the talk pages. Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Evlekis. You have new messages at Tadija's talk page.
Message added 22:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

you are deleting reliably sourced content that a POV pusher is trying to delete, cut it out[edit]

Please look at the sources before you delete. (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you were good. - Schrandit (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Schradit is again edit-warring to remove content and sourcing he doesn't like. Please read the sources and content. (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, unfortunately since consensus appears to have moved against the anon he has opted out of the conversation. I feel bad about the reverts but since it is a BLP of a major politician I think they have to be done. - Schrandit (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Schrandit again sees some history that never existed, I have provided reasons for every edit and continue to base my discussions on reliable sources. Your baseless blustering to justify removing content you don't like is still unacceptable. (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Latin digraphs[edit]

Hello. It is not my intention to engage in an edit war on the page, however there are a few things you need to realise before you insist upon one particular revision. My original edit was merely presentational in that it wasn't only Macedonian that was using the digraph in its Romanised form but Serbian also; previously it was constructed as if to classify Serbian along with Croatian as Roman alphabet only languages and that is not the case. The Roman alphabet is so popular in Serbian that its speakers (or writers) take it for granted and treat the language as if the Cyrillic is not there. That was the reason I played with the syntax. Now although you did not technically revert my contribution, you did shake the foundation of the entire passage. The term Serbo-Croat does exist and there is indeed a time that its usage is wholly adequate. I too also am for the language and not against it as my editing may suggest to you. There are two things you must realise however: firstly, Macedonian (which you deleted) is not and never has been within the scope of SC. During the time of Communist Yugoslavia, Macedonian stood alongside Serbo-Croat and Slovene (also outside of SC) as official languages, so that if anything warrants its return to the section; we can't sideline Macedonian and welcome other language with open arms when the detail applies to every one equally; secondly, insisting upon the term SC can be seen as POV-pushing, impolite and unrealistic to the millions of individuals who call their language by the name of their own demonym (eg. Bosnian, Serbian, etc.) and it does not end there, you have Croatian, Bunjev and now even Montenegrin. Now you may feel that a full list of languages here on what is purely a reference page more than a subject article is overkill and painful for the eyes and people's concentration. If this is so, we can work out a plan and circumvent Serbo-Croat at the same time, such as by displaying "the Slavic languages of the former Yugoslavia"; or you could mention SC by stating, "languages formerly within the SC category/SC's successors, etc.". The risk of leaving it in its present form is that it will in time provoke certain editors and they will try to recreate a revision similar to the version unfavourable to you. I suggest an amendment to the current format. Evlekis (Евлекис) 01:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Unlike Serbian, Macedonian doesn't use the Latin alphabet, and when it does, AFAIK there are several ways to do it. Various romanizations are way too much detail IMO, unless it's one which has a life of its own, such as pinyin, which is used as a secondary script in China. I mean, we could do this for Russian too, but we don't. Correct me if I'm wrong about standard Macedonian orthography there; I'm only assuming it's Cyrillic.
As for Serbian, do we really need to say that it's also written in Cyrillic? Really? If so, we can always say the Latin orthographies of SC.
Assuming the Macedonian example is trivia, what we have left is SC. Just SC, not South Slavic or even West SS. Therefore we should say SC. All this tortured text to avoid the term SC only makes sense in Croatian. In English, it's just the name of the language. There's nothing offensive about it, except for whatever baggage Croatians bring from their own language, and that baggage is largely irrelevant for our purposes. If we mention either Serbian or Croatian, then we need to mention the other one. If we mention both, well, now we're slighting Bosnian. And don't forget Montenegrin, which isn't even a standard language yet, but which has its proponents. So we end up with "in Croatian and Serbian (when written in the Latin alphabet) and Bosnian (also when in the Latin alphabet) and Montenegrin" when we could just say "in Serbo-Croatian". Are we really going to repeat all that verbiage for every SC digraph? Calling it by its English name makes no difference in content, just concise editing. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
That's just it. SC is not even the English name any more. From the beginning, yes Macedonian is a Cyrillic script language, and so is Serbian. They both use the Roman alphabet too. With Serbian, it is (my estimate) about 40%-60% Cyrillic-Latinic and Macedonian is about 70%-30% Cyrillic-Latinic but the key issue is that outside of official publication (Cyrillic in both cases), citizens are free to use whichever they choose and can chop and change as they wish, as both languages are considered standard in either alphabet. Macedonian doesn't publish newspapers in Latinic but you do get music CD sleeves, private bus tickets, websites, billboard adverts, other publications etc. that deploy Latinic. Back to SC: of the 26 letters of the alphabet, they use 22, plus eight more signs in the form of letters with diacritics, digraphs, or both. Asides Lj and Nj that both feature on the article we are discussing, you have the diacritic based characters, č, ć, ž, š, đ, . If you examine them, you'll see they all list everything separately; so what you call "verbiage" is clearly necessary because as you know, Bosnian and Croatian are separate registers as are Norwegian and Danish despite the latter two having the same alphabet characters, in turn stemming from the whole of Norway long forming a part of Denmark. It is not just Croats that will dispute SC; there are infact a great number of Croats who accept the languages of Serbs and Croats to be one; likewise, a great many Serbs believe the differences in the two standards are good enough to be classed as separate languages. The story of SC dates back to the mid 19th century, it was a rocky and uneasy existence at various times until finally SFR Yugoslavia dissolved (leaving Croatia and Bosnia to declare eponymous languages) while the name SC would continue for a while longer in the newly formed Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; in 1997, SC was replaced by Serbian (stretching to Montengro too) and SC has never resurfaced in any official context. That's all I can say with regards to us using it as though it were German or French. Evlekis (Евлекис) 02:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that about Macedonian. Thanks. But the Macedonian article currently lists only Cyrillic; if it's not important enough to be included there, it certainly isn't important enough to include here, where we're only giving a few examples of language which use each digraph. I've asked on the Mac. talk page about expanding to biscriptal coverage.
In your revert, you left SC, so this isn't even about that, it's only about the one digraph. But SC clearly is still the name in English; in fact, it's the only name in English, apart from ad hoc things like BCS and BCMS. The US government diplomats learn SC, universities have courses in SC, the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2006) uses the term SC (though "BCS language complex" in the main article) and doesn't even have separate articles on Croatian or Serbian, etc etc. It's also not a matter of SC standards being different enough to be called separate languages. After all, where you say "South Slavic languages", you aren't claiming that they're not separate languages; SS is just a cover term for a group of related languages. Likewise, SC is a cover term for an ever closer group. Regardless of whether we consider them separate languages, they're still Serbo-Croatian languages. — kwami (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I agree about it being a single language (now with four or five standard variations as opposed to one). You've made a few fair points this time, I'll grant you that. I didn't realise, for example, that SC did still have some international standing and was the main linguistic route into the whole region for diplomats. It certainly makes sense; when learning SC, one can familiarise oneself with all of the variables and preferences for both comprehending and communicating with persons across four countries. As Professor David Crystal (when discussing English) often states, one needs to be clear which English, and only a descriptive approach can educate one what is Australian, what is Canadian, what is Scots and so on. To that end, I'm happier with your version on that side of things. If anyone now attempts to remove SC for its disagreeable overtone, you have the impetus to restore it as long as it maintains the status you know it to have. In the meantime, I hope you don't mind if I put back Macedonian. Makedonska latinica (Macedonian Latinic), while not being as widely used as Serbian, is still a more intergral feature of Macedonian literature that the transliterations of most other non-Latinic script languages. Would you be all right with that? Evlekis (Евлекис) 04:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, when I use the term SC, I try to say "SC languages" (plural), "SC standards", or the like, to emphasize that we're not talking about the old Yugoslav standard (or pseudo-standard, if you will). I quite agree that we shouldn't claim a single SC standard. I even suggested splitting the SC article at one point, with 'Standard SC' for the old Yugoslav standard and the language politics that went with it, and 'SC' reserved for a linguistic description of the language itself, but no-one took me up on it.
If I was short with you, my apologies; I've dealt with enough POV warriors on this topic that my first reaction to you was 'not this again!'.
I have no objections to including Macedonian Latin. That said, I think it's far more important for it to be included at Macedonian alphabet and Macedonian language than here; if it turns out not to be acceptable there, there's something wrong. — kwami (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Heard back at Macedonian. They've never heard of a Macedonian Latin script; said Latin is only used when Cyrillic is not available, which happens in Russian, Greek, and Arabic too. I think it would be unwise to list Macedonian in the Latin digraph article when according to our our Macedonian article, it doesn't exist. — kwami (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at Romanization of Macedonian. I don't think this kind of thing is appropriate in the digraph article. It is variable and pretty much just copies neighboring orthographies. — kwami (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm back just for a short while so this may be my only contribution for this session. I appreciate your research though you can take it from me that Macedonian Latinic is used somewhat more than just when Cyrillic is not available. I mean, we live in the 21st century, where and how can Cyrillic not be available and even when it is not, how do they come to produce the irregular characters such as those with diacritics. I contend that now, Cyrillic is wholly available. As Macedonia is my own background, I know that roadsigns generally contain two scripts, (eg. "exit" on motorways is /Излез/ on the top line, and /Izlez/ on the bottom). Some of the idiots in the country will say that it is for foreigners to be able to read, but you and I know that if a foreigner will take the trouble to learn to speak a language, he will learn to read and write it also; and how exactly does the Gaj alphabet help when the outsider still has to first learn the orthography of the Romanised form itself. Anyhow, here is one example ( of Macedonian being used in Latinic, and this music page is not only drafted in Latinic but also providing examples of album sleeves where Latinic is used; these are two among thousands of instances. Note also, that Macedonia's chapter within Yugoslavia meant that the Gaj script would form the basis for Macedonian Latinic but it is not entirely based on Gaj. For one, Macedonian has 31 phonemes compared to SC's 30, the outstanding letter being /Ѕ/ (identical to /S/) which represents a /dz/ sound (like and Italian /z/ when sandwiched between two vowels). Incidently, it is transliterated as /dz/ (eg. dzvezda, star), also, for the example on the link, you see the /ќ/ which is used where Gaj's script uses /ć/. All right, they don't refer to it much as Macedonian Latinic and it is nowhere near as widespread as Serbian Latinic but there is no way that it can be overlooked and bagged into an emergency first aid box along with Romanised Arabic, Bulgarian Cyrillic and Greek. It has more life to it than that! In actual fact, even the examples I gave you have a bit more life to them than simply being "substitutes", in Greece I see its transliteration more and more ubiquitous every time I go there. People use their freedom! Just one more thing, on a less serious note, there was nothing more "pseudo" about SC standard than any other language. All standards are stylised and somewhat disenfranchising for the wider communities, so they are all a touch false. The trouble with SC was that opposing parties constantly bickered over how that standard should be, and that was settled by (without being funny) using a double-standard! Two scripts, two accents (e, ije), two everthing! Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant by a "pseudo" standard: not really a single standard at all.
Well, you certainly know more about Macedonian than I, so as I said, I won't oppose mentioning it in the digraphs article. But considering how many languages we don't mention, even for their primary script, I don't see any need to include it, either. It won't actually inform the reader of anything, because when they come across it, there will be nothing on WP to explain it to them. Personally, I think it might be time well spent if you were to add what you've told me to the Macedonian orthography or romanization articles. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you're here! I never expected such a quick response! I'm inclined to agree; put simply, the three digraphs in question that Macedonian shares with SC (lj, nj, dž) are all Ljudevit Gaj products even if some of the remaining graphemes are not. So SC/Gaj covers everything. I'll leave it at that for now, and may look at the Macedonian articles when I return. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


You're right ten remained it shouldn't be worded as "all". [2] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 16:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That was the last thing on my mind, in fact, if it wasn't for your tag I wouldn't have discovered that a certain Serb user ("a defender against Serbophobia") by the name of Bg007 deleted info that was there earlier. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Milena Kitić[edit]

I noticed that you moved this article from Milena Kitic to Milena Kitić, over a re-direct. I don't think it's appropriate to do that as she herself spells her name Kitic both on her own website and on her faculty biography. The primary name of an article about a living person should be in the form the person actually uses. Voceditenore (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

mmm. Yes this is a bit of a difficult one. I admit now that I did redirect the page without thinking much about it, but the basis was that she was born in Yugoslavia. Usually when a subject is born outside the homeland, I leave the format as it is. I am one of those who is permanently pro-diacritics for every scenario, and would dearly love to see much of the policy changed. In the past where usage has been put to a consensus, my vote has been to include them. I realise that Kitić (and that is how I will forever refer to her in discussion) has made most of her professional contribution outside of Serbia and the former Yugoslavia, mainly in the States. That does count for something. However, it is not the case than any Croatian, or Hungarian, or Romanian subject writes his or her name without diacritics. It is simply that when this person moves to another part of the world where the graphemes do not exist, they tend not to be realised by the locals and fewer still would ask why it is there and what does it represent. Her website is not drafted by her as it is presented in the narrative, so it is unclear how she would write her own name. I have used one argument thousands of times however and that is that it is not the case that English does not allow for diacritics, it does, it is that many writers do not know them. With that in mind, just as one would discard the diacritics on Milena Kitić, so too would that same source on Milo Đukanović, Slavko Vraneš, Jelena Nikolić, Vedran Ćorluka, Ana Ivanović and Miomir Žužul (a handful of completely random individuals that sprang to mind from thousands). I challenge anybody to find a source that mixes and matches, rendering some subjects with and others without, because if they did, on what grounds would they do so? If someone tries to argue "ahh, but there is a greater number of sources that give those people with their diacritics" then it stands to reason that those sources are from the subjects' native language, and that raises the question, just how noteworthy are they and should they be given an English language article? So I don't quite know how to go on this one. It is difficult. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Above comment in response to this. Voceditenore (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I also am in favour of using diacritics etc. for people's names. However, I do find it problematic when the persons themselves have anglicized their names. Just because the narrative on her official website is in the third person, doesn't mean that she doesn't have full editorial approval. Having said that, it's a minor issue and as long as Milena Kitic redirects, it's fine by me. Voceditenore (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that Voceditenore. In the meantime, if anything else emerges that would positively make Kitic more appropriate, I shall be among those like you that will favour a return to the original (only this time, having Kitić redirecting). Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit to Received Pronunciation[edit]

Hi Kudpung, greetings from the UK! I just wanted to sound you out about this edit. All I want you to know is that if you see the nature of the immediate edits prior to mine, you'll see a line of IPs deleting information without explanation and commentary posted by a red-link username. I assumed the whole thing to be a series of non-constructive contributions and that is why I reverted to the particular revision that I did. Now because of your own decent editing background and your edit summary, I'm taking your point at your word (without checking the talk history). Just to clear up, I thought I was battling vandals. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you'll see that I put a warning template on user Shannon4Toby's talk page on 17 June already. Whether they were intended or not, his/her edits were not constructive. Somehow in the confusion the good material got removed. No worries.--Kudpung (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll be honest with you Kudpung - I did spot your Level 1 warning administered to this clown user. I couldn't figure out however why you didn't remove the material; but the IP did, and when the IP did so, he/she took out the other material that it now emerges was correct to be removed, but less any kind of summary, so it all looked like vandalism. All sorted now anyhow. By the way, I did leave you a note in the talk page of the subject concerning your own register! Nothing drastic or deadly serious, but when you get time, have a look. Sleep well as it's approaching 1am in Thaliand. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
What is, or what is not RP, is IMHO subjective. The general modern tendency, I believe, is to consider all standard English non regional accents as RP. That would probably be correct. It is also correct however, to assert that there are several different versions of RP. They range from the whining nasal tones of the lazy rich that we are familiar with from the pre war generations of the 20th century, and also typified by the accents of the wartime RAF pilots and Army officers unwittingly caricatured in movies of, and about the times, to the unaffected and clearly pronounced language of most of today's reasonably educated school kids. The war and the rest of the 20th century had a great levelling effect on the British 'caste' system and the RP that is spoken by the generations of my children and my grand-children is to my ears at least, devoid of anything, including any 'posh' tones. Like our Malvern water, it contains absolutely nothing! This is exemplified by today's BBC news anchors and presenters such as Stephen Sackur, Tim Sebastian, Nik Gowing, George Alagiah, Trevor McDonald, Peter Dobbie,Jonathan Charles, Mishal Husain, and Mike Embley, who represent the accents of most of the BBC news staff, leaving us with the question: Which BBC presenters do not speak RP? This busts the myth that the BBC introduced people with broad regional accents in an attempt to tone down its 'posh-speaker' image. Strong regional accents are hardly heard on English TV, and even the the dialects used on the traditional soaps (Eastenders & Coronation St) have become very much diluted when compared with the speech used in the days of Ena Sharples and Martha Longhurst. One of the best examples of parody of British English was throughout the entire Monty Pyhron - already over 40 years ago. --Kudpung (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Hello Kupdung. The following message pertains to the paragraph you submitted on 25 June 2010 concerning our earlier discussion on RP. This directly continues from that statement but in honouring your request not to modify old talk pages (and I see that you have made nearly 2,000 edits since then), I bring this discussion forward to this section. Yes it will cause a minor problem of continuity but it's not critcal; all is there for the world to see. So, to refresh, the edit to which I refer is this.

Originally, I was only making a remark (on the RP talk page) discrediting references to certain types of speech as "posh", I was not initially disputing what is and what is not RP. You made one interesting remark, that any "non-regional pronunciation" is a form of RP. I ask, just how varied and how many categories of any form of language can sit side by side and all be classed as RP, even by one who has admitted he considers it all subjective. Facts: even the finest forms of any language have their roots somewhere in a region. It is necessary that a nation must first split and migrate and develop new ways of speaking before one lucky region is declared lottary winner and his zone will dictate to outsiders how the language should be (eg. the dialect of Tuscany for all classsing themseves as Italian, except if Romance-speaking persons within Italy have a more regionalist approach leading to ideas of outright separation, "I am Piedmontese, or Sicilian", where it is another matter). RP did originate as a regional form; I believe it was London but some have disupted that.

You then built up to this remark: "unaffected and clearly pronounced language of most of today's reasonably educated school kids." And what accent would that be Kudpung? I contend that there is no unaffected pronuciation among the young, not just among the "reasonable" but the "unreasonable" too, I speak of those with qualifications that fill shelves. In the past couple of weeks, there was a report from a linguist in The Sun: he confirmed that there was a certain levelling of register amid natural changes that take place, and he even pointed out (in support of your view) that it is getting harder and harder to distinguish now whether a person is from Dorest or East Anglia - incorporating the entire region of S.E England). However, we both know this is not all of England, and British English and RP zones extend farther; he also found that in Liverpool, the accent is becoming stronger - the opposite effect. So which accent is this you refer to? I know that young educated people from Southampton and Southend now sound similar to each other, but this accent most definitely does not include 20-something academics born in Leeds and living in Middlebrough. His northern "oo" sounds may have "standardised" so the vowel of "some" does no sound as it does in "book", but apart from one or two instances such as these, his sounding like the south-easterners is a sure to be light years away.

Now for someone to have accepted the notion of "posh", to have previously described himself as speaking that way; to have admitted that it is not a permanewnt register (in that a northern accent comes into place when talking to some folk), I am amazed how good your knowledge is on RP. Most people I have met who match that description have never heard of RP, they simply think of the term "Queen's English" and even then, they often think that the language is governed by prescriptive measures that deem usage "correct or incorrect" and worse still, that the Queen has some kind of ownership of the tongue; it is true, people do believe this.

I am curious to know whether I would personally detect certain features that you do not "hear", is your "posh" voice really something that masks any hint of your northern background? I'd be surprised. I have extremely sensitive ears Kupdung, I can hear the Welshman or the Liverpudlian in a great many people; you see, there is more to talking "differently" than plain old "vowel adjustment". How do I know this? I was born and raised in Wiltshire to parents from the Balkans (Yugoslavia). I didn't speak in an "ooh arh" accent as a child, I had a strong foreign accent in my early English speaking days (it was my second language), with years, it evolved into what it is today. I admit that I am inspired by those fine RP forms but how it actually sounds is something I cannot judge, it is down to the other listener. However, Wiltshire English or RP, there is a radical shift required if I wish to start speaking in Croatian. A phrase book will tell you that Croatian "a" is like English "hat", and "o" as in "hot". Just follow that guide by the letter and see if the folk in Split or Dubrovnik don't detect that you are an outsider. There is no English equivalent to the true ways the vowels are pronounced (nor some of the consonants). I can pass undetected yes, but I know that to do so, it requires a completely separate starting position and posture. You see, accent is also affected by intonation and other breathing techniques, especially aspiration (among other things), and if you try to ignore these factors and effect an RP speechform directly from a natural West Midlands register, well, it may satisfy you Kudpung, but not me, and I can play you recordings and point out radical differences that you'll have missed.

This neatly takes me to the next section: the newsreaders you mentioned. None of them speak RP, they do not even speak the same as each other, three or four will pronounce something one way, the rest, another; so there is no question of individual behaviour either. I don't accuse the BBC of "introducing regional speech to tone down posh speech", for one, I don't accept "posh" speech, only RP (whatever it may be), and for another, there are BBC persons who speak in broad regional accents. Sports, weather and business are parts of the news and you hear people in Socttish, Irish, etc. accents there. Reporters have included Hillary Anderson (no idea what nationality she is but it is British), Kylie Morris (Australian I think, she had S.E Asia some years back but I don't know now) and others. And why not? BBC World Service English has foreigners as presenters themselves. I haven't got a problem with it Kupdung, I'm not a snob! "Dees iz deh BBC vorld serv-ees." Likewise, the gang on your list are not common, no, but again, I can hear the local in all of them. I can clearly hear that Trevor McDonald is black, and as for Mushal Hussein? You think hers is non-regional? She doesn't sound like she's from Northampton but she does as if she is from the south-east; she doesn't sound like she is on a London council estate but she doesn't resemble those who naturally use RP either; I cannot call it something "in between", it is nothing more than a diluted regional accent with some of the edges trimmed. However, for Mishal it does not end there. Unlike in my case, you can clearly detect that she was not raised by English speaking parents, and that she must have spent a great deal of time speaking in English with them. You see, it is often clear that a certain person has non-English speaking parents by their own pronunciation and emphasis on certain things. This happens when your parents choose to speak in English to you, and you oblige. I was fortunate that we used Macedonian/Serbo-Croat at home and to this day, with my country folk, I use the native language, only using English if addressing a British-born/raised individual who doesn't speak the native language/s effectively (and where he/she chooses). Mishal's speech (like that Reeta Chakribati) is marked by excessive hyper-pronunciation on several utterances/words per presentation. It stems from the irritation when hearing their parents speak to them in their weaker accents, a need emerges to "strengthen" it. I can hear it, and I have surprised people when speaking to them on the phone before knowing their names when I have accurately confirmed they were raised by non-native English speakers and that they spoke English with them.

Now it is not that the BBC had removed "RP" as a prerequisite but ths is the way of the world itself. It runs its natural course, end of story. Now with no more target accent for the younger and oncoming generations (beyond, "run" not "roon" at the moment), the BBC is only doing what ITN has also done; that too (despite ITV's original reputation for low-mentality viewers and BBC2 for the middle-classes - values now long diminished) originally employed speakers of RP to present news and continuity. Attitudes have changed Kupdung, the world has changed, and continues to do so. Now here is one observation by me as to why there is no more RP, and what is actually replacing it.

Do you remember the late 70s British ITV comedy George and Mildred? Their neighbours were the Fourmile family. The pompous Mr.Fourmile - concerned about his son's H-dropping, grammar, and spelling - was an estate agent. The series ran 1976-79. I know that you know that where language has had rules, its biggest offenders have been its so-called "police", this is what has led to hyper-corrections such as "for you and I". Not what you'd expect from the same kind of person who'd say "me and my mates went down the match on Saturday, got plastered by 11". Mr.Fourmile was indeed an "offender" at times, and it is unlikely that this was intentional as it would have "exposed him" within the storyline. It was clearly ignorance on the part of the writers and the same with all involved in production, so it travelled from the pen to the screens bypassing dozens of people in the process. Joke aside, it depicts a time when an estate agent will have been concerned about the state of the language, a time when you had middle-class pubs and working-class bars, not wine bars where can't work cuz I'm depressed and living on benefits toerags drink themselves stupid as they would in their local tavern (also serving low quality expensive "meals" to enhance its image). All right, I know life is not quite quite that two-dimensional. Times were nevertheless different and many people in many place cared about language and as such, RP, for all its changes, maintained common features and was continuous from older forms. I contend that this continuity has severed, and that if what we now have is a "replacement" for what RP was, it is unrelated to older forms. What estate agent will now care about grammar and syntax? Where will you find white-collar workers that know their "who" from their "whom"? You may get the occasional maverick but it is no longer the preserve of the community in the specific field. The only people left who have knowledge of language are those in the actual profession; no longer will we find bank managers fussing over "-ize", opting for "-ise"; if he does, he's on his own and his colleagues and subordinates will mock him.

In the 80s, you had "yuppies", young bullshitters with no talent but used language to impress elders and then in short periods of time made fortunes for themselves before anyone could spot them and oust them, by which time, it was too late. We don't speak of yuppies today, but we'd be lying if we said they left no legacy. What is everything around us? Sales, sales, sales. Shoddy workmanship, covered with gloss, sold for as much money as possible, that'll do me nicely, thank you very much sir; insurance companies whose representatives smile when taking the money off you but are reluctant to give a penny back on the day of the race; pay-per-view television, footballers who still only play 90 minutes but earn more money in a week than I do in ten years; premium rate telephone lines, TV/radio quiz shows - no, not Radio 4 Brain of Britain where questions are asked and we entertain ourselves in playing along and seeing who wins, etc., but "guess the impossible number and win £500", short-lived projects that come and go, are devised by a few, made to make profits for so those same few, do not give the candidate a fair chance to even play "sorry, your call was not successful, anyhow, you've been charged £1 again by all means". Who finds them entertaining is my question. Bank offers/deals, betting shops, gold-for-cash merchants and cheque-converters (no cheque too large) - no, not for me either when 7% goes in my pocket; all in your face with their advertising techniques using young people with smutty smiles on their faces or if on TV/radio, screaming like they've won a fortune, all designed to lure suckers while they know they are out to deceive.

SCAM MONGERS Kupdung, they are the people of today. There is no place for a real-life Mr.Fourmile in today's cut and thrust "property buying industry", his generation's concern for language reveal a sensitive side. To be a high flyer today, you can't have morals, they impede your progress and will hamper your hopes of promotion. Worse still, if your sly manager gets wind that you've breeched discretion by saying the wrong thing to the would-be client (ie. the truth), you could be out the door and in turn, "blacklisted" from ever again being deployed in that field.

"You don't want him at Harrison's, only last week he worked for Harrison's and Harrison's and I heard someone from Harrison's, Harrison's and Harrison's saying how he pointed to a crack on the kitchen ceiling instead of standing where it couldn't be seen". No good for one, no good for the other!

Now with all this Kupdung, how can people care about RP!!?? Have you really not registered yet the habits of the "young educated" and the "BBC elite"? The ten-figure billion and thirteen-digit trillion? That still confuses people when they hear it spoken asuimg the other. Voiced Ts in words such as "better" (bedder)? H-dropping is one thing because it is a natural cause, but these features are Americanisms; and they are not universally accepted, I know that I have a lot of support from people young and old in rejecting these details are RP. And what about the pronunciation of "comparable"? For over 300 years, it was "komp-rubble", and still is by many, but some that don't know will say "komp- aaaa -rubble"; nothing alerting them will not change but they still make it onto BBC before this can happen. "Room" rhyiming with "loom" and not the vowel of "book"? Waistcoat and forehead all as separate words and not "weskit" and "forrid"?

I know what you're thinking "ah, these are just preferences, one says this, the other says that, it doesn't relfect a region". But how much can a refined accent stand before it is not itself any more? If they had themselves the right posture in the first place, they wouldn't need to pronounce things as such because they'd find there is no other way of saying certain things; RP is natural, it falls into place when he hit the right note first time. If you don't, it is clear that you don't, and you end up speaking no different to the sleazy radio advert opportunists who grate on the ear with their verbal small print - you don't pay any anttention to the ad itself but you can't help but notice the annoying "t-voicing" moron speaking faster and faster as he tells you of what is "comp-aaaa-rable" before covering his benefactor's backsides with all the "exclusions" and "offer ends this date" cobblers and the final words that can make me spray him with bullets from a kalashnikov, "terms and conditions apply". Say it like it is - "it is all a scam".

But I'll round off by giving you my best example to date. This wasn't the BBC Breakfast but its gay-lover and pretend-rival GMTV. I could not believe my ears when I heard "respiratory" pronounced, wait for it - "res - pi - RATE - o - ree". The word was always "res-pra-tree". I know the readers may have through "ah, respitator, just add y", but you can't even blame the Americans here! Even the Yanks say "res-pra ..." but then spoil it with "...tory". Shocking eh.

Sorry this has been long-winded but I had to say everything. I divided everything into paragraphs for easier reading. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) 14:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Evlekis. You have new messages at Tadija's talk page.
Message added 17:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.