User talk:HJJHolm

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

Hello! On the page about the last glaciation you wrote that the Vistula was a German river till 1945. Don't you know that Poland existed there since the 10th century? During the 2nd World War the Polish territory was occupied by Hitler (and in the 19th century it was occupied by Russia), but this does not mean that the river was "German till 1945"!!! English people commonly used the name Weichsel probably because in the past they had much more contact with Germans than with Poles.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The term has nothing to do with nationalist tendencies, as you seem to assume. The reason for using the term "Weichsel" lies simply in the scientific work of that time. Note that the German name Mailand for Milano does in no way imply any nationalist intention, and no German objects to the English name Cologne for Köln. This is in no way intended to hurt Polish feelings. By the way, try not to oversimplify history, which I know very well. HJJHolm (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to offend you - I just was astonished with your words "German till 1945", which are very misleading. Cologne is the English version and Vistulian is also an English adjective related to the river, while Weichselian is its German equivalent. However, Kim D. Petersen explained me that Wikipedia uses the name that is most common, and notes less common versions - this convinces me. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

C14 image at solar variation[edit]

Hi HJJ, sorry for reverting your edit at solar variation without any comment. We don't use editorial remarks in article space, so I mistook it for some kind of vandalism (unfortunately frequent on all pages that are vaguely concerned with climate). I looked at the discussion on the File talk:Carbon14-sunspot.svg, but I'm not quite clear about what the issue is, probably because I have no access to the paper. Is it that BP was interpreted as "before present (i.e. 200X)" as instead of "before 1950, because the present is so messed up and we want a fixed reference, anyways"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC:

PLEASE, simply do'nt interfere in things YOU do not understand. HJJHolm (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Holocene dating[edit]

I moved your talk page edit to the bottom of the page as sections should be in chronological order, and replied asking for sources. No need to reply to me here. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


Swadesh List[edit]

On the talk page for our article Swadesh list, you say that Morris Swaeesh started out with 500 words. After a talk at the Reference Desk, I'm curious as to where you learned this. Do share. Subliminable (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no longer available these very old sources, which have been referenced in Swadesh 1950. HJJHolm (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I checked this again and it was in fact a typo between 5 and 2, as Swadesh at different times also had 200-word-lists. In 1950:161 he reveals to have started with 225 words for English, which was shortened to 165 for the Salish languages meanly because of availability reasons.HJJHolm (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Please review and comment:
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Genetics is not my field but linguistic genealogy.

January 2012[edit]

In a recent edit to the page Moose, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

The first author to describe these animals was Julius Caesar. The first desription in English - don't ask me when - surely was written before the detection of the Americas. HJJHolm (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. This has been discussed at length, and each time the decision has been to title that article "moose" because there is another animal known as an Elk on which we also have an article. The ironic thing is that it was British explorers, who had never seen the European elk, who misidentified the North American animal now known as an elk, creating this confusing situation. Anyway, please don't make such changes again without discussing and gaining consensus for them first. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is NOT a question of respect or not, because the US usage is still noted! Elk is the common English and Indo-European expression and I see no use in introducing NAI terms into English, the more, when they have crept in by an error. It is quite another point with words taken over along with their object, as e.g. wigwam, mocassin, tomahawk and many others. Or call the american elk 'moose', comparable with the caribou, somewhat differing from the Eurasian variant. If you are not convinced, I cannot help. HJJHolm (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I've explained to you that past discussions have indicated a consensus for having things the way they are now, using the North American terms for these animals, rather than the terms used by Brits who don't actually live around these critters. You are welcome to open a new discussion if you wish to re-evaluate that finding, but simply barging in and changing the article in defiance of the established consensus is not acceptable. See the archive and FAQ page of Talk:Elk for more, much more, on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I fear we can not change this misnomer. Perhaps you at least understand my arguments. HJJHolm (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Swadesh list, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantitative (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) 10:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I maintain that exactly this link helps the reader to arrange and clarify the term correctly. HJJHolm (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


Wouldn't sataranta be a more or less regular fennicisation of a Proto-Germanic *strandō? I don't have my clever books around me, but I thought an initial consonant cluster like in "strand" would normally be segmented in an ancient loan into Finnish as it is here. What other bearing would the Finnish word have on a possible Germanic or non-Germanic etymology? Help me because I'm curious! ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that both developments might be possible. However, a simplification sataranta > Strand seems more convincing to me than an expansion (do you have any example?). Moreover, fin. ranta alone already means 'strand, beach', and additionally, fin. satama today means 'harbour', as a place for landing. Combining these meanings, we arrive at 'landing beach'. And last not least, there is no germanic etymology. Seebold argues for a loan from Scandinavian (!!) via Engish into German, because the word is only attested from the 14th c. onward. HJJHolm (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
See, however, Pfeifer and our very own Wiktionary entry. The nativeness of the word seems pretty well accepted, and I can see why: a loan from Finnic into Old Norse would be pretty singular (there are more candidates for loans from Saami), there is also an apparent ablaut variant strind, and *strandō could easily be some derivation from a participle present of the root in question, say, *strh3-e/ont-éh2 (a collective) "what is spreading", hence, "sprawling lands" or so. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We will never be able to solve the question here; but - wiki is a secondary source and thus not citable, the "Pfeifer" link ends at a Scandinavian source, which the more points to a Baltic-Finnish connection. Kluge/Seebold sees - which is exactly my view - the word "Rand" behind it. Note that Finnish has a second translation - Germanic loan? - strand for 'strand'. HJJHolm (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Office, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Administrative (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) 11:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on confidence intervals.[edit]

I will try to check the article with your suggested addition — which looks good at first glance — and will let you know what I think after I have done that. Many thanks.Daqu (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Corded Ware and Nature-article[edit]

Hallo mr. Holm. What's your opinion on the recent article in nature? [1] [2] Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

They wrote, "Western and Eastern Europe came into contact ~4,500 years ago, as the Late Neolithic Corded Ware people from Germany traced ~3/4 of their ancestry to the Yamnaya, documenting a massive migration into the heartland of Europe from its eastern periphery." This is exactly what I wrote, and this is not a mere "opinion". I love facts and arguments, I hate "opinions". And the time is exactly what I computed with an updated Bayesian approach being in submission process. HJJHolm (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a clue what "Bayesian approach" is, but and I'm looking forward to the results! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

New archaeology article[edit]

Can you verify if this subject Malmo Mounds and Village Site is suitable for a stand-alone article? I mostly see some mentions but not much. Hajme 06:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

U.S. history is not my field. HJJHolm (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)