- 1 Welcome!
- 2 Sumerian Affair
- 3 Music in Berlin
- 4 Glottalic and ejectives
- 5 Conlang userbox
- 6 Space music
- 7 Table Talk
- 8 Thank you
- 9 Xavante
- 10 You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron
- 11 Requested entries: Finnish
- 12 Varietis of [phone]
- 13 Finnish kuningas
- 14 You are now a Reviewer
- 15 Pittsburghese
- 16 Classifications of Finnic languages over time
- 17 A humble request for help
- 18 Dahalo
- 19 Proto-Finnic questions
- 20 Sana
- 21 Proto-Finnic verb and nominal inflections on Wiktionary
- 22 Disambiguation link notification for November 4
- 23 Chadic vowel harmony
- 24 Reference errors on 3 June
- 25 CFD nomination without notice
- 26 splitting Khanty
- 27 Thanks for the Tangerine Dream Desperately Seeking Susan correction
Hello Tropylium, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --HolyRomanEmperor 18:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Please give references about your ideas, if possible. I gave recent sources, after 1996 and 2008, not after 1960. Although, I cannot see any references supporting your proposals yet. Revived again, Ural-Altaic is a key theory to enlighten our past and you are not an academic expert to decide to exclude such a theory. Please, be scientific and abide the general rules of wiki format. Okurogluselo (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have no "my ideas" at stake here; I have merely noted that your references do not support your recent edits.
- The Ural-Altaic theory has been completely obsolete for long now (you have read our article on Ural-Altaic languages, right?), and remains so; someone's one-off article advocating a WP:FRINGE position does not count as a "revival". Neither do the various versions of Nostratic: for one, they claim no especial relationship between Uralic and Altaic; for two, all of its variations remain non-mainstream as well.
- (I also do happen to be working in historical linguistics, but that's neither here nor there. Our job at Wikipedia is not to personally reassess theories, but to report what reliable sources have to say on them.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 08:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Music in Berlin
Hi Tropylium! I saw you're an active participant of the Berlin school article. I was wondering if you would like to help with the Music in Berlin article that I started a couple of weeks ago. It would be terrific if someone started work on the recent developments in the musical history of Berlin. Any contributions are most welcome! Matthias Röder 14:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Glottalic and ejectives
Hi, I am also an amateur in linguistics but this is of no importance. When writing on Barrack's objections against Kortland, my aim was to point that those objections exist. Your question is natural however. I think the best way to learn what they are is to ask Barrack. In the meantime, you may be interested in the paper [Preaspiration in the Nordic Languages].
Kortland's view (as presented in the paper of which you write in the discussion to the article) is well known and easily accessible. Counterviews are harder to find. Nevertheless they exist and are well argumented.
Grzegorj 09:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, Tropylium. If you ever find or create a conlanging userbox, would you mind letting me know? It would be greatly appreciated.
Hi there. I noticed your comment concerning mis-quoted sources in the above article. It's a major ongoing problem at that article, due to collusion between 2 editors who have been trying to push an unsourced POV on the subject for months, and who have dumped an avalanche of sources into the article in an effort to frustrate any outside attempt to resolve the issue via true consensus. Sometimes the mis-quotes are subtle, with comments merely taken out of context in order to put a different spin on them - other times they are blatant mis-quotes which say the direct opposite of what these editors claim they say. Attempts at reviewing each source individually are frustrated by the editors in question adding further sources, or moving sources around, to confuse the discussion. Any outside opinions/observations that could assist resolving this are very welcome. --Gene_poole 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Tropylium - welcome to space music. I'm sorry to see that your first experience of the article is that the conflict has immediately appeared on your talk page.
- If you want to dive in and get involved, you're welcome of course. If you do, for context, I recommend that you read the talk page, and also the archives of the talk page.
- I thought I should post a note for you with further information, since Gene_poole posted on your page, attempting to poison the well before you've had a chance to make your own decisions. He also discussed editors rather than content, including ad hominem personal attacks, which are unfounded.
- Usually, I would not even mention anything about another editor, but since he's already posted an attack about me on your page, I felt I needed to reply so you have the background information. When you read his comments and his edit summaries, please consider whether or not you see his use of words like "vandalism" to be fair and accurate, or if it seems he uses those words in an attempt to influence others in his content disputes.
- He runs a radio show that plays ambient music, Ultima Thule Ambient Music and has a likely conflict of interest in editing the article. In a published interview about his radio show that he considers "ambient" rather than "space music" he said he detests the term "new age music", and then he followed that with this statement: "I also detest the term 'spacemusic', incidentally". (I can find the link for you if you want it).
- I'm not going to go into all the details, but if you review the talk page, you'll see that there have been five editors who have disagreed with his interpretations of the topic, while so far, not one other editor has agreed with him. So the article is the result of consensus by multiple editors.
- There is no mis-quoting of sources. It's possible there may be a small error or two, as in any article, but the references have been carefully researched. You are of course, welcome to review them and make your own decision.
- There's no need to rush to figure all this out. Over time, if you stick around and watch the behavior of the various editors, all will become clear.
- Hello again. I'm sorry that the above editor has chosen to post personal attacks about me on your talk page. Unfortunately the above is typical of his pattern of behaviour. Other editors are slowly becoming aware of the problem, so it'll more than likely be dealt with via community sanction in due course. It's best to simply ignore the attacks and continue editing in good faith. I'll certainly support any review of the quoted sources in space music if you wish to instigate one. --Gene_poole 06:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Tropylium, I'm the other editor immediately attacked. I'll verify the truth of what Parsifal has written, and if you do research, you'll see that it's all sadly true. While I personally welcome you, for your own happiness, I have to recommend that you leave the Space music article and delete everything we've written here on your page. From your short edit history, I assume you are just too new to become plunged into unrelenting mendacity and conflict. Milo 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Re-edited 09:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I indeed have no intention nor time to "plunge into unrelenting mendacity and conflict". But I'm going to assume good faith at least for now, tho. We'll see how well that goes. --Tropylium 10:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Dale (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Hi Tropylium. You note on the Berlin School entery and comment. I would reccomend you do a search on any search engine to see info required to meet notiable bands. Please restore your edit to include the link that was.
Thanks for fixing up the consonant table on Phula language. I really hate formatting those darn things. I'd rather just draw them out by hand, but that's not possible here ;)
- I've done quite a bit janitorial work on that subject. Nice to hear it's not going unappreciated.
BTW, have you found any decent way to line up the voiceless under circle with the letter above it in Unicode? I've NEVER been able to do it with any degree of success, so I don't do the charts on languages with voiceless sonorants (notice on Phula I used an asterisk behind the segment to mark laryngealization).
- Sounds like a font issue. I've never had any problems with that specific diacritic.
- As well as Mpade language and a handful of others, I notice… --Tropylium (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my error in Helsinki slang. I have confirmed my error by studying this. It seems that South Baltic-Finnic has had neutral vowel splits, where /e/ became [e] and [ɤ] in Estonian and Võro, and /i/ became [i] and [ɯ] in Võro. I was previously only aware of the obsolete view. I've been looking for people and/or websites that are concerned with Baltic-Finnic historical linguistics, but they have been difficult to find on Google. How well are you studied in the subject? - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like Xavante does have a velar consonant: /w/ is não-arredondado, according to your source, which I assume means [ɰ]. Still the closest to a language without dorsals that I've ever heard of. kwami (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron
|Hello, Tropylium. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<.|
Varietis of [phone]
Hey, I just wanted to point out, per this edit summary that a number of articles on consonants have sections like that. If you want to search and destroy, I won't oppose. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 18:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. You're absolutely right about that. I had not read your statement carefully and, somehow, I had thought you were saying Finnish had turned a Proto-Germanic */ng/ (pretty absurd) to /ŋg/, but you had very clearly written "*ŋg → /ŋː/". Sorry! Pasquale (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Hi, I answered a question you had over 2 years ago on the Pittsburghese talk page. Here is what I said:
- According to J.C. Wells, in western PA tire, tower and tar can either be: 1.) All distinct 2.) All identical or 3.) Tire and tar can be distinct, as [ar] and [ɑr] respectively, with tower being the same as one or the other. Also according to Wells, in western PA tile and towel can merge as [tɑ̟w]; but both remain distinct from tall, which would be something like [tɒw] or [tɔw]. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Classifications of Finnic languages over time
Hi Tropylium. Why do you think the reader doesn't need to know about this:  and have an overview about how Finnic languages have been interpreted over time on wikipedia?. Sure nowadays due to Finnish scholars using "Finnic languages" as a synonym for Baltic Finnic only, the meaning has transformed. But originally it was just a group of the traditional Finno-Ugric tree that also included the Baltic Finnic group. And the table illustrates how different scholars have interpreted the term "Finnic languages" over time. I think it is relevant to the article.--Termer (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- RE: "Finno-Permian languages"/Finno-Permic languages is not a common term in English, (About 37 results/93 results) on google books. Traditionally "Finno-Permic languages" have been referred to as Finnic languages. (Please see Ruhlen p69). It's only recently when the Ethnologue has listed Baltic-Finnic languages as Finnic. Therefore the article "Baltic-Finnic languages" got changed to "Finnic languaes" on wikipedia. The only thing I was saying, we'd need to keep all meanings of "Finnic languages" under one article, and perhaps redirect "Finno-Permian languages" accordingly by making it a chapter under Finnic languages. As the meaning of the term has changed over time, (in fact originally it also referred to Uralic languages in general (excluding samoyeds though)).--Termer (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
A humble request for help
Hey, I was reading a bunch of article searching for a piece of information and randomly came across your username on a talk page or something. You seem pretty well versed in linguistics. If I may have a moment of your time, can you help me with this - often when I read Wikipedia articles where indo-european words are written out, there are a lot of the characters that I don't know how to interpret. For example: kw or qu. Also what do all of the diacritics signify? I have seen ä, š, even ǟ denoting sounds in PIE.
I am not asking for you to explain all of these things to me - I am just trying to make it clear what it is that I don't understand. Can you give me a link to a site that explains the characters used to denote different PIE sounds? If not, can you tell me a search term that would be helpful?
Partly reverted you at Dahalo language. It's misleading to say the inventory is "inflated" by loans, unless we have a ref that some of the C's do not occur in assimilated words (like ʁ and ɬ in English). Also, by conflating Ladefoged and Tosco, you're double-counting C's: /t'/ and /ts'/ are just different transcriptions of the same phoneme. It is good to note which consonants T thinks are indigenous, and also the NC analysis (what's it based on? we already have a note to that effect), but I haven't had a chance to restore those. — kwami (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- We have no idea, really. It's one of several words with irregular vowel correspondences between North Finnic and South Finnic (often with further discrepancises within the SF areal). Quite a few of these involve South Finnic õ, e.g. SF või ~ NF vai "or", SF sõsar ~ NF sisar "sister". Cf. e.g. Alo Raun (1971), Essays in Finno-Ugric and Finnic linguistics, pp. 57–65, Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series 107.
- At least some examples result from parallel loaning; e.g. in several Slavic loans ы gets adapted as North u ~ South õ; while Baltic *medja "borderlands" > "forest" has been adapted as Livonian + South Finnic *mecca > *mëcca, vs. Core Finnic *meccä. Probably at least couple other cases are similar parallel loans from the lost pre-Finnic languages of Estonia (the separation of Middle Proto-Finnic into dialects is thought to have taken place well before the expansion into the modern Finnic-speaking area, already somewhere around Pskov).
- There's also some evidence for a phonemic y = /ɨ ~ ɯ/ having existed in South Estonian from fairly early on (e.g. sysar "sister") - independently of the more recent changes e ö o õ > i ü u y before nasals, and eee ööö ooo õõõ > iii üüü uuu yyy. This was observed relatively recently I think, cf. Karl Pajusalu (2012), Phonological Innovations of the Southern Finnic languages, SUST 266. There are clearly still many open questions to be solved in the future about the history of back unrounded vowels in Southern Finnic.
- Back on topic, if you'll excuse a little speculation, my bet is still on sana being a more original form… as I suspect some relation of this and Germanic *sagjanan "to say". This hunch would need plenty of further work until it could be called an actual etymology, though. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Proto-Finnic verb and nominal inflections on Wiktionary
On Wiktionary I've written a module that automatically inflects most nominals and verbs for Proto-Finnic. The module automatically applies gradation based on syllable structure. It seems to work ok and since you know more about this than I do, I wonder if you could check it and give comments if you have any. See wikt:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:fiu-fin-decl and wikt:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:fiu-fin-conj for lists of articles. There are a few things that have me puzzled.
- The automatic gradation turns s > h in closed syllables, but for some reason most Finnic languages don't have s > h gradation in the second syllable when it the s is part of the stem. For example, the automatic gradation turns forms of *pestäk into *pehe- under gradation, but there's no trace of that stem form anywhere, nor anything like it for any other words except consonant stem nouns (*mees, *kuningas etc.).
- There's the passive endings of verbs. In Finnish, these appear as single -t- that gradates to -d-, but I presume (and our Proto-Finnic article also states) that the original syllable was *-tt- gradating to *-t'-, as the *-tt- morpheme also appears in other "passive" forms like causatives and the passive participles. The interesting thing is that Finnish also has syncope of -e- in this form, which probably only happened before single -t- and not geminated -tt-. So which is the original?
- The 1pl and 2pl endings are often reconstructed from an earlier *-kme/ak and *-kte/ak with subsequent assimilation. But it appears that in Proto-Finnic this assimilation had not yet taken place. If it had, then you'd expect the resulting -tte/ak to be weakened by radical gradation, which is not actually the case Finnish. So either: there was no final *-k (which is hard to explain as there is *-e and not *-i), or gradation became unproductive in this form before the assimilation took place. And I believe gradation was productive throughout Proto-Finnic, so I think that means the assimilation hadn't happened yet.
- In "The Uralic Languages" by Daniel Abondolo, it is mentioned that South Estonian dialects have "-hn" in the inessive. If that's true, then it means that it underwent a change *-sna > *-hna and therefore that the assimilation *-sna > *-ssa in the other Finnic languages happened after South Estonian split off. So does this mean that the older form *-sna must be reconstructed for Proto-Finnic?
- There are two reconstructable forms of the conditional morpheme, *-kci- and *-ici-. In a few sources (and in our article) it's mentioned that *-k- was an old present-tense morpheme. If so, then it seems likely that these two conditional variants represent older present and past tense forms of some kind. Also, the book above mentions that the 1pl and 2pl endings also contain this present-tense morpheme, so I wonder if this ending was only used for the present tense, and the other tenses and moods had simple *-me/ak and *-de/ak? Are these endings with no gemination of the consonant attested in Finnic?
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Chadic vowel harmony
Could you provide a source for your edit to Vertical vowel system on Chadic vowel harmony? It sounds really interesting but I'm finding it hard to find.
- It's so far all from Gravina's thesis, which is downloadable online. I'll add a link. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 18:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 3 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
CFD nomination without notice
Looking over your CFD nomination, I don't see any notice that was posted on any category page nor was any author informed of the discussion. Please review WP:CFD. People should not have to watch CFD to guess if something is going on somewhere. I closed it as rename but since you didn't list all of the actual articles to be renamed and nothing has been tagged, if anyone anywhere finds any objection and take it to WP:DRV, I will support overturning and relisting it with actual notice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Noted. I am not a fan of excessive bureaucracy though, and the individual notice-posting method endorsed at WP:CFD appears to be geared for substantial editing one or two categories at a time, not for contesting minor naming scheme details affecting a large number of categories (where it will become a prohibitively bulky workload really fast, and where no actual content is at stake). I have posted a notification at WP:WikiProject Linguistics, where I'd expect people interested in the linguistic accuracy of the category system might be found.
- (Also: since when is deletion review supposed to be used for disputes of renaming?)--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 09:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- DRV is about the discussion itself. As you can now see at User_talk:Ricky81682#Misunderstanding_about_a_CfD_outcome_leads_to_hundreds_of_inappropriate_edits, a series of problems have arisen. Next time, follow the CFD procedures. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I was the only one opposing the split back in 2012. Since then, Glottolog has listed four separate Khanty languages. (I don't know if Surgut is justified; I'll leave that to you.) Anyway, if you want to split, I'd support you now. There's currently info on the individual languages, so we'd have some meat in the articles. Since there was no other opposition, I don't think you'd need to start a new discussion. And there never was opposition to splitting Mansi, so I think that would be okay too, even though they'd just be stubs (unless you have sources to fill them out). If you don't want to do it, I can, but I might not get it right. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Alright. I have sources to extend most Khanty varieties and at least a couple of the Mansi varieties as well with basic info beyond what we already have, yes. Some others might be left at stubs though.
- Naming might be the biggest initial question: shall we have e.g. Northern Khanty language (per e.g. Glottolog), Northern Khanty dialects (since they're a dialect continuum with Southern), or simply Northern Khanty (this could be mixed up with the people)? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say the last, since AFAIK the "Northern Khanty" are not a nationality. It's also how we tend to name language articles, e.g. Southern Bavarian. (There should be a rd from "language", though.) "Dialects" would IMO be weasel-wording, and suggests to my reading that they are not a coherent group.
- Don't let that hold you up, though. Moving articles is easy. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the Tangerine Dream Desperately Seeking Susan correction
I had been told the music was performed and arranged by Tangerine Dream...but I should have verified before I made the edit.