User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 24

Your comments may be archived here after 48hrs

Words and quotations:

"I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."

Previous words:

• awkwardnessful
• anti–zombie-fungus fungus
• comb-shaped people

---

to do

S.Twa also indigenous, like Kwisi etc. (Inskepe). Kwisi may have once had cattle?

upload new rongorongo R photos

expand kantenji

Unformatted PUA characters: emoji

Esperanto orthography

Do you even know Esperanto?

With reference to your most recent recension of my wiki edits:

1. Dankon pro via korekto de mia redakta fuŝmeto pri "vavo".
   Thank you for correcting my editing misplacement of the text about "vavo".
2. Maldankon pro via insisto, ke ne ĝustas la liternomo "ĝermana vo", kiun mi jam fontis el la respektegata Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto. Pri kio temas?
   No thanks at all for insisting that the letter-name "ĝermana vo"/"Germanic V", which I had already sourced from the highly respected Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto, is incorrect. What's with you there?
3. In translating the relevant part of the entry, I deliberately translated ⟨ŭ⟩ as ⟨w⟩ where it was used as a pronunciation symbol. To an English-speaker, "pronounced ŭ" could only mean, if anything, "pronounced as [ʌ]". You might as well translate a line from a Japanese-Russian dictionary as "The katakana シ is pronounced ши."

--Thnidu (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(2) I didn't say it was wrong after you provided a source, I merely reverted you for not providing a source. Re. the PIV, it's not particularly well respected, it's just the biggest. (The main criticism is that the PIV does not distinguish between common words and nonce words used once 50 yrs ago, so if you take it seriously you end up saying things like "I have a catarrh" instead of "I have a cold".) Or by ne gxustas do you mean where I said it's "inaccurate"? It is inaccurate, since it's not Germanic.

(3) It makes little sense to say "w" is pronounced like "w". Anybody reading this article knows what "ŭ" is anyway.

— kwami (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

2. Well, now at least I understand what you meant. Yes, I thought you meant that ĝermana vo wasn't really a name for ⟨w⟩.

a. There's a difference between a nonce word – by definition, one not used past the occasion of its coining – and a word that enters general usage for a time and then fades out. I've been using Esperanto for 50 years, and at the time, ĝermana vo was the only respectable name I heard for ⟨w⟩ (duobla vo seemed a calque). So it may be obsolete or archaic now, but this lexeme, at least, was not a nonce word.

b. If ⟨w⟩ is not Germanic (presumably because it is also used in Welsh, Polish, Malay, Swahili…), how does it qualify as German (also used in Dutch, English, Frisian…)?:

• In Europe, there are only a few languages that use W in native words and all are located in a central-western European zone between Cornwall and Poland. English, German, Low German, Dutch, Frisian, Welsh, Cornish, Breton, Walloon, Polish, Kashubian, Sorbian and Resian use W in native words. (W#Usage)
• ⟨w⟩ has been called duobla vo (double V), vavo (using Waringhien's name of va below), and (inaccurately) germana vo (German V) and (inaccurately) ĝermana vo (Germanic V)

3. You butcher my words into a straw man. It makes reasonable sense to say in English that the grapheme ⟨w⟩ is used in different languages with the sound of [v] or [w], depending on the language. Writing for Esperantists who were not linguists, Waringhien wrote "v or ŭ"; translating for anglophones, I translated "ŭ" to "w" (Underlines added):

• duobla vo aŭ ĝermana vo. Nomo de neesperanta grafemo, kun la formo W, w, (prononcata v aŭ ŭ, depende de la lingvoj)
• [double V or Germanic V. Name of a non-Esperanto grapheme, with the form W, w, (pronounced v or w, depending on the language)]

--Thnidu (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense in Esperanto, but not in your English translation. Yes, what you said above makes reasonable sense, but that's not what you say in your edit: You said that the (letter) "w" is pronounced like the (letter) "w". If you wanted to and phonetic virgules to the English, so that the reader could follow when you're talking about letters and when sounds, then that would be okay.

As for 2b, you might as well call it the "gxermana ŭo". There's only one Germanic language which uses W for the /v/ sound, and that's German (and various "dialects" of German), so "germana vo" is accurate, though W is of course also the "pola vo" and the "pra-esperanta vo". It's inaccurate to call it "gxermana" because (a) in most germanic languages which have W, it's not /v/, and (b) because most literary germanic languages do not have W (except in loans). Unless of course Esperanto vo covers both [v] and [w]; then "gxermana vo" would mean "Germanic v/w", implying that [w] in the world's languages should be transcribed by ⟨v⟩ in Esperanto. I believe that's the case, actually, at least among Z and Slavic authors, but I get pushback sometimes from people who try to transcribe English or Japanese personal names in W as "ŭ" rather than as "v". Still, "gxermana vo" means that the Esperanto letter V is like English and Dutch W rather than like English or Dutch V, which is a bizarre opinion even if we accept that Esperanto V can be pronounced as either [v] or [w]. "Germana vo" is more reasonable, as the letter V in German is pronounced as Esperanto F, and only W is equivalent to Esperanto V.

I nearly always heard "germana vo", and I didn't realize how common the "gxermana" form was. I agree "duobla vo" isn't a very good name; that's a common criticism, since there are words in some languages which have an actual double vee. — kwami (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of I «might as well call it the "gxermana ŭo"». "Ĝermana vo" is, or was, a common name for the letter, as you recognize now. This of yours is based on a misreading of Waringhien:

Still, "gxermana vo" means that the Esperanto letter V is like English and Dutch W rather than like English or Dutch V, which is a bizarre opinion even if we accept that Esperanto V can be pronounced as either [v] or [w]. "Germana vo" is more reasonable, as the letter V in German is pronounced as Esperanto F, and only W is equivalent to Esperanto V.

That would make sense if he were trying to say something about Esperanto ⟨V⟩ (which BTW cannot properly be pronounced [w]). But he's not. He's trying to give a somewhat descriptive name to ⟨W⟩; and he is addressing the Esperantist on the street, so he can't rely on linguistic notation like [ ], / /, { }. The names "ĝermana/germana vo" mean "letter that is used in Germanic languages* / in German for the sound that in Esperanto is written V". I have changed the quotation in that footnote to

duobla vo aŭ ĝermana vo. Nomo de neesperanta grafemo, kun la formo W, w, (prononcata v aŭ ŭ, depende de la lingvoj) [double V or Germanic V. Name of a non-Esperanto grapheme, with the form W, w, (pronounced v or ǔ [that is, with the sound of English "v" or "w"], depending on the language)]

* He may be counting Dutch [ʋ] as a [v]; that we don't do so nowadays is irrelevant. --Thnidu (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So it is inaccurate. English, Dutch, and the Scandinavian languages have a /v/, so Esperanto V must be pronouncable as [ʋ] and [w]. But you say it is not pronounceable as [w]. Both can't be true: Either Eo V can be [w], or W is not a gxermana vo. — kwami (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, PMEG says V can be [w], which makes sense, since it's just an allophone of Ŭ. — kwami (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wolof

Hi, could you explain your revert on Wolof language? Thanks Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 07:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We copied from WP-fr. They transcribe half of the "prenasalized" C's as syllabic nasals plus stops, not as prenasalized stops. I suspect that's a transcription error, but since we're copying it, we should have a ref for the inventory. — kwami (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Turns out they were wrong. Only mb, nd, nj, ng behave as single consonants. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, I saw that you expanded the section along with sources and everything. Nice job! Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hyphens and dashes

I'm curious, what do you think about what Mitch Ames said here, especially about Wilkes-Barre vs. Hale–Bopp? --JorisvS (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Devanāgarī

I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Devanāgarī page. To be clear the text says:

"The avagraha ऽ अऽ (usually transliterated with an apostrophe) is a Sanskrit punctuation mark for the elision of a vowel in sandhi: एकोऽयम् ekoyam ( ← ekas + ayam) "this one".

So, avagraha is "usually transliterated with an apostrophe" (which is entirely accurate) but here you are insisting that it not be transliterated with an apostrophe. Which seems a bit perverse to say the least - to say how it is transliterated and then use an example in which is it not transliterated. Either it is transliterated or it is not. If it is then it is usual, as the article says, to transliterate it as "eko 'yam". Indeed the present transliteration, the one you reverted to, is incorrect and confusing. "ekoyam" could not come about because of ekas + ayam. Up to you really, I'm not going to get into an edit-war over it, but the contradiction is rather glaring. If no one else is allowed to edit the page, then at least chose an example which demonstrates how the avagraha is used in transliteration rather than one which doesn't use it at all! Jayarava (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? — kwami (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am talking to user = kwamikagami. This is your talk page, yes? Jayarava (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Then what you're saying is nonsense. I never said what you're claiming. — kwami (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Bengali names

You might wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh#Bengali names (version of 11:10, 30 January 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Hi Kwami - Don't refer to good faith edits made during a content dispute as 'transparent lies.' Don't refer to warnings given in good faith (and bluntly, in your best interest) as 'idiotic.' Given how heated this area has gotten, I would advise you to not engage in any behavior that could be construed as editwarring, and further to keep in mind that editwarring that necessarily require more than four reverts on the same page in less than twenty four hours - other patterns, including consistently reverting the same editor's edits on the same subject across multiple pages can qualify just as well, especially when an ongoing discussion on a talk page is occurring about appropriate naming. As a heads up: pages related to Silesia fall under at least one set of discretionary sanctions. I won't be taking any action under those sanctions until I've set up the appropriate editnotices etc on the pages and notified involved editors, but it's worth keeping in mind. You've been here long enough that I shouldn't have to tell you that referring to a good faith edit as a transparent lie is not a good idea.

And keep in mind that although a straw poll can be a useful thing to conduct in some circumstances, the ultimate close of the move request will not depend on how many people vote one way and how many people vote another way. The final close of the move request will take in to account which position puts forth the strongest policy-backed arguments that are supported by reliable sources, not how many people doggy-pile on to the same option. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What a strange warning. Reverting someone with the edit summary "this is not revert" is a transparent lie, and I will call it that. And there's nothing wrong with calling an idiotic edit "idiotic". As for discretionary sanctions, such things need to be posted on the article or they're not valid. As for the straw poll, didn't I just say the thing you're asking me to keep in mind? You might want to actually review edits before commenting on them. — kwami (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me be more clear: the next time you refer to something as an idiotic edit that is related to the current Silesian language vs dialect thing (which I have already blocked four participants of,) and at the same time you take the dispute to two pages where that hadn't previously been effected by it and then proceed to make that many reverts of the same editor on the same subject, you are going to suddenly find yourself unable to edit Wikipedia for a period of time.

Re: your point regarding discretionary sanctions, you seem to have overlooked this part of my original post: "I won't be taking any action under those sanctions until I've set up the appropriate editnotices etc on the pages and notified involved editors.." Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, somehow I skipped over that. Yes, that would be appropriate. — kwami (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"Let me be more clear: the next time you ...." You're sounding like a douche. — Lfdder (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

notification of discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

• Please note: I have imposed an explicit one revert restriction at Silesian language, regardless of the content involved. I will also be sanctioning editors who have received this warning who perform more than one revert per day on any article on Wikipedia if the content they remove (or add) is related to the debate over whether the subject in question should be labelled as the 'Silesian language' or as a dialect. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)