User talk:Gilgamesh~enwiki/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Source for [e̞]
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Geresh. Could you also please specify your source for the IPA usage of [e̞]? Thanks, Dan Pelleg (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's clearly indicated at Hebrew phonology#Vowels. You see, the symbols [e o] are close-mid vowels, while [ɛ ɔ] are open-mid vowels. The vowel articulation chart however shows the vowel articulations right as mid vowels, between the two. This is actually pretty common in many languages that do not distinguish close-mid from open-mid, and in convention the archetypal IPA symbols [e o] are used for these, as-is. However, when it is necessary to emphasize that the vowel's articulation is mid and not close-mid, then [e̞ o̞] are usually used, and I did for that for emphasis's sake. However, when this is already understood within the context of a language's own phonology, the diacritics are usually omitted. For example, in Modern Greek, the five vowels are most accurately [i e̞ ä o̞ u] (where [ä] represents not an open front unrounded vowel but an open central unrounded vowel, but they officially share the same vowel symbol [a] because no language is known to distinguish both articulations), but since there is allophony with nearby possible articulations, the simpler archetypal indications [i e a o u] are used. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me you're talking about phonemic transcription, whereas IPA is a phonetic transcription. What's indicated at Hebrew phonology#Vowels is in fact the standard phonemic transcription (as is of course appropriate for a phonology article), which uses the common symbols "e" and "o" for ease of typesetting, as often done in phonemic transcriptions. As far as phonemic transcribing is concerned, this practice is sensible, but for informing readers as to pronunciation, this simplification amounts to misinformation: Since readers coming across an IPA transcription of a Hebrew word with "e"s and "o"s won't necessarily go through the trouble of finding out that these are approximations, they would be lead to believe, e.g., that Hebrew יפה, if transcribed [ja'fe], rhymes with French café [ka'fe], or that Hebrew לא, if transcribed [lo], sounds like French l'eau [lo]. Dan Pelleg (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then IPA provides an alternative. [ɛ̝ ɔ̝] are equivilent in articulation to [e̞ o̞]. When the little arrow underneath points down, it means the articulation is opened without actually meeting the other articulation. When the little arrow underneath points up, the opposite is true. So, both these IPA descriptions describe mid vowels. Is that better? - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the helpful information, I'm better informed now. I think [e̞ o̞] is better, since "e" and "o" are generally more familiar, and the diacritics would call an attentive reader's attention to the fact that their pronunciation isn't identical to that of the closed vowels, whereas [ɛ̝ ɔ̝] might be less informative or helpful for many readers. As you mentioned, for articles in which Hebrew's phonetic distinctions have already been established, simple o's and e's would suffice, but for isolated IPA transcriptions of Hebrew words within all other articles, I think the diacritics should be included as a standard. What do you think? Dan Pelleg (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's about right. In established context, one can omit the diacritics because their articulations should already be clear. But in other contexts, or when compared to other languages, etc., the diacritics are a good idea. But I wonder... I know that Israeli Hebrew "e" and "ei" are different in that "ei" glides up towards "i" in pronunciation. But other than that, is the "e" part different? Are they just [e̞] and [e̞͡ɪ], or are they [ɛ̝] and [e͡ɪ]? In the "ei" diphthong, does the "e" start as a mid vowel (as with "e") or as a close-mid vowel (as in French "é" or Canadian "eh?")? Ahh well...it will be figured out, I'm sure. ^_^ - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Personally I strongly suspect that the claim that Modern Hebrew's diphthongal /e/ is [e͡ɪ] — as opposed to just [e̞͡ɪ]—is just wishful thinking of prescriptionist linguists who want there to be a fundamental difference between Tseyre and Segol pronunciations where there actually isn't any... But I'd actually love to get hold of some real acoustic research concerning those Hebrew vowels and diphthong, maybe at last settle some disputes once and for all! Dan Pelleg (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't think it's really about the difference between segol and ẓere. Since the Middle Ages, there's been a phonemic merge and later perpendicular phonemic split. In the 9th century when the Masoretes was codified in Tiberias, there were three /e/ vowels: səġōl qāṭān [ɛ], səġōl gāḏōl [ɛː] and ẓērē (always gāḏōl) [eː]. Tiberian vocalization had no true diphthongs, and [ei] per se did not exist—at most, ֵי before another vowel became [eːj], as in the once-common ancient name מַעֲשֵׂיָה [maʕaɬeːˈjɒː]. The split happened in later times as something of a hypercorrection before י yōḏ, and seems to mostly have been a feature of Israeli speech, rather than pre-existing Ashkenazi or Sephardic speech. All three vowels became [e̞] under typical circumstances, which they did in all circumstances under traditional Sephardic. In Ashkenazi, səġōl became [e̞], ẓērē became [e̞ɪ], and səġōl before י yōḏ also became [e̞ɪ]. In Israeli speech, something of a hybrid seemed to happen—segol and ẓere under most normal circumstances became [e̞], but segol or ẓere before י yōḏ became [e̞ɪ]. In additional, certain ẓere in some words also became [e̞ɪ], seemingly under Ashkenazi influence (תֵּבָה vs. תיבה) though I may be mistaken on that. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fascinating. In other words: there's only one degree of openness for /e/ in Israeli Hebrew, basically [e̞], probably with some sociolectal or idiolectal variations. On the other hand, would it be correct to say that, new and seemingly unique to Israeli Hebrew, there's sometimes a phonemic difference between monophthongal /e/ and diphthongal /e/:
- To be honest, I don't think it's really about the difference between segol and ẓere. Since the Middle Ages, there's been a phonemic merge and later perpendicular phonemic split. In the 9th century when the Masoretes was codified in Tiberias, there were three /e/ vowels: səġōl qāṭān [ɛ], səġōl gāḏōl [ɛː] and ẓērē (always gāḏōl) [eː]. Tiberian vocalization had no true diphthongs, and [ei] per se did not exist—at most, ֵי before another vowel became [eːj], as in the once-common ancient name מַעֲשֵׂיָה [maʕaɬeːˈjɒː]. The split happened in later times as something of a hypercorrection before י yōḏ, and seems to mostly have been a feature of Israeli speech, rather than pre-existing Ashkenazi or Sephardic speech. All three vowels became [e̞] under typical circumstances, which they did in all circumstances under traditional Sephardic. In Ashkenazi, səġōl became [e̞], ẓērē became [e̞ɪ], and səġōl before י yōḏ also became [e̞ɪ]. In Israeli speech, something of a hybrid seemed to happen—segol and ẓere under most normal circumstances became [e̞], but segol or ẓere before י yōḏ became [e̞ɪ]. In additional, certain ẓere in some words also became [e̞ɪ], seemingly under Ashkenazi influence (תֵּבָה vs. תיבה) though I may be mistaken on that. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Personally I strongly suspect that the claim that Modern Hebrew's diphthongal /e/ is [e͡ɪ] — as opposed to just [e̞͡ɪ]—is just wishful thinking of prescriptionist linguists who want there to be a fundamental difference between Tseyre and Segol pronunciations where there actually isn't any... But I'd actually love to get hold of some real acoustic research concerning those Hebrew vowels and diphthong, maybe at last settle some disputes once and for all! Dan Pelleg (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's about right. In established context, one can omit the diacritics because their articulations should already be clear. But in other contexts, or when compared to other languages, etc., the diacritics are a good idea. But I wonder... I know that Israeli Hebrew "e" and "ei" are different in that "ei" glides up towards "i" in pronunciation. But other than that, is the "e" part different? Are they just [e̞] and [e̞͡ɪ], or are they [ɛ̝] and [e͡ɪ]? In the "ei" diphthong, does the "e" start as a mid vowel (as with "e") or as a close-mid vowel (as in French "é" or Canadian "eh?")? Ahh well...it will be figured out, I'm sure. ^_^ - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the helpful information, I'm better informed now. I think [e̞ o̞] is better, since "e" and "o" are generally more familiar, and the diacritics would call an attentive reader's attention to the fact that their pronunciation isn't identical to that of the closed vowels, whereas [ɛ̝ ɔ̝] might be less informative or helpful for many readers. As you mentioned, for articles in which Hebrew's phonetic distinctions have already been established, simple o's and e's would suffice, but for isolated IPA transcriptions of Hebrew words within all other articles, I think the diacritics should be included as a standard. What do you think? Dan Pelleg (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then IPA provides an alternative. [ɛ̝ ɔ̝] are equivilent in articulation to [e̞ o̞]. When the little arrow underneath points down, it means the articulation is opened without actually meeting the other articulation. When the little arrow underneath points up, the opposite is true. So, both these IPA descriptions describe mid vowels. Is that better? - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me you're talking about phonemic transcription, whereas IPA is a phonetic transcription. What's indicated at Hebrew phonology#Vowels is in fact the standard phonemic transcription (as is of course appropriate for a phonology article), which uses the common symbols "e" and "o" for ease of typesetting, as often done in phonemic transcriptions. As far as phonemic transcribing is concerned, this practice is sensible, but for informing readers as to pronunciation, this simplification amounts to misinformation: Since readers coming across an IPA transcription of a Hebrew word with "e"s and "o"s won't necessarily go through the trouble of finding out that these are approximations, they would be lead to believe, e.g., that Hebrew יפה, if transcribed [ja'fe], rhymes with French café [ka'fe], or that Hebrew לא, if transcribed [lo], sounds like French l'eau [lo]. Dan Pelleg (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
monophthongal /e/ diphthongal /e/ example IPA example IPA הרה־גורל [ha'ʁe̞ ɡo̞'ʁal] הרי־גולן [ha'ʁe̞͡ɪ ɡo̞'lan]
- ? Dan Pelleg (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(This is a reply to the previous comment.) That's exactly what I'm saying. Sephardic didn't have the tradition of diphthongal /e/, and the Hebrew Academy transcriptions based on it don't use it, e.g. "Elat", "Bet El", "Bene Beraq", etc. Those Ashkenazim who previously spoke Yiddish used the diphthong much more frequently, always for Ashkenazi tseyre and always before Ashkenazi yud, e.g. "Eylas", "Beys Eyl", "Bney Brak". I've never really quite understood what made Israeli Hebrew distinct in its own way, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a kind of creolized compromise between the Sephardic prescribed speech and the Ashkenazi familiar speech of many Yiddish-speaking immigants. Even after Sephardim came to outnumber Ashkenazim, it seems these Ashkenazi social influences have lasted. But I do not claim to be any kind of expert on Israeli social linguistics—I just like to study diversity and etymology in comparative linguistics, and leave the social studies to the social scientists. ^_^ - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, don't misunderstand—Yiddish-influenced Ashkenazi Hebrew does distinguish /e/ and /ey/, but under different conditions from Israeli Hebrew. Ashkenazi sgoyl ֶ not before yud is still [e̞]. The primary difference between the two is that, in Israeli but not in Ashkenazi, tzeire ֵ not before yud is also just [e̞]. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Brilliant. I always believed that modern Hebrew is in fact a creole language. Since immigrants with a European background generally enjoyed a higher social status than that of those with a Sephardic one, the amplified influence of Ashkenazi speech habits could be due to a superstratum-substratum-like interaction. Dan Pelleg (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems likely. But how can one know for certain? - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean about the tseyre / segol pronunciation or generally about the creoleness of modern Hebrew? Concerning the latter, well, if modern Hebrew were to display grammatical structures which didn't exist in any earlier form of Hebrew, e.g., if the possessive-dative forms in "הוא אכל לי את התפוח" / "*he ate me the apple" / "he ate my apple" or "נתפסה לי הרגל" / "*got cramped me the leg" / "my leg cramped" – well, that would make a strong case, wouldn't it? (Does it?) And if it could be established that modern Hebrew has "creolish" traits, maybe demonstrating that other processes also took place creolishly would be a natural expansion of that conclusion. Dan Pelleg (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems likely. But how can one know for certain? - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me about your edits to switch single and double consonants in the tables? Why did you make "tt" "t" again? And IPA-epsilon should be è and not e. -lysdexia 06:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The "WP:HL" shortcut
Hi there. I run Wikipedia:WikiProject Highlander and I noticed that the WikiProject you created (Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages) is marked as inactive. I come to ask permission to use the "WP:HL" shortcut for my Wikiproject. Thanks. Stormin' Foreman Got something to say? 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- As you wish. I did not choose that abbreviation anyway. I would probably choose a different one. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Stormin' Foreman Got something to say? 18:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Haití Español
An editor has nominated Haití Español, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haití Español and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Haití Español
An editor has nominated Haití Español, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haití Español and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Hiriq
A tag has been placed on Template:Hiriq requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Grc-decl-1st-M-eta-α-voc-sing
A tag has been placed on Template:Grc-decl-1st-M-eta-α-voc-sing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Qamaz
A tag has been placed on Template:Qamaz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Qubbuz
A tag has been placed on Template:Qubbuz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue I - April 2008
Aloha. The April 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 15:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:Consonants
Your changes to the place of articulation area of the consonants template looks funny now. Postalveolar, for instance, shows up like this:
- Pos
- ta
- lv
- eo
- lar
Now, my opinion on the syllabification choices aside, this doesn't do a good job of what I believe you're trying to accomplish. I suggest that, if we can't figure out how to change the alignment of the text 90 degrees clockwise, we undo this portion of your recent edits. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, they would probably have to be turned 90 degrees on their side, because the table was a serious problem before, especially for people who prefer not to maximize their browser window at all times. The table was wasting whitespace for the sake of its table headers, and a concise table is easier to browse. I don't favor going back to what it was, but I wouldn't object to someone making graphics of the table header names turned 90 degrees. In fact, it would almost do the table good to be a prerendered image map, especially as most fonts do not display all the IPA symbols correctly (especially the newest issued symbols). - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, I'm seeing this:
- Post
- alve
- olar
- It may not be as bad for typical users as you might think it might be. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's a little better now. I'll alter the syllabification but you may be onto something with your image idea. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is just a heads up that I nominated the category you created yesterday, Category:Homophobia in Jamaican music up for deletion. I do not believe it should be a Category on Wikipedia tagging artists, there is already an article on the topic and it is a subjective and controversial issue. You can contribute to the discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion Rasadam (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II - May 2008
Aloha. The May 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - June 2008
Aloha. The June 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Baltic-Finnic diachronics
Estonian [ɤ] can actually derive from quite a few original vowels, not just /e/, eg. E. õuna <> F. omena "apple"; E. sõna <> F. sana "word". I've never found a full treatise but it seems like a complex issue.
Anyway, I'm just an amateur linguist; some informativ recent Uralics papers including this subject can however be found here[1]. If you can read Finnish, the article Kantasuomen konsonanttihistoriaa should be particularly useful. Even if you don't, I have a list of PU > Finnish sound changes extracted from various literature around which I should be updating sometime from now (hopefully during the summer) to match this new information. --Tropylium (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- …This is exactly the list you linked previously, actually. Didn't check it out before. :) You a ZBB regular or just googled on it? --Tropylium (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, it was the result of hours of googling. XD And no, I don't read Finnish. I'm just fascinated by Baltic-Finnic languages. I um...listened to Loituma's Ievan Polkka a lot just like other geeks. XD - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, I was wondering if you could double check the Proto-Baltic-Finnic number list I added to List of numbers in various languages. :3 - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the updated version of that sound change list is now here: [2]
The name Caleb
Hi, Actually, per [3] (in Hebrew), the *most* plausible explanation for Caleb is neither "dog" (the easy one) or "heart-like" (which sounds incredibly phony to any Hebrew speaker, esp. considering how war-like the Old Testament naming conventions tend to be for these people).
It seems to be a derivative of Ugaritic "servant of the Lord" (same as the later-Hebrew Ovadiah and the Arabic Abdullah). elpincha (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - July 2008
Aloha. The July 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 13:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Druze
I'm not sure how to obtain consensus on Druze as users GreenEcho and Hiram111 have been banned for sockpuppetry. Halp. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't know how to obtain consensus on Druze. The fact that it is still locked is kind of stupid. Okay, very stupid, and a huge failure on the ability of wikipedians to obtain consensus. There is a lot of work to be done on that page aside from talking about Hakim. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 10:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - August 2008
Aloha. The August 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 13:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I admit it
Yeh, im the guy who keeps forgetting punctuation marks and messing them up, Its probably some childhood issue :D or maybe, its because I thought some Wikipedia Bot was responsible for the the punctuation thingy :D, but alas i was wrong.Thanks for the remark Gilgamesh, Ill try to work on this issue. t.c « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 20:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - September 2008
Aloha. The September 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 14:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VII - October 2008
Aloha. The October 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you be specific and point to some instances of grammar that could be improved? Patiwat (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Many, many. A great deal of the article reads like the writer wasn't fluent in standard English. There are singulars used instead of plurals, disuse or misuse of grammatical articles, uses of nouns in place of adjectives, etc. I'd have cleaned it up myself, but I'm rather indisposed for today. Can only browse intermittently. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nix that, I've found some errors and have fixed them. Patiwat (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Turns out that a lot of that incorrect grammar was vandalism: adding nonsense information to a previously correct sentence. Thanks for pointing it out. Patiwat (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VIII - November 2008
Aloha. The November 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 06:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Vietnamese phonology
Is this edit based on a belief that there can't be dental sibilants? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, yeah. When you dentalize alveolars, they are dental. It is my understanding that dentalized alveolars are not possible without being formally dental. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- But sibilant doesn't mean non-dental. [s̪] is not the same thing as [θ], though both are dental. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 11:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)