User talk:Mahagaja

Archives
December 2004 through May 2005 June 2005 1–13 July 2005 14 July to 31 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk FloNight 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Syntax-stub candidates

As you were good enough to comment on my ling-stub split candidates, and suggest a syntax-stub (not sure why I missed that possibility), I thought I'd upload a list of candidates, and try to pick your brains as to their suitability. Can you have a quick look at these, and comment on whether they'd (all) be suitable for such a stub type? (In short(ish...), these are all the ling-stubs that are also categorised with one (or more) of the following: Category:Grammatical cases, Category:Grammar frameworks, Category:Syntactic categories, Category:Linguistic typology, Category:Parts of speech, Category:Grammatical number, Category:Syntactic entities, Category:English grammar, Category:German grammar, Category:Grammatical moods, Category:Syntactic relationships, Category:Parsing, Category:Syntactic transformation, Category:Noam Chomsky, Category:Thematic roles, Category:Japanese grammar, Category:Verb types, Category:Pronouns, Category:English morphemes.) If these are wildly wrong, I'll give up on the idea; if some of the categories are wrong, I can redo without those; if there's just one or two wrong, you might just delete those from the list. Thanks for any help you might be able to offer. Alai 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've left comments at User talk:Alai/syntax. —Angr 05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ta. The overlap with linguistic morphology indeed seems rather large, so perhaps that would be the better place to start. Can you similarly comment on these candidates for a {{ling-morphology-stub}} (or whatever one would call the template)? Alai 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks again. I'll start with that, then -- though I've belatedly realized I didn't propose that one originally, so I'll have a brief wait to make sure no-one at WP:WSS/P yelps. Alai 06:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Tapping and flapping

Taps and flaps are two different things, and in English, we have taps, not flaps. Yes, many people mix the terms up, even in published papers, and "flap" is the more popular term to describe both phenomena when using one term to cover both, but that doesn't make that usage correct! This lax usage is explained in the Flapping article. In an encylcopedia article, isn't it much better to be accurate, than to just blindly follow the herd?LiuLanDi 08:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. As an encyclopedia, rather than a linguistics journal, Wikipedia follows whatever the most common usage is. Obviously it's important to explain the difference in the article where it's discussed, but because the phenomenon is known virtually universally in the linguistics literature as "flapping", we should stick to that terminology when discussing it in other articles too. —Angr 09:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't read as much on the subject as you have, but without digging through everything I've ever read on it, I seem to remember quite often that when I've encountered either term, both are mentioned, and the writer states his preference before continuing the discussion. As for online mentions of the terms, Google hits: alveolar tap (190k), alveolar flap (212k), alveolar flap cleft (40.5k), so factoring out plastic surgery it looks like tap might be more common. Since I'm teaching in China, I don't have the resources to verify your statement "known virtually universally in the linguistics literature". And at present we aren't concerned with all of the linguistics literature, just English. You can't possibly argue that the term tap is not often found in the literature as well. Will you still be this dismissive?LiuLanDi 11:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying taps are universally known as flaps. I'm saying the phonological process of North American English (and some varieties of Australian and Northern Irish English too) by which "pity" is pronounced [ˈpɪɾi] is almost universally known as "flapping", not "tapping". If you go to Google book search (which gives you a better idea of uses in the literature) and look for "flapping" "American English" you get 161 hits; "tapping" "American English" gets you only 107, and in most of those "tapping" is being used as a verb, not the name of the process ("Flap: A sound made by rapidly tapping the tip of the tongue to the alveolar ridge", "results from the tongue tip tapping quickly against the alveolar ridge") and usually in a context unrelated to the process ("one of the greatest advantages of a curriculum on dialects is its potential for tapping the language resources", "Once I was sitting on the subway when I heard a tapping ... When the tapping continued, the businessman sitting next to me poked my shoulder", "evidence that she had succeeded in tapping a more creole-like variety", "Tapping the vernacular") etc. If we could filter all of those out, we'd probably get about 1 instance of the phenomenon being called "tapping" for every 10 instances of it being called "flapping". —Angr 11:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Angr, you have one solid point: there's a lot of indiscriminate use of tap and flap in the literature. You win!  :) But you shouldn't win, because taps and flaps are different! A tap should be when the tongue touches the alveolar ridge, and a flap should be when there is sliding movement across it. They have different sounds, and when I teach the tap in words like "pity" to my grad students, and they say it with a flap, it's ridiculous! I just tried Google Books but the damn Great Firewall of China is blocking it at the moment. Using "American English" is too general. That's why I used "alveolar". I still have to talk to you about diphthongs, so brace yourself!  :) LiuLanDi 13:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with using "alveolar" is it gets you too many general phonetics hits rather than hits relating directly to flapping as a phenomenon in (American) English. And about diphthongs, the same basic argument holds: the symbols /aɪ, aʊ, ɔɪ/ are simply those that are most widely used in IPA transcriptions (Kenyon & Knott, Ladefoged, J.C. Wells, etc.). Using other transcriptions like /ɑi/ or whatever just because you think they're more accurate verges on original research when it contradicts common usage. —Angr 13:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Angr, read what I wrote. I didn't just say "alveolar", I said "Google hits: alveolar tap (190k), alveolar flap (212k), alveolar flap cleft (40.5k)". If you just use "tapping" "American English", then of course you're going to get the kinds of hits that you got—if you don't include "alveolar" with "tap" then "tap" could mean what it most commonly does. It's along the same reasoning that I filtered out "cleft" when it appears with "flap" because many of the hits were turning up talking about plastic surgery on cleft palates using some sort of skin graft "flap". Let's talk about the diphthongs on the GenAm page where the chart is.LiuLanDi 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And if you do include "alveolar" with "tap" then you're going to get pages discussing the sound, not the phonological process. —Angr 07:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean.LiuLanDi 13:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about my reversion of this edit of yours. The reference there is not directly to the alveolar tap [ɾ] itself, but rather to the phonological process of American English by which the phoneme /t/ is realized as [ɾ] in certain environments. The reason the Wikipedia article on that process is called Flapping is that "flapping" is by far the most common name for it in the linguistic literature. Searching Google Books for "American English" flapping and "American English" tapping, and then filtering out the false positives, establishes the predominance of the name "flapping" for the process. Searching general Google for alveolar tap and alveolar flap -cleft will mostly get you hits where the sound [ɾ] itself, rather than the phonological process /t/ → [ɾ], is discussed. —Angr 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. The day before yesterday in my class I was talking about "tap" and caught myself saying "flap"! Anyway, in a class where I can demonstrate it and can check the students' pronunciation directly, it doesn't much matter what we call it.LiuLanDi 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Minority languages

I have listed Category:Minority languages for deletetion. Since you are the creator of this category, your comments are particularly welcome. · Naive cynic · 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Berlin edits

Thanks for your message, I wasn't aware of that (and it was a pure coinsidence that I edited Berlin twice the same day, not trying to start an edit-war :) ). As far the interwiki links go, I assumed that AWB was following standards when rearranging them. --Pax:Vobiscum 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Puirt a Beul

Interesting question. I think both 'Puirt a Beul' and 'Puirt a Bheul' are correct depending on the usage and both are used on gaelic pages/websites which pop up in the google searches. Il look into it further to try and get back with a definite answer for you in the next day or two. siarach 12:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine myself saying either 'Puirt a Beul' or 'Puirt a Bheul' in conversation but 'Puirt a Bheul' is what i would use in a plural reference or genre reference as you say. siarach 14:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists

Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Benign request for article move

See Talk:Meithei_language -- Evertype·✆ 18:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Minority languages

Hi Angr, I see you were involved in deletion of the Category:Minority languages (the CfD was closed and the deletion is going ahead as I'm writing this, apparently). I came too late to influence the vote. I can see your argument, but somehow I still think it's a pity, for some of these cases. What do you think, would it be a good idea to re-create such a category on a regional basis, like Category:Minority languages of Europe etc.? That way, we could decide on a per-world-region basis whether having such a category makes sense. I think in Europe it does, but I totally agree it might be quite a different case in other parts of the world. Just a thought, and comments appreciated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "minority language" would have to be well defined first. I think it would be silly to include German, even though it's a minority language in France, and Danish, even though it's a minority language in Germany, since German and Danish have "home countries" where they aren't minority languages. Perhaps a Category:Endangered languages would make more sense. Oh, I see that already exists. —Angr 21:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right, cases where a major language serves as a minority language outside its own country would of course have to be excluded - except where the minority dialect has its own article, of course, like Kven Finnish, Arvanitika, or Elsässisch. The category would, I think, not be coextensive with the endangered languages one, since some minority languages are (thank god) still solidly alive. But maybe it's also just a big new can of worms we shouldn't open, I'm not sure yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Point of View (HL Mod)

Hi, sorry if this is not the currect place to ask this but some time ago you helped me by giving me the, at the time, recently deleted Azure Sheep article (saved under the snewerl user). Could you do the same for the also recently deleted Point of View (HL Mod) article? Or point me to the currect place so I can ask it there? Also could you give me the last version and the version before the page was remade (that contains more text). Thanks Snewerl 15:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's at User:Snewerl/POV. —Angr 15:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! But any change of getting me also a previous version of that article that contained alot more text? - Snewerl 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me an approximate date? —Angr 05:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure... Maybe 3 months ago -Snewerl 18:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) -Snewerl 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Halloween article

Hi, would you consider semi-protecting the Halloween article? Addhoc 20:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not as long as it's still linked to from the Main Page. That's strongly discouraged unless the vandalism is coming so fast and furious that we can't keep on top of it. That doesn't seem to be the case with Halloween yet, though it's still early in the U.S. I'm in Europe, so if it does get worse, it'll be better to ask an admin who's in North America. (I'm going to bed soon!) —Angr 20:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - I didn't know. Addhoc 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Colbert Report recurring elements

Being the closing admin of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Colbert Report recurring elements, would you please comment on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 1#The Colbert Report recurring elements?--TBCΦtalk? 14:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment. Feel free to reply.--TBCΦtalk? 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Just the way

It appears that he's been busy; see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Semlow Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. :-( —Angr 18:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dryden

So, you post on Dryden, NY, huh? I wasn't aware that anybody even knew that place existed. 128.218.250.139

Well, I used to live in the township (on top of Snyder Hill on Genung Circle), so I'm aware of its existence! —Angr 07:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Highway?

How do you know my name? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 07:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't. Talking about allowing the "old Adam" to die so that the "new Adam" may be born is a common metaphor in Christian theology. (Google for phrases like "old Adam die" to see some examples.) If your real name is Adam, it's just a coincidence. Sorry if I spooked you! —Angr 08:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

STICKAM

Why did you delete it?