User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

ITN

Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you about the note that mentioned read links. --Eguygabe 19:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Level 3 header

Level 3 header in List of Irish-language media. Yes, sorry about that. Coffee deficency causing doziness on my part at the time now rectified. :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Waw-consecutive

Angr, I've drafted an article on the Hebrew Waw-consecutive, which is still very much a stub. It's also still practically an orphan, since I'm not sure where to link it from. (I was going to put something into Hebrew grammar, but that article is strictly about modern Hebrew.) This would certainly benefit from any thoughts you may have on the subject. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I wish I knew how to put Weingreen's examples in Hebrew characters! --Doric Loon (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Waw-consecutive. —Angr 14:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dependent and independent verb forms

On March 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dependent and independent verb forms, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Polytonic display

I too had a problem with the Wikipedia display of Greek polytonic characters. It suddenly arose with some change in the Wikipedia programming. But the solution, when I found it, was simple. All I needed to do was to update to a later version of Internet Explorer. I presume that the same solution will work for you. (Don't try the Beta form of version 8. I did a week or more ago and met many problems.) Lima (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I use Firefox, not IE. If you're referring to this, it was my response to this removal of the {{Polytonic}} tag, which wasn't working properly because it had been placed inside a link. The tag needs to be outside links. Because I use Firefox, I can see polytonic characters with no problem even when the tag isn't used, but with the tag they also appear in my preferred font for Ancient Greek rather than in my default font, because of how I have set up my monobook.css settings. —Angr 11:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I see you needed absolutely no help. By the way, I use Firefox too, but not always. The characters look less dense than with IE, and it takes longer to load. Hard to please, it seems, I find fault with both. Lima (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the infobox

I was just about to remove it, as it wasn't appropriate for this article. Thank you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with a Greek word

Whatever it spells (seems to me to be a name signature) it must have been added much later than 1588 when the book was printed, because I think the stresses would have been different if it was "old greek". But I am not sure. It's just a wild guess.--Vanakaris (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! (I answered back at el-wp.) —Angr 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

pIE and Kelabit

Created a stub at Kelabit language. Taivo has the sources for it. kwami (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we really want a see-also section with an Ethnologue link in lang articles, since E is already linked through the ISO code, and that link will be updated when the new edition comes online? kwami (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The ISO code takes you to the SIL page; you'd have to click twice to get to the Ethnologue page through it. And when the new edition comes out, all we have to do is edit {{Ethnologue}} to point to the new URLs, assuming the ISO 639-3 codes stay the same and the new edition of Ethnologue continues to use them (both of which seem reasonable assumptions). —Angr 16:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OT sort of IPA for English

Hi! You wrote that " but if it comes to that, /ʃr/ is the only /ʃ/ + C cluster apart from Yiddish and German loanwords." True, but some of these loan-words are pretty deeply embedded where I used to live. I remember my first linguistics instructor, from Kansas, telling us at the U. of Ill. that "shr" was not an English consonant cluster. The surprise in the class was palpable: Oh, we're not speaking English?! For people growing up to Schlitz ads on television, "shl" was straight English -- much more so than French nasals in loan-words that we as lay people "intuited" as fremd with-out any thought. Kdammers (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in this discussion

Hi Angr, I think you might be interested in the discussion I'm having at User talk:Spinach Monster.--Berig (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A silly question

Hi! Could you please tell me how would the following sentence sound in PIE or MIE:

This person can speak a bit PIE.

I think it can be easily reconstructed. :) Thank you! --El Mexicano (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm no good at reconstructing sentences. You might check out the links at Modern Indo-European and see if anyone associated with that project can help you. —Angr 17:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Devoicing

Hi Angr, I finetuned my remark about devoicing and Frankian a bit after rereading Mees' story about Bergakker and added the reference. I hope it stands up to scrutiny now. A question about your remark: I was talking about West-Germanic and not East-Germanic. Of course there could be a relationship, e.g. if the Franks picked up the phenomenon from the Goth's or so. I would think that that would be very hard to prove, but is that what you were getting at? Jcwf (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I thought you were talking about Germanic in general. But we still need a reliable source asserting that the z → s change in this one inscription implies that WGmc final devoicing started in Frankish, otherwise it's OR. —Angr 06:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Transliteration of Hebrew

Hi, could you refer me to your source for the transliteration key you used in Waw-consecutive? Thanks, Dan Pelleg (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the system of the SBL Handbook of Style. You can find a synopsis of it at [1], which however omits the lines indicating the fricative pronunciations (i.e. the forms without dagesh) of the begadkephath letters. —Angr 06:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! It would be really great if you could please fill me in on those omitted fricative pronunciation lines, if you have access to them – I'd like to integrate this information into a table I'm preparing. Also, do you know how come the SBL transcription doesn't differentiate between begadkephath letters with and without dagesh? Dan Pelleg (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think SBL transcription does properly distinguish between them, at least in its most careful academic version, but the page I linked to (the only place on the Web where I could find the SBL style) happens to omit them. They're often omitted because it's usually predictable from context whether a begadkephath letter is to be a stop or a fricative (usually they're fricatives when occurring singly after vowels and stops elsewhere), but there are some exceptions where the fricative occurs after a consonant. —Angr 16:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Angr! Dan Pelleg (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Welsh Bible in cy.wikisource

Hello,

I see you've uploaded the William Morgan version of the Welsh Bible at s:cy:Beibl. Is the text to the point where it can be quoted and reused (like in software)? I've assume copyright isn't a problem. - Thanks, Hoshie 07:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright's not a problem as far as I know. (I don't think the Welsh Bible is under a perpetual copyright in the UK the way the King James Bible is.) The text is taken from [2], and I can't vouch for how carefully that's been proofread. I think they're still working on it, though. —Angr 07:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

PIE and Armenian

Are there any logical explanation for *duo > erkou in Armenian? Is it sure that it comes from PIE? For me it seems to be impossible. Even *treies > erek could be explained in some way, but the first one looks like a nonsense. --El Mexicano (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, *dw > erk is a regular sound change in the history of Armenian. There are other examples besides *dwō > erkou, though I can't remember them at the moment. It becomes more plausible if you remember that *w became g in Armenian (not unparalleled, cf. French guerre from a Germanic cognate of war). I'm not sure how it got devoiced to k, but the only other changes needed are (1) lenition of d to r and (2) prothesis of e, perhaps to make *rk- pronounceable. In addition, Armenian has a prothetic unwritten [j] sound before word-initial e, so the full sound change is in fact *dw- > [jerk-]. —Angr 21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now it is easier to believe (Also in Spanish Proto-Germanic *werra > guerra). So the evolution could be like *dw > *dg > *ərg > *erg > jerk- --El Mexicano (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

HI!

Hi, I've found a possible external link that is spam: here, last link, what do you think? At it.wiki that link has been deleted, is possible to add that website into the blacklist? The link was added here by the same person who has added it into it.wiki. Feel free to write @me here on en.wiki. --Sbazzone (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think an external link is inappropriate, go ahead and remove it. I don't know how links get added to the blacklist, though. —Angr 15:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

-que

I observed that in reconstructed PIE texts very often appears -que joined to the words. I also know that its basic meaning is "and". However, there are many contexts in which it would be not expected to mean "and" but something else. So, does it have any other meaning? For example: Potis ghe est. (There was a king.) So-que negenetos est. (AND[??] he was childless?) Sunum-que evelt. (AND[??] he wanted a son.) etc. I suppose you know this story. Or if it means really "and", why to use it so often? --El Mexicano (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. Maybe the authors of the story felt it lent an air of archaicness to the text to connect the sentence of the narrative with -kwe, similar to the way δὲ is used in Ancient Greek narratives or waw consecutive in Biblical Hebrew narratives. —Angr 18:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --El Mexicano (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)