User talk:Ermenrich

My Talk Archives

User talk:Ermenrich/Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Nibelungenlied, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701: I would - many of my edits have been related to oral tradition, including Germanic heroic legend, which I created a few years ago. I can't promise that I'll be that active in the future, but I'm happy to contribute.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just kidding on my "remove all cognates" edit—I had actually left it exactly as you had it previously.

I hope that was clear & it didn't make you feel like your work was unappreciated; I, for one, am glad some actual experts run through these pages now & then...

(—as much as I wish that described me, if 'm'honest, I seem to have picked wrong: "Better go with o-chem over linguistic history," Himaldrmann thought, to himself. "It's... sort of... interesting; it'll make me ol' pa proud; and: it's lucrative! I definitely won't end up neither wealthy nor happy, ha ha!" ...—but the Nornir laughed with him.)

...so at least someone is out there rectifying historical-Germanic-linguistics–Wikipedia for us dilettantes!

Cheers,

~ Himaldrmann (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s ok, no offense taken Himaldrmann!-Ermenrich (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Glottolog is conservative, but it is very reputed. Given the decades of misunderstandings and misnomers for languages of Africa, surely that is not negative? Additionally, if one is using words like "a majority" some quantification would be expected? Where is that conclusion drawn from? Who are those specialists? Certainly not typologists, for instance. Kielitieteilijä (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, comments about an article content belong on that article's respective talk page.

You'd have to check the sources, but they are obviously specialists in Afroasiatic linguistics. It's sourced to: Sands, Africa's Linguistic Diversity (in article bib), and this meets WP:RS/AC. You can also check Gragg 2019 (also in bib) and Huehnergaard 2004 (ditto). The fact that not all specialists think its AA is also mentioned. Glottolog is noted as conservative, so they count among those who question that link. I'm sure without much digging I'd find more descriptions of most specialists agreeing that Omotic is AA.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kielitieteilijä: We usually don't cite Glottolog (or mention it in-text: "Glottolog classifies...") because it is essentially a project that rests on the expert judgement of one person who mostly has a good instinct and reflects academic consensus, just like we do. But Harald Hammaström is not bound to consensus, and often reflects minority positions or novel proposals that are compelling to him, but are not necessarily fully in line with academic consensus. In the case of Omotic, we don't you rather cite Güldemann? Hammarström largely follows Güldemann's views anyway when it comes to the classification of the languages of Africa. And Güldemann's handbook is a high-quality source. His criticism of many families and subgroups that – according to him – are not supported by sufficient evidence is not shared by all of his colleagues, but his views are notable and can be added to the article with in-text attribution. –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly could add more on the negative views, but he shouldn’t change the AC statement without a new AC statement that it’s no longer the majority view.—-Ermenrich (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello. @Ermenrich I saw that you have created many articles and spread information to people like origin of hunas etc. Although I know you will not be interested in it. If you have time and you are interested in it then can you shed light on the origin of Abhiras because the origin of these people is most shrouded in mystery. Because these people have been heavily confused in Brahmanical writers and inscriptional records. 2409:4085:9D8C:7980:0:0:8109:4E06 (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]