User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 23: Difference between revisions

Word of the indefinite time-span

Previous words:

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

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

upload new rongorongo R photos.

finish to-do at Template talk:Braille.

download link. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly change the map, Existing map is wrong. Upload the map showing Saraiki.

• http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Ethnic_groups_in_Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.80.221 (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want the language map. That's the ethnic map. — kwami (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're an expert to make fake linguistic maps to scam readers.--113.168.109.185 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I didn't make the map. Do try to have some awareness of what you're talking about. — kwami (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear this ethnic map must be changed. File:Pakistan_ethnic_map.svg. Saraiki must be shown in the map. The map be from site as sited above. Very very thanks for language map. Now request is for Ethnic map.182.186.66.141 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced as it is. It can only be changed if you have better sources. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kwamikagami, I see you changing the ">" symbol to "→" (referring to historical sound change) in a number of articles, and I wonder what might be the reasoning for that. I know that the symbol ">" has a different meaning in mathematics ("is greater than"). But I am also aware that ">" ("shaftless arrowhead") has been traditionally used in historical linguistics for many decades, to mean "becomes" or "is replaced by". In fact, I am aware that, for some linguists, the symbols ">" and "→" have contrasting meanings: ">" for historical sound change, and "→" for symbol replacement in a (synchronic) phrase-structure grammar. Can you cite some precedent for the use of "→" as a symbol for historical change? Respectfully, Kotabatubara (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that, in general, ">" is just an ASCII substitution for "→". There are a fair number of conventions that are specific to the various manifestations of formal linguistics and ignored outside it. I don't know if the arrow distinction is relevant outside phrase-structure grammar. So far you're the only one who's had an objection. But correct me if I'm wrong. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about this too. I've never seen "→" used in place of ">" is this sense before, even in works that use extensive arrays of symbols for other purposes. Kanguole 22:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may have screwed up, then. I'll hold off making any more changes until I (or we) get this sorted out. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather certain that the use of ">" and "<" in historical linguistics is a well-established convention long predating any issue of computer fonts and "ASCII substitution". It's certainly been used in pretty much all mainstream technical literature in print for decades. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I guess I just got confused from seeing that substitution for other uses. — kwami (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you put it back? Kanguole 17:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will, at least for some of them. I'm finding a distinction between ⟨→⟩ for replacement vs ⟨>⟩ for phonological development. So, for example,

*-h₂ei → *-mh₂ei > -mai

for the evolution of the middle voice in Greek, where the arrow in the first step indicates grammatical derivation, while the > in the second indicates sound change. So a minority of the changes were appropriate. I'll revert the rest, though it will take a while. — kwami (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasia don't contain East Asia, Far East and so forth. That's the reason why I added them. What's your problem?!

It's not "individual"! LOL. Just look at the map of Japan. Is it in Eurasia or Far East?

Please check Eurasia. — kwami (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. The term "Eurasia" has often been associated with Eastern Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc. That's the reason why I reverted. I didn'y know that. Sorry. Kind regards.

[[1]] but according to that map, Japan, Mongolia...not represent as Eurasian. Therefore, the distrubutions of Ural-Altaics must include the Far East, East Asia and so on.

I have no idea what that is. Eurasia is Europe + Asia. From the OED, the best English dictionary: "Eurasia, i.e. Europe and Asia considered as forming in reality one continent." — kwami (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it looks like an attempted revival of the USSR. That's not common usage in English. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease from reverting the edits of the Eskimo-Aleut article. The area in question is a part of the Russian Far East. Calling it Siberia is an anachronism, the modern definition of Siberia doesn't fit that area. It's like suggesting New York City is in British North America or New Amsterdam, or that Winnipeg is in Rupert's Land. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal usage. If you don't like it, take it to talk and see if you can convince other people. That's how things work around here. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "the word on the street" is not the way wikipedia is sourced. Within the wikipedia itself, Siberia and the Russian Far East are defined, its verifiable. Just look at my analogy of England in German. They do refer to all of the UK, or at least GB, as England in common parlance (so do many Americans) but this doesn't mean it's correct. Frankly, I think you are a little upset that you are wrong.... but I'll let others decide since apparently you won't stop childishly reverting the page. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop if you prove you point, but you haven't. Siberia may refer either to the geographical region of Siberia or to the district of Siberia, and common English usage is the former. Your argument is like saying we can't use "America" for the US because it "really" means the continent. We go by common usage, and yours isn't it. — kwami (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find the article for the USA is titled USA, and America refers to the continent. Where the article has already been established as being about the USA, because of its title, then perhaps a slightly more colloquial term could be acceptable, this isn't the case for the mentions of the region in the Eskimo-Aleut page, as it's not the main topic. The fact that Siberia is (maybe) common usage is beyond the fact, refer to the article on Siberia: There are strict definitions of the geographical (non political) region of siberia which have to do with watersheds (being the borders) which exclude the area in question. It's not my job to read for you, go take a look yourself. Furthermore, if you had an article on a random subject and used the term "america" it would be rather confusing unless you established that you were talking about the USA first. It's the same as saying England, even though it's common for people from the USA to refer to all of Britain as England, if one were talking about the (scottish) highlands in an article on a different subject (such as climactic zones) you wouldn't write something such as 'the zone is also found in the highlands region of England" even if you think England is an appropriate way to refer to it.99.236.215.170 (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is tiresome. Repeating yourself doesn't make you right. Convince people on the talk page, and you'll have your change. — kwami (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is a contentious issue for most on that talk page, but as you see I haven't made any changes (despite your awful spread of misinformation). I am not repeating myself, as I've offered you yet more information relating to the definition of the geographical region of Siberia in relation to how it is defined and demarcated using watersheds. Your only source of reference is "well, people say this" which doesn't really meet Wikipedia's standards. Maybe you need to readdress your knowledge of Far Eastern Russian Geography, but I can't do this for you. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize someone had hijacked your account and made those changes in your name. You should probably change your password.

You might want to read the article you referred me to. It clearly supports the current use of the name in the EA article.

Anyway, don't post here any more. Use the talk page of the article. — kwami (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eskimo–Aleut languages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]