This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kanguole. 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.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
date=July 2012}} There are also words derived from [[Javanese language|Javanese]], e.g. ''aku'' (meaning I/ me (informal) and its derivative form, ''mengaku'' (to admit or confess).
]'' (潤餅 (Hokkien = lūn-piáⁿ) – springroll), ''cawan'' (茶碗 cháwǎn – teacup), ''teko'' (茶壺 > 茶壶 = cháhú [Mandarin], teh-ko [Hokkien] = teapot), 苦力 kuli = 苦 khu (bitter) and 力 li (energy) and
"older brother") is commonly used as a form of address for older siblings/ males, whilst ''kakak'' (a non-gender specific term (meaning "older sibling") is often used to mean "older sister".
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Turkish language may have broken the syntax by modifying 7 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
loanwords do, however, exhibit partial or even complete vowel harmony (e.g. ''mümkün'' "possible" < Arabic ''mumkin''; and ''dürbün'' "binoculars" < Persian ''dūrbīn'').<ref>In Lewis's marvellously precise formulation, "The effect of vowel harmony
and French, however, take front-vowel suffixes after final back vowels: for example ''halsiz'' < ''hal'' + ''-siz<sup>4</sup>'' "listless", ''meçhuldür'' < ''meçhul'' + ''-dir<sup>4</sup>'' "it is unknown", ''harfler'' < ''harf'' + ''-ler²'' "(alphabetical) letters" (instead of the expected *''halsız'', *''meçhuldur''
syllables used with adjectives or adverbs: for example '''''sım'''sıcak'' ("boiling hot" < ''sıcak'') and '''''mas'''mavi'' ("bright blue" < ''mavi'').<ref>"The prefix, which is accented, is modelled on the first syllable of the simple
. There are six [[Declension|noun cases]] in Turkish, with all the endings following vowel harmony (shown in the table using the shorthand [[#Vowel harmony|superscript notation]]. The [[plural]]
UPDATED-ACADEMIC-EDITION-YUKSEL-GOKNEL-OCTOBER-2012-signed-pdf] Yüksel Göknel:Turkish Grammar]</ref> There are three groups of compound forms. Story (''hikaye'') is the witnessed past of the
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lisoish languages may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
Andy Castro, et al. (2010)<ref>Andy Castro, Brian Crook, Royce Flaming. 2010. [http://www.sil.org/silesr/2010/silesr2010-001_English.pdf ''A sociolinguistic survey of Kua-nsi and
* *m- > zero
* *m- > p-
*Proto-Ngwi tone category L prefixed stop initials > high/rising pitch reflexes
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Decimal may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
in many languages is also the anatomical term for fingers and toes. In English, decimal (decimus < [[Latin|Lat.]]) means ''tenth'', decimate means ''reduce by a tenth'', and denary (denarius < Lat.) means ''the [[Unit of measurement|unit]] of ten''.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to French language may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
* Old French ''doit'' > French ''doigt'' "finger" (Latin ''digitus'')
* Old French ''pie'' > French ''pied'' "foot" (Latin ''pes'' (stem: ''ped-''))
* brother: ''[[wikt:frère|frère]]'' / ''[[wikt:fraternel|fraternel]]'' < from Latin ''[[wikt:frater|frater]] / [[wikt:fraternalis|fraternalis]]''
* finger: ''[[wikt:doigt|doigt]]'' / ''[[wikt:digital|digital]]'' < from Latin ''[[wikt:digitus|digitus]] / [[wikt:digitalis|digitalis]]''
* faith: ''[[wikt:foi|foi]]'' / ''[[wikt:fidèle|fidèle]]'' < from Latin ''[[wikt:fides|fides]] / [[wikt:fidelis|fidelis]]''
* eye: ''[[wikt:œil|œil]]'' / ''[[wikt:oculaire|oculaire]]'' < from Latin ''[[wikt:oculus|oculus]] / [[wikt:ocularis|ocularis]]''
* thing/cause: ''[[wikt:chose|chose]]'' / ''[[wikt:cause|cause]]'' < from Latin ''[[wikt:causa|causa]]''
* cold: ''[[wikt:froid|froid]]'' / ''[[wikt:frigide|frigide]]'' < from Latin ''[[wikt:frigidum|frigidum]]''
| |What? || ''Quoi ?'' (←informal; used as "What?" in English)) or ''Pardon ?'' (←formal; used the same as "Pardon ?" in English) || {{Audio-IPA|help=no|quoi.ogg|[
''Ça va.''. (Sometimes said: « Couci, couça. », informal: "bof") i.e. « Comme ci, comme ça. ») || {{IPA|[ase bjẽ]}} || {{IPA|[ase bjɛ̃]}}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Judaeo-Spanish may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
with the Latin [[etymology]] as in modern Spanish. For example Latin ''<small>DEBET</small>'' > post-1800 Castilian ''debe'', would return to its Old Castilian spelling ''deve''.
that{{spaced ndash}}given his language{{spaced ndash}}he was in fact Jewish!<ref name="Papo">[http://www.bhdani.com/arhiva/90/papo90.htm Eliezer Papo: From the Wailing Wall (in [[Bosnian
or both.<ref>[http://www.americansephardifederation.org/sub/events/exhibition-rare_book_levy.asp > Events > Exhibitions > Rare Book Library Collection Restoration Project – Ladino]. American Sephardi Federation (23 April
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Celtic languages may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Chubut]] || — [[Welsh Language Commissioner]] ([[Meri Huws]])<br>— The [[Welsh Government]]<br>(previously the [[Welsh Language Board]] (''Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg'')
piece of lead (1983), the analysis of which reveals another common phonetical innovation ''-nm-'' > ''-nu'' (Gaelic ''ainm'' / Gaulish ''anuana'', Old Welsh ''enuein'' "names"), that is less
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Uralic languages may have broken the syntax by modifying 10 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
**** Finno-Permic (reshaping *kektä > *kakta)
******** Finnic<!--(reshaping *kakta > *kakti "2" on the analogy of "1")-->
**** Permian–Ugric (*δ > *l)
***** Ugric (*s *š *ś > *ɬ *ɬ *s)
with competing models of Finno-Saamic vs. Eastern Finno-Ugric (Mari, Mordvinic, Permic-Ugric; *k > ɣ between vowels, degemination of stops) and Finno-Volgaic (Finno-Saamic, Mari, Mordvinic; *δ́ > δ between vowels) vs. Permic-Ugric. Viitso finds no evidence for a Finno-Permic grouping.<!-- see
sibilant developments. A further non-trivial Ugric-Samoyedic isogloss is the reduction *k, *x, *w > ɣ when before *i, and after a vowel (cf. *k > ɣ above), or adjacent to *t, *s, *š, or *ś.<ref name = EastUralic/>
since loaning<!--NB the Uralic proto-form is *porśas--> save for loss of [[palatalization]], *ś > s.<!--Another well-known example is ''kuningas'' ("king"), a loan from the [[Proto-Germanic
except for an assimilation *ŋg > {{IPA|/ŋː/}}, contrary to any of the [[Germanic languages]].-->)
(Orthographical notes: The hacek denotes postalveolar articulation ({{angbr|ž}} {{IPA|[ʒ]}}, {{angbr|
In your revert you said it was clearer before. What was clearer before? Speling12345 (talk) 4:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I mean that "Speakers may clarify which written character they mean ..." is more precise than "Speakers may clarify the written character they mean ...". Kanguole09:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to bother you. But, I guess that if you don't answer why you reverted, I have no choice but to undo. Speling12345 (talk) 6:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I did explain why I reverted. I've never been near the Albino page and have no idea what you're talking about. I see you've now engaged in a series of retaliatory reverts of my recent edits. You need to stop that. Kanguole10:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's not poison the discussion with further irrelevances. Let's discuss it here, and let's be civil about it.
Of course, if you step back and read carefully what was written, I think you'll see it's obvious that I was not making any claim that "Q.E.D." meant literally the words "fuck" and "you", but the intent behind those words: "What you have to say is not worthy of my consideration, and I have no intention of treating it with respect", which is precisely the effect of ignoring a list of concerns and trying unilaterally to shut down the discussion. With or without the "Q.E.D.", CWH's response was shockingly disrespectful, and my response, "This "argument" is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALAAAaaa!"", was pointing it out as exactly what it was. My response was not even remotely incivil by any stretch of the imagination—what was incivil was CWH's response to I had been incivil—a violation of one of the Five Pillars, and thus quite a serious charge. Am I to tolerate such a charge?
Despite his words (on a very superficial level), his actions (far more important) were horribly incivil, and his condescending tone gave me no hope that he would drop it unless he was called out for it. I hope you aren't going to make the situation worse by trying to insinuate that I'm the villain. After all, I did try to get the discussion back on the rails with my final comment to CWH: "Now if you could get around to responding to my concerns, we can let this ugly tangent die an ugly death." Are you willing to get back on the rails and leave that ugly tangent alone, or do you want to destroy the discussion by beating a dead horse? Your response will determine whether or not you're discussing in good faith. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, from my background, it didn't mean that either, so I view your response as unwarranted. But even if it had meant what you think, it was particularly inappropriate to make such a personal response on a page supposedly devoted to discussion of the article. To expect that after such an outburst everyone would return to calm discussion of the article title is ridiculous. It was you that destroyed that discussion. Kanguole00:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess you skipped the "With or without the "Q.E.D."", because you seem to be entirely hung up on those words, and you seem to be ignoring everything else I've written. The fact remains that CWH attempted to shut down the discussion in a disgracefully disrepectful way (Q.E.D. or not), and made the situation worse by trying to frame me for incivility, when I clearly had not been, and demanded an apology when I had clearly done nothing untoward.
Also, I have destroyed nothing—notice how Kwakikagami and others have managed to continue the conversation in a neutral tone after I called CWH out. If the two of you are unwilling or unable to hold a respectful conversation with those you disagree with, that's unfortunate. I did invite a civil return to the matter at hand.
Now you're flinging further accusations at me: "Since your move has been disputed": my move was never disputed—the proposal went nearly a week without comment, and the move stood for nearly eight months before CWH decided to make an issue of it (pointing fingers at me by name, to boot). It's CWH's move that has been disputed. If you'd like to prove your good faith, please revert this clearly unneutral comment and rejoin the otherwise civil conversation. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Then what's the point in personalizing it? It's not "my" move that generated two threads of debate, so why use that pronoun? If it's not an accusation, then why refuse to retract it to make that clear? The effect is to put the onus on me to justify my position, while relieving you of such obligation. If that was not your intention, then the only reasonable thing to do is to withdraw the offending pronoun. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edwin Siu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reconstructions of Old Chinese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iambic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks very much! It's interesting (I think) to see the relationships between them, but I'm sure there are parts that could be much clearer. Kanguole14:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Emmohhaach
I notice Emmohhaach seems to have war edit in other wikipedia site,Han Chinese. I will leave the war edit in Han Chinese section to other editors but if Emmohhaach continue this war edit in Shang dynasty,I think we might need to report him in worst case scenario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomcaws (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you made some edits recently to the lead section of this article. I am not an expert on this topic, but it seems to me that the section has been left in a slightly unsatisfactory state. It initially says that the radical component is "often a semantic classifier", but later that radicals are "also sometimes called 'classifiers', but ...", as if the "classifier" terminology is new information, and implying that it is not the norm. I do not feel confident myself about fixing this. Perhaps you could take another look if you are knowledgeable about the subject. Thanks. 86.160.86.139 (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The two instances of "classifier" have different meanings: the first one is about semantic categories while the second is about sections of a dictionary. But I agree that it's awkward and a bit confusing. Norman uses "semantic indicator" – maybe that would fix it. Kanguole00:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
In addition to your list of articles that have the word 'Dynasty' in the name, there are many articles that contain 'Foo Dynasty' in the body text, some linked some not linked, which would also need to be changed so that a consistent style is maintained. For example Yinchuan contains, "Yuan Dynasty" and Xiao'erjing contains, "Tang Dynasty". -- Rincewind42 (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't an exact cut and paste - The article had been substantially updated, but point taken. I've requested the move formally now. Bleaney (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a Liu Song at twilight...
I've rearranged the redir page. If the tag is below the redirect, you get whizzed to the target without seeing the CSD tag. And you think the problem's sorted... Peridon (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
It took me some time to work out when I first discovered this thing. I was wondering why some things where hanging around in the CSD list, and the titles showing there in italics. Sometimes, things that have been declined stick in the list and need a null edit to clear them, but these oddities wouldn't go. Then I made a connection with redirects and did some playing around... I'm thinking of raising this at the CSD talk. Peridon (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Dravidian languages page
I would like to know why you undid my contribution.
I wanted to make it clear that the page was restricted to talking about language family and that it had nothing to do with genetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.240.17 (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
But that is made clear by the very first sentence (and indeed the title), isn't it? There's no need to introduce genetics at all. In addition, the introduction of the article is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article (which is all about the language family) rather than introducing new material. Kanguole09:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I just came across a ref for Old Southwestern Chinese, containing Ping, Caijia, and Waxiang: [1] Can you confirm now? — kwami (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
That reference is the same as the one that was in the Old Southwestern Chinese article between January and May of 2013. I can't find any of these four terms in it. Bradley surveys Sinitic on pages 354–355, following the traditional 7 dialect groups. I think it's likely that MultiTree copied the reference from Wikipedia. Kanguole00:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, please watch these two articles, as Azuzarlz is doing the same edit (presenting them as facts, misinterpreting, etc.) on both articles. Thank you.--Balthazarduju (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Yes,I read the article. How does it had nothing to do with genetic. I don't understand. If no reply then I will add it there later.User:Balthazarduju,I ask you in your user talk which you haven't reply me yet. Also,I want to know how did you know it's fact or not when pretty much every single genetic research from different scholars are pretty much opinion. Where did you draw the line between fact and opinion when it comes to genetic? Explanation for this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanghaiWu (talk • contribs) 07:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You've already re-added it, but this is the wrong way round: when your additions are disputed, you need to discuss rather than trying to force them in. Kanguole08:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I am currently discussing now and demand reasoning on why it is rejected. It sound ok with me. There have been other DNA analysis in Han Chinese wikipedia page before and they too are from scholar opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanghaiWu (talk • contribs) 08:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zhao Tao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Szechuanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Kanguole, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! j⚛e deckertalk20:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
PS: In reviewing your most recent creations, I did come across a single instance of an unsourced geographic creation. Given the rest of your work, which I found to be consistently more-than-solidly sourced, very well-written and copyright compliant, I took that single omission as a minor oversight. Thank you for your great work here building an encyclopedia, and if I can ever be of any assistance, please let me know. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk20:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Very impressed by your recent map on Zhuang Languages Surveys. How did you manage to get such a good overall appearance? I have been thinking about producing some maps of the same area illustrating patterns in data collected in around 30 locations in Guangxi. I see you use QGIS, but what map did you start with?Johnkn63 (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The vector data from rivers and boundaries is from Natural Earth (1:10m). I positioned the survey sites myself from online maps. In several cases I couldn't find the survey village, and so used the centre of the county, so they could be a bit off. I set QGis to use the WP location map colours and used the SimpleSVG plugin to export the map to SVG. Unfortunately the plugin is buggy, so I had to fiddle with the output SVG to fix it. Kanguole14:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank-you for a quick and full reply. I experimented today with the natural earth data and qgis today, with interesting results, though I was not able to get the SimpleSVG plugin to work, it crashed and so did not produce an svg file. Regarding the survey sites I may be able to find out where they are if you let me know which ones you could not find I might be able to get co-ordinates for them. Johnkn63 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The villages I couldn't locate were:
Nàxù 那旭, Héngxiàn 横县
23.0334133 109.1747475
Xīnyú 新于, Píngguǒ 平果
This should be Xīnxū 新圩
Héxuān 合愃, Tiándōng 田东
This should be Héhéng 合恒
Zhěméng Township 者孟乡, Guǎngnán 广南 (Shā people 沙族)
Ānzì 安治, Róng'ān 融安
Rìxīn 日新, Lóngshèng 龙胜
Sānqū 三区, Héchí 河池
Mémá 么麻, Nándān 南丹
Chéngxiāng 城厢, Dōnglán 东兰
Liùlǐ 六里, Dū'ān 都安
23.973234 108.115940 this is for Liuli Village, rather than the centre of Liuli.
Sìjiǎo 寺脚, Láibīn 来宾
Xiàfāng Township 下枋乡, Yōngnán 邕南
Fùlù Township 福鹿乡, Chóngzuǒ 崇左
Yuándì'èrqū 原第二区, Débǎo 德保
Xīnhé Township 新和乡, Jìngxī 靖西
Kuāxī Township 夸西乡, Yánshān 砚山 (Nóng people 侬族)
Dàzhài, Hēimò Township 黑末乡大寨, Wénmǎ 文马 (Tǔ people 土族)
Apologies only found two locations so far. A further two locations where mistyped in Zhuang_languages#Surveys I have corrected these, maybe the person typing did not have a copy of Zhang 1999 《壮语方言研究》. The original surveys covered over 50 locations, and some of places have changed their name (see http://www.rauz.net.cn/bbs/dispbbs_22_74659_3754_skin0.html for a discussion of which names have changed and some suggestions of where these might be). The name of Sānqū 三区, Héchí 河池 suggests it is close to the city, or even part of it. The 1999 book only include 35, the stated reason is that where two places where similar such as 田阳 and 田东 only one is shown, however printing space, or page size, was IMHO a consideration. Find more of the locations would be useful, as would keeping a note of which have yer to be found. Johnkn63 (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sino-Tibetan languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tangut. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Achille Compagnoni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello your are hid the fact during Tang Dynasty, and also support historical forgery and Crimes, that inflict
Vietnam
Mongolia
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Tajikistan
Kyrgyzstan
Russia
Laos
Afghanistan
Pakistan
India
Turkmenistan
North Korea
South Korea
AS you KEEP the today part of section in the Tang Dynasty Page.
Your faction is will be eliminated if not restore the Yuan Chao, Huang Chao, and Eunuch and Military Factions in Tang Dynasty page. Please look at talk page of Tang Dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.13.222 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of languages by first written accounts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pyu language. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm seriously thinking it may be necessary to protect the various school infobox templates. If it happens, you would of course be granted Template Editor rights. Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I may be overreacting and anyway, I have them on my watchlist. If anytime you think protection might be prudent let me know, and I'll give you Template Editor at the same time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Better way to layout IPA for Mandarin
Hi, Kanguole,
it's about the help page IPA for Mandarin,
Does the Pinyin transcription -r at syllable ends also represents nasalized sounds like the IPA tilde?
Thought it only stood for the retroflex approximant ɻ.
Isn't the Pinyin ending -ng enough to indicate the nasalization in the Chinese sounds?
So when the -ng is sufficient, why adding the -r?
Therefore the Pinyin -ngr is only an Pinyin instcance of both, the retroflex approximant and nasalization, that includes the northern Chinese erhua.
The table actually doen't make it very clear if the Pinyin examples in brackets are the only instances, or some instances.
I would suggest adding a new column (with a title) to clarify this misinterpretation.
This isn't obvious, but the table is ment for people that are not so much into Chinese transcription, so it actually might help.
Waiting for your answer though.
What do you think?
The erhua represented by -r alters the sound of the syllable. According to Norman (1988) Chinese, pp. 144–145, this causes loss of the coda -ŋ with nasalization of the preceding vowel. That is, pinyin -ang represents [ɑŋ], while -angr represents [ɑ̃ɻ]. Kanguole11:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Please reconcile the List of Languages page with the Egyptian page
But the reason I made my edit was because of seeming conflicting information in the Egyptian page. Can you take a look at both pages and help clarify the text so it is more obvious that one is full sentences and the other is first known characters? I didn't feel that was clear before, and part of the reason I was even editing the page was because of disputes among some of my friends caused by these entries.
"Dialect", in normal English, is a subset of a language, which has mutual intelligibility as defining criterion. What language is Danzhou a subset of? --JorisvS (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
That is one of the definitions in common use. Requiring a containing language is problematic in situations of dialect continuua with few standardized forms, which we have for example in the Chinese case. I could equally ask what language Suzhou or Teochow are subsets of. Wu and Min (or even Southern Min) are not languages in the sense of 'group of mutually intelligible varieties'. There are also varieties on the borders of the major groups where there is disagreement about what group they should be classified with. Should "dialect" be avoided for them too? It seems a rather arbitrary distinction. The convention in the field is to use "dialect" for any local variety, which is common enough elsewhere, and works well. Kanguole17:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It may be difficult place exact boundaries, but that doesn't mean the principle doesn't apply. When there is disagreement as to which set (language) a specific dialect belongs to, such uncertainty can be noted, but this does not magically means that this dialect isn't a part of either set. Wu, Min, Mandarin, etc. are often called "Chinese dialects", but the reality is that they're rather different, very far from mutually intelligible. There is an option available to avoid discussion about whether the article should be at "XXX language" or "XXX dialect", namely appending "Chinese". This is what has happened with the major Chinese groups. Now, Wu and Min are closer to being groups of languages, but whether those articles are correctly placed at "XXX dialect" can only be answered by comparing it to adjacent varieties and their mutual intelligibility. Appending "Chinese" is the neutral option, whereas appending "dialect" means you're taking a stance. Therefore, appending "Chinese" is the way to go if there is doubt or lack of knowledge.
Note also that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and should therefore avoid field meanings as much as possible. Field meanings may work well in the field, but tend to confuse the general reader. --JorisvS (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It is quite common to speak of a dialect complex as consisting of a number of dialects (local varieties) of varying degrees of mutual intelligibility. Dividing it up into "languages" is unnecessary for most purposes. To say that we can't call something a dialect unless we could identify a language it belonged to is a needless complication. In this case, few Chinese varieties would qualify, and we'd end up inventing a naming scheme completely different from the one actually used. (This has nothing to do with the question of whether fāngyán should be translated as "language" or "dialect".) Similarly, your edits at the article give the false impression that this variety is called "Danzhou". Kanguole23:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but that's just one or a set of languages put together. I understand why one would. It also means, however, that one can indicate related dialects with which the dialect in question is mutually intelligible. Could you do that in the case of Danzhou?
(Of course it is called that, otherwise it wouldn't be located where it is. You just don't think it is complete without something added, which is not an requirement of the English language. "XXX dialect" or "XXX something" can be shortened when it is clear to what "XXX" refers.) --JorisvS (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
As above, I don't think identifying "languages" is relevant to naming (and nor do the authors who study these varieties). Kanguole11:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to identify languages. I asked you to name neighboring dialects with which Danzhou is mutually intelligible. --JorisvS (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Kanguole and Philg88:, nope, he just reverted. I warned him about having violated the 3rr days ago and he just keeps chuggin'. He just unlinks any reference to Tibetan Empire and insists on just Tibet. He also has added weasel words: "Out of fear..." and things like that. Problem editor is problem. Ogresssmash!19:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Four tones (Chinese), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vietnamese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
How are you doing? I was wondering if this part that was on the article about the language written and spoken by the Shang not being Chinese or Sino-Tibetan a widely accepted theory (consensus)? What is your opinion? What about Christopher I. Beckwith's segment that it is "a creole language of either Sinitic or Indo-European origin" and "the idea of writing might have been brought to China by Indo-European chariot warriors from Central Asia"?--Balthazarduju (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there anyway you can add a referenced statement to the end of the sentence of [a few scholars, such as Paul K. Benedict and Tatsuo Nishida, have suggested that the language spoken and written by the Shang was not Chinese or even Sino-Tibetan, and that the Zhou adopted the Shang script to write their Sino-Tibetan language], clarifying that it is not a widely accepted theory or mainstream. Thank you.--Balthazarduju (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Kanguole! This was added [2] to the lead paragraph of Yangshao culture article recently by Easy772, and the user cited a 1983 book The Origins of Chinese Civilization. It kind of contradicted what this user added to the Longshan culture earlier about the Yangshao in the Craniofacial/Skeletal analysis [3]. It also seems a bit strange that this user added these information to the lead of the article. Is this a credible addition to the article? Especially in the lead paragraph?--Balthazarduju (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Say, considering your comment to Peace on the TDF page, I'll note that we have various methods of communication. Article talk pages are available when the concern is an article improvement idea. The Village Pump when the concern is community wide, and the drama boards when more particular issues pop up. We can post on User talk pages when the inquiry is more personal (as with this message). Email when especially personal. Those who shout "OWN" as a rationale to delete the Maintained template actually advocate the elimination (or restriction) of an often helpful method of communication. (I will post a similar message with these thoughts on the TFD.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you read Chinese?
Hi, Kanguole,
I saw your edit to List of languages by number of native speakers, and I was curious why you made it. The Chinese language has lots of terms for "Mandarin Chinese" (Modern Standard Chinese), and it takes more than one character compound to give even the most commonly used names for that language in Chinese. Feel free to discuss with me in any channel you choose. See you on the wiki. 祝 平安-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, WeijiBaikeBianji. The link there goes to Mandarin Chinese (the dialect group), which isn't quite the same thing as Standard Chinese (which no-one calls 官话). I was also puzzled by your remark about user-selected display of traditional or simplified characters. I understand this is the case on zhwiki, but haven't heard of it on enwiki. Certainly articles on Chinese topics here are liberally sprinkled with traditional/simplified pairs. Kanguole14:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Reverting edits
Thanks for reverting my recent edits. I added the hatnotes to provide an obvious disambiguation between Cassiobury (the suburb) and Cassiobury Park (the public park). Now that they have been removed, the articles are less clear. A reader may, for example, go to the park article when they intended to read about the suburb (which is sometimes referred to as "Cassiobury Park") Cnbrb (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've never heard the suburb referred to as "Cassiobury Park". That would be quite confusing, as the park is right next to it. (You'll have noted that I didn't touch the hatnote on Cassiobury.) Kanguole14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
"inappropriate project tag"
There is not really a possibility of removing project tags the way you are doing with the tags from project "extinction" from articles about languages. Every project decides on its own which articles it finds to fall under its scope, and the inclusion of project tags is not covered by the policy that governs article space. I understand why you find it to be inappropriate to associate living endangered languages with "extinction", and I tend to agree, but really there is no way to simply remove the tags like you are doing. I think the entire idea of the project is problematic, but as long as there is a group of editors actively maintaining it it is nearly impossible to close down a wikiproject.·maunus · snunɐɯ·16:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
If it is any help, I support your removal - the slippage of 'meaning' or comprehension of what some projects actually have as their scope seems to be a issue for the tagging at hand... satusuro13:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Qieyun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Five Elements. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Aeusoes1. {{citation}} also generates a target for the link in Harvard references and short references generated by {{sfnp}}, so that clicking on the link on a short reference takes one to the full reference. Your edit broke all those links. I have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors installed to flag such errors, and every one of them went red. One can achieve the same effect with {{cite book}}, etc, by using |ref=harv. That means the variants have approximate parity, both needing an extra parameter, and in such a situation WP:CITEVAR says not to change an established style. Kanguole08:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey there, I know you do a lot with Sinitic pages and I wanted to observe that there is practically zero mention of creaky phonation in Mandarin on a lot of pages about Mandarin/Sinitic on Wikipedia, which is, as I'm sure you know, a non-negotiable feature of the third tone at least in Standard Mandarin in Singapore, Taiwan and PRC. I'm trying to sticky it to my forehead to remember to check it isn't ignored where it shouldn't be. It's certainly notable for many reasons, and also weird to leave out given how difficult it is for, say, Cantonese speakers to be understood when they speak Mandarin while ignoring this feature. (Had a lot of Cantonese-Americans in my class at Peking U.) Ogresssmash!23:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Ogress. I guess most authors treat it as secondary, a consequence of hitting the bottom of the pitch range. But in any case the best place to mention it would be when giving a detailed description of all the features of each tone, together with pitch contour and length. Kanguole17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I know they do, and it's kind of infuriating... The most basic examination would demonstrate that such assumptions make zero sense. Ogresssmash!20:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
