Jump to content

User talk:M. Dingemanse: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
→‎Donjunctive: Proclitic
Line 127: Line 127:


The concord is separated from the possessee. I think the neatness comes from the simplicity of the language (it doesn't have a million concords and parts of speech). Remember that Doke based his opinions from comparisons of numerous languages, though his definition of the word (used in the Sesotho articles) may also be utterly arbitrary... [[User:Zyxoas|Zyxoas]] ([[User talk:Zyxoas|talk to me - I'll listen]]) 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The concord is separated from the possessee. I think the neatness comes from the simplicity of the language (it doesn't have a million concords and parts of speech). Remember that Doke based his opinions from comparisons of numerous languages, though his definition of the word (used in the Sesotho articles) may also be utterly arbitrary... [[User:Zyxoas|Zyxoas]] ([[User talk:Zyxoas|talk to me - I'll listen]]) 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:A proclitic it may well be, but that needn't be a reason to ''not'' distinguish a word boundary. Words are often phonologically joined in natural speech, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the most useful orthography is one where the word boundaries in such cases are not marked. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:53, 18 April 2007

This user is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
You may want to try email.
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:M._Dingemanse.

Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia Foundation
Welcome to my Talk page.
If you post a message I will usually reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion.
If I have left you a message I will be watching so you can reply on your talk page if you wish.
I dislike having my Talk page spammed with impersonal multi-user messages.
EDIT
My talk archives

Confirmation

I confirm my request to be desysopped. I'm too busy at the moment to be of any help as an admin. What little time I have I'd like to spend on contributing content, and I don't need the sysop bit for that. — mark ✎ 11:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been desysopped as requested. effeietsanders 12:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was fast. It's a relief! — mark ✎ 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Durin, thanks for the note, and I'll remember to do so whenever I feel the admin tools come in handy again. — mark ✎ 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who has been here, I think you've made the right choice. Be well, BanyanTree 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I just followed the example of one of the Wikipedians I respect most: you. Thanks, BT, and see you around! — mark ✎ 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine as long as you stick around. Been seeing good editors disappear, which worries me. --Ezeu 04:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ezeu, that worries me too, and I can't say I'm immune to the, how shall I say it, disentchantment that comes with disinvolvement. But maybe I should just delete my watchlist and see what new stuff I can contribute. It's also plain lack of time, though. — mark ✎ 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Mark - I know what you mean about the sysop bit being distracting. I've been trying to write Katsina State geo-stubs like I used to, but I'm just so compelled to go delete things instead ever since my rfa 10 days ago!

Anyways, I'm having trouble with 70.150.50.100 (talk · contribs), which I'm 99.99% sure is a static IP address. He (or she) has been removing information about the man I think is Port Harcourt's mayor over and over for weeks, and I can't get him to respond, in English or French. I think Port Harcourt is mainly Ijaw, but could you try to drop him a line in Yoruba (which I know you speak at least a little of) to see if we can get some reasoning? The user's contribution history suggests they are Nigerian. Picaroon 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African languages map is really nice, but extremely unrealistic for North Africa.

I really like the African languages map, but I find the North African distribution questionable. Total absence of Arabic in the Northwest is misleading. Arabic is not only a second language of the majority, but also the first language of the absolute majority in Tunisia, a clear majority in Algeria and Morocco, and a significant pluraity in Mauritania. As it stands, the map seems to suggest that Arabic is spoken in Egypt and parts of Lybia, while Berber is spoken in the rest of North Africa (which is clearly not the reality). Berber is alive, true, but so is Arabic very clearly. One more thing, what tool did you use to create this great map?--Karkaron 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're talking about Image:African language families.png, which is one of a series of maps. The names on the map should only be taken as some examples of languages to be connected to the four families; if I had wanted to mark the distribution of those individual languages, I would have chosen different colours or shades. Of course I agree with your point about the prevalence of Arabic in much of the Sahel (see Image:Afro-Asiatic.png for a map in the same series which deals specifically with Afro-Asiatic).
I made those maps one and a half year ago in CorelDraw 12. — mark ✎ 17:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering...

Do you have access to JStor.org? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 09:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try emailing me. — mark ✎ 14:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lamu_Islands

Hello, I´m beeing bold, and I´m directing you to Talk:Lamu_Islands. Without a map, (or intimate knowledge of the Lamu archipelago) it is not really easy to get an impression of the place. A map over the islands is therefore much wanted. Do you know somebody who feels like filling the gap? Regards, Huldra 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huldra, I agree that Lamu Islands could use a map. However, I'm in serious lack of time right now so I won't be able to do it. As a faster solution, have you tried finding a satellite photo of the area? — mark ✎ 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

{{WP Africa Invitation}} Belovedfreak 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm aware of the new WikiProject Africa. However, I won't join; chiefly because I simply lack the time (see above), but also a because I'm afraid Africa is too broad in scope for one overarching Wikiproject. — mark ✎ 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tips on resources for free maps?

Hi there Mark,

I've been noodling about over at Rama language, and I'd like to make a map of the (few) places where it's spoken. As I'm sure you know, I need a free (traceable) map of Nicaragua to use as a basis for an SVG. But it's quite a small language, so the resolution has to be high. A simple line map of the Atlantic coast would suffice for labeling the locales where it's spoken, but I just can't seem to find one. Any tips on what I might use? Best regards, babbage 23:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found one :) babbage 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I didn't look into it yet. Good luck with making the map! — mark ✎ 08:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tonal languages

No, sorry, I'm not, because it's a category that needs to exist, and which I would use often--and which is severely lacking. Whoever created most of the Bantu language articles, for example, doesn't even mention whether the languages are tonal or not. That's unacceptable in an encyclopedia like ours that purports to cover all the bases. I don't agree that a "tonal languages" category is problematic in any way. Mandinka is tonal, Fula is not. Swedish is tonal, English is not. It's very clear and the category needs to exist. I'm very familiar with delete-happy editors who haunt "Categories for deletion" and usually their arguments, if they are presented at all, don't make much sense as they are not qualified in the subjects they vote "delete" on. Thanks for your interest, though. Badagnani 07:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of your pages on French-speaking Wikipedia

Hi Mark,

As you requested, I've deleted your user and user talk pages on French-speaking Wikipedia, so that you can spend all your time right here, on English-speaking Wikipedia. Please feel free to tell me if you ever want to see them back.

Friendly,

benji 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — mark ✎ 16:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Akan deletion request

Done ([1][2]). G.He 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — mark ✎ 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict on Nafaanra

Sorry about that; I'll stop now. Let me know when you want me to have another look. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I'll wait for you, and have another look when you're ready. Looks good, though. Too bad it ended up on the list, but it was probably quite a chore to go through over 1,000 articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I hesitate to work on some of these without your input. For example, I would change:

Delafosse (1904) was the first linguist to mention Nafaanra, calling it 'a much dispersed Senufo tribe'.[10]

to

Delafosse was the first linguist to mention Nafaanra, calling it 'a much dispersed Senufo tribe'.[10]

That is, I would remove the inline reference to the date of the cited source, since it's given in the actual footnote. Is that OK with you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, that would be fine. — mark ✎ 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the way it is now ('Delafosse was the first linguist to mention Nafaanra, calling it 'a much dispersed Senufo tribe' in 1904') is good; it is notable that the first mention of Nafaanra dates back to only 1904. — mark ✎ 07:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I realize only now that I wrote the first version of the article (the first good publicly available source of information on the language) exactly one hundred years after that! — mark ✎ 08:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job :-) I usually wait for Marskell to concur before removing items from the list. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting stuck here: not sure if this is a or b. Jordan (1980:D.1.4) I hope I don't do more harm than good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a 1980a, because of the funny page numbers. That document doesn't have page numbers, only sections. Sorry, I should've cleared this up before; the problem is that I only got hold of 1980b after I had written the bulk of the article. — mark ✎ 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donjunctive

As usual, you're completely and utterly wrong, marc. Though their verbal complexes are written conjunctively this does not seem to be consistently applied. At least in Kiswahili (iirc) the concords and prefixes (such as conjunctive "na-") are not attached to the rest of the word. I did take your advice and changed the wording from "almost all" to "many." Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this simply shows how unnatural and unscientific the word division is, though I did try to explain it (the Sesotho version) a bit in the article. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 14:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Swahili, the conjunctive na isn't a concord (it agrees with nothing) nor a prefix (it associates two noun phrases and can't really be said to be more related to one than to the other, hence not an affix to either of the two). Because na doesn't consistently pattern with nor agree to some other word, it seems quite natural to me to write it as a separate word. In general, Swahili orthography strikes me as natural and neat.
And yes, as mentioned in word (an excellent article by Gareth), it is notoriously difficult to define just what makes a word a word, so it is actually not surprising that difficulties like this arise. I wouldn't rush to call the result unnatural or unscientific though; somewhere, choices have to be made and these will always give rise to disagreements. — mark ✎ 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking Doke's side when he says that "na" (Sesotho "le") is a proclitic. How do you indicate possession in Kiswahili, "X wa Y" or "X waY"? I think I'll quickly take a look in the meantime. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concord is separated from the possessee. I think the neatness comes from the simplicity of the language (it doesn't have a million concords and parts of speech). Remember that Doke based his opinions from comparisons of numerous languages, though his definition of the word (used in the Sesotho articles) may also be utterly arbitrary... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proclitic it may well be, but that needn't be a reason to not distinguish a word boundary. Words are often phonologically joined in natural speech, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the most useful orthography is one where the word boundaries in such cases are not marked. — mark ✎ 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M._Dingemanse&oldid=123892241"