Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:53, 30 September 2015

Word/quotation of the moment:

Previous:

The File:Original South Park flag.png Confederate flag is a matter of pride and heritage, not hatred.

In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot. (from the WP article Nancy Dorian)

Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown. (from the WP article 11714 Mikebrown)

Keep Redskins White!

"homosapiens are people, too!!"

Spaghetti Weevil (and also) a sprig of spaghetti

"I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."

awkwardnessful

anti–zombie-fungus fungus

"Only an evil person would eat baby soup."

Template:Two-dabs

Hi Kwamikagami. What is the purpose of Template:Two-dabs? It isn't transcluded on any pages, and it appears to be a cleanup template that informs the reader that there isn't anything to clean up. If there are only two topics which a term is ambiguous for and neither of the topics is a primary topic, then a disambiguation page is warranted (per WP:TWODABS). By design, cleanup templates should be temporary and be about fixable issues. A disambiguation page having two ambiguous, non-primary topics is not an issue that needs to be fixed. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a cleanup template, it's a message template. We have constant edit-wars with people who think TWODABS forbids WP from having dab pages with two links; no matter how often people point out that it doesn't say that, they engage in edit-warring or insist on starting multiple time-wasting move requests to resolve the perceived problem. I created this to help with such problems, but forgot we had it when I could have used it. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Pre-palatal?

Hi. Does the term "pre-palatal" unambiguously refer to alveolo-palatals, or is it also used to describe palato-alveolars? Laver (1994:136) uses "pre-palatal" to describe consonants articulated in the place "between palatal and alveolo-palatal" (are those even possible? I thought it was an either/or distinction.) On the other hand, for both Jensen (2004:30) and Esling (2010:693) "pre-palatal" is synonymous with "alveolo-palatal". I haven't found a source that uses "pre-palatal" as synonymous with "palato-alveolar", but to me, the description of Maastrichtian Limburgish postalveolars sounds somewhat ambiguous; Gussenhoven & Aarts (1999:156) say that "/c, ʃ, ʒ, ɲ/ are pre-palatal, articulated with the tongue against the post-alveolar place of articulation, the tip being held down." Would it be OR to say that these are alveolo-palatal ? Peter238 (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

How far front is "pre" will depend on the author. It's like trying to figure out what "stop" means. Usually it means up to but not as far as the next named articulation. (E.g. "pre-velar" will hopefully mean in front of velar but not so far front as palatal.) But when we get to sibilants in the postaleolar region tongue shape may be just as important as position, if not more so, so "pre-palatal" could mean post-alveolar with a palatal tongue shape. And I suspect that's what Gussenhoven & Aarts mean: since they define "pre-palatal" for us, as "blade of the tongue against the post-alveolar place of articulation", it would seem they're trying to say laminal post-alveolar. I wouldn't transcribe that with ⟨c͇⟩, which to me would suggest the dorsum of the tongue contacting the alveolar ridge.

Anyway, how is alveolo-palatal different in place from palato-alveolar? Ladefoged & Maddieson in SOWL say s.t. about alveolo-palatals being palatalized post-alveolars, so maybe a close transcription of the Limburgish would be ⟨t̠ʲ, ɕ, ʑ, n̠ʲ⟩ (with the yod implying laminal articulation: if you really want to be clear).

Also, the phonology can have an effect, though that doesn't seem to be the case here. Sounds might be called prepalatal if they form a natural class other dorsals, even though articulatorily they're post-alveolar. Hopefully the author would make that clear, but you never know. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go with "laminal post-alveolar" then. Alveolo-palatal is not a different place of articulation than palato-alveolar, it's just more strongly palatalized than palato-alveolar. At least that's what the SOWL says. Peter238 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Acre, Israel

Kwami, why is there an apostrophe before the initial "A" in 'Acre in the Acre, Israel#Etymology section of Acre, Israel? I believe the apostrophe represents an initial "ain" in Arabic, but why would the Arabic name for the city be used there? Also, you might like to look at two "dubious – discuss" tags in that section. Corinne (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It's also the ain of Hebrew. I don't see "Acre" written w an apostrophe, though. — kwami (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. It's 'Akka. I guess that's an Egyptian name. I wonder what the apostrophe represented. Sorry, Kwami. It's late and I've been editing for hours. I guess my eyes are getting tired. Corinne (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the apostrophe is normal in Egyptian transliteration. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Khira sagara

Hi, sorry for disturbing you. Perhaps you know whether khira sagara is the same as chhena payesh? If yes, could ou comment on Talk:Khira sagara? --Off-shell (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Swiss Standard German shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. ZH8000 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)