User talk:Doric Loon/Archive 2007

Moved again, again

See Talk:Minister (Christianity). -- roundhouse 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-off, I hadn't really been watching there. My thoughts are on that talk page now. --Doric Loon 10:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This PW chap is getting notorious for unilateral moves. I agree with all your remarks. -- roundhouse 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Britain

Doric, sorry if you feel my "swift sword" was too swift. Actually, I would have been a lot harsher and redirected the thing to Britain (well, actually, move Great Britain to Britain and redirect Great Britain there, but that's the kind of job would call for a claíomh mór, which I don't have).

In the end, it was Robdurbar's sword that landed the fatal blow. I just moved the previous content to Wikionary after his blade had cut the page down. --sony-youth^talk 12:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No no, you're doing fine. (The sword metaphor was meant positively - there was pruning to be done!) It's just the encyclopedia/dictionary thing where alarm bells rang: I think a lot of Wikipedians understand the rule as a taboo on discussion of linguistic aspects; the way I see it, Wiktionary has a very rigid, neat, user-friendly format, ideal for presenting basic dictionary info, but anything more discursive doesn't belong there; and what isn't right for Wiktionary must belong in Wikipedia, even if it is a section focussing on linguistic aspects of a topic. But I suspect I don't have to persuade you of that. --Doric Loon 13:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I agree to a good enxtent but don't think Britain was the best place for that article, even Britain (word) would be better. --sony-youth^talk 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A-mutation

Thanks for the warning. Unfortunately, I don't think I am knowledgeable enough about the topic to come up with an argument to keep the article. :-( FilipeS 22:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Prescription

OK, I think my changes were mostly limited to removing some rather dubious and unsourced claims from the article (e.g. that prescription increases clarity, that written language requires "more conservative" syntax...). I guess the most productive thing to do would be for me to list the parts of the article I object to on the talk page and explain why I object to them. I'll do this later today or tomorrow. Cadr 11:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's the way to go.--Doric Loon 15:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dutch spelling

Hi Doric, see perhaps: Talk:Dutch orthography 152.1.193.137 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question Doric Loon, about the page Germanic strong verb. It says something about the verbal noun being stage 5 or so, but the thought is not carried much further. I have always wondered about the verbal nouns in my own dialect (Dutch) (or is that a language?). There still seems to be a fair bit of systematics left, like bieden -> het bod, schieten -> het schot and interestingly with a 'short' rather than a long o as in the past schoot. Is there any sense in saying more about this?

Not that the verbal nouns are not a bit of a mess as I have tried to show on wikibooks.

I quickly looked at the classes 1,2 and 3 and got this: Class 1: mostly in -ee-? and masculine

bezwijken

bijten - de beet

blijken (-het blijk)

blijven -

drijven - de drift

glijden (-de glij(ding))

grijpen - de greep

hijsen -

kijken - (de kijk)

knijpen - de kneep

krijgen (-de krijg?)

lijden - het leed

lijken

prijzen

rijden - de rit

rijzen

schijnen - (de schijn)

schrijden - de schrede

schrijven - het schrift

slijpen

slijten (-- sleets?)

smijten - de smeet

spijten (- de spijt)

splijten - de spleet

stijgen

strijden - (de strijd)

strijken

verdwijnen (verdwijning)

vermijden

wijken

wijzen - de wijze

wrijven de wreef?

zwijgen.

2

neuters with o, feminines with -eu-?

bieden - het bod

genieten - het genot

gieten - de goot

kiezen - de keuze

liegen - de leugen

schieten - het schot

verliezen (- het verlies)

vliegen - de vlucht

vriezen - de vorst

with ū-present

buigen - de boog

druipen - de drop

duiken

fluiten

kruipen

ruiken - de reuk

schuilen

schuiven (-de schoof?)

snuiven

spuiten (-de spuit)

stuiven

zuigen (-het zog?)

zuipen.

Class 3 masculines in -a-?

beginnen - het begin

binden - de band

blinken

dringen - de drang

drinken - de drank

dwingen - de dwang

glimmen

klimmen - de klim

klinken - de klank

schrikken - de schrik

springen -de sprong

stinken - de stank

verzinnen

vinden - de vondst

winnen (- het gewin?)

wringen (adj.: wrang?)

zingen - de zang

zinken.

oiginal 3b

bergen - de borg

gelden

schelden

smelten

vechten

zwellen.

3b by analogy (original class in brackets)

schenken

scheren (4) (schering)

treffen(4)

trekken (6) (-de trek)

wegen - de waag

zenden (3a)

zwemmen (3a).

3b with preterite in ie

bederven - het bederf

helpen - de hulp

sterven

werpen - de worp

zwerven.

(obviously pretty corrupt..)

nl:wikt:Gebruiker:Jcwf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.1.193.137 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi. Now that is quite interesting. First of all, though, when the Germanic strong verb article talks about the verbal noun, it means the original PIE verb-form which became the Germanic past participle. What you are asking about is nouns related to verbs, which is a different thing. But yes, these nouns can be a vowel-shift away from the verbs. There are several possible causes of this, but the most obvious one is Indo-European ablaut. As you have noticed, ablaut should create a set of nouns which bear a regular relation to the verbs, and when viewed on a class-by-class basis you would expect to find an identical vowel in all the nouns related to a particular class. I've never looked into the Dutch forms, so I don't want to make any pronouncements, but I would expect that the irregularities and anomalies in your pattern will be explained in one of two ways. One possibility is that a random change has taken place in a particular word, which can happen at any time, though the fact that the Dutch strong verbs have remained relatively regular compared with English or even German might indicate that the language is fairly conservative at this point, which may mean that random irregularities will be seldom. (But that's only a guess - there is no real reason why the nouns should have stayed as regular as the verbs!) The other possibility is that the nouns which don't fit the pattern may be more recent. If they do not date back to PIE as separate words, but have instead been derived from the verbs later in the history of Germanic, they could have been formed in quite different ways. Possibly in some cases the irregularity will not be explicable at all; but linguists can usually have at least a tentative guess at a solution to most problems in Germanic language history. At any rate, I find that the pattern is usually more interesting than the exception. It would be interesting to write this up in a Wiki article, but do try to find scholarly literature rather than just noting your own observations. At any rate, Germanic verbs is not the place for it. user:Angr is usually pretty well up on such things, so do ask his opinion before you do anything too innovative. Dutch is a cool language, though, and is often a truer representation of Germanic origins than English or German, so we should look at it more often. (BTW, linguists are usually not too bothered about the distinction between a language and a dialect, but in popular usage Dutch is certainly a language.) Where have you worked on Wikibooks? --Doric Loon 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words Doric. I am no liguist and would rather leave such things to the pro's. I had no intention to write here. I seldom visit en.wiki. I just never saw a discussion of the one-vowel-away nouns and am curious about my own netherly tongue. You are right I had missed the bit about the participle. On wikibooks I have mostly worked on the Dutch book, where I happily conjectured about a few things, like where our gender system is going in relation to pronominal adverbs I'd value your comments. BTW any idea wherefrom the hereins and wheretofores came? They seem to have acquired a second wind in Dutch because of the grammatical shifts we have been through since the 'golden' age.

..is often a truer representation of Germanic origins than English or German.. ouch. Ich hoffe unsere lieben Nachbarn lesen das nicht. ;-)

cheers

Iarlagab/Jcwf

User:AlexNewArtBot

Hi Doric Loon/Archive 2007, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: incorrect edit of Germanic strong verb

Apologies for that mistake and thanks for pointing it out to me. I've added Old English language tags to those words in the article so that 'writen' will not be picked up as a typo by AWB. Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Umlaut

Since you are a Scotchman (as I recall you don't like being called Scotch) :-), we're probably related way back - say 30 generations or so (I'm Icelandic). I have to admit that I did not pay enough attention to the disambiguation character of the page, but I still have reservations. I also freely admit that I was unduly harsh (a national trait - arrogance is too). But I still feel that the Umlaut (disambiguation) page could do with a bit of revision. Germanic Umlaut is something I know a bit about, and as the subject is presented on the page, it is more confusing than needs be. I'll voice my comments on the talk page next weekend as promised. Wikipedia has, alas, taken this opportunity to have technical problems, and it is bedtime for me now, so I'll just wait for an opportunity to send this, and then I'm headed for the sack. OK, Wikipedia just came online again. Linguisticically Umlaut only refers to the Germanic phenomenon. But seeing the page again, I see I might have jumped the gun. But I have never heard of the Celtic changes called anything but mutations. The A-Umlaut in particular is a specific Germanic development, present in every living Germanic language. Anyway, I may just be rambling, so your talk page might be a better place to talk things over instead of exposing my ignorance to a wider public (that last sentence is also an example of a national trait). :-) Anyway, see you and cheers Io 04:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the disambig page needs tidied up. I personally would agree with you that the word Umlaut should be reserved for the Germanic phenomenon. That's why originally the Umlaut discussed precisely that. But others wanted to use the word in much wider ways, and the page was in danger of becoming a mish-mash of different things, and that was when I moved the original article to Germanic Umlaut and made this a disambig. The Celtic phenomenon can indeed be called other things, and although I wrote part of that article, I think it is not a good article. Do try to improve on it. --Doric Loon 09:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell my about it! I once rewrote an article and then put it up for deletion. Remarkably enough, the voting turned out to be a tie, so there it stands. :-) Cheers Io 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge missions

Hi. I had misled you by directing the discussion to the wrong place (as became clear when the merge-tags were restored). I thus moved my comment and yours to the proper place, at the Hiberno-Scottish mission talk page. Sorry for that. — SomeHuman 07 Jul2007 16:25 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a big deal, because if the merge goes ahead we can still unmerge later if it e-merge-s that I am right. But I think we have better scope to develop both things separately. Then again, I am not particularly planning on working on this... Best, --Doric Loon 19:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Saltire Society

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Saltire Society, by Betacommand (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Saltire Society seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Saltire Society, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirk as a placename element

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Kirk as a placename element, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. hbdragon88 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dark Ages

Hello, I just want to let you know I've restored the {{fact}} tags and commented on it in the talk page. Reinis^talk 18:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Shawlands Academy

Hello! Yes, I did indeed create it. Didn't attend it, went to the far superior Holyrood. :P Stay near Shawlands but and was bored so decided to create the page. The Holyrood page has had some interesting libellous edits, have a wee swatch thro the history if you're ever bored. Hehe. Regards,GiollaUidir 14:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Brian O Murdoch

A tag has been placed on Brian O Murdoch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment. He has multiple books published, but it seems the only relevant Google hits are to sales or catalog listings of the books. They seem to be rather obscure. I have very serious doubts that you will be able to prove notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Medieval popular Bible

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Medieval popular Bible, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Grammar Nazi

Hi. You were one of the editors discussing whether or not the article grammar nazi would qualify for a move to Wikitionary or its deletion. I made a proposal in the article's discussion if you're interested in participating. --76.214.226.199 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Place names with English meanings

An article that you have been involved in editing, Place names with English meanings, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place names with English meanings. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)