User talk:Doric Loon/Archive 2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doric Loon. 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. |
| Archive 2010 | Archive 2011 | Archive 2012 | Archive 2013 | Archive 2014 | Archive 2015 | → | Archive 2020 |
Thank you
Thanks you for sharing your vast knowledge on the article talk page and thank you for the compliment. I am trying to follow your scholarly advice as well as that of another scholarly editor who has adopted me. I am indeed fortunate. I will try to implement the changes you suggested, many of which I put in as a result of your prior advice but was recently reverted by other editors. Mugginsx (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are very welcome. I don't want to get involved in a dispute there, unless you ask me to, because I haven't been following all the ins and outs, but the article head now gives a completely wrong impression of the name situation. So be bold, insist on what you know to be right, you have after all spent a lot of time researching this guy. If you need me to weigh in, I will do so. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have changed it and one editor is now demanding to know where to find the definition of fillon despite the fact that I have given it to him name, chapter and verse and the reference given there on two occasions. I will try not to bother you with it and I do appreciate your help. Mugginsx (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Jean de Venette
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Doric an administrator on Jean de Venette Talk Page has recently asked for information on whether fillon is a definition or part of Jean's name. Would you care to weight in? I have gone as far as I can. Mugginsx (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi, thanks for sending on the Rechs piece, appreciated. And thanks for weighing in too. Nice also to have met you - some of the work I do is in areas you specialize in, so might hit you up again in the future sometime. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland
I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. I see you created Hagneby Abbey. I have put a merge proposal in to redirect it to the existing Hagnaby Abbey, which is the same place with the more conventional spelling. See the examples on the talk page under the merge proposals--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of The Tron Church
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on The Tron Church requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Moswento talky 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
High German consonant shift reversion
Hey -- indeed I screwed up in glossing selig as "noble" instead of "blessed". Somehow I had Old English ēadig in mind. But the point about -ig /-iç/ is important because it is pronounced with a fricative in standard German, unlike the other examples. Look in a German or German-English dictionary and you'll see Tag indicated as /tak/, Sieg as /ziːk/, but selig as /zeːlɪç/. This is a special case in standard German. Note zwanzig /tsvantsɪç/, zwanzigste /tsvantsɪçstǝ/, but zwanziger /tsvantsɪgʌ/. Pronouncing this ending /ɪk/ is considered incorrect/substandard. Benwing (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is an example:
Benwing (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Benwing. You are certainly right about the pronunciations in modern German. I'm not convinced, though, that this isn't just an effect of terminal devoicing in an unstressed syllable. Unless you have a source for the origin of it, I'm nost sure it is helpful to put it into an article which is not actually about modern German philology. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean this isn't just an effect of terminal devoicing? This has to be a special-case rule one way or another in German grammar. Terminal devoicing would normally lead to the sound of /k/; in general, cross-linguistically there's no special-casing of /ig/ in terminal devoicing.
- The problem is that the text as-is is inaccurate in that it implies that final [ç] is a non-standard regional pronunciation, but this isn't true in the case I noted above. Either we need to add my text or delete the whole section about pronouncing terminal devoiced /g/ as a fricative. Benwing (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you mean. Personally I would delete the whole paragraph, because the link between the early consonant shift and the modern situation has not really been made in the cited literature. Since terminal devoicing also plays into the thing, it all seems too fuzzy just to assume a connection. But if you have better information, then put it in. The main thing from my point of view is to reduce the temptation to add more and more detail of minor features of the modern language which have less and less to do with the point of the article. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK. I've gone ahead and put the text back. I think it's somewhat relevant because it refers to cases in the modern language or dialects where the hardening of voiced fricatives is incomplete, which is historically related to the stage-2 hardening of voiced fricatives. It's possible that the reason it only affects final -ig has some relation to either ich-laut vs. ach-laut or terminal devoicing, or it's possible it's a borrowing from low-german dialects; the exact reason isn't so relevant but the fact that there is an apparent failure of fricative hardening *is* relevant in that it's one of the various exceptional outputs of the HG sound shift in the modern language. I don't see a problem in covering some consonantal changes that occurred further on in Middle or Modern High German, because many of them are continuing the same drift that began with the HG sound shift. (E.g. the change w > b after l or r, cf. English "yellow" (OE gealw-), German Gelbe.) Benwing (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you mean. Personally I would delete the whole paragraph, because the link between the early consonant shift and the modern situation has not really been made in the cited literature. Since terminal devoicing also plays into the thing, it all seems too fuzzy just to assume a connection. But if you have better information, then put it in. The main thing from my point of view is to reduce the temptation to add more and more detail of minor features of the modern language which have less and less to do with the point of the article. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that the text as-is is inaccurate in that it implies that final [ç] is a non-standard regional pronunciation, but this isn't true in the case I noted above. Either we need to add my text or delete the whole section about pronouncing terminal devoiced /g/ as a fricative. Benwing (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)