User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 50

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mahagaja. 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 45

←

Archive 48

→

For your notice ...

If you ever feel like writing an article on the separation of Scottish Gaelic and Irish, there is an excellent but gigantic new article by Professor Roibeard Ó Maolalaigh "The Scotticisation of Gaelic: A Reassessment of the Language and Orthography of the Gaelic Notes in the Book of Deer", in an edited volume titled Studies on the Book of Deer. I think it will probably be an important article once it filters through, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Suppletion

Hi Angr,

Saw that you objected to the loose use of the word suppletion to refer to pairs such as cow/bovine. I’ve seen “suppletion” used in this looser context, so I’ve added a note (with refs) to that effect in a separate section (together with “Weak suppletion”, which does make me cringe), rather than in the main “Examples” section. Trust this is clearer and betters accords with usage.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The term collateral adjective might work here. Angr, this comes from a discussion on Wiktionary as to how to categorize these pairs of words. (Nils, at one point I made a comment that this isn't really suppletion, but later removed it. It is a rather loose use of the term.) kwami (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point – I’ve now included “collateral adjective” in the text. It is a loose use of the term – discussions of suppletion in English tend to focus on be/is/are/etc. and good/better/best – though it seems the most standard way of referring to these semantic-but-not-etymological connections (unless there’s a better term).

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

cheshirization

In 2006, you initiated a successful AFD to remove the non-established neologism "cheshirisation". The result, archived here [1], was to make the page a redirect to the author who coined the term. A few months ago, user Kwamikagami undid this and put in a bunch of text describing this process, giving the impression that it's a real term rather than a neologism. He also added it as one of six basic sound change processes listed in Template:Sound change; this is how I noticed it. Benwing (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a useful category to organize the links. Benwing, this certainly isn't reason for you to delete nasalization, tonogenesis, and floating tone. Angr, do you still think the article deserves a merge? The concept was never limited to Matisoff, even if the term largely was, and since tehn linguists like Dahl and Heine have taken up the term. Something like "trace remains" might work, especially in the template, but as the title of an article that makes me think of trace fossil. —kwami (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we discuss this at Talk:Cheshirisation rather than my talk page? +An gr 00:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

EU and usage of English

1. The European Union uses British English in translation: http://europa.eu/comm/translation/writing/style_guides/english/style_guide_en.pdf 2. Germany has strong ties to the EU (especially since it uses the Euro as its currency) 3. Because Germany is so strongly linked to the EU and Germany is a key member, all Germany-related subjects should use British English; even if the country's official language is German, in EU contexts the country uses British English since the EU uses British English.

There are countries out there where one can pick and choose American or British (for instance China) - Germany is not one of them. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Berlin has no particular association with British English. The article was first written in American English, and per WP:ENGVAR should not be changed without a very good reason. Note that the guideline says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation", but Berlin is not in an English-speaking nation. Therefore the applicable guideline is "Retaining the existing variety", which in this case is American English. +An gr 20:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That "English-speaking nation" (not quite a nation of people, but I'm stretching the definition) is the European Union, with 23 official languages, including English. As the EU as a whole uses English, this is the "very good reason." By being in the EU, Germany, and Berlin, are associated with British English. China is an example of a country with no associations of any kind of English. Since the EU is a very close-knit union, Germany is not in the same boat as China.

BTW the following ties illustrate why the EU should be considered, as a whole, enough to decide ENGVAR policies:

The Euro (currency), which has been adopted by Germany - While not all member states use it, Germany (along with Ireland, which has English as an official language) does

The Schengen zone, which Germany is a part of

These international, inside EU policies that affect Germany show that Germany is firmly a part of the EU. European-style English should be used. Also keep in mind Germany is one of several states that participates in EADS and Airbus (pan-European ventures)

As Berlin is a part of Germany, it should follow ENGVAR practice. It's not like Manila (or substitute any other city in the Philippines), the Philippines can opt out of ENGVAR (officially the Philippines uses Tagalog, but American English dominates, so it uses US English), so why should Berlin?

Europe, as a whole, should be considered an "English speaking nation" insofar that, as per ENGVAR, all-EU associated topics should use British English. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The EU is not a nation by any definition - not a nation of people and not a sovereign state - and within the EU only Ireland and the UK are English-speaking. Germany isn't. The Philippines is also not English-speaking, so articles about cities there should follow whichever variant of English they were originally written in; U.S. English need not be used there just because of the Philippines' historical association with the U.S. There are other currencies used in more than one country (cf. West African CFA franc, Central African CFA franc, East Caribbean dollar), so the fact that the euro is used in many EU countries doesn't boost the EU to "nation-like" status (especially since the euro is also used outside the EU - in Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, Kosovo, and Montenegro). As for the Schengen area, there are no English-speaking countries with full implementation of Schengen, since Ireland and the UK don't have the open borders. And again, the Schengen area includes areas outside the EU (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland), so Schengen also does nothing to make the EU more "nation-like". The EU is not a nation and is not "nation-like" in any way. It's an international organization, like the UN, though closer-knit and with more authority than the UN. The UN also uses British English, but that doesn't mean that British English must be used in the articles for every city in every country that's a UN member state. +An gr 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Malta, an English-speaking country (thanks to British colonization), is part of Schengen. It is small, but it speaks English

While the Euro is used outside of the EU, it is done so in non-EU states that are very small or, in Kosovo's case, as a replacement for the German Mark, which was used as a post-war currency

It is true that the UK and Ireland aren't a part of Schengen. While Schengen includes some non-EU countries, Schengen is essentially an EU project.

Schengen does a lot to make the EU more "nation-like" - Allowing people to cross country borders as if they were state lines makes it easier for people to travel between countries

While I don't personally have statistics about how often English is used in Germany, there is a map created for Wikipedia that shows % of English fluency by country. 56% of Germans have English fluency according to this document Europeans and their Languages (Page 13) from the EC - The criterion is "Which languages do you speak well enough in order to be able to have a conversation, excluding your mother tongue?"

As for my Philippines example: In practice many Filipinos are well-versed in English. Since the Philippines was an American colony for many years and only got independence after World War II, the population learned to speak English. In fact the Filipino airlines do their safety demos in English, not in Tagalog (you can look up "Philippine Airlines safety" on YouTube and find one). In practice much of the Philippines speaks English, so it is an English-speaking country.

It's not just one thing, but a number of things, that makes the European Union "nation-like" - Individually the currency and the Schengen are not so significant, but together (along with citizenship rules allowing people to settle across Europe) it's lead to Poles easily going to England to work, etc. - The changes from the EU allow Europeans to more easily interact with one another and settle in their country. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of that changes the fact that ENGVAR refers to "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation", and Berlin has no strong ties to any particular English-speaking nation. Switching Berlin over to en-GB now, after 8 years of being in en-US, would be a significant violation of WP:ENGVAR, not to mention WP:NPOV. +An gr 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:NPOV? I can't quite understand how changing it now would be a violation of NPOV... Plus, to my knowledge cities do not escape ENGVAR on an individual basis, generally it is a country-by-country basis. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I said Berlin because that's the article in question, but my argument holds for Germany as a whole, and indeed for every non-English-speaking EU member state. NPOV because the argument for switching to en-GB relies on the subjective opinion that the EU is somehow "nation-like" enough that it should be considered "an English-speaking nation" for purposes of WP:ENGVAR. +An gr 15:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at WP:ENGVAR. Under the example "Strong national ties to the topic" - This example is given: "Institutions of the European Union (British or Irish English)" - For topics about the EU British or Irish English is to be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say "topics about the EU", it says the Institutions of the European Union, of which there are five: the Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, and the Court of Auditors. The member states and cities within them are not institutions of the EU. Anyway, this clearly goes beyond just Berlin. If there's to be a discussion about the interpretation of ENGVAR, it needs to take place at WT:MOS, not my talk page. +An gr 19:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Peadar Ua Laoghaire

I made some changes to the Peadar Ua Laoghaire article, consisting of putting in the link to the Wikisource Séadna, and listing PUL's works at the bottom of the page, but I am not sure the formatting is right. I believe you look after this page. Are you responsible for the Séadna? If so, it is wonderful and I am delighted the original spelling is being restored and images are available. Please note also that I was in the Cork GAeltacht recently and managed to get he whole of PUL's Mo Sgéal Féin read onto MP3s by a native speaker. The links to the audio files (available free to all) are:

Thanks for those links! I am the one who put Séadna up on Wikisource. I'm still working on it, though, it isn't done yet. +An gr 15:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made a Mo Sgéal Féin page at http://wikisource.org/wiki/Mo_Sgéal_Féin and pasted in chapter one, in the original spelling. I have typed up around one -quarter of the book for my own use, and want to eventually put the whole book up on Wikisource, but I want to check for typos first before I do more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.35.159 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's great! It would be really good if you created an account on Wikisource as that will make getting in touch with you easier in case your IP address changes. I have a DJVU of Mo Sgéal Féin which I will upload to Commons. That will make proofreading much easier. +An gr 07:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have transcribed 8 of MSF's 32 chapters so far, and so could post more, but I don't know how to make a link to a new chapter page. Ideally the MSF page should not go straight into chapter 1, but go to a page that lists links to 32 chapters. Thanks for tidying the page and added the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.35.159 (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you go to oldwikisource:Séadna and click on "edit", you'll see how I've done it there. Just follow the same pattern to create subpages for each chapter of MSF. +An gr 10:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded 8 chapters of MSF. I will do the rest gradually, but I need to proofread too. I will create a Wiki account later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.35.159 (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I have set up an account on Wikipedia. I have resisted doing so for a long time owing to the left-wing editorial bias of Wikipedia. My username is Djwebb1969. Now, about those MP3s - they are mine, because I travelled to the Cork GAeltacht recently and found a speaker to read Mo Sgéal Féin. I told the speaker the file would be availble to all on the INternet - that was the whole purpose of the reading (and I am going to get Séadna done next time I am there). I have converted some of them to .ogg files and added them to the first 8 chapters of Mo Sgéal Féin.Djwebb1969 (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, glad you signed up for an account, but don't believe the hype. Wikipedia adheres strictly to a policy of editorial neutrality. There is no "left-wing editorial bias" here. +An gr 13:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid there is no question that editorial neutrality is a very bad description of Wikipedia policy. Take a look at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Eeny_meeny_miney_mo for a flavour of the Southern-Poverty-Law-Center-type of politics peddled by Wikipedia.I was just reading that after someone raised the subject of that poem on Irish Gaelic Translator, and I was astonished by the PC flavour of the "editorially neutral" diatribe.Djwebb1969 (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you said on the MSF chapter 1 page you moved the subpages to compare with the DJVU file. Sure if you want to proofread now, go ahead but I was going to make minor changes as I read through the book. I am studying it gradually in my new forum on Cork Irish at http://www.corkirish.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=9, and plan to proof read the book as I go.Djwebb1969 (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just for me, it's for anyone who wants to proofread the text, or verify that some of Ua Laoghaire's idiosyncratic spellings like "Éirean" with one n or "aoís" and "croídhe" with acute accents are in the original, and not typos on Wikisource's part. +An gr 07:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have finished proofreading Mo Sgéal Féin chapter 1, and you will see I noted that in the "discussion" page for MSF chapter 1. As I go through and proofread I will leave notes in the Discussion pages so that you know where I am up to. Djwebb1969 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

2 Photos on Wikipedia

Dear Angr,

I noticed that you nominated two photos for deletion. They are Princefranzofbavaria.JPG and 51b2 1.JPG. I contacted the persons who created these photos, a photo atelier owner and family member of the subject, and BOTH of these men confirmed for me that the files have been released under a "free license" into the public domain. The creators also permit anyone to reuse the image for any reason, including commercial purposes. Consequently, I hope that you will agree with me that there is no longer a need for further discussion. Best regards from London. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how to proceed. Basically, the copyright holders need to e-mail permissions-en@wikimedia.org themselves and confirm that they have released these images under the appropriate licenses. Also, please note that simply removing the FFD tags from the images is pointless: the discussion is at WP:Files for deletion/2009 June 13. +An gr 11:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

IPA-gd

Thanks for this. We really should have templates for the main langs of the British Isles (though Welsh is pretty straightforward with the general IPA key). I've started linking -gd articles, though the server's really slow right now. I'm not verifying the quality or consistency of the transcriptions themselves, though. (Some articles use aspiration, and others voiceless marks.) kwami (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just lump this under here to save opening another section - it's one of the differences between Irish and Gaelic that Gaelic has /ɲ/ and /ʎ/ rather than /nʲ/ and /lʲ/ so please avoid changing those. Also, Gaelic phonology can get quite "creative" and the single r in broad rl rn is velarised in spite of the single letter spelling. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

PS could you please revert those in the table on Scottish Gaelic phonology too? Some of your changes were ok but not those, so we need to go back to ʎ ɲ rˠ n̪ˠ. We also seem to have lost ɲʲ . While there is variation in slender g/c, they're conventionally transcribed as kʲ and kʲⁿ, not c and cⁿ as that's considered a dialectal variation. tʃ and tʃⁿ are also not commonly used though they occur in some dialects. I think it's better if we stick to what's usually used in Gaelic phonology. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The sounds traditionally transcribed "N′" and "L′" in both Irish and Gaelic are prepalatal or alveopalatal or palatalized postalveolar, however you want to put it, but not true palatals. The true palatal nasal in both languages is the one that's homorganic with the palatal stop, in words like An Fhrainc [ɾaɲc]. Both /r/ and /ɾ/ are velarized in Gaelic, but aren't "rl" and "rn" more like retroflex [ɭ] and [ɳ] anyway? +An gr 12:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Where have you seen N' and L' described as alveopalatal or palatalized postalveolar for Scottish Gaelic? Could you hang on with making more changes pls until we have agreed on sth here? Akerbeltz (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd trust Akerbeltz on this one guys. He's a pretty fluent speaker of SG and a trained phonetician...Comhreir (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, having looked through the sources, I haven't seen N′ and L′ described as alveopalatal or palatalized postalveolar using those exact words. However, they are often described as prepalatal, and most importantly, they are described as having the same place of articulation as t′. That means if we want to use /ɲ ʎ/ for N′ L′, we also have to use /c cʰ/ for t′ t′ʰ, since /c ɟ ɲ ʎ/ by definition all have the same place of articulation. It would also mean we could no longer use /ç ʝ/ for x′ ɣ′ since /ç ʝ/ by definition have the same place of articulation as /c ɟ ɲ ʎ/, but x′ ɣ′ do not have the same place of articulation as t′ t′ʰ N′ L′. But first of all, using /c/ for t′ is (to the best of my knowledge) totally unprecedented, and secondly, it would be very confusing when comparing SG to Irish, where /c ɟ/ are being used for k′ g′. And whatever symbols we ultimately choose, it's clear from the sources that there is no significant difference between SG and Irish (especially Ulster Irish) in the places of articulation of the t′ series and k′ series of consonants. +An gr 07:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately no one has done any serious palatography so far for Gaelic so it's hard to be 100% certain but as far as I can tell from the literature and experience, the "palatal" sounds are often described as "palatal" simply because that is their main distinguishin feature from the non-palatal series in Gaelic (which incidentally has largely lost the velarised feature of Irish non-palatals). So slender t and nn are often lumped together in spite of the fact that slender t generally is closer to a laminal affricate, probably pre-palatal (and quite different from what I hear on TG4 for slender t/d most of the time which seems to be apical) whereas slender nn is /ɲ/ in most dialects. Still, you get a lot of allophones for slender t/d which is why the /tʲ/ spelling is still the more common one, especially when describing a broader form of Gaelic rather than a specific dialect. In a description of Perthshire Gaelic, I probably wouldn't argue with your transcription but this is the page on Scottish Gaelic as a whole. So no, using /tʲ/ does not mean we have to use /c/ because we need to treat with care the generalisation of them being "palatal". As far as the difference goes - there's generally a marked difference, except perhaps with slender k. The b d g series for starters is voiceless/devoiced (depends on your POV), the broad dntls series is fully dental and as I mentioned, it would appear that Gaelic slender t/d tend to approach /tʃ(ʰ)/ more so than Irish dialects. I of course am ready to defer to your greater knowledge of Irish phonology but from the Scottish POV, the overlap is surprisingly small. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

PS It is perhaps better thinking of the "palatal" series in Gaelic as being a member of a group of sounds that retain palatal features to varying extent, rather than try and force them into an either/or system. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was only talking about place of articulation, not voicing/aspiration, when I said there's no significant difference between SG and Irish. Modern Munster Irish does have an apical alveolar /tʲ dʲ/ with no affrication, which is probably what you're hearing on TG4, but the northern /tʲ dʲ/ are alveopalatal and usually affricated to [t̠ɕ d̠ʑ]. I don't object to using /tʲ/ for SG instead of /tʃ/, but using /ɲ ʎ/ in the same context is misleading since everything I've read suggests they have the same place of articulation as /tʲ/, but not the same place of articulation as /ç ʝ/. However, several sources do treat SG ŋ ŋ′ as allophones of N N′ since in SG (unlike many dialects of Irish) ŋ ŋ′ occur only before homorganic stops, never by themselves. That would mean [ɫɔuŋk] long is underlying /ɫɔun̪k/ and [ˈaɲɟaɫ] aingeal is underlyingly /ˈanʲcaɫ/. If [ɲ] is then an allophone of /nʲ/, it would be theoretically possible to use the symbol /ɲ/ for both, but it would still be misleading as a transcription like /ˈcʰiɲəɣ/ for cinneadh would imply the first and second consonants have the same place of articulation, when in fact they're different; while a transcription like /ˈtʲʰiɲəs/ for tinneas would imply the first and second have different places of articulation, when in fact they're the same. +An gr 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're using broad transcription so it's always "misleading" to a certain extent and to date, few Scottish Gaelic phonologists seem to have taken exception to using /tʲ/ and /ɲ/ in the same system so I don't see any need to fiddle with that until a new consensus emerges in the field at some point. Besides, /tʲ/ represents a palatalISED stop, not a palatal stop, so that does not put it in the same place as /ɲ/ anyway. So /tʲʰiɲəs/ is ok because the t isn't a true palatal stop but something palatalised whereas nn is a true palatal.

As far as ŋ is concerned, you got that the wrong way round. /ɲ/ can be an allophone of /ŋʲ/, not the other way round. Aingeal is a bad example cause you either get conservative /aŋʲkʲɘL/ or common /ãjɘL/. A better example would be fulaing where you can have /fuLɘŋʲkʲ/ /fuLɘkʲ/ or /fuLɘɲ/. I don't see how you can derive that the other way round without major contortions. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we're talking in circles. Why don't we go to Talk:Scottish Gaelic phonology, and you show me what you want the chart to look like and we'll talk about it there. +An gr 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

the symbols /c/ and /ɟ/

Andrew, I am not a fan of the use of the symbols /c/ and /ɟ/ for Irish, because they are unclear. In the case of Irish, say in the word Gaeilge, it would be a sound like a g. But in other languages the symbol /ɟ/ is used for a sound like a English j. On this page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Voiced_palatal_plosive, it specifically says it is similar to the j in the English word jump. The sound sample on that page also shows a j-like sound, and the examples on that page of the use of this symbol for Hungarian are also for j-like sounds. The reason why /ɟ/ is used in Irish is that the sound in Gaeilge is a voiced palatal plosive, but sounds from the front of the palate will sound more like j, and sounds from the back more like g. Most of the languages that this symbol is used for have a j-like sound, but I think Turkish mentioned on that page also has a g-like sound, like Irish. But anyway, I think the use of this symbol is somewhat controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djwebb1969 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My name isn't Andrew. I use /c ɟ/ for Irish because that's what Ní Chasaide (1999) (see Irish phonology#References) uses. Ó Sé (2000) uses the traditional symbols k′ ɡ′, but he also describes them as [c ɟ] in his phonetic description of them. The only other alternative would be /k̟ ɡ˖/, which Foclóir Póca uses to explain the symbols k′ g′. However, even the sources that don't use /c ɟ/ invariably describe them as "palatal" or "palato-velar", and there's nothing wrong with using those symbols for postpalatal/palato-velar sounds. It's done not only for Turkish, but also for Greek and Icelandic. Also, giving up /c ɟ/ for k′ g′ would entail giving up /ç j/ for x′ ɣ′ since /c ɟ ç j/ by definition all have the same place of articulation (cf. previous thread). +An gr 07:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was stupid of me. Is amadán mé. I remember now what your name is as you have put a lot of stuff on the Internet about Irish, but it would be best to call you Angr here, right? Yes, I see your point about those symbols.Djwebb1969 (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, at Wikimedia Projects I'm just Angr. But if you ever want to send me an e-mail you can use my real name there! +An gr 10:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More works by Peadar Ua Laoghaire on the web

Hi, Angr, I know you are interested in PUL, and I found all these PDFs of images of his books: http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22O'Leary%2C%20Peter%2C%201839-1920%22. I would like to work through many of his books one by one, but I am reading Mo Sgéal Féin at the moment, and so some of the other famous ones can wait. There are some books by Patrick Dinneen also there - this is the link to his Saol in Éirinn: http://www.archive.org/details/saoghalinirinn00dinnuoft Djwebb1969 (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those links! I never know what to do first - mostly I'm at Wikipedia, but I'm also active at Wikisource, either at the multilingual oldwikisource: adding texts in Irish, or at the English Wikisource adding texts about Irish (e.g. s:A Dialect of Donegal), and I'm also active at Wiktionary, adding words in Irish, or some of the other obscure languages I'm interested in like Burmese and Lower Sorbian. There's so much I want to add to these sites, and so little time. And I do allegedly have a life in the real world as well... +An gr 10:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)