Talk:Enochian/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Last consensus version was 28 January (see discussion above)

The 28 January version was discussed above, and there was no consensus to change it. Since there has been no further discussion since then, the 28 January version is the new consensus. I am quite happy to make some of the changes which Kwamikagami wishes to make, just as soon as he shows a consensus for those changes. There are at least 3 editors in this discussion, so let's all discuss it here, okay? Per WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, if you believe there is a previous consensus that should be considered, then please include a link to the discussion where that consensus was formed. Thank you all for discussing before any further BOLD editing, we are now on the D of BRD. Skyerise (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

So, because I didn't edit-war with you, your POV edits are "consensus"? I gave you some time to make the edits you wanted to make, because you objected to me jumping in immediately. It's also quite unpleasant dealing with bad-faith editors like you. Then I reverted those edits that were inappropriate, while trying to keep the improvents.

For example, trying to water-down RS's that you personally disagree with, when 3rd parties have objected to doing so, does not have consensus. Deleting RS's that you personally disagree, and that 3rd parties found convincing, with does not have consensus. Changing the name of the language, against all RS's, does not have consensus. Same for ordering the article to be primarily about the script, which is a 2ary topic, against the standard layout for WP. In that case your only support is an editor where you promised to support their pseudoscholarship on an unrelated article if they'd support yours on this one, something that ANI called you out for as inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide links to the discussions that determined the consensus(es) you claim. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop playing stupid just to create more work for other ppl. The threads are right here on this talk page. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Really? Where's the consensus to remove my changes to the lead, for example? Skyerise (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only two applicable consensuses are 1) keep the historical section order; and 2) don't include (per Laycock) in the tables. So you should have left the section order alone, implemented the consensus on the table, and left my other changes in place while you actually detail your specific objections to specific changes on the talk page. Nowhere is there any justification for multiple repetitive wholesale reverts of all my recent work. Skyerise (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, stop playing stupid. "Where's the consensus to remove my changes to the lead" -- try reading BOLD -- that's WP-wide consensus to do exactly that. — kwami (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I self-rv'd the change in section order. If for nothing else, it made it difficult to track other changes (e.g. in me mistakenly thinking that Skyerise was content-blanking again). I also restored another of Skyerise's formatting edits. So, AFAICT, here are the remaining points of disagreement, where Skyerise made changes that I rejected per BOLD.

So, Skyerise, if you wish to follow WP procedure, I believe those are the points you need to get consensus on. These are the diffs as I count them:

1. Changing the name of the language from "Enochian" to "Angelic"
2. Deleting the citation of the LSA presentation, which Double Sharp found convincing
3. Deleting the clarification tag on "Dee's journals refer to the language as", where it's not clear if all names apply to both the glossolalia and to Enochian proper.
4. Move up paragraph listing the names for the language from 3rd in the lead to 2nd.
5. Adding "On a few occasions, the communicating angels gave Dee and Kelley suggestions as to how certain words are pronounced," which is at odds with our main 2ary source, which gives Dee's instructions on how to pronounce a huge number of words.
6. Changing "Dee and Kelley's pronunciation" to "Elizabethan pronunciation", when this isn't a matter of Elizabethan vs Modern English pronunciation, but a completely different approach. I suggested the compromise "Original pronunciation."
7. Adding "(per Laycock)" to the columns, which had been rejected by a 3rd party above
8. "Case" rather than "Case on nouns". That was my recent change, so I need to justify it. The reason I added the qualifier is that there may also be case on pronouns (assuming there is really any case at all), and this section only covers case on nouns.
9. Adding "Enochian Magic for Beginners" to Further Reading. This just got caught up in the wholesale revert, but does this actually say anything further about the language?

— kwami (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — kwami (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

A new consensus is established when editors don't object on the talk page or edit the article for some time. You let your objections grow stale. The 28 January version is thus the new consensus version. We should proceed incrementally from there based on discussion. You have to make your objections explicit. You can't just wholesale revert. Skyerise (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I objected immediately to your changes. You got angry and demanded that I leave the article alone while you edited it, so I gave you some space. You know I don't agree to your changes, and that therefore you don't have consensus. And many of these edits had already been rejected. Pretending otherwise is just dishonest. Me dreading having to deal with your dishonesty and bad-faith editing again is why I procrastinated for a week. I wanted to fairly review your edits for useful changes rather than blindly reverting everything, and if I had tried earlier I would've had difficulty giving them fair consideration. — kwami (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "You can't just wholesale revert." Of course I can. That's the essence of BOLD, which you refuse to abide by. — kwami (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Please use your words to object, on the talk page, rather than the revert button. Skyerise (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No. You make a change, someone reverts it, you need to use your words on the talk page rather than the revert button. Have you really never read BOLD? — kwami (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there are two changes in the list above that per BOLD I need to argue for:

• My compromise suggestion of "original pronunciation" rather than "Dee and Kelley's pronunciation", which I had previously suggested on this talk page but never implemented. I'm fine with either wording.

  Skyerise, are you okay with "original pronunciation"?

• Adding "on nouns" to the Case section, since it only deals with case on nouns.

  Skyerise, are you okay with this wording to clarify the topic of this section?

— kwami (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer 'Elizabethan pronunciation', as that's what Laycock actually says.

I would prefer to leave case unspecified, as the section might be expanded to include other parts of speech.

These things are trivialities, why do you have to fight so hard over them? Skyerise (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If they're trivial, they shouldn't matter to you.

Pronunciation: Laycock says that Dee and Kelley spoke Elizabethan English and that we can reconstruct the sounds of Elizabethan English. But this isn't an article on Elizabethan English. Also, that label suggests we're contrasting the Elizabethan pronunciation with the modern pronunciation, but we're not. We're contrasting the pronunciation described in Dee's journals with unrelated systems of pronunciation made up by other people. E.g., pronouncing 'SHI' like English "she" rather than as 'ess-hah-ee' isn't specifically Elizabethan. We could maybe label it something like "Pronunciation indicated by Dee's journals."

Case: We could always change the title if we expand the section, but which other parts of speech are you talking about? AFAICT we have no evidence of case on adjectives, and case on pronouns is treated in a separate section. I suppose we could make the pronouns a subsection of the case section, but that strikes me as forcing things for no benefit. — kwami (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"pronouncing 'SHI' like English "she" rather than as 'ess-hah-ee' isn't specifically Elizabethan" - yes it is - because Laycock said that's what he reconstructed. Had it been some other language or period, the pronunciation might have been different. I say we go with what the source says... that linguists know enough about Elizabethan pronunciation to reconstruct a table of Elizabethan pronunciation. What he does NOT claim is that it was how Dee pronounced it; nor does he say refer to it as "original" - it seems you have some thesis that you want to build from Laycock's work, but you can't put words in Laycock's mouth to do it. Skyerise (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

With regard to the rest:

1. Dee called the language "Angelical", not Enochian. The latter designation was made by others later. The name "Angelical" should be introduced first, especially since you believe the language was constructed by Dee. If he constructed it, he gets to name it. Enochian is the common name and should remain the title of the article. Many articles introduce multiple names, the common name is not required to come first.
2. The source is clearly not WP:RS, and I have agreement on this from WP:RSN.
3. You have not established that there is a second language. Laycock never says there is a second language, rather he says that some material doesn't appear to be a language at all. To insist there are two languages goes against the sources, so to insist on clarifying "which" language is moot.
4. Alternate names are supposed to (and mostly are) redirects to the article. These alternate names are supposed to be introduced early, and in bold font. Historically these names preceded Laycock's 20th-century analysis. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, in the same order as it is presented in the article body.
5. It's not at odds with anything. The angels only gave instructions on certain words. The rest of the pronunciations were determined by Dee. Yes, Dee gives instructions on how to pronounce a huge number of words; but he was not given those instructions by the angels except on a few occasions regarding specific words. You only think there is a conflict because you are imprecise in your reading of the material.
6. Laycock says he reconstructed the Elizabethan pronunciation. We have to take him at his word, unless you can specifically cite where he directly stated what you wish to state. If he doesn't say "original pronunciation", then saying so is original research or synthesis.
7. I've removed them.
8. Well then we'd better call it "Case on proper nouns", since it doesn't cover case on common nouns - unless you are able to add material on that?
9. This book has been in further reading since before this discussion started. I removed it with several other magically oriented books from further reading, but then I discovered that Leitch refers to it and yes, mentions that it has information on the language, so I readded it. I noticed you didn't object to my removal of the magical titles in the first place, why would you object to me returning one that I had previously removed?

Skyerise (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Several of these points are clarified to my satisfaction below. However, two are not: you do not have consensus to change the name of the language (e.g. we don't start 'German language' with "Deutsch is a West Germanic language"), nor with the phrasing "Elizabethan pronunciation", which IMO is quite misleading. As you don't accept "original", I've restored "Dee and Kelley's". — kwami (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: What if there was a efn note attached to "Elizabethan pronunciation" which clarified "as reconstructed from Dee's journals, per Laycock (2011), pp. 46–47" similar to the note for the Golden Dawn column? If formatted the same way, it would also appear immediately after the table so would be hard to miss. Or have I misunderstood your objection? -- Scyrme (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Scyrme: My objection is that it's not Elizabethan vs modern pronunciation. It's the original method of pronuncing the words; Laycock just took into account that Dee and Kelley's pronunciation of English was different than today's. E.g., where they write an R, they pronounced an R, unlike in modern RP where an R could mean a difference in vowel quality. There are other places where you need to consider the pronunciation of English at the time to interpret Dee's phonetic cues. Our sources note that some people continue to pronounce the language this way, or at least attempt to, but that there are competing approaches of ignoring the words as words and pronouncing them instead as strings of letters. Golden Dawn is one. It would be like pronouncing NASA as "en-a-ess-a" rather than as "nassa". "Elizabethan" doesn't capture that difference.

How about "pronunciation per Dee's journals"? — kwami (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Elizabethan is a perfectly fine label; it's the Golden Dawn label that makes the distinction perfectly clear. Add a date parenthetical or footnote if you're that worried that readers won't get it, but you're underestimating the readers intelligence with this weak argument. Skyerise (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: "Elizabethan" would imply the same historicity as "original" or "John Dee's". If anything, "Elizabethan" would seem to be the most apt way to capture that "you need to consider the pronunciation of English at the time to interpret Dee's phonetic cues". Tbh, I don't really understand your objection. "Original" is just a less precise way of saying "Elizabethan" in this context. "Not original" would imply "more recent" which is equivalent to "modern" in this context. The competing approaches are modern, so it is Elizabethan vs modern. Do you mean that you're concerned someone may assume the Golden Dawn's approach is the only modern approach because they assume the columns represent a dichotomy? If so, I think "Reconstructed Elizabethan pronunciation" would clarify that better than "John Dee's" or "original". -- Scyrme (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That misses the point. That column also serves as a modern pronunciation, though it would appear that Laycock has gone into greater depth than earlier attempts. There are two very different approaches to pronunciation: Golden Dawn and some others treat Enochian words as strings of letters. But Dee and Kelley treated them as normal orthographic words, and some people continue to do so today, or at least did in the 20th century. That difference is not what "Elizabethan" means: the 20th century is not "Elizabethan", and neither is pronouncing consonants and vowels together as syllables. One is the pronunciation recorded in Dee's journals, the other is a modern creation by those who found following that pronunciation too difficult. We're hung up on how to say "the pronunciation recorded in Dee's journals." — kwami (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Are you saying the "Elizabethan pronunciation" column itself is both historical and modern? If so, I think "Reconstructed Elizabethan" communicates both those facts best; "reconstructed" implies modern understanding/practice while "Elizabethan" implies historicity. If you want to make it really clear that some modern practitioners prefer the approach of that column, I think a note or a line in the preceding paragraphs would explain this fact better than "Dee's" or "original", which don't communicate that fact at all. Could add both a note and an additional line if you really want to emphasise it. The line would elaborate on "modern pronunciations may vary, depending on the affiliations of the practitioner" by actually explaining the variation.

I don't think it's accurate to say it is the "pronunciation recorded in Dee's journals" because Dee did not record the IPA values (and associated notes) given in that column. -- Scyrme (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "Elizabethan" is that it's a stage in the historical development of English. That's not what we have here. I don't know what would be better, but "Elizabethan" doesn't work.

It is the pronunciation recorded in Dee's journals, per the only RS that we have. We're not quoting Dee directly, as we shouldn't, because WP relies on 2ary sources. That's what we have in that column. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Scyrme's proposal. "Reconstructed Elizabethan". We now have a consensus. Skyerise (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

A 2:1 majority isn't usually considered a consensus, but maybe Wikipedia works differently; you've both been editing here longer than I have. Regardless, Skyerise said that Laycock (who I assume is the reliable source referred to) himself uses the term "Elizabethan"; if that's true, the objection doesn't make sense. I also don't agree that "that's not what we have here", since the IPA values were reconstructed based on the modern understanding of that stage of the historical development English; "Reconstructed Elizabethan" is exactly what we have here as far as I can tell. -- Scyrme (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Scyrme: No, it's not considered consensus on WP either.

"If" is the key word here. If Laycock had called it the Elizabethan pronunciation, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But AFAICT he never does. Laycock speaks of Elizabethan orthography, which you need to understand Dee's pronunciation guides, and the pronunciation of Elizabethan English, e.g. that R's and H's were pronounced. For example, when discussing Dee's gloss "zod", he says, "This was simply a short­-lived Elizabethan word for the letter Z .... As the letter was used less frequently in Elizabethan English than now, but had a high frequency in Enochian, Dee would often write zod over the letter z, to remind himself that it was not to be spelt s. I think that only rarely did he intend this to suggest a pronunciation with zod. Another characteristic of Elizabethan usage was the (to us) in­consistent writing of u and v, and to a lesser extent i and j. Dee almost invariably writes v at the beginning of words, and u in the middle, whether u or v (of modern English) was intended."

Laycock does refer to Elizabethan English: "With all of these instructions we can get a fairly good idea of how Enochian sounded to Dee and Kelley. We have to make allowances, of course, for the fact that the two men spoke English of more than four centuries ago — and also that, while Dee came from the Midlands, Kelley came from Worcestershire, at a time when the dialect variations in England were greater than they are now. Fortunately, linguists are in the possession of sufficient evidence — in the forms of pronunciation guides in schoolbooks, rhymes, misspellings, and the like — to establish the pronunciation of most forms of Elizabethan English with a high degree of accuracy." So Laycock is making allowances for Dee speaking Elizabethan English, not characterizing his reconstruction as the Elizabethan pronunciation of Enochian. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, when there are only three editors, 2 carries for the change: it's a 2/3 majority, not a simple majority. Of course, kwami always has the option of starting an RfC, which is why with so few editors, a 2/3 majority should certainly be implemented as a new consensus. If an editor doesn't like it, they can use the RfC process. Skyerise (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Link to the guidelines that say that, or I'll assume that you're making up the rules as you go along, as you have been so far. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It's called WP:3O - when two editors are deadlocked, the third opinion determines the consensus. Otherwise the whole 3O board would be pointless. It's plain common sense. Skyerise (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

But that's not what we're doing here. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. Just because it wasn't formally requested at the board, doesn't mean the principle is any different. You've lost the argument; buck up and accept it. Skyerise (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bigdan201: what do you think? Skyerise (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

And yes, @Scyrme: Laycock does say it, bottom of p. 45, top of p. 46. [1]. Skyerise (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No, that's English, and indeed is one of the passages I quoted above. He's referring to an Elizabethan stage of English pronunciation. Nowhere does he speak of an Elizabethan stage of Enochian pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Scyrme: Skyerise came up with "Enochian phonology". That works for me. We have the actual pronunciation of the language, as best we can tell, and then the Golden Dawn replacement pronunciation, as an example of where people found Dee's pronunciation too difficult or too obscure to copy. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I'm glad an agreement has been reached. I made a few changes myself; I hope they aren't disagreeable. -- Scyrme (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — kwami (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(5) is at odds w Laycock, who says, "Dee was in the habit of writing the pronunciation of the Enochian words alongside the text. If Kelley dictated the words letter by letter, he must have provided the pronunciation of the whole word immediately afterward." If the angels only gave "suggestions" on "a few occasions", where did the rest come from? Did Kelley and Dee just make it up? If so, then even if you believe in angelic transmission this is not the angelic language, but only a few angelic words in a matrix of Kelley and Dee's creation. The additional material in (5) doesn't add "context", it raises questions without addressing the discrepancy. If it's going to be included, the discrepancy needs to be addressed. — kwami (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You should probably start a new section for whatever this is about, assuming this is still an ongoing dispute. -- Scyrme (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This was #5 in the list above. — kwami (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but this section is already super-long and this issue is effectively a change of topic; it makes sense to split the section here, especially as it'll make things clearer for observers or less active participants. (I noticed Skyerise asked for Xcalibur's input earlier but instead of answering here they gave their input on something that was already settled; the structure of the section is a bit confusing) If you want to maintain continuity, it may be best to split this section into subsections, although afaik that can cause auto-archiving bots to skip the section which could be a problem later when the bot archives all this and ends up leaving this behind and making the archive non-chronological (I think I've seen this be an issue before, but my memory could be mistaken). -- Scyrme (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me for that, and for not dealing with this sooner, I've just been busy. If the sources refer to the pronunciation as Elizabethan, then that's what we should stick with. Xcalibur (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bigdan201: That was also dealt with. I think Kwami and Skyerise have moved on from this; don't worry about it. -- Scyrme (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Which functions?

• @Skyerise: Why did you remove the {{which}} tag? Your edit summary said it was "discussed ff". I don't recognise that abbreviation. Where/when was it discussed? -- Scyrme (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the directly following quotations address it in general, and fuller explanation doesn't really belong here but rather in Enochian magic. Skyerise (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: I don't see how the quotes address it. They suggest the calls work like keys, but that's only one function and its shared by all of them. (I don't think the specificity of a particular key to a particular gate constitutes a unique function.) The article doesn't seem to provide an explanation either. I get your point that a full explanation would be out of place, but just leaving it at "specific functions" is too vague; it tells a reader basically nothing. It's not clear what kind of functions are meant or how the calls relate to those functions. It sounds like it means something like goetic magic, wherein you invoke a spirit/demon (here it would be the angels of the watchtowers?) which then does something according to its particular abilities. Is that what's intended? If so, that could be made clearer to readers without prior knowledge. It wouldn't require a full explanation, just something like "the Keys are invocations to particular angels recognised in the Enochian magical system, whose unique abilities may be called upon by a practitioner". (To be clear, I don't know that this line is true, it's just an example of something that could be more helpful, provided it's accurate, without requiring a full account of each function.) -- Scyrme (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is referring to how the keys are used to open the elemental tablets and subtablets, which is alluded to in the quotations. Four for the elements, 16 for the sub-elements, and the last key is used in 30 different ways with the names of the aethyrs. That actually gives 50 so I'm off in some way. But these functions are magical, not linguistic, so perhaps the whole mention of functions should be removed. It's just confusing here or requires a paragraph of explanation not relevant to this article. Skyerise (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I remember now. When the sub-element is the same as the main element, it's not needed. So, 1 call to open a working, 4 calls which depend on which tablet is being worked, 12 calls for when the sub-element is not the same as the main element, 30 variants of one call for the aethyrs - that's 47. I think maybe the 2nd call is a special one too, which gives 48. Then the one not to be used or whatever... 49 ... Skyerise (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If that's what is intended, it's not clear at all, and describing it as "specific functions" is misleading. Can't think of a decent summary. Leaving it in isn't informative, and is more confusing than helpful. I've pruned it. -- Scyrme (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)