Talk:United States v. Wong Kim Ark/Archives/2006

lost footnote or plagiarized

There is reference to a footnote 10, page 211. There is no footnote 10. Was this copied from another source?

No, this text wasn't copied from anywhere; I wrote it myself. I'm looking at the FindLaw copy of the Plyler v. Doe ruling, and there is, indeed, a footnote #10 in the majority opinion — right after the following sentence: "Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase 'within its jurisdiction.'" The text of the footnote itself begins with: "Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase . . . ." Richwales 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see now. You were saying that the Wong Kim Ark article itself doesn't have a footnote 10 (or a page 211). No, I was referring to a footnote in the Plyler v. Doe case, referred to in the Wong Kim Ark article. I see how the footnote reference might be confusing to some, and I'll take it out. And just to make it absolutely clear — no, I didn't plagiarize this material, I wrote it myself. Richwales 04:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

tones

Does Toisanese really have at least 33 tones? John Riemann Soong 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that the source of my info on Toisanese pronunciation intended "33" to refer to a sustained mid-level pitch on a long syllable (i.e., starting at "3" and ending at "3"). Similarly, I believe "11" was supposed to mean a sustained low-level pitch on a long syllable. The third syllable had just "3" because it ended with a stop and was therefore too short to have more than a single pitch. If a standard tone-numbering scheme exists for the Toisanese dialect, by all means I'd encourage someone who knows this dialect to update the article accordingly. Please note that I, myself, do not speak Toisanese (or any other Chinese language/dialect) and was relying here solely on an informant. Richwales 18:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)