User talk:Akerbeltz/Tasglann 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Akerbeltz. 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.

Linear B

I'm astonished by Dave's reply to what you wrote on the Linear B talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Níl tú i do aonar... ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Verb phero-pherno

Yes, this is common in modern Greek, e.g. ancient syro -> modern serno "to pull, to drag". Causantin (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reassurance! Akerbeltz (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think of it though, the 'perfective' form (used in the future and the subjunctive) in both cases is the same as the ancient verb... I never really dwelt on it before - perhaps I should note it in the article... Causantin (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Basque ciders

Do you know where I can get some? I'm involved with CAMRA and the Welsh Perry & Cider Society, we get some Breton ciders over occasionally but nothing from the Basque country... --Killing Vector (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Tricky one in Britain, though I have seen it occasionally. My first stop would be any retailer of Iberian delicatessen, they usually have a selection of Iberian/South American alcohol and are usually willing to source stuff if you take a whole box. Depending on where you are, check if there are any Basque restaurants in the area or Euskaletxeak (Basque cultural houses) - they may be able to help too. Let me know if you don't have any luck and I'll see what I can do. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)s

I *might* be able to organize some kind of swap -- we'd send a few hectoliters down that way, the cider houses in the Basque country would send an equivalent volume here. --Killing Vector (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you email me? Do a google search for "Akerbeltz Gaelic" and email me under that address. Easier than doing it here. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Re. Small favour

Article now moved. Please check if it's alright now. :-) Regards, Hús ö nd 22:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is, thanks a lot! Akerbeltz (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured Sounds

Thanks for joining WPSI. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-02-23/Dispatches. Ben Mac Dui 18:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the St K update, which I am sure will be very helpful to those with a serious interest in the subject but no access to a Gael. I'm pleased to say that the pronunciations (few of which I'd ever heard before) correspond reasonably closely to my expectations - (I was particularly happy with my guess for "Hirta's pebbles") - and I hereby award myself gd-0.5. Do you think there is any chance of finding someone who could reproduce the way a native St Kildan would have said "Hirta" per Maclean and Steel's speculation? Ben Mac Dui 08:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL You're welcome. It's a tricky one, reproducing that one. Reading between the lines, I'd say he's referring to the normal variation between /hi/~/hj/~/ç/ (the last one being the fricative) that you can get in the right environment. It's nothing specifically St Kildan - you even get that in English dialects where /hj/ can approach /ç/ eg in humid. I'll check my stuff and see if I can infer anything from the data we have on St Kilda Gaelic but wouldn't that make it speculation? Akerbeltz (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I fear it would unless we were to loiter in Lochaline with a tape recorder looking for Gaelic-speaking descendants of one of the natives. Ben Mac Dui 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Arran

Thanks for this section. The GA fiends are now very hot on providing page numbers and if you could provide either numbers or ranges for Holmer and Ó Dochartaigh I'd appreciate it. Ben Mac Dui 13:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just did, sorry, I just wasn't sure how to! Akerbeltz (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ben Mac Dui 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for translating the Alejandro Agag article!--Diniz (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Akerbeltz (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Aralar

What does "Aralar" mean? How would you translate it in English? --Checco (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't ;) - it's the name of a mountain range (Aralar Range). Akerbeltz (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I understand why nowhere it was translated. Thanks! --Checco (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for pointing that out, I'll amend the page of the political party! Akerbeltz (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The fogey

I've just seen your comment on Kwamikagami's talk page. :-) I had almost forgotten that rather bizarre "libel" incident on the Basque language page. Do you have any idea what Iberomesornix has against you? I never quite understood what he was going on about. Trigaranus (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he's taking exception to people who prefer evidence to romance in linguistics. In my experience - and I'm guessing (s)he's Spanish - Spanish people are not very good at staying rational when the word "Basque" appears in the conversation, it causes intense feelings either way. A bit like Turks and Kurds. I'm not worried though ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Concept algebra

An article that you have been involved in editing, Concept algebra, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concept algebra. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. List of Basques

Watchlisted now. ;-) Regards, Hús ö nd 19:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Grand. kwami has been keeping an eye too :) Akerbeltz (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Aquitanian language

Since I mistakenly never gave him a warning, were Talskubilos' edits any better today? kwami (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, partly he has done some minor fixing of refs (nothing inline) but "that table" has appeared again. I'm going to reword the intro to it and see if we can sort it that way. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Second round characters

Hey, I figured I would drop you a line since you were helpful enough to respond on Kwami's talk page. I have a requested move at Talk:Second-round simplified Chinese character in case you have any thoughts on that, and if you or someone you know is able to assist with the translation I'd be very grateful. (Mainly the latter - I know Cantonese is different from Mandarin.) Recognizance (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

jai alai

Could you add the Basque spelling and pronunciation to jai alai?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I am an advocate of jai alai and all games that make up basque pelota. We are currently trying to get the first cancha ever built in Sweden. The NJAA is no friend of basque pelota, they are misusing the courts intentions. The intentions of this cancha, which was built with tax-payer money, was to introduce new youths to the sport which they have not done. It is completely accurate and is common knowledge in the jai alai community. I don't understand why it keeps getting removed. It is fact. If anything you should remove any mention of the NJAA, they are a corrupt enity. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That may well be the case, but this is not a battleground - it's an encyclopedia. You need to provide references for any accusations of this nature if it belongs here at all. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to confirm the NJAA is not proactive in introducing youths to the sport. I am not part of this "battle" but if this an encyclopedia, than saying anything about the NJAA is laughable. It should be completly removed IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.191.38 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, anything that's "controversial" like that either way is likely to result in an edit war. The best thing I can suggest if the NJAA is that controversial as a body is to find some source, perhaps a newspaper or magazine article which deal with the NJAA problems. We can't just denies it exists or what its stated purpose is. You may disagree with, dunno, the way the NBA handles basketball, but you can't just delete it because you disagree. You need to bring some evidence. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the NBA doesn't play on public courts. There are many games played there, not just NJAA games. Plus they have not introduced one new youth to the sport. You seem to want to make this page accurate and I applaud you, you have done a wonderful job, but by including the NJAA which is nothing other than a group of bitter amatuers in discredits the whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually didn't add that bit about the NJAA... it was there before I started editing the page. But the problem remains, the NJAA exists and we need to work with referenced work. Altertnatively, we could cut the bit about the NJAA down to some general statement about what they think they ought to be doing. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a moderator on a social network and I would like to confirm that the NJAA is not proactive on introducing, ANYONE to the sport. I will provide a reference when time allows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.138.18 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

HELLO, AKERBELTZ

I hate you, you goody-goody killjoy. You are an amadán. And you're as clever as you think you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.191.225 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Wikipedia isn't a playground. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I enjoy playing in it. Don't forgive me for being immature, hate me for it. Because I don't want approval from people like you. es ludo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.191.225 (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This sort of behaviour will only get your IP blocked if you continue to vandalise pages. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I love the "And you're as clever as you think you are." Wow, did he get you - zing! kwami (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my mind it still reeling from the shock of being confronted with what's clearly superior intellect. But no fear, there is a self-help group in my area for victims of wikipedia ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text in the Sandbox

I have just added some text in the sandbox for the section Iberian and Basque. Maybe the part on numerals is too large, but I thought it could be interesting.

There are references and notes, though not visible in the Sandbox.

Of course the text can be changed and need some format changes, a better English wording (especially for linguistic words and expressions), and some internal links. It is only a first approach.

Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - can you post a link so I can take a look? I don't know where your sandbox is ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I put it in the Wikipedia sandbox (is there another?), the text is in the edition (it was deleted after 15 minutes in the ONLY edition of the deleter!), but maybe I could make a user sub-page, if you wish, where we can make changes. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see your problem. That confused me too. Go to your user page. The in the address bar, type /sandbox behind your name and hit enter. Wiki will tell you that the page doesn't exists but you can create it. Create it (just like any other Wiki page) and that's your personal sandbox. You can call it something else too, for example I have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akerbeltz/Basque and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akerbeltz/sandbox. You should be able to copy your sandbox context from the history of the deleted page to your new, personal sandbox. Let me know if it doesn't work out. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Done ;-). --Dumu Eduba (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Grand, I had a quick look and apart from a few issues of phrasing I think it's good. I'll try and steal some time later tonight and have a detailed look. I will post suggestions directly underneath your version, ok? A couple of things straight away: do we have a ref for Humboldt? I think for each of the bullet points in the list we need at least one ref each, ideally even with a page number. Incidentally, you can produce refs on your sandbox page the same way as on any other, we should do that because it saves messing around with it on the Iberian page later. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. References are operative now. On Humboldt, older exact references will be hard to find; but I will try. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, sorry for the delay. Work is crazy. On the whole, I have no objections. I pasted a revised version under yours in your sandbox. I have mostly just smoothed out the English, here's a list of what else I did and other points:

added a column for Proto Basque numerals, better for comparison, even though I've only got one in there atm. Forms like bortz are actually attested
moved a paragraph into the first one
do any of the sources mention which coins these "numbers" were found on?
I think you mentioned but I can't remember where - what's the basis for salir being linked to money? We should explain that.
is that capital R in the last table meant?

Probably more tomorrow but too tired now! Good work though. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem for the delay. probably I will delay now some days (I hope to find some suitable references for some data, but especially Schuhardt is hard to find).

Of course your phrasing is much better than mine.

On adding Proto-Basque evidence, the problem is how to expand it. For example, I remember something on 'bi' as may be coming form 'biga' and even 'biur', but the methodological problem is to which state of Proto-Basque belongs (linguistic reconstructed data can expand through millenia). I suspect, there is nothing we can do.

I will look for the references to the coins (probably to the papers on which it was commented): there are many coins with ban and some semises withe e=, eterter (to compare with etaban) and one (or a few) with erter. The main is in Ferrer's papers.

The capital R is a mistake (I first write all ŕ as R). I already put them right.

On the reasons and interpretations of some Iberian words, I think it would be wiser to add them in the Iberian section, not in the Basque-Iberian.

In the Spanish version there is some material, but maybe with some dubious words. Maybe should be added at least: eban (both theories), ekiar, iltiŕ /iltun, salir, are take and seltar. Terms as abiner or neitin are perhaps too dubious (in the sense that theories proposed for them, albeit on reliable sources, are not followed, or denied, by significant number of experts). On terms as batir or baites I do not know whether their "Interpretations" are reliable or dubious.

Numerals also should be added, but only as numerals, and with "translation" only for those words for which its translation does not rely only in its Basque comparison (ban, erter, and maybe, for their special combinatoria abar and orkei); I wonder if then we should add there some words of the group with no clear Basque comparison: as lakei, dubious according to Orduña (he speculates whith la(ur-or)kei) or the endings in -tor.

Maybe next week, as there are too many questions.... fortunately "aste batean ezin dana...." --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes in the sandbox (especially in the Proto-Basque forms) and maybe the text is ready for its inclusion. Some old quotes and references are still missing, but are not important.

Look also to the sandbox discussion page, where I have added some material also. Regards.--Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Zultapec

Hallo Akerbeltz, ich habe gesehen, dass Du an Zultapec mitgearbeitet hast. Ich denke, dass der Name falsch geschrieben wurde. Richtig sollte es heißen Zultepec. Ich würde den Artikel gern verschieben, allerdings weiß ich nicht wie das geht. Kannst Du das erledigen? Habe den Artikel auf deutsch geschrieben. Gruß --Rammsteine (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Gesagt getan, hab auch ein Link eingefügt. Danke, ich hatte den Tippfehler total übersehen. Bezüglich Seitenverschieben - normalerweise muß man das erst auf der Talk Page besprechen, außer es ist was total offenstichtliches wie ein Schreibfehler. Ansonsten auf den Move tab klicken und den neuen Seitennamen eingeben. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ich bin wohl noch nicht lange genug in der Wikipedia und habe deshalb noch keinen move tab, oder ich bin zu dämlich ihn zu finden. Wird schon noch... Danke für das Verschieben. Gruß --Rammsteine (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bertsolaritza: some changes

Hi Akerbeltz, I made some changes to the Bertsolaritza article you have contributed (I opened a section in the discussion tab, but realized later you don't get notified). You can check it out, surely there may be things that can be mended, especially regarding English. Some references can be added too, I hope we can improve the article. Cheers Iñaki LL (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, grand, I'll have a look later! Akerbeltz (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Basque dialects: changes

I made some changes to the Basque dialects article. Although I do not like the map of the modern dialectes of the wikipedia, the correct naming according to Koldo Zuazo and the author of the map is Western, Central and Navarrese instead of Biscaian, Gipuscoan and Upper Navarrese, and the grey area corresponds to the extension of the basque language according to the Bonaparte's map of 1863, not to the eastern navarrese.

References:

http://www2.elkarlanean.com/euskalkiak/pdfak/EuskalkiakA3.pdf

http://www.ehu.es/xabierb/ETGZ/GZ%20irakurgaiak/BERRIA.Euskalkiak.pdf

http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/fichero_articulo?codigo=26274&orden=62910

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Euskalkiak_koldo_zuazo_2008.png

Ardoila (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, then we should state the main dialect grouping at least in brackets behind, for example Western (Biscayan) because "Western" is a new designation and to date most people will not be familiar with it. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have added the correspondence between dialects in the text. I know that some people is not familiar with this classification, but the previous one was from 1863, and this is from 1998. It seems that nobody has said anything against this new naming and the Zuazo's classification method is clear and thorough enough. Thus, speaking about the current dialects we should use the "new" (11 years old) classification and naming, and start forgetting the old one. Probably the "new" one should be at the top of the article and the Bonaparte's one in the History of Basque dialectology. But maybe the article can remain this way until people is getting used to it, so I am not changing it. Respect to stating the old name in brackets, I think we should not do it, the idea is trying to get the people used to the Zuazo's map, the correspondence is already clear enough, and the "Western" links to "Biscayan" and so on. Anyway, if you still prefer the brackets...go ahead.Ardoila (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We should be a little careful here - we're not here to publicise particular views. Granted, Zuazo does represent a step forward in dialect classification but that does not immediately make the traditional classification obsolete and I'm convinced, especially in areas outside pure Basque dialect studies the traditional distinction of Bizakaiera, Gipuzkera etc will continue to be alive and kicking, so we need to make sure it is well explained where these sit. Even if the scientific arena has/is moving on. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I am sure that this is not a particular view, in fact from the point of view of anybody that speaks Basque (and who better to speak about the Basque language than people that speaks Basque?), the particular (and old) view probably is the previous one used in the English Wikipedia. We can compare with other wikis:

http://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euskara

http://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euskalki

http://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euskal_Herriko_hizkerak

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euskera

I know that the problem is that this classification was born in the Basque Country in Basque language, and has to spread to other languages, for example to English, just the opposite that the Bonaparte's one did, that was made by a French author and published in London. But I consider as well that it is the duty of the Basque people that can speak English to communicate the things that happens in the Basque Country especially to people from areas outside pure Basque dialectology, and specially things that happened 11 years ago.

Maybe this is the problem, the English Wikipedia should be taking in account the English knowledge only, or the knowledge of other languages should be translated to English? In our case, I think that it is clear that speaking about Basque dialects the best source of knowledge would be in Basque language, especially because this is the language where at the present the most important studies about the Basque dialects are made. And at the end, Basque language is the language spoken by the Basque people and Basque people is the people who own the Basque language (euskaldun, euskara dun, euskara duena da). My point is that Basque language (and Basque dialects) is alive and changing, and the world of the linguistics should be able to know this changes. If you think that the Basque is a dead language and a piece of museum, maybe we should make another page with the name Current Basque dialects and change the previous one to History of Basque dialectology.Ardoila (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Basque and Iberian

I think that the sandbox section is ready. Please see if there is some mistake or need some addition or reference. What I wonder is where to add it inside the Iberian language page as there seems not to be any natural place at it stands now. See also the discussion sandbox, which still need much wording work, albeit data seems complete. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, will do - I should have some time this evening, if not, I'll definitely look tomorrow. Sorry, life's a bit crazy here atm. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Take all the time you need, many days if you need some calm to read it well. I was only afraid you could have missed my message in the "old" section. My fault.

I perfectly understand that of crazy life, many times I'm also without time. In fact the first I thought to myself reading your message was "I dream someday my life become crazy, so I can relax" (yes, I like black humour). Life uses to be an awkward thing. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've read through it and made a few minor changes to the language but on the whole, I'm happy to accept what you've put together to go on the Iberian page now. Good work! Akerbeltz (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The section has been added. In a few days I hope I can end a little section on the Iberian vocabulary (in order to explain somehow the words compared, and according to the material on the discussion of the sandbox).

The main article would need some work on the whole to unify end relate the sections, but this seems like work for an experienced editor.

And do not worry for the delay. All of us have the time that we have, no more :-). Thanks again. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like a plan. And I think we should also tackle the Iberian thingy on the Aquitanian language page. Perhaps reduce it to a short para and linking to Iberian language? It's just so without context there. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In the Aquitanian language the bigger table is on the relations with Basque (though it maybe should revised: it states a Basque meaning for a word that it states does not exist in Basque, ANDOX!).

The Iberian section should be thought carefully before any change. The real problem, IMHO, is that the comparisons Basque-Iberian are only educated guesses and hence it may be too soon to say something more than a short commentary (a phrase with to a note). But as some people (probably many people) legitimately do expect to find exhaustive data on this theme, it is hard to know what to do, where to set the limit.

Gorrochategui article is an essay, probably made by order by the Symposium organization, he makes a comparison with all that can be compared (not asserting that every term in his table is valid) and his conclusions are very humble: that there are only two words that, only if their Iberian meaning is equivalent, would imply a genetic relationship. His table is only rough material for the sake of the discussion. Yes, it seems to be a consensus on that there is some kind of relation between Iberian and Aquitanian personal names, but since, as far as I know, this is the more recent author that has published such a table, we are scarce of sources in order to make any table for the article.

Maybe to limit the table to the words that Gorrochategui consider to be more interesting? But even so again the reading and interpretation of Gorrochategui's wording may produce discussions and headaches. My suggestion (maybe bad) would be to find some person who can read Spanish, but has no previous "experience" on Basque or on Iberian(that's to say: not contaminated) but many editions on linguistics, and that he (or she) makes a resume of Gorrochategui's papers (and any other material that could find or need) and to say which are the best comparisons. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Graeme Davis

I would be interested in your opinion of this article - Graeme Davis (mediaevalist). I think it is a bit one sided. A lot of his ideas are fringe ones, to say the least, and he seems to have written most of it himself. I think he's notable enough to be on wikipedia, but a balanced entry is needed.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) p.s. I know where you're coming from on the Caolas thing, but was just pointing out that in English, the plural is often used as a singular, e.g. Straits of Dover, Bering Straits (I notice both of these articles are in the singular on wikipedia, but I think of both of them as "straits")

Hm I'm not really sure that's my department... I've not heard of this person personally but that doesn't mean anything. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Iberian language bibliography

Hello. I am preparing a bibliographical "essay" on Iberian Language in my sandbox.

For now I have only made a thematic division and added some more references. Next week I expect to add many more references, specially those whose content can be read in the Net.

My question is if it would be a problem, as in the bibliography without themes division it is easy to find the referenced quotes.

IMHO it is much better to divide the bibliography by themes (as in one only section can get to be a mess) and, if necessary to find the quoted reference, to repeat the book/article in the paragraph of the bibliography where one would expect to find it.

As my idea is to change all the section of the bibliography, and I dislike to delete the others' edition without asking first, I would like to hear your opinion. Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Basque bibliography: Relation with other languages

Hello again. I have added some interesting references in the " bibliography essay". See for instance Jacobsen paper. I would like to put a very detailed view in the section "Relation with other languages" that is always interesting and could be an article of its own (of course without amateurs references). But it seems to be too much word. Maybe you could add some references? Some other people help may be useful. Especially since I do not know what to say on articles as this of BLAŽEK . Has somebody read it or know its conclusions?. Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Urk, not another one >.< Stupid question - are you just assembling a bibliography or are you assembling it to reference the Basque/Iberian articles? I'm just not entirely sure where you're going with this list. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment there is no reference on Iberian :-). --Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in case there is a confusion. There is a bibliography intended for the Iberian language page in one sandbox, and another for the Basque language page. For this I am finding interesting references and links. But I am finding such a quantity that I can not follow all the clues..... Probably I will make shorter historical ancient references. The Caucasian book is a gem, and of course it is more interesting than "other" pages. Regards.--Dumu Eduba (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Chinese classifier

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Chinese classifier#Tasks (and the sections above, as well)! I've left a brief response there.

Also, if you didn't know, the article is currently a Featured article candidate, so you're welcome to offer thoughts/comments/criticism at its FAC page, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinese classifier/archive1. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Taghazout

Hi! You added a speedy delete tag to this page, explaining that you had moved the new content to Taghazout, making that page obsolete. However, deleting pages that have been merged into another article is not allowed because it leads to problems with the licences Wikipedia uses. This is because the edit history of the deleted page is not preserved, resulting in the original contributor not receiving credit for the merged content. See here. I've redirected the page to Taghazout instead, and tagged it with {{R from merge}}. Jafeluv (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out but the only new content was the name of the town in Tifinagh, everything else was aleady on the Taghazout page, so I reckoned it would qualify for speedy. But doesn't really matter I guess since it redirects now. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, looking at the edit it is indeed questionable if it counts as GFDL-attributable. I guess we should leave the redirect in place just in case, though. Jafeluv (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I have no objections. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Symphonia

I've done the translation and a bit of subbing (it seems like this has been scraped probably from EB 1911 but not very well) but cast your eye over it please and sub it for what I no doubt have missed.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok will do. Thanks! Akerbeltz (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

racism and slaves

When Akerbeltz according to his/her political preferences doesn't want to include somebody in the list of basques he/she claims or arguments that having basque lastname is not proof of being of basque ancestry, because of the SLAVES theory. You man , do you know that most people has his/her own family last name in the case of basque people.Basque men and women maintain their father's lastname after being married too.In other cultures,this does not happen. Sorry, but You are obssesed with your Slave theory and whatever nonsense and you want to extent this tricky argument to whatever you want to manage.As a consecuence you are using this theory and some other rubbish ,that is only a damn excuse, in order to maintain your political preferences in those who you select for your damn list. Your are also obssesed to maintain your only criteria , but you are selling the idea that you share the opinions of the rest of the people. You are such a lier that tries to impose your criteria in this page. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.225.80 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no time for this. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia rules and perhaps genealogy in a wider context. When you have done so, I'll gladly join any reasonable debate on the topic. Alternatively, go and find some third party source that states that Uribe et al are indeed of Basque extraction. *Any* edit on Wikipedia that's not supported by a source may be challenged and removed, including biographical points. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Euskara in Scotland

I must confess I had thought that your interests in both Euskara and Celtic languages was a shade eccentric, but I now discover at Lunnasting stone that the former may the ancient language of Scotland (or at least Shetland) after all. But you probably knew that already. Ben Mac Dui 16:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, another crackpot LOL. No, I hadn't known that one but then, these crazy theories about Basque are as numerous as midges in Glencoe! Akerbeltz (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good one - and thanks. In the search I also came across [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=495748 this one] which is based on genetics and archaeology rather than linguistics. Ben Mac Dui 16:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome - thanks for bringing it to my attention. The genetics thing is of course for the most part good science. But people so often then jump to conclusions. And being part German any site called Stormfront sets off alarm bells anyway! Akerbeltz (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there some kind of clearing house for Gaelic questions I can use rather than borrowing my multi-lingual friends. See "Sgaothaich" question at Talk:Etymology of Scotland. Cheers, Ben Mac Dui 08:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC) PS I am afraid I am unfamiliar with Mr Pratchett's Discworld ouevre. It sounds a shade frivolous.

Fraid not, Gaelic speakers on Wikipedia are few and far between. But feel free to borrow me, I'm happy to help :) Akerbeltz (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Kaixo, Aker

Hey, Aker, it's been quite some time since our rendez-vous at the Idaho Basque Fest, remember? ;)

Now, (a bit) more seriously, I would like to check with you the edit on "lingua franca" vs. "prestigious language".

I still think that "prestigious language" fits better. I am not an expert, but "Lingua franca" suggests that Basque could not communicate between each other in Basque, which I think it is actually overstating the dialectal differences. However, 'prestigious language' covers well the fact that, until standardisation took place, Basque (until that time, basically a pastoral language...temper, temper, no offense meant! ;) lacked most of the basic vocabulary for philosophy, engineering, economy, whatever, studies, whereas Spanish and French did have those terms and, hence, were more prestigious in a way.

Does that make any sense? MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 01:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kaixo hi ere, though I think you're confusing me with someone as I've never been to Idaho ;)

As Wilde puts it, the truth is rarely pure and never simple. For starters, Basque had been used in non-pastoral/nautical domains way before the middle of the 20th century. Agreed, it was absent in a number of domains and not as well developed in many.

At the same time, the use and adoption of Spanish and French in the BC cannot be just reduced to calling it the PV, even though such linguistic attitudes no doubt existed. Also, standardisation does not automatically equal high status/prestige.

Perhaps we should produce a much more qualified statement, as neither lingua franca (which incidentally does apply as prior to mass media and Batua, speakers often DID switch to Spanish when meeting geographically distant speakers) nor PV really covers the complex role of F/S in the BC.

How about something like (including the lead here) Over the centuries, elements from outside cultures (including linguistic aspects) have also influenced the region's culture and language - the previous wording excluded Gascon, Latin, Celtic etc.

And Despite being spoken in a relatively small territory, the rugged features of the Atlantic Basque countryside and the historically low population density[citation needed] resulted in Basque being a heavily dialectalised language in the 19th and 20th century. Batua, a standard form of the Basque language, was only introduced by the end of the 20th century. This, and the expansion of Basque into non-traditional domains has also helped Basque move away from being perceived until recently – even by its own speakers – as a language not fit for educational purposes.[6] Spanish and French have played complex roles in the linguistic history of the Basque country, both in their capacity of official state languages dominating administration, education and the media and to some extent as lingua francas between speakers of highly divergent dialects in the era before Batua was heavily promoted.

The entire language section could probably do with tweaking. Reading it just now, it reads like and essay on language policy and politics, not the language. Perhaps we should create two subcats, the Language and Language Policy? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither I have been to Idaho ;) That was a (ok, odd) joke referring to the talk page of that very article, where you mentioned that Basque festival in Idaho...you must have forgotten, because that was months ago! As I said, please take no offense on the pastoral remark, many now well-established languages, including a few national ones, were in a not so much better situation than Basque was. I just mentioned it for the sake of illustrating my point on the "prestige".

Agree with the section deserving a good tweaking. No objection to the Language and Language Policy distinction.

As for the exact wording you are proposing, "over the centuries...language" is fine with me, but I'd rather use "neighbouring" than "outside". Also, I'd rather change "including linguistic aspects" by "especially linguistic aspects", since this is were the influence is most notorious.

As for the "despite being spoken...heavily promoted" excerpt, I am fine with most of it. Probably something else should be added to "educational" (something like "educational or, generally speaking, high culture purposes").

Still, I think that the role of Spanish is that of a lingua franca (not really French, since I think the French Basque dialects are not that apart one from the other as, say, French Basque and Biscayan). At least, that wasnt my intention. What I meant originally by the "prestigious" remark is, simply, that high Bourgeouisie, military, clergy and other educated Basques needed to know Spanish for working out their careers, wether culturally or, why not, in business (Spanish would not learn Basque, Basque would learn Spanish for trade). In other words, the thing is that Spanish is not such a "foreign", "alien" language to Basques as the current nationalist approach would want it. Spanish has been historically an increasingly part of the Basque culture since, roughly, the 15th century.

If the word "prestigious" steps on any toes, I have no problem in looking for a better wording.

In any case, we'd probably better be bold, edit and tweak the article, rather than working here at your talk page, dont you think?

Best.

ps. hey, congrats for your work on Iberian language. That is a great case of how wikipedia can be an anti-cultural tool, by representing fringe theories as fact. Without your policing there (and I bet elsewhere) things would look quite disastrous. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 23:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for missing the joke - and thank you for the comment re Iberian... it has certainly cost me sleep LOL.

I'm happy to go along with your amendments. I agree, even in Roman times the Basques were extremely pragmatic about many things, including language. On a purely rational base, calling F/Sp prestigious varieties would not be inaccurate but it would certainly rub many people up the wrong way so I suggest we try a different wording on that. Also, the big catch in the mutual intelligibility thing is always Zuberoan, which is really hard to understand (ok, it might be easier for a native but I think anyone who isn't used to it would struggle for a long while before "getting into it" and most people not interested in language don't have that long).

Slightly different suggestion though, we could copy that section to my sandbox and fiddle with it and the move it onto the page? Akerbeltz (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, working in your sandbox prior to editting. Just let me know when you got it started. I'm glad to hear you understand my point on the "prestige" of things. If we find a better wording summarizing the whole thing, that's fine with me. However, I wouldnt like to lose meaning just because some guys may take something the wrong way. Then, that would be their problem, not ours, huh? MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 02:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah, put People with Basque ancestors on your watchlist in that case, cause it does end up being our problem to some extent ;) I'll make a copy tomorrow. Akerbeltz (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've copied two different version to my sandbox, the one from Basque People and from Basque Country, they're both different and I think we should produce a uniform paragraph summing up the salient features and then refer people to the main page for details, where we should move any info that we're moving out of those 2 pages. There's no reason why those two paragraphs should be different from each other. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Akerbeltz, sorry. I looked into your talkpage couple times and you hadnt started the sandbox thing yet, then I forgot (I havent your talk in my watchlist). I have seen it now and I will soon add my five cents. I can advance that the Basque people version looks like a fine piece...of OR, so I will certainly take the other as a base. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 03:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Mugica

Akerbeltz:

Thank you for your recent interest in the article on Father Carlos Mugica, a significant figure in Argentina's troubled 1970s.

I didn't mean to be presumptuous in mentioning that he was (partly) of Basque descent, as his mother's surname was Echagüe.

Either way, I'll trust you know best and leave it be.

Please let me know if I can ever help with anything.

Thanks again, Sherlock4000 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sherlock! It's quite likely that he indeed does have Basque ancestors but we've had a lot of trouble with this issue, especially on the List of Basques and People with Basque ancestors page with some people insisting that having a Basque surname is proof of ancestry.

So we (well, after agreeing some rules) mostly I have rigorously separated the two groups and taken anyone off the ancestry list (for now) where the person does not have a Wiki bio or where the bio does not quote a source for stating someone's ancestry. In some ways we'll end up taking some people off the list that should be there but the alternative is a plain mess. Hope you understand.

But if you do have some source that states his ancestors were indeed Basque I of course have no objections to adding him again! Akerbeltz (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography on Iberian

Yes, I am aware it is a bit too large (although as I said before I am biased pro large comprehensive bibliographies, which I found quite useful).

The reason why some reference are repeated was to try that a reference in the text could be found in the bibliography, but it is only a try. Maybe there are better solutions.

Indeed I was thinking in an alternative: to add the large version of the bibliography as a sub-page, while letting a shortened version in the article, but I do not know if it is a good ("wikipedicly" speaking) idea.

Of course feel free to make all the changes you feel necessary.

Maybe the section could be provisionally stored in another page and let the editors of the page discuss which are the more"dispensable" references. IMHO the references that can be read by internet (pdfs) should have preference, as make the editions easier, but it is only an opinion.

Another possibility is to delete the whole section on "Notable inscriptions" (I had may doubts on it) or to reduce it to the two Untermann's and Villaronga's, which seem the more fundamental works).

The question is to know how large should be the bibliography. But notice that my version is a bit larger due to the separation of a line between every reference to make it more readable.

BTW: As a matter of fact on the question of the origin of the Iberian language it lacks still a reference to De Hoz (I am still searching it).

Best regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a bibliography holding page on Wikipedia... it might not survive for long. I'll have a go at re-arranging it later on, tell me what you think then. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at User:Akerbeltz/Basque, it's still huge but has a better chance of surviving I think. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think it is better so, it is good for me.

My only caveat is that to put reference from "others" in "general works" implies to put articles on minor questions besides generic works on the theme.

And remember that the section on inscriptions could be reduced to three. And that, of course, after the opinions of other editors some references may be considered dispensable (the question is that I don't like to delete references that added another editors or that have some interest or may be useful for other editors who may don't know it).

Thanks. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should take those minor points out then? This is, after all, not a scientific bulletin board. Feel free to play around in my sandbox with reducing the Inscriptions section, I was loosing track a bit!. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made a quick pruning. Maybe it is enough? I deleted the section of Inscription and added the most important of this to General. To delete, because too old, some papers of de Hoz and of Michelena has been distressing, though :-(. I only keep Anderson because is the only reference in English as it is a secondary reference and old. In the rest, as the section to be delete was already deleted I do not added some new deleted because I had as editing the whole section and it would have reappeared. If you miss any reference you like, you know you can add it. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me... I've played with the layout, I think it looks better. What do you think? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly speaking the way the paragraphs display so (joining by authors) looks a bit odd to me, but it is good enough. You can put the new bibliography section when you wish. Thanks again. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW On hard eusko-iberismo there is a very interesting and very complete article by Karmele Artetxe (although in Basque, so I don't know if it should be added to the bibliography, probably to the Basque language, but it is a valid reference). --Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Sitkin Island

Hello! I noticed that you had added the Aleut name for this island while I was fixing the Bergsland refs and I started wondering if the Aleut name for this island is correct? Could it be Sitxinax̂̂? Thanks for your reply! -Yupik (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, typo from me, sorry! Akerbeltz (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, wouldn't have bothered you about it, but Aleut's a bit south for me, so I'm missing this book :D I should also thank you, as it's rare to have the indigenous names in articles! -Yupik (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, any time! Yes, the indigneous names issue in the Americas is a sore point. I was at one point adding them to various articles as I have a reasonably well stocked library but got into silly discussions about on/off reservation names and the appropriateness of adding names in languages no longer spoken in the area. Anywhere else from Chile to Hokkaido, no one questions the relevance but when it comes to Denver City... Gave up in the end except for some along the sparsely populated fringes. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I had the same argument at some point in time on the Finnish wikipedia when I wanted the article on Helsinki to have the Sámi names since it has the largest Sámi populations outside of Sápmi itself. It's been, by the way, amusing (to me, at least :D) to watch the number of languages you can deal with on WP:PNT. -Yupik (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL thank you ;) Regarding Helsinki, I can kind of understand the argument there as the last time Sámi was spoken in that area was well before we have any records. Ah well, nothing is ever perfect! Akerbeltz (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Akerbeltz. You have new messages at Dumu Eduba's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zaraitzuera

Hello! I moved the Salazarese page to Zaraitzuera (in fact I created this page unilaterally) and now I have some questions that maybe you could answer me:

To create a page in Wikipedia is it necessary to ask permission to anybody?

If the official name of a place is Zaraitzu in Basque and Salazar in Spanish, how do you decide that the English form is the Spanish one and not the Basque?

Where did you find that Salazarese is the common English name?

Did you know that Zaraitzuko Uskara is the way of calling the dialect in the own dialect; Zaraitzuko Euskara and Zaraitzuera are the ways of calling it in Euskara Batua and Euskera is in Spanish and some villages?

What is terrible in the links of the page about this dialect?

I am not here to start personal battles, but for trying to learn and let other people to learn new things, but I do not like when somebody is changing my writings without contributing or improving my contributions. Anyway I appreciate all the improvements (as long as they are true improvements). Thank you in advance for answering my questions.--Ardoila (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. You don't need to ask permission, you can create any page you want but since it's Wikipedia, other people may decide to edit it or, if the topic isn't notable enough, to have it deleted (for example if you wrote about your cat).

As for Uskara/Euskara, it wasn't obvious that that was the dialectal name (and I'd forgotten) so feel free to put that in, just mention it's the local pronunciation.

Page names - the rule of thumb is that the most commonly used term in English publications or common usage is used. In terms of Zaraitzuera, this happens to be Salazarese. In terms of placenames it's more tricky to decide, in the case of Zaraitzu, it's the Spanish version (I don't necessarily like it either but we're here to describe, not push politics). It often happens that it's not the indigenous name that gets used but some intermediate version (unless it's some small place that hasn't been talked about much or if a name change has occurred that has been widely accepted, such as Bombay > Mumbai.

I probably overreacted a bit about the bibliography, but the spelling was incosistent, there were broken links to existing people (e.g. Azkue) and so on. I guess the fact that the list was longer than the article also got me!

But please feel free to expand, I'd welcome some help on the Basque dialect pages, I don't have as much time as they require! Hope that helps Akerbeltz (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. I will take this in account for improving the page of the dialect.

But I still continue having some questions: How do you know which is the most used term in English? Did you find it in any dictionary? For example, how do you decide that the Spanish version is better than Zaraitzu, or Zaraitzu better than the other? Why not just admit that they both are good enough for their usage in English? In fact, is there any problem recognizing that some people is using Zaraitzu in English and other people Salazar? We can think about Derry and Londonderry, which one of this is the correct one in English? I'm interested in the Basque language and I will probably make some changes in this page and in the page of the Basque dialects. I'm not so interested in the prehistory of the languages but in the historical and current situation of the Basque. Thus, I think that our points of view are sligthly different, and probably we'll have some discussions. So, see you soon.--Ardoila (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no easy answer - by having read English publications on the matter for example. Larry Trask, in his History of Basque, uses Salazarese and he's probable the most widely read English publication on the topic. I'm fairly certain that most others also use Salazarese as apposed to Zaraitzuera, the Basque forms simply aren't used much outside the BQ.

Feel free to contribute! A suggestion though - it's always better if you can reference what you add, otherwise there may be long discussions, especially if you add controversial stuff. Good luck! Akerbeltz (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK! I'll take your suggestions in account. Thank you for your wise advices. I don't have any problem in defending my posture with references. Hopefully you will agree with my next changes. Let's work!!!--Ardoila (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

basque

I'm sorry; it's nothing personal. It was the strong suggestion that made me perk up -- the language is a little tendentious there. :) --VKokielov (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, you just caught me on a tired day ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese languages/dialects

I noticed you had contributed in the past to discussions on the Chinese languages/dialects. If you have time, please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Language.2FDialect_Names and offer your opinion. Colipon+(T) 23:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Thanks. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Need some Gaelic help

Hi Akerbeltz. In a couple of the Clan Macdonald articles we've got the Gaelic seanchaidh, for the traditional clan historians. Is that the modern spelling, and how should we write that as plural? Right now they just have an s tacked on an at the end. What should we do? Or maybe we should just anglicise it to seanachies?--Celtus (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll use shenachie from now on. I re-directed shenachie and shennachie and to Seanchaí. There's this article (Scottish Gaelic personal naming system) which covers given names and a bit of surnames. Maybe something of what you suggest could be added there; though i'm not the one that should be editing that kind of thing without a book in front of me. In the Sleat article, for the 'origin of the name' bit (Clan_Macdonald_of_Sleat#Clan_profile) i followed what the ref gave. Would it be more clear, or more correct, to remove the caps from the "Mac", to make it more clear that "Mac Dhomhnuill" isn't the Scottish Gaelic form of the surname, but only a Gaelic form of "son of Domhnall". Why are Gaelic surnames treated differently in Scotland than in Ireland? How would you distinguish a "son of Dónall" from someone with the surname "Mac Dónaill"? Was the Scottish system adopted to make things more clear?--Celtus (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'll check out the page later and see if something can be added.

I think it's just a minor difference that grew out of the space-less scribal tradition, like Scottish Gaelic using the grave as the default length sign and the Irish the acute. In terms of the difference, that's where careful spelling comes into it. "A son of Donald" has a lowercase m: mac Dhòmhnaill whereas a MacDonald has two caps: MacDhòmhnaill. The same applies in Irish: mac Dónaill and Mac Dónaill. Whether this came in in Scotland to clarifiy things, I'm not sure. Well, I cannot provide a ref that says so, personally I think Scottish Gaels tweaked the old Middle Irish spelling a bit more than the Irish. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Chinese classifier and underlining issues

kwami and I made a template for bold underlining; how does this look? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I like it, it's clear that it's not part of the character and doesn't look weird. Good work! Akerbeltz (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Erromintxela

I have been surprised to find this article. One important point I want to say. It is obvious phonetically that Erromintxela match only with Romamichel when you switch from French to Euskara. If it was taken from romanichel, it would have given another word. Of course, Im not 100% sure, I have no reference at all and I think that only an etymologist could contradict me but not with a phonetic argument. The best is minimised any reference of romanichel. --Zorion (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's easier to derive Erromintxela from Romani(t)chel than Romami(t)chel (romanitchel > romanitxel > erromanitxel > erromanitxela and then a transposed vowel plus syllable loss). Either way, we're only listing it as a likely contender because unfortunately we have no source that actually says that Erromintxela is derived from romani(t)chel, so listing them all the way I have is ok. We're not offering proof, just a likely contender. Why was the article surprising you? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Having a certain knowledge of both languages, I'm not agree with you. I would not write anything if romanichel was taken as a reference. It doesn’t match for me but that's fine, write what you want. I've been surprised because I didn't know about these reference books. --Zorion (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

More to come! Akerbeltz (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yay, found sources that actually tie "erromintxela" and "romanicel et al" together! Mystery solved, very pleased about that. Eskerrik asko laguntzagatik berriz! Akerbeltz (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Errama-itçéla, Erroumancel, errumanzel and erremaitzela are proofs concording to my point of view. Phonetically, the letter 'n' is totally absent or secondary on these words. But, in French, the consonant ‘n’ in romanichel is strongly pronounced because it breaks the first two syllables, while with the letter 'm', the pronunciation is more uniform and sounds closer to romintxela. Here it is, for what it's worth. Milesker Beltza* Jauna

* Beltza is sometimes a nickname given to euskaldunak who have a light "Darkness" skin (this time I’m 100% sure and have one reference in my family... ;) ) --Zorion (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL bazekiat hortaz ;)

Ok, I'm curious though about your explanation, can you do me a daisychain of how you derive the word? Akerbeltz (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any daisychain, I have suggested this explanation by phonetic only and I give you an example. In France Maintenant (now) is pronounced [mɛ̄nɑ̃] while in Canada it's [mɛ̄tnɑ̃]. As you can see, in Europe, the phoneme /t/ is not phonetically pronounced. The same for Romanichel, in Canada it's [rɔmaniʃɛl] while it's [rɔmamiʃɛl] in South-West France (Not sure for the rest of Europe). That is the reason why the letter /n/ just sounds odd to me... May be I'm wrong nevertheless many words have been used for centuries or decades before a literate person decides of its spellings, mostly following different rules of syntax and romamichel was probably the word in common use (phonetically) like it is today. Here is my explanation.

And please, don't ask me why French people don’t pronounce the letter /t/ in maintenant, I have no idea (wink) --Zorion (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the reason for dropping it is simple, languages on the whole don't like consonant groups and will usually (over time) simplify them either by sticking in vowels or deleting consonants. Think of Latin centum to French /sɛ̃/.

The thing is, since we have sources that derive it (ultimately) to romani(t)chel and romani chel ultimately, the Erromintxela are easier to derive from romanitchel than romamichel. It's quite possible that romamichel simply is a more recent development of the word. It's always best to compare contemporary (or failing that the oldest attested forms) you have for two languages when looking at etymologies. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to translate the Wikipedia article "Şalom", a Turkish-Jewish weekly nespaper, into Gaelic and Chinese if you have the time and patience to do so?

Would you like to translate the Wikipedia article "Şalom", a Turkish-Jewish weekly nespaper, into Gaelic and Chinese Wikipedia versions, if you have the time and patience to do so?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.157.127 (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do - time is my biggest problem at the moment. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

About TRT 6 I have several sources from an impartial, neutral and respected Kurdish website called "Kurd.net" which is neither a Turkish government nor a PKK site (looking at the latter can be risky).

I have several sources from an impartial, neutral and respected Kurdish website called "Kurd.net" which is neither a Turkish government nor a PKK site (looking at the latter can be risky).

I hope it will satisfy your questions about the unoffical reasons of the establishment of TRT 6 and the context of the Roj TV link.

("Kurd Net does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news information on this page" Kurd Net) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.157.127 (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Outer Hebrides

If you have a mo could you take a look at the last para of the introduction to List of Outer Hebrides#Smaller islets and skerries? I'd like to ensure I have not committed too many sins against Gaelic. I am also curious about other recurring names in the list e.g. Greanamul, Bearran, Eilean Dubh na Muice, Mas xxx, Leathann. If you could suggest a translation or two I'd be grateful. Ben Mac Dui 10:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure - would you like that type of info in the para before the list or in the list itself? Akerbeltz (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In the para before if you can manage it as I think any information would be lost in the (absurdly long) list itself (which I fear lacks an accent or two here and there). Ben Mac Dui 13:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see what can be done. Incidentally, if you want an easier way of dealing with the graves, set your keyboard to Irish, it is exactly the same as your UK keyboard but allows composite keystrokes, so the key left of 1 followed by a vowel will give you the grave on that vowel. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Made a start, was that what you had in mind? Akerbeltz (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's great - many thanks. Ben Mac Dui 07:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC) PS If I set my keyboard to Irish I fear the results might only be "irish" in a less PC meaning of the word. I must go round all your ogg files and see if I can figure out what the accents do. I just have no starting point. Ben Mac Dui 07:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The FLC process wanted the box moved, so it now resides at Outer Hebrides instead - I'll add it to Inner and plain Hebrides in due course. Ben Mac Dui 18:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese classifier

Hi Akerbeltz, thanks for your comments and help with Chinese classifier. The article is now at FAC again, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinese classifier/archive2, so if you are interested you are welcome to comment there. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pure curiousity: Canaigh & Eilean Chanaigh

First of all, your babelbox is the most impressive I've seen at Wikipedia so far :) Thanks for fixing the ogg files for Canna so quickly - just a small question out of personal curiousity. I take it Canaigh and Eilean Chanaigh are both valid forms to write/pronounce the name of this island in scottish gaelic, and that "eilean" is sort of an equivalent to the English "isle [of]". The question is: would it be possible to say "Eilean Canaigh" and/or "Chanaigh", or is the ch sound determined by the preceeding word "Eilean". I know no gaelic what so ever, and I'm not going to use this information to anything - I'm just being curious :) Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It would seem I have to use this info for something after all... [1] Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL thank you and you're very welcome, any time. Now, island names... most Gaelic island names come in two forms, the plain (Muile, Canaigh, Leòdhas...) and one with Eilean "island" stuck on the front. Pretty much like calling it Mull and the Isle of Mull as you correctly pointed out. But that's where the similarity ends, Gaelic uses case marking a lot more than English does. As a rule of thumb, when a noun follows another noun in Gaelic, the second has to be marked for genitive. In the case of proper nouns, this is shown by leniting the first consonant. In this case, C- /k/ has to change to /x/. That's obligatory. So Chanaigh on its own would be wrong. It's a slightly odd system from the POV of most European languages but Celtic languages all do it. Hope that makes more sense now! Akerbeltz (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes more sense indeed, thank you. Sort of illustrates the danger about writing about stuff I don't know anything about, even if I find good sources: What I mistakenly perceived to be the main difference between Mac an Tailleirs spelling "Canaigh" and the "Eilean Channaigh" in the article was C vs Ch, and not the N vs NN. I have to check these to make sure I haven't made to many similar mistakes. Now - being a bit wiser - I have another stupid question: Could this leniting as genitive-mark be a reason why someones name often have different spellings within the Annals (like Mhael .../ Mael ...) etc, or should all these different spellings be blamed on sloppy monks copying manuscripts? Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There are not stupid questions :)

On the second point, yes, sort of to both. Lenition in Celtic languages goes back to a consonant being stuck between two vowels, leading to a gradual weakening. Take a nonsense IE word like aga which would initially have yielded a Celtic word /aga/. When the Gaels started writing using the Latin alphabet, the consonant-between-vowels rule was still active for the most part and since lenition was thus predictable, people did not feel the need initially to indicate it in the writing. So when /aga/ became /aɣa/, it just continued to be written ama. Later, people started using a dot above (the punctum delens) to indicate lenition: aġa. Eventually, both Gaelic and Irish ended up using an h to indicate this and you would end up with agha.

So in that "middle bit" it depends on whether the scribe in question felt it was necessary to indicate it. Remember that they all spoke Irish and fluent speakers of a language can infer a lot of things without needing it spelled out in the writing system. But also bear in mind that the rules on when lenition occurs are fairly complex, so Mael/Mhael may both be correct depending on the grammatical context. Make sense? Akerbeltz (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense (except from the "...continued to be written ama"-part, typo or am I missing the point completely?) - I shouldn't be to hard on those ancient scribes I suppose :) Thanks for taking the time to answer. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, read aga for that, I started with a different example. And you're welcome, feel free to ask any time! Akerbeltz (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure I "got it" - the same genitiv-principle applies to Isle of Bute, given as Bòid by Mac an T. and then Eilean Bhòid here? Finn Rindahl (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it in one :) Bòid is just rarely used on its own in Gaelic because it overlaps with the common noun for "vow" (bòid), so the only place to my knowledge where you get Bòid on its own is in the grouping Argyll & Bute (Earra Ghàidheal & Bòid); otherwise its known as Eilean Bhòid. But your grammatical analysis is spot on. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one (but now I'm almost done). I'm not good at reading IPA: is it correct that the "th" sound in Ratharsair (Raasay) should be silent like here^ⓘ? And secondly, in that article the ipa directs to IPA for Irish and not IPA for Scottish Gaelic, guess that shoud be fixed. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted about the Irish, thanks. The th in Gaelic is not "silent", rather it represents Hiatus, a "break" between two vowels. It makes more sense if you think of it in musical terms. A single short vowel has one beat: /a/. A Long vowel is longer, but still only has one beat: /aː/. A diphthong is also long and has one beat: /au/. Hiatus introduces a second beat: /a.a/ or /a.u/ etc. That's that the dot signifies and what Gaelic often uses th between vowels for. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yet another one. A while ago something I'm quite sure is wrong information on the gaelic name of Iona was added to the article in Norwegian, the problem is that this is referenced [2]. It says that "It is also called Hii or just I". My guess is that the author of that source has mistaken the grave accent in Ì (which according to Wikipedia (and your ogg-files) would denote a long wovel in Scottish Gaelic) for a spiritus asper in the Greek tradition and therefore has added the H. Iain Mac an T. [3] should anyway be a stronger reference that some modern Norwegian book called "Christianity and the Kelts", but I wanted to check with you before I ask the editor who added that reference for approval to replace those names.

Eilean Idhe I take it is just the genitive lenition you've explained above, more confusing to me is that Mac an T. mentions both Ì Chaluim Chille and Ì Chaluim Chaluim, further saying that the latter means Columbas island?!? Could I possibly have discovered a typo there? Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Iona and the derivations of both the English and Gaelic names is one of those great linguistic puzzles... Apart from what it says in the English Iona article - lenition can only happen to consonants in Gaelic. The Ì vs Idhe could exist for any number of reasons but we can't be sure of any of them. Practically speaking, in modern Gaelic the island is called Ì, Eilean Idhe or Ì Chaluim Chille. In the classical texts (again, check the English article) Bede uses Hii and Hy. So the reference is correct in terms of what Bede used but not in terms of what the island is called in modern Gaelic. Does that help? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry - I should have read more than the heading of that article before I rushed here to ask you... More than enough info in that article (and your answer here) for me to sort this out satisfactorily, thanks again. The only puzzling thing that remains then is Mac an T.s Ì Chaluim Chaluim as "Columas Island" - there is a Chaluim to many there, isn't it? (I take it "Chille" is genitive of Cille (Gille) meaning saint/holy, so that Ì Chaluim Chille really would mean "saint Columbas island. )Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's ok. Where did you spot the second Chaluim though? I can't see that anywhere in the article. Anyway. Calum Chille is just generally translated as St Columba. The literal meaning is "Dove of the Churchyard" (from Irish Colum Cille, colum itself from Latin columba "dove"). So literally Ì Chaluim Chille is Ì (whatever the original meaning) of the Dove of the Churchyard, but that's normally just given as St Columba's Ì/Iona in English. Make more sense? (ps don't over-apply the lenition = genitive marking, it's a lot more complicated that that) Akerbeltz (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The double Chaluim is in the source here: [4] "The Gaelic name Ì is generally lengthened to avoid confusion to Ì Chaluim Chaluim, "Columba's Iona", or Eilean Idhe, "the isle of Iona"." Thanks again, and regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, a typo ;) and you're very welcome! Akerbeltz (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Scarba

I wonder if you could take a look at Scarba. The mountain infobox has a tag next to the IPA. Ben Mac Dui 14:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. The mountain infobox really needs a "native name" field though... what are your thoughts on doing one for the British Isles that would include the Celtic Name field? Akerbeltz (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the way you've done it at Scarba is quite neat. If you are keen, I doubt the mountain-baggers would want several infoboxes - especially if the existing system could easily accommodate it. By all means suggest an extra field at Template talk:Infobox mountain, which I will watch for the nonce. Ben Mac Dui 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

PS Yup - the infobox seems to automatically add peaks to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/List of mountains.

Hm ok, I'll continue doing that then for now, I'll focus on putting in more sound and IPA rather than struggle with mountain climbers. I'll let you know if I ever take it there, cheers! Akerbeltz (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I came here (again) because of a new post under the prev-/curious heading (which turned out to be a false positive - had a laugh at MacDuis editsummary). But since you're talking about Scarba, Mac an T. claims Scarp has it name from norse: "Barren" which I find rather odd - I would have thought that the same origin as Scarba (Skarp = sharp) was more likely, also given the description of the island. But of course, no OR here - so I'll limit myself to ask if the gaelic An Sgarp could mean something like "barren". Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL well we all have topics we enjoy and can talk about for hours that will confuse the heck out of other people. Personally, my eyes glaze over when people start talking numbers above 10...

I honestly don't know what he has 2 derivations but, he has sources to hand that even I don't have and I'm also not a place name specialist. I can only speculate that this is a case of convergent evolution, as in, two words of different historical derivation ending up looking the same. Like English pole which has two roots, Old English pāl and Latin polus. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese templates

You commented at User talk:Kwamikagami#More on Chinese templates about having more flexibility in the template... so I created {{zh-full}}. This template is similar to {{zh}}, except that it gives the user full control over the order in which elements are displayed, and the text to be displayed with their link (ie, showing "Hanyu Pinyin" vs. "pinyin", etc.). The downside is that the template call is a little more complicated and uses more wikitext in the articles themselves. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Very nice! Do you reckon this will work inside boxes such as Causeway Bay? It has always irked me that the box only does Jyutping, if I switch from Chinese to your zh template, that should give flexibility. Thanks a lot! Akerbeltz (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm...it seems like a better solution for that would be to update the {{Chinese}} code to allow more stuff. Right now I'm still in the middle of trying to finish up the stuff with the {{zh}} template (I have a bot approval request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ZhBot to clean up the remaining old templates and replace them with the new one), and then after that I can turn my attention on the Chinese box. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Basque surnames comment

Hi Akerbeltz, I reverted your edit on a statement of mine. Basque surnames with Spanish and French spellings have often deformed and blurred the original Basque form and meaning, sometimes beyond recognition, and are felt as strange to the language by the very speakers of Basque, e.g. Duhalt (< d'uhalde/uhalte), Detcheverry, Garcia (doesn't make sense, Gartzia does make a great deal of sense). Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, you sure that was me? Not sure which edit you're referring to but I'm sure its ok. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The problem I had with the sentence is that it's not English. Also, taking on a form in accordance with the meaning of the surname in Basque, which remains irrelevant in other language spellings. - if I understand the sentiment right, the sentence tries to express that in "deformed" spelling, the original roots of the names are obscured? The problem with that is that that is true of many surnames in various languages. And to a non-Basque, both Gorrochategui and Gorrotxategi are meaningless in themselves. Can I suggest we reword the sentence to express that in the Batua spelling, the meaning is more clear to Basque speakers? Akerbeltz (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Alavan bowls

Hi again, I see you're doing great job in the Wikipedia on Basque topics. Congratulations! I checked out this article on the bowls and made small amedments, some details I know firsthand since I hail from the region. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Eskerrik asko! Very happy to see someone else chipping in! Akerbeltz (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sociedat de Lingüistica Aragonesa

A tag has been placed on Sociedat de Lingüistica Aragonesa 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Sociedat de Lingüistica Aragonesa

I have nominated Sociedat de Lingüistica Aragonesa, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sociedat de Lingüistica Aragonesa. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Akerbeltz,

Regarding the speedy deletion nom for Sociedat_de_Lingüistica_Aragonesa, these web pages might help for notability:

-- hope they are helpful, maybe not.
Regards, Hamamelis (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems to have been delisted from the deletion page - I still don't understand how it got there in the first place but hey. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yue Chinese Naming

Hi, I agree with you that it is time for naming of the article to be taken to whatever is the appropriate arbitration path. You appeared to be more experienced user. I ask your help. If you can initiate the process, or kindly direct me to appropriate area.--WikiCantona (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. I think we could check out the history of the Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia articles to see how this was handled. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of non-English names

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues re Talk:St. Johns, Arizona where "where someone has tagged the Navajo name of the town that was given with a "citation needed"-tag.". Ben Mac Dui 08:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, one of those again - thanks for letting me know I'll deal with it! Akerbeltz (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good deal! I tagged the English name before, I mean wtf? ~~I coulda banged them with Young&Morgan mega dictionary, it's on my desk~~ in fact, I did that just now Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

eu:Erromintxela

Hi! I guess you should know that the translation of your article Erromintxela has been rated featured in Basque Wikipedia. Keep on with the nice work!. Zorionak!! -- Marklar2007 (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow nice - I was thinking of maybe going for Good Article on the English Wiki but wasn't sure. Maybe I will now, after all! Thanks for telling me!. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fingers crossed, I've nominated it for GA. I hope having those tables won't trip up the nomination... Akerbeltz (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A user has already created a Wikipedia article for "Şalom", a Turkish-Jewish weekly nespaper, into Gaelic and Irish. Can you check them?

Would you like to translate the Wikipedia article "Şalom", into the Chinese Wikipedia version, if you have the time and patience to do so?

If you are curious, I am trying to enrich the English Wikipedia article about Turkish Jewish subjects and people.

The reason for "Şalom" is, that it is written (however one page only) in a critically endangered language called Ladino or Judeo-Spanish, the 15th century Spanish of Sephardic Jews when they were expelled from Spain in 1492 spoken until now, but is unfortunately doomed to extiction.

That is why I wanted to have it translated into "threatened" languages like Gaelic or Irish etc. in order to enrich their Wikipedia sites as well.

Thank you

Saguamundi —Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

Need some help

Kaixo! My newest hobby is Basque and, although I don't understand the language (I'm struggling with the auxiliary verb), I started to improve the Basque language article in ukr wiki (I know that writing articles on things you know nothing about is bad). I began with the phonology and now I have questions. Could you please explain me a few things if you have time? I just want to know how some phonemes are realized in what is considered Standard Euskara Batua pronunciation (if there is such a thing):

aita - [ai̯ta] ~ [ai̯ca] ~ [aca]
mutil - [mutil] ~ [mutiʎ]
isaso - [iʧas̺o] ~ [iʦ̺as̺o]
isildu - [iʃildu] ~ [iʦ̺ildu]
gizon - [gis̻on] ~ [giʃon]

I read some stuff but it's all about dialects, I want to know how a foreigner learning the language should pronounce words (if there happens to be another ukrainian guy with a crazy idea of learning Basque). --Adnyre (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, when the Euskaltzaindia started its work on Batua in the 70's they deliberately left out the pronunciation side of things. There still is not standard way of pronouncing it but its much less of a problem with Basque that it might seem or indeed with other languages. They vowels are easy so I'll miss those out. Basque has expressive palatalisation so the "cuter" you want to sound, the more you palatalise your consonants. So aita can become aitta or even take on diminuitive suffixes eg aitatxo or in combination aittatxo. As a rule of thumb, don't head for the palatal sounds unless the spelling tells you it's palatal anyway (tx, x, tt, dd).

There's a North South split that is the main problem for the rest. You must decide whether you're more likely to spend time in the Northern Basque Country or the Southern Basque Country. Let me know which one is more likely and I'll give you some more pointers, ok? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha, so aitta is just an expressive version of aita! Thanks for that! But there seems to be some mechanical palatalization of /l, n/ after i (baina -> baña) in much of the Spanish Basque Country. Or is [bai̯na] ok also on the Spanish side?

I've been told that although I may pronounce js as [x], as most people do, [j] is 'righter' and where I learn the language they articulate it this way (actually, it's more like [ɟ]). Well, it's all right. But I noticed that anaia is pronounced [anaɟa]. Does it mean that i between vowels stands for /j/? Then it would be [anaxa] in places like Gipuzkoa, but it seems unlikely to me. Perhaps it's [anai̯a], with a diphthong?

Yeah, I would opt for the southern variant. Anyway, it's much more prevalent in terms of speakers' number. --Adnyre (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why I as asking for the region you're most likely to visit cause it's a fairly strong north south divide.

Ok, let's see... yes, on the southern side -in(-), -il(-) result in palatalisation (this is not deemed expressive, just phonotactics).

As for the rest, j is /x/ for the most part colloquially though an increasing number of educated speakers are aiming for /j/ as it's perceived more accurate. You won't get stared at if you use /j/. This does not apply to orthographic i, that may be a glide but never /x/.

In much of the south, s and z have fallen together as /s/, similarly <ts> and <tz>. Again, you won't get stared at if you distinguish ts and tz nonetheless.

Other than that you can for the most part go for saying it as it's written. Hope that helps. If you want a really good place to do this intensively, go to Maizpide near Beasain. It's a really great place to learn (been myself). Akerbeltz (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Things have become clearer, milesker --Adnyre (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ez horregatik. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Subsurface dyke

Yes, that welcome message is supposed to be there - or it was when I placed it there. At the time I left the message, it was User talk:Subsurface dyke. When User:Subsurface dyke was moved to the mainspace at Subsurface dyke, the user talk page came with it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Since there was no further activity on either page after the move, I've moved it back, so there is currently no page at Talk:Subsurface dyke. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL yes, I can see that now. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

BIOGRAPHIES

Dear Akerbeltz, Thank you for your correction to my writing on WP. However,there are a few things I do not agree in the Arnaiz-Villena page- We have to keep the Lakarra criticisms within the proper extension .This extension is limited to 32 words.Whether he has gone further,it is not documented. Also,you may take into account that you are writing about a living person and not about an abstract topic.Recently,Wikipedia has changed policy on this particular field. Could you please correct Lakarra criticism to the right dimension,i.e.:32 words?Thank you.--Virginal6 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a try. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.I would also like to reflect that these 32 terms were chosen out of thousands,all contained in the referred books.--Virginal6 (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We're stating that the sample is 32 words. How many other words are contained in other publications is a) virtually impossible to count and b) not particularly relevant, don't you think? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK,leave as it is.Thank you.Regards--Virginal6 (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Erromintxela

The article Erromintxela you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Erromintxela for things needed to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the advice

Hi (I guess Northumbrian Old English speakers and Britons found Gaelic grammar difficult and made mistakes when naming Lindesfarne) : D Ive got an account now so Im not just a number.) tha mi toilichte ur coinniche! ceud mille failte! Seamusalba (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL if they weren't fluent, then why on earth name the place in that language? ;) Ach fàilte an-seo cuideachd! Incidentally, there's a guide I wrote on how to deal with the accents on an English keyboard [[5]] here. It's in Gaelic but the commands are in English so it's fairly obvious. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

tapadh leibh Seamusalba (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Source for Lindesfarne claim

hi! please have a look at this article [6] about the Gaelic influence on Northumbria as its where I got the claim that Lindesfarne derives from Gaelic. Ps, could it have came from Old Irish/Old gaelic (ie presumably the grammar has changed since the dark ages) Ps ps, kudos back as Im impressed with your language abilities (Basque, Gaelic and Chinese!?) Seamusalba (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ;)

Easy one for starters - if you put a hyperling into square brackets [] it will collapse to [7].

Had a look at the paper... I'd be *very* reluctanct to quote this as a source, it looks very much like pseudoscience done with a dictionary to me. For starters, he's a geologist/philosopher. That doesn't mean he can't know anything about languages but it does mean he doesn't have bona fides ab initio.

Then there's the question of innumberable typos, before we even start with the etymologies themselves. Not a good sign. His proposed etymologies are also at loggerheads with sources that people would consider reliable, such as the Oxford Dict of Place-names plus he does not quote Old Irish forms for his etymologies but modern forms, never a good idea. Let's deal with some in detail, just those on page 13 (cause my time is limited ;). Ross he states is Gaelic, that's just nonsene. At best it's Brythonic for a moor. Amble is attested as Anebell in 1256 plus the ODPN says it's a personal name + bile. ODPN does suggest Celtic as the root of Cambois but quoting modern Camus as opposed to (for example) Old Irish camm. Beal is Behil in 1208, beo+hyll, beehill. (Lindis)farne is not clear according to the ODPN but the formation Le'n-Dis fearann is utter nonsense. For starters, he would have to supply Old Irish roots. The there's the problem of syntax, the modifier follows the headnoun in Irish and has done for a long time and it would have to be fearann le'n-Dis. The preposition "with" in OI is la, not le. In combination with the article, la becomes las in so he has not accounted for the lost s. Dia is a masculine o stem which unfortunately means he needs to explain the -s in Dis. "The land belonging to god" which I think is what he's aiming for would be something like in ferand la dia which does, I'm afraid, looks nothing like Lindisfarne.

And to crown it all - he quotes the modern Gaelic bible next to St Cuthbert's "personal bible". Nice, but he was 7th century. The first Scottish Gaelic bible dates to 1767, nearly a 1000 years later.

I'm sure he means well but from a Celtic linguist's POV I shudder, close the PDF and have a strong coffee I'm afraid. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. I guess the fact that Lindesfarne sounds more Celtic than AngloSaxon and contains the "Linn" element makes it seem plausible on the surface. (maybe hes Scottish and surrounded by Geordies lol!) Seamusalba (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It quite possibly does contain Celtic elements but the golden rule of etymology is that you must always compare the oldest forms (recorded (ideally), failing that reconstructed) of the word in question. For common words you also must present general sound change rules, not just individual examples (though place names can be unusual here) and a motive. It's never as simple as "Oh these two look alike". Just playing devil's advocate and comming at it from a modern POV, I could equally argue that Lindisfarne is lind "soft, gentle" -is "gentive" farne "fern", hence "gentle ferns". Equally plausible based on the modern surface forms. Or even more fun, Cantonese lin "lotus", di "of" faan "rice"... "lotus rice".. and I'm sure I could cook up a story about 11th century sailors to fit it ;) It's easy to go wrong on etymology ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Strathcona = Glen Coe?

Hi there, I was told you were a good source to turn to on things both linguistic and Scottish. I was wondering if you can shed light on a nagging question of mine. No WP article and no web search has yet been able to tell me the etymology of the word "Strathcona". I have a theory that was invented specificly for use in the title Baron Strathcona and Mount Royal. That article says that the full title of the barons said they were "of Glencoe". Now glen and strath both mean valley, so I asume that coe and cona are variants of the same root. And that would mean that Strahcona is derived from Glen Coe. What do you think? Where might I be able to find evidence for and against this? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Researching this took a while, sorry. The bad news is that I cannot for the life of me ascertain where that place is, even less so its Gaelic name and etymology. It would appear that the only Strathcona placenames are named AFTER the person, not the other way round so I'm beginning to think that this may be either a typo or a made up name.

Since there is nothing at all to help us evaluate the history and origins of the name, figuring out the Gaelic root is tricky because surface forms often do not match the historical roots. Doing a quick comparison, the cona element could be derived from the root for "dog", "narrow" or "level" off the top of my head - not very promising.

Do you have any additional information about a location for this place, however tentative? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know that particular form was invented for the baronial title, since it seems to only exists in the New World, not in Scotalnd (to the best of my knowledge) but I have no evidence for this, since no one seems to have ever looked into it, or at least never published anything on it. My assumption is that it is a poetic reordering of Glen Coe. But again, no evidence. All etymologies of places named "Strathcona" in Canada simply lead back to Donald Smith, and don't go any further back than that. (e.g. [8]). It's a real mystery. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

See [9]. Ben Mac Dui 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The long and winding loch

I fear this is barely worth revving up your extensive lexicon engines for, but you assistance is respectfully requested at Talk:Loch Langavat where we anglophone duffers have become slightly stuck in the Hebridean mud. Ben Mac Dui 18:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)