User talk:Languagist

Lemnos stele

welcome to Wikipedia, Glengordon01 -- regarding your translation of the Lemnos stele, of course not all published opinions are valuable. Being published is only the minimal requirement for hypotheses to be featured on Wikipedia, it not necessarily sufficient. If you have done original research, it is very simple to get it published one way or the other, these days, and then it can go on wikipedia. WP just isn't the place to publish research, that's all. But as soon as we can quote someone, we'd be glad to have the information. regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Languagist, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

some General guidance.
Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary
Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
Take a look at Consensus of standards
Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Alf ^melmac 20:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrgi Tablets

Glen, do not put comments on my user page. They belong on my talk page:

Don't screw with the "Pyrgi Tablets" article (to Yom)

Please don't destroy articles on topics you know nothing about. Semitic is reconstructed with *θ regardless of whether you have "doubts". No one considers you a foremost linguist. When you publish something in a journal, let us know. Secondly, I can't fathom how you consider Phoenician rbt related to Semitic *ba`l-. I replaced your nonsense with a comparison with Akkadian rābu meaning "great". Hence "great lady" => rb-t. If this is your idea of contribution, please don't. It's patently ignorant. --Glengordon01 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt to *θ, I had never seen it before in any of the proto-Semitic root reconstructions here: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\semham\semet (which is duly cited), so it was not just a random change. This was before I had seen that the Wikipedia proto-Semitic article included *θ, so I did not know that this was considered by any to be a correct proto-Semitic reconstruction (had I seen it, I would have left it as is). As to ba`l, I thought it might have derived from ba`l-t (feminine form of ba`l), but I wasn't really sure and didn't have a source, so I shouldn't have made that conjecture (and I didn't know of the Akkadian cognate). Either way, there's no reason to be so hostile. I was honestly making an attempt at adding to the article. You can simply revert the edits and explain why they are wrong rather than accusing me of destroying an article and knowing nothing about Semitic languages.

I don't know why you removed my PS roots for year and build, though. You can search the database above for them. They have been reconstructed, and with citations.

Edit: I actually don't see the usual citations they have for "year," so I will look for some. It might take me a while, though. Yom 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's one thing when somebody contributes and makes an honest mistake, or someone who contributes something different that is supported by facts. You on the other hand show complete ignorance coupled with arrogance and I do admit that this is irritating. You have clearly never even gone to a library at all to look up a basic entry on Semitic languages in an encyclopaedia. Otherwise if you had done some simple homework, you could see the basis for both theta (*θ) and shin (*š)... just by comparing Arabic and Hebrew numerals from 1 to 10. How simple is that? Lazy. Honestly, you don't know Arabic (and I know you don't know basic comparative linguistics based on things you've said) and suddenly you're a Proto-Semitic expert? Come on. Please for the love of God, visit a university library and stop vegetating on internet garbage. It's affecting your logic. (By the way, the late S.A. Starostin has never been supported by most Semiticists or, for that matter, most linguists. The reconstructions he demonstrated in every language he toyed with are ignorant of the data and ignorant of universal tendencies regarding phonemic typology. His reconstructions are completely different from the mainstream. The only thing I respect about his work is his energy to create his database and do what he loves which takes determination and zeal. I love determination, but I don't love ignorance. Ignorant determination is also worthless and even destructive, much like your recent edits. Read first. Edit after.) --Glengordon01 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the hostility. How long have you been at Wikipedia? Surely you know that you should assume good faith. If you continue to be so hostile, I will not respond to your edits, but will just delete them. I never claimed to be a semiticist or a comparative linguist or even speak arabic, I still have plenty to learn, but I did try to help the article based on what I know. I have researched comparisons before, but I'm obviously a novice so don't accuse me of laziness in a subject that I am an amateur in. If you have problems with Starostin, that's fine, but don't insult me as a result of it.

Yom 18:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, eh? There's no logic in assuming anything. You asserted that theta does not exist in Proto-Semitic when the very Wikipedia article on Proto-Semitic shows theta right there! Ergo, it's safe to assume instead that you were too lazy to fully verify your grandiose assertions within Wikipedia itself, and that your research skills are lacking. Wikipedia isn't an excuse to play an innocent victim of ignorance. Quite the contrary. It's here for us to all learn. So for the sake of constructiveness and positivity, just learn from this mistake and don't do it again. In the future, instead of taking one source (such as only Starostin), take the effort to look up five sources. Always question yourself! It's called being a devil's advocate and, no, it doesn't involve Satanism. It's how logic works. Thank you in advance. --Glengordon01 00:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you like it, "assuming good faith" is still Wikipedia policy. All I'm asking for is curtousy. It doesn't mean that you have to like my edits, or that you can't revert them. Looking up five sources is best for educating oneself about a subject, but not necessarily the best way to go about helping wiki (i.e. because of a lack of sources on some matters, the turning off of new users and edits, and the advantage of a small contribution now, with more to be added later, rather than a later complete contribution). I acknowledge my mistake and apologize for not actually helping the article, but, again, there's no reason to assert to ad hominem attacks; I'm quite well aware of what a devil's advocate is and self-criticism, thank you. There's really no need to pursue this point further.

Yom 03:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can try visiting Proto-Semitic right here on Wikipedia where theta (*θ) is easy to see in the list of sounds and its evidence is clear in Arabic, one of the most common languages in Semitic. Also for reference, try tracking down "Compendium of the World's Languages" by George L. Campbell which also confirms that theta is to be reconstructed in Proto-Semitic. I don't "assume good faith" because assumption is illogical. I assume that you are capable human being that can do better research for yourself. Forgive me if I'm wrong. --Glengordon01 20:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment on Mayani

Thanks for adding the comment to Zacharie Mayani - it was much more helpful than User:Alexander_007's comment on my question in Talk:Etruscan_language - topic #7.

I am not a professional linguist, but I have always loved languages. I agree that many (perhaps most) of Mayani's ideas do not hold water, but I have always liked his translation of re(e)miiśmeθumfs (P. 145 of "The Etruscans begin to speak"). Has anyone come up with a better translation? If not, and given that it is clearly in a dining context, what are the chances of such a good match with Albanian? Perhaps three of the four words are borrowings... Or is this simply a weird coincidence?! Thanks Jpaulm 15:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

Liking a given translation is not the same thing as assessing it honestly and realistically. Science is stoic. Anything else is sci-fi. There are many authors more in-the-know than Mayani. (Erh, it's all even been published at least 30 years ago! Egad!)

Giuliano Bonfante and his daughter Larissa Bonfante dealt more seriously with Etruscan by thoughtfully including simple sketches of its theoretical grammar, thereby dealing with it like a natural human language. You might want to search for "The Etruscan language: an introduction" (1983). Living in Canada myself, I have it in my public library. It contains a realistic vocabulary listing too.

If your public library is crappy and underfunded (chances are it is), then you might also want to get brave and visit your local university for some books, especially on more obscure subjects like Etruscan. It's a free resource that many people forget about because they think they can find it all in their public library, or that they have to waste $$$ at the blood-thirsty Chapters, or that mere mortals are banned from university libraries and only professors are allowed in <:P Nuh-unh. Universities have periodicals and journals on display. If you're frightened, just sneak in with a paperbag over your face. I do it all the time ;)

While revving up for a trip to your univ.lib., read up on the Etruscan language Wikipedia entry to prime yourself with more mainstream views. It's best to just reject Mayani's ideas altogether because he's so "off to one side". Read other authors and start from scratch. I know I sound like a kind of "Mayani-harpy" but oh do I hate lunacy coupled with ignorance. Mayani simply doesn't understand basic analytical science, let alone linguistics. Happy hunting and caveat lector. --Glengordon01 02:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

Oh and about the "coincidence of Albanian matches", read this link[1] to a website on Zompist.com devoted to this very subject, then come back to me. The chances are good but strange as it may seem to you that means nothing in linguistics for some valid reasons.--Glengordon01 02:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a mad crazy moment, I thought someone had addressed my question about the exact phrase I quoted, but the Zompist article seems to be aimed at debunking the mass comparison approach, which I have never liked much anyway. I am going to try phrasing my question once more, and then I will probably give up! Reluctantly I have concluded that there are some things we will never know, such as whether Neanderthalers had language... Remember that Mayani was led to his Albanian interest by his reading of von Hahn and others - and based on the geography, this does not seem impossible. What are the chances, then, that a drawing of a dining scene should just happen to contain three Albanian words meaning "meat with cream" (unless of course this is incorrect - I don't speak Albanian, I'm afraid). And if you (and most other linguists) are convinced this is totally a chance resemblance, then I guess we will just have to wait until Claudius' dictionary is rediscovered in someone's attic! Anyway, your response was much more reasoned than the other chap's, and I thank you for your patience! Jpaulm 17:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

Things we may never know? Oh my. So self-defeatist. By the way, Neanderthals most likely had language ;)

Is Mayani using mass comparison? Mayani fails to describe the Etruscan declensional system, Albanian-Etruscan sound correspondences, Etruscan verb inflection, etc. Since Mayani doesn't respect Etruscan as not only words but systems of words, Mayani's work is a failure to serious comparative linguists. Mayani uses mass comparison because he speaks nothing of grammar or sound correspondences. You dismiss the Zompist article on mass comparison yet fail to recognize the true nature of Mayani's work.

Can Etruscan and Albanian have a common history? Etruscan's architecture, religion, language and culture all assert clear origins in Asia Minor (specifically Lydia). This is further confirmed by Herodotus (his quote mentioned on Etruscan_civilization and can be found more directly on the Perseus website here). Etruscan divination from sheep livers has clear origins in the Near East – Read Hepatoscopy. There can be no connection whatsoever to Albanian without ignoring all historical facts and loosing your senses completely.

What are the chances that a drawing of a dining scene contains three Albanian words meaning "meat with cream"? Since Mayani uses mass comparison, I restate: The chances are always on the side of the hoaxer unless a better methodology is followed. By telling me the Etruscan phrase to which you refer, I'll be happy to help you. Do you honestly feel that "meat with cream" is a sensible translation? I hope not. Etruscans weren't known for making dinner menus ;)

Do we have to wait for "Claudius' dictionary" before we can read Etruscan? No. The future is now. Specialists already know how to read basic Etruscan thanks to the establishment of clear grammatical models (again, it's all about structure). Only Mayani and other pro-Albanian rhetoricists are ignorant of this and continue to resuscitate the "Etruscan mystery" scam passed its natural lifespan.

Hope that clarifies. Cheers and never give up!

--Glengordon01 22:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayani: remiismeθumfs = "again meat with cream"??

Ah, I found your humourous "meat with cream" phrase, Jpaulm. It's remiismeθumfs, isn't it?

As usual, anarchist Mayani slices the words randomly as re miis me θumfs. Hence a silly connection to a random string of Albanian words re mish me tumb (supposed to mean "again meat with cream") whose grammatical ignorance I'm sure would make most native Albanians cringe, by the way, not to mention modern Etruscanologists.

Since Mayani carelessly segments a hypothetical Etruscan word *miis with double "ii" in a closed syllable, he proves that he is an ignorant fink. Why? Other attested Etruscan words like cliniiaras "of the sons" only have "ii" because the second "i" represents the consonant glide "y" before yet another vowel "a". We also find θii "in the water", but only because the uninflected word is θi "water" with the locative ending -i. But "ii" before another consonant?? That's something else. Since "ii" here precedes a consonant "s", it can only signal that the first "i" is the end of one word and the second "i" is the beginning of another.

Hence any competent analysis of such a phrase must start by acknowledging the first etymon remi.

--Glengordon01 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Glen (I assume)! So I can expect that someone will eventually translate that evocative string, starting with remi! Didn't someone say something like, "There is nothing so sad as a beautiful theory brought down by a single fact..." Keep up the good work! Jpaulm 00:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wish it would be possible to translate it completely but it seems to consist of hapaxes only. Assuming that the inscription that Mayani is refering to is a real artifact (I've never come across half the stuff Mayani has in The Etruscans Begin To Speak elsewhere...) I'd say maybe "remi isme θumfs" would be a reasonable attempt at splicing the phrase with a grammatical structure of "[NOUN.LOCATIVE] [VERB.PAST] [NOUN.GENITIVE]". Perhaps, it's to the effect of "so-and-so something-ed with some something". I can't be sure beyond that. Don't worry, obscure inscriptions torment me too, hehe. --Glengordon01 00:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Semitic

Please don't insult me on my talk page. It's intended for constructive and civil discussion. I obviously didn't see the first "(," which is why I added one. It's true that there were no asterisks before I edited the article, but I mentioned them in the intro because I added them in the same edit. If I am not mistaken, the non-emphatic IPA values for proto-Semitic are much more certain than the emphatic ones (perhaps one for "ś" should have an asterisk as well), which is why I added the asterisks. If this is note the case, then there's no need to make the differentiation, but I think it's beneficial to show which IPA sounds are relatively certain. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting? You interpret this as a vendetta and yet I continue to revert your edits because they're wrong. You even admit to your mistakes, so why shouldn't I call your edits sloppy?

Asterisks aren't based on some arbitrary probability of yours. You can't just place them wherever Yom feels like. They signal that the sound or word in question is theoretical. That's it. In this table, it's simply redundant to mark them all with asterisks but all are equally theoretical, so it's either all or nothing. I continue to revert your edits because they're wrong. And I could care less whether you're insulted by continually being ignorant about linguistics. Most other people would move on and read more. You whine about imaginary wounds. --Glengordon01 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ural-Altaic

Your arguments on the Talk:Ural-Altaic languages fall into original research, which Wikipedia does not permit. See WP:NOR. We're not here to decide scholarly controversies, but rather to represent the perspectives of scholars. AAikio already told you that, but then you just claimed that status quo be damned, the facts are on your side. That's a classic way of violating WP:NOR. Please try to help the article represent the consensus of the scholarly community, giving chief attention to the mainstream and lesser attention to fringe theories for NPOV. Please don't try to settle the grand uncertainties of linguistics here on Talk pages. CRCulver 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another anarchist troll supporting a perverted "Wikipedia fascism": only interested in how something is said, never what. I've mentioned clearly the self-contradictions already that remain unaddressed. Yet, I guess nothing stops beaurocratic peons from accusing "an individual that encourages reasoning" as an "original research heretic".

Nonetheless, your pretend interest in NPOV is deceptive propoganda if you terminate open debate as you do here.

People who simply parrot out-of-context quotes from published works without any standards, without knowledge of the subject, even without interest in the subject, no matter how self-contradictory the quotes happen to be, are intellectual terrorists of sorts.

So I can never support Wikipedia's "NPOV terrorism" since it's naturally at odds with education and science. It is not my job as an individual to be a "non-point-of-view" zombie. That's only the job of Wikipedia as a collective whole. Brainlessness just isn't my strong suit. --Glengordon01 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charun

The details may be more inspired by the Aeneid than by history, but Charon is a Greek loan, while Charun is a substantially different figure of similar function that was replaced with the Gree Charon subsequent to Greek influence. The description and vehavior of Charun seem to me different enough to warrant a separate entry, even if my historical facts are wrong. Scottandrewhutchins

Yes, I understand, but where in the Aeneid? Quote? If you can't justify your claim with a source, give up. --Glengordon01 05:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say Charun was mentioned in the Aeneid. I meant the Aeneid says that the Roman figures come to Italy via the Trojans. I don't have access to the source of the claims about horses or the bashing of souls with a hammer, but I believed they are derived from one of two books by Jeff Rovin, either The Fantasy Encyclopedia or The Encyclopedia of Monsters. Please see Wikipedia definitions of vandalism before you accuse me of it again. Scottandrewhutchins 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantasy Encyclopedia and The Encyclopedia of Monsters?? This proves you have low reading standards. If you can't separate "proven fact" from "fantasy" or "science" from "science fiction", you have no business editing. I suggest you follow the link on Wiki vandalism and actually *read* what it says instead of daydreaming about monsters:

There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information, insertion of nonsense or irrelevant content, addition of unwanted commercial links (spam), and policy violations specific to that wiki.

Yours would be vandalism because of insertion of nonsense. Charun bonking the deceased with a hammer is a clear example of nonsense. Grow up and read labrys if you're truly interested in facts about Charun's "hammer". --Glengordon01 15:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not insertion of nonsense. It is derived from a published book. You can disagree if you so choose, but it is not correct to classify it as vanadalism. Scottandrewhutchins 18:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have one undocumented claim that Charun wielded a labrys rather than a hammer. I'm so impressed. Rovin said that Charun carries either a hammer or an axe depending on the source. Scottandrewhutchins 18:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly care whether you're impressed. Stating that the hammer is a labrys or labrys derivative is based on historical facts. Hardly outlandish. Claiming that Charun clubs people with a religious symbol based on the word of a sci-fi writer however proves you're a lunatic and a vandal. "Sourced" doesn't mean "based on just any cockamamey book". --Glengordon01 18:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for a source. Take a hard lookey at something from Robert S. P. Beekes The Origin of the Etruscans, my neophyte friend:

The double axe. On a smaller issue Versnel concludes (p. 299): ‘When this bipennis [‘double axe’], property of ‘Zeus Bakchos’, carried as symbol of sacred power by Lydian kings, is encountered again as the symbol of the royal authority of the Etruscan kings, particularly of the supreme king of the federation of cities, this may be considered an important indication of the Asia Minor origin of the entire underlying ideology, and of the ceremony of investiture in which the bipennis played a part.’

These conclusions are of primary importance, as they concern a deeprooted complex of religious views that cannot have been taken over from elsewhere. (p.31-32)

Note he's quoting Versnel who says the same damn thing that I'm trying to get through to you. You could have googled that yourself if you weren't so lazy and prone to fantasy books. And in case you're wondering, Beekes is an important scholar particularly of Indo-European linguistics, not a sci-fi writer. So crawl back to the hole you came from, buddy, or learn how to research for yourself. --Glengordon01 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote says nothing about Charun, and you're resorting to personal attacks, which is another violation of Wikipedia policy. Scottandrewhutchins 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this book? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0838750613/sr=8-1/qid=1155422077/ref=sr_1_1/102-3030524-8738536?ie=UTF8 Scottandrewhutchins 22:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you understand what "academic source" means? Nobody knows who Ronnie H. Terpeling is. Is he a recognized scholar? Never heard of him. Robert S. P. Beekes on the other is a famous linguist and that article that you refuse to read is expounding upon the labrys symbolism, identical to that in the Charun imagery. Can't understand? Too bad. Them's facts.

Claiming that "Charun smashes people's souls with a hammer" is as lunatic as saying "Jesus smashes people's souls with his cross in heaven". If you find that insulting, I equally find your twisted understanding of ancient religions insulting. End of discussion. Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye. Please, get lost. --Glengordon01 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the word "bash" appears to come from me, but Charun's torturing of souls and his use of the hammer in this are on the French and Italian Wikipedia mirror sites, which I doubt got the idea from a hack writer like Rovin. Scottandrewhutchins 19:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware. I've sent out messages in Spanish, Italian and French (to their respective Wikipedias) to get to the meat of the disinformation. I'm pretty certain that no one in all of our four language communities will be able to spit out the required evidence to prove that Charun is indeed bashing anyone to any conclusive degree.

A meme is not a fact, Scott. I could make a long list of all the nutty things society in general seems to think is true but is proven to not be, but I have other things to do with my brain, like... think for myself. --Glengordon01 06:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Charun.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Charun.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

asterisk before Yanāpaw?

Why the asterisk in *Yanāpaw in Anubis? Typo, or meaning something in the spelling/pronunciation? TransUtopian 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, neither. It's the way reconstructed words are written in most books. Reconstructed words, reconstructed names, or reconstructed parts of words are always given an asterisk before them.

In this case, no one is sure what the vowels in Ancient Egyptian were because Egyptians never wrote vowels, only consonants... Guess they wanted to save paper ;) So they have to rely on evidence from Coptic (which was thankfully written in a Greek-ish alphabet with vowels). The only problem is... there's a 3000 year gap of our knowledge of the language! So, when somebody writes an asterisk beside a word or name like that, it means that it's based on a theory about what the language sounded like. Egyptologists think for example that Ancient Egyptian *ā first became *ō before becoming the ou that we see in Coptic Anoup. They've planned it all out. It's pretty nifty if you're into language changes. --Glengordon01 17:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! I'm a complete layman (I just lay about :), but I get interested in many things from seeing them in science fiction. In terms of language changes, I heard about High German consonant shift from a Bernice Summerfield audio play. I didn't even think to look it up until you mentioned it. Since that story was a comedy, I wasn't sure if it was made up or not, but a quick google + wikipedia assures me it is. The fictional context was the word caravan changing to become agravarn.

More relevant to Wikipedia, it'd be very useful for such asterisks to be wikilinked to the relevant article (which one? I see Category:Linguistic morphology but no idea if that's even the right category), maybe via a template. That way no one will accidentally delete it as a typo and those unfamiliar with it will be able to click to read about recontructed words. At first, I thought it might refer to a note at the bottom, like asterisks after words do in many non-Wiki documents. TransUtopian 19:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! It's real! It's usually referred to as Grimm's Law, discovered 200 years ago after someone got smart and started comparing Germanic languages (German, English, Dutch, Swedish, etc) to Italic ones (Latin).

The big proof is in things like "father" versus "pater" in Latin. Latin has the original *p which it inherited from Proto-Indo-European, but Proto-Germanic turned *p to *f about 3000 years ago. If you think about it, the change of "p" to "f" was just caused by the gradual weakening of the lips during the lifetimes of a few generations, say within a hundred years maybe? People got lazy and didn't feel like going to the bother of keeping their lips tense together to make a proper "p" anymore ;)

All human languages change like this because we're imperfect and lazy ;) If you think Grimm's Law is cool, you should check out something more recent in English (just in the past 500 years): Great Vowel Shift. Before this change took place, English sounded a lot more like German than it does now.

I guess the asterisk thing is hard for people to understand at first, you're right. Hmm. I'm not sure what we should do to make it easier though. If we link every single asterisk on Wikipedia, that's pretty time-consuming. How would a "template" work in this case? --Glengordon01 21:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the press, sorry. Grimm's Law is a similar change, not the same as what I thought you were referring (didn't follow the link, duh!). That will teach me to read more carefully --Glengordon01 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Talk:2006 redefinition of planet

Hi. In your edit [2], you used the edit summary "don't erase my quirky but serious proposal because you can't take jokes". Having read your contribution (which has now been deleted twice), it does seem like a quirky addition. I cannot see a proposal other than "Why don't you pay me millions of dollars per annum to replace the International Astronomical Union?" As Wikipedia does not control this body, you may be addressing your proposal to the wrong place. Could I ask you to restrict your contributions here to suggestions towards improving the article, which is what the article discussion page is for? Otherwise I fear it will just be deleted again as irrelevant. Thanks --Guinnog 12:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly can improve the article if when I provide an **empirical** definition of planet to include all eight excluding Pluto, you choose to censor real input that happens to stomach you the wrong way. Who the hell are you? Why do you get to say what others on Wikipedia read? Insult the readership? That's precisely what you're doing. Clearly I was only *joking* about being Earth Dictator but you're the real deal.

I can hardly improve that article if innovative thought is discouraged because it's too non-WP:NPOV. I can hardly improve the article if **how** I say something becomes a flake excuse to dismiss **what** I say. I've said my peace. You're a censoring troll. The end. We learn to disagree. Regardless of your fear, others have seen it and read it already. You still lose. Truth still shines free one way or another. --Glengordon01 13:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better idea: why not just remove the pointlessly inflammatory commentary about "retards", "waste of oxygen" and so forth? Maybe then no one will delete your contribution? I certainly won't. mdf 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I happen to think that most people are tards and that 99% of the world just aren't smart enough to get it. I only love 1% and you don't qualify :) Censorship is for flakes who can't handle reality. --Glengordon01 13:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither censoring you nor a troll. I was merely asking you to stick to discussing the article as that is what the page is for. While I do see some merit in the points you make, as you say, it cannot be used in Wikipedia, though it is WP:OR that it contravenes, not primarily WP:NPOV. You may wish to have a look at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as well, if you want to continue editing here. Thanks. --Guinnog 13:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. My religion isn't Wikipedia. I don't join cults. --Glengordon01 13:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Wikipedia

Yes, I corrected your undocumented edits on the French site, but since I just went from English Wikipedia to French Wikipedia, and I don't have a login on French Wikipedia, it showed up as coming from a server. You clearly have not read Wikipedia:vandalism, or else you simply have failed to understand it, or you would not consider my edits to be vandalism. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment is harassment in any language. Your intentions on the French Wikipedia are sinister and I've reverted (and will continue to revert) your anonymous edits. Your desire to contribute has now devolved into a mentally deranged obsession to attack me personally. You need to find something more constructive to do with your life than this. --Glengordon01 22:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read Fraz de Ruyt's Charun, Démon étrusque de la mort, before you even think about editing the French Wikipedia page. --Scottandrewhutchins 23:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franz De Ruyt, op. cit., 1934, p. 241:

Charun, écrivait-il, […] a les traits monstrueux et horribles, comme les démons chaldéens, mais déjà sous une forme plus humaine. On ne pourrait évidemment conclure à une dérivation immédiate, car il y a des différences essentielles, notamment l'attribut principal de Charun : le maillet, que l'on n'a pas trouvé jusqu'ici en Asie, mais seulement en Gaule, comme attribut de la mort

(English translation) Charun, he wrote, […] has the monstruous and horrible traits, like chaldean demons, but already under a more human form. We cannot evidentally conclude an immediate derivation, because there are essential differences, notably the principal attribute of Charun: the hammer, which we haven't found up to now in Asia, but only in Gaul, as an attribute of death.

As of the 21st century these statements are false. Please carefully criticize your own sources.

The labrys *is* found in Asia and is the antecedent symbolism of Charun's "hammer". No one honestly believes anymore that Etruscans borrowed their religion from Celts as he seems to be suggesting when he published the book sixty years ago! The Etruscans just aren't from the Alps.

The labrys is not about "death" either. That's the source of his confusion. It's about "divine authority to rule". Only in this way can we explain the presence of the labrys with not only deities but in association with royalty as Beekes alludes. Charun is merely holding this "divine authority" over the underworld as a "lord" of the underworld and there has never been any authentic depiction of Charun "bashing souls with a hammer". He is merely holding that hammer as a symbol in every known Etruscan illustration that we know of. You also have to examine the typological relationship between earlier goddess imagery and the labrys to even begin to understand what it all means over the aeons.

I don't know why you can't ponder on this for a second. You're so stuck on narrow minutia but you fail to recognize the big picture: their clear origins in Lydia. It's so important to see this because this is where they absorbed all these eastern beliefs (demonstrable linguistically as well by Egyptian and Anatolian adstrate) and in a sense are more "Babylonian" in religion than you want to admit. You think I'm joking or making this stuff up. Proof of this connection is by a modernday comparison between the Etruscan Liver of Piacenza and its Babylonian counterpart dated to 1750 BCE: click to see picture here. Open your eyes, please.

History isn't rocket science but it does require a bit of reading and digging. So I wish you could understand my sincerity when I say that I don't think you yet understand *fully* what you're talking about. If you continue to focus on personal harassment instead of honest research, you may never understand, and that would be a pity because this subject is pretty cool. --Glengordon01 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently still don't understand Wikipedia:no original research.--Scottandrewhutchins 00:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't original research:

Etruscan-Chaldean connection (responded to in your blessed Franz De Ruyt source that you can't read!!)
Etruscans from Lydia (written by Herodotus I.94; go to the Perseus website to see it)
Connection between Piacenza liver and Babylonian models... pretty much in every book about Etruscan ever written.

What a brat. --Glengordon01 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not showing the explicit connections to Charun that are required. Also, see the urn I describe on the Charun page. It is shown on page 14 of Terpening's book. The image does not actually show Charun striking the Trojan (if it's a labrys, the artist sucked at depictng it, since it's at a level of stylization far different from the rest of the image), although he might be preparing to do so. (It's not the picture on the French site.) The leaps you are asking me to take constitute original research. I have no problem with original research, but I agree with the credo that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. By the way, I can read French, but accessing a copy has proven difficult, so I've had to rely on Terpening's interpretations for the moment.--Scottandrewhutchins 00:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your words: "The leaps you are asking me to take constitute original research."

Well, that pretty much sums you up then. Thanks for being honest. --Glengordon01 00:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoh

"Secularist" view? That's an absurd category to impose on the subject. These people certainly didn't think in such terms.

It's too blunt to simply say that the Egyptian kings were gods. Which god? Gods? At what times in their lives? How did it happen? "Reincarnation of Horus"? Where did you get that word from?

This subject is worth explaining and exploring in depth, not simply tossed off in the intro with a misleading over-simplification. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hatshepsut's recorded royal titles made it irrefutably clear that pharaohs are the reincarnation of divinities as I directly pointed out to you. Hatshepsut: Golden Horus. Hello? What can't you understand in this equation? Please follow the link to Hatshepsut before making up nonsense and read the royal titles.

I agree that it should be explored in depth, but your resistence to summary of something so undeniably factual is outlandish. I could list all the other royal titles of all other pharaohs that show the same connection between royalty and divinity but that would waste my time with willful ignorance. --Glengordon01 08:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your talk page here that you simply enjoy argument and arrogant posturing. You've missed my point entirely, but I have no desire to get involved with someone of your energy and capacity for invective. Do what you like. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain things like this: [3] Can you? How are pharaohs not hopelessly intertwined with Egyptian religion? I just don't understand what you're basing your view on. Really, I'm serious about this. --Glengordon01 08:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another clue by the online Encyclopedia Britannica [4]:

The Egyptians believed their pharaoh to be a god, identifying him with the sky god Horus and with the sun gods Re, Amon, and Aton.

So I agree with you that I enjoy arguing, but only when I know I'm absolutely correct. In this case, your views are false. So you're wrong. Whoopdeedoo. Not all of us can be gods, right? :P --Glengordon01 09:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charun (edit warring)

Quite frankly, the recent edits and protection of these edits are so off-kilter I could cry. I have no idea why you think it's sane to directly compare Etruscan mythology to Hindu religion. I have no clue why none of you can understand how important the labrys was in the ancient world. Ironically, you reference Marija Gimbutas but failed to note her own work specifically relating the labrys to more ancient goddess symbolisms either.

Now the article reads like a 5th-grade essay, completely disorganized and painfully POV. Do you honestly feel this is the best we can do? Do you honestly feel that Scott Andrew Hutchins analysis based on Jeff Rovin is accurate? Logic is logic. I can only but appeal to your reasoning at this point. The current state of this article is absolutely disgusting. --Glengordon01 07:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A further appeal: PLEASE READ labrys CAREFULLY! You're missing something right here, for example:

"On Greek vase paintings, a labrys sometimes appears in scenes of animal sacrifice, particularly as a weapon for the slaying of bulls. On the "Perseus Vase" in Berlin (F1704; ca 570–560 BC), Hephaestus ritually flees his act of slicing open the head of Zeus to free Athena: over his shoulder is the instrument he has used, the double-headed axe. (The more usual double-headed instrument of Hephaestus is the double-headed smith's hammer.)

Please take note of the bold. It is well-known to any competent classicist that the double-hammer and the labrys are the same freakin' symbolism, for pete's sake. So when Scott Andrew Hutchins is arguing about petty semantics, claiming ad nauseum "it's a hammer, it's a hammer", he's just not cluing in to the bigger picture that this "hammer" is a labrys or labrys-derivative (call it what you will) and the labrys is a religious symbol.

As I explained to Scott to no avail, popular memes are not facts. I can see that if authors published that the world was flat often enough, Wikipedia would actually fall for it hook, line and sinker. Frightening how devolved the human species is becoming that it just can't rise above this shallowness. --Glengordon01 07:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glen, did you read the message at the top of the page? "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.)" It is random which version was protected (see m:The Wrong Version). I can do nothing about this until a discussion has taken place on the talk page, or if neither of you can agree (or one of you won't talk0, ask for some form of mediation or a third opinion. —Mets501 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, alright. I have gone to the third opinion link and hope this will resolve the issue. Thanks a lot for the tip. --Glengordon01 13:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Talk:Charun

This is the only warning you will receive. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Mets501 (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the state of the Charun article, that isn't much of a loss, to be frank. Warning accepted but shame not felt. --Glengordon01 13:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're unashamed because you refuse to recognize that you are incompetent. --Scottandrewhutchins 12:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced is Glengordon01

You are a hypocrite, therefore your edits are worthless and should all be reverted. Not a single claim of yours about Etruscan mythology has been backed with a source., yet you claim everyone else is "unsourced", in spite of massive amounts of documentation. You have been asked repeatedly for a source, and you have given none that was relevant, yet you persist in accusing others of exactly what you are doing, and finding fault with a strategy that only you have been using. You have also been accusing others of vandalism, when your additions of unsupported claims and deletions of supported claims are exactly that. --Scottandrewhutchins 12:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charun: A desperate appeal for administrator sanity

This User:Scottandrewhutchins troll has gone far enough, and he is quite clearly a troll at this point:

User_talk:Glengordon01:

"You are a hypocrite, therefore your edits are worthless and should all be reverted."

"You're unashamed because you refuse to recognize that you are incompetent"

Meanwhile the layman has mistaken a "krater" jug for a physical "crater", Basic Classic Studies 101. Forgive me if this only reemphasizes the politic feel of Wikipedia. I thought everyone was equal and WP:Civility applied to everyone. You're an administrator, are you not? Why does he not receive warning for these openly hostile ad hominem attacks towards me? --Glengordon01 15:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, asking to have him "warned" after all this hijacking is a bit of a "euphemism". --Glengordon01 15:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you received warnings, you received it from me, and Scott received it from you (so I didn't feel the need to also post a warning). I really recommend starting a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, as this has gone too far and I (to be honest) am not completely sure about what to do. —Mets501 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Alright. I'll try that link. This feels like working in an office all over again :/ --Glengordon01 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what's best. —Mets501 (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after observing the almost purposeful obfuscation of this system to handle complaints and the fact that my name is being freely slandered for kicks despite all these other puppets telling me that I'm the one that's hostile. Hmmm. Neah, I think I can think of better things to do with my time, like stand on a freeway. If I'm the only one fighting this, then what's the use. Good luck with the project. --Glengordon01 15:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, you don't need to quit because of this. Take a Wikibreak, let yourself cool down, and come back when you're ready. —Mets501 (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll have a Wikisandwich and Wikifries. Mmm, yum :) --Glengordon01 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BC vs. BCE

I don't know if you are aware of the history of the topic on WP. Look at Wikipedia:Eras (and the pages linked there, with lots of discussion on talkpages). The current consensus is that editor should avoid changing "era style" in articles they are not otherwise significantly involved with. Failure to do so is dubbed "stylewarring" :) (ᛎ) qɐp 16:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I just realize that you just reverted an anonymous style-warrior. never mind then. The appropriate edit summary for that would have been "rv style warrior" and I wouldn't have bothered you... (ᛎ) qɐp 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no prob. "Style warrior"? Hmm, a little obscure, no? Personally, I usually avoid catchphrases because I'm always concerned that people outside Wikipedia won't know what I'm saying nor my intentions. --Glengordon01 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academic status

RE: "Can't you understand what "academic source" means? Nobody knows who Ronnie H. Terpeling is. Is he a recognized scholar? Never heard of him."

I'd hate to think that the only recognized scholars around are people that you've heard of! It looks to me, from your statement, that "nobody" actually refers to yourself. You'll find my book on Charon (not Charun), published by a university press and widely reviewed internationally, in libraries around the world; it's also often cited in dissertations.

My vita with publications (and the correct spelling of my name) can be found at this URL: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~terp. I received my Ph.D. at Berkeley, with a dissertation on Charon, the underworld ferryman (also the subject of my first academic book). My book was widely reviewed in the United States, England, and Italy, with extensive praise from other scholars (from classicists to Italianists).

RE: "The double axe. On a smaller issue Versnel concludes (p. 299): ‘When this bipennis [‘double axe’], property of ‘Zeus Bakchos’, carried as symbol of sacred power by Lydian kings, is encountered again as the symbol of the royal authority of the Etruscan kings, particularly of the supreme king of the federation of cities, this may be considered an important indication of the Asia Minor origin of the entire underlying ideology, and of the ceremony of investiture in which the bipennis played a part.’"

I doubt that a double axe, symbol of Zeus of Lydian kings, of royal authority for Etruscan kings, would be carried by an afterlife death figure, one of the lower gods (in more ways than one!). The reference to the "bipennis" above seems to be to the Etruscan fasces.

You need to carefully distinguish the labrys, the fasces, and the (possible) mallet that Charun holds. I doubt he'd hold either a fasces or a labrys.

I've tried to correct (to the extent possible) some of the statements attributed to me (in my book on Charon), found on the Charun discussion page.

As they say: The conjecture of the specialist becomes the certainty of the layman. I'm afraid that's happened to my book.

Ronnie H. Terpening 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Ronnie H. Terpening, Professor, University of Arizona P.S. Most of my academic publications (I'm also a novelist) deal with Italian literature, not etruscology, where I've never claimed to be an expert! (And the section on that in my book is a marginal comment in the introduction, with references to other sources.) But even laymen can exercise critical judgment when analyzing material remains (visual sources).[reply]

Alright, thank you for the clarification. Now let's drop the people politics and cut to the facts.

Here's the question you will answer me in full:

What known Etruscan artifact conclusively shows that Charun bashes souls with a hammer?

If you cannot directly answer that question, the view is an opinion, not fact, no matter how many people parrot the nonsense. --Glengordon01 05:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute (pondering...) "The conjecture of the specialist becomes the certainty of the layman". Ah, so we can now agree that this is conjecture? Thank god :) This has been frustrating me because there are indeed many books repeating that Charun is an axe-murderer but no tangible evidence to back it up. I hope that we're in agreement that it needs to be stated clearly as an opinion (unless an artifact shows up). You have to understand that my frustration with this is based on other inconsistencies that I've noticed throughout Etruscan studies, some to do with self-contradictory translations and the like by even reknowned Etruscanologists. So forgive my seeming arrogance, but there's hell to pay >:) --Glengordon01 06:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can say that experts believe that Charun bashes souls with his hammer. We can't say that experts believe that Charun carries a labrys as a purely religious symbol, unless you have published something peer reviewed on the subject, which is a criterion to consider you an expert. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: What known Etruscan artifact conclusively shows that Charun bashes souls with a hammer?

PLEASE NOTE: None of these statements have ever been made by me!!! (R. H. Terpening) I wouldn't say Charun bashes a soul (the only somewhat similar reference, as mentioned in another post, would be to the figure (dressed as an Etruscan Charun, if I'm not mistaken) that did dispatch the not-quite-dead (!)[i.e., a body NOT a soul] as they left the gate of death (rather than the gate of life) at the Colosseum. But even that I've never mentioned in print. I don't believe I ever state anywhere that Charun is more than present at scenes of death (and, of course, in scenes where he's leading people to the afterlife domain).

The figure as he appears in Etruscan funerary art needs to be examined with greater care (on another Wikipedia talk page, I recommended that one visit the archaeological museum at Chiusi, Italy, where there are many Charun figures with what I think you'll decide is a mallet. Re: the labrys: Charun is not an overlord of the underworld. He's a very minor deity at best (or wouldn't you agree)? That's one of the reasons I doubt he'd carry such a lofty symbol (but you could argue that issue). I had not read most of the comments above when I made my original comments. [A close comparison of visual images would be useful.]

So the statement (about bashing) is neither fact (necessarily) NOR my opinion (your comment to my comment on "conjectures"; I did not, and never have (or would), make a similar statement, so I haven't made that conjecture! [I'm not saying one can't try to do so, but I don't.]

I also would cut the reference to the Eastern gods that may be comparable to Charun. These statements were made by 19th century comparative mythologists who went way overboard at times, with far-fetched analogies that (often) have no basis in fact.

Any comments that reference my book should LOOK AT THE CONTEXT!!

Whatever the case, I do agree (with all, perhaps) that this entry needs to be carefully and accurately rewritten.

Thanks. Ronnie H. Terpening 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Ronnie H. Terpening[reply]

Etruscanology, a fun hall of mirrors

Scott, let's please deal with this complex subject without politics. It's made more complicated still thanks to rabid hearsay in Etruscanology and people don't bring authors to task through healthy critique. We can at least come to the conclusion that the people you cite are providing opinions on the subject, but nothing more until strict criteria are met as per WP's own rules regarding opinion vs fact.

We have two issues here, both more complicated than they seem:

Issue 1: Is Charun "bashing souls with a hammer"?
Issue 2: Is the "hammer" typologically related to the "labrys"?

Issue 1: Is Charun "bashing souls with a hammer"?

While I was already made aware of how much Etruscanology is in dire need of overhaul and shake-up, I wasn't aware that the "Charun bashes souls" meme was such a popular catchphrase. I found this one casual phrase in an otherwise comprehensive and responsible article on "death" in Encyclopedia Britannica (which can be tracked down by looking up "Charun" in the Index), yet this claim was nowhere to be found in the smaller "Charun" entry. The Enc.Britt. made no effort to footnote and only provides a disorganized section-wide bibliography at the end of the article for readers to sift through ad nauseum until they give up completely in disgust.

After that, I naturally got even more suspicious of Enc.Britt's ability to inform us on Etruscanology. So I decided for kicks to test the competency of Enc.Britt. for myself by having a gander under "haruspex" to see what level of research it would provide. It failed. It explained a haruspex as an Etruscan entity only. This is quite obviously false. (See haruspicy and extispicy for illumination on earlier Babylonian haruspices proven by a Babylonian liver model long ago found that was compared many times to the Etruscan Piacenza Liver.)

Another kicker is that Massimo Pallotino, well-known in the Etruscan field, also alludes to Charun hitting people with axes (The Etruscans) and yet does nothing to comfort the reader with an artifact actually demonstrating this.

Opinion propped up as fact. Total distortion by reification. Why is everyone having such a hard time being academically honest? I asked a direct and unavoidable question and I will keep repeating it until it is properly answered:

What known Etruscan artifact conclusively shows that Charun bashes souls with a hammer?

Above I distance myself from this statement (made by others), but I will note that in the LATER tradition Charon (not Charun) does exactly that! Witness Dante's Commedia, canto 3 (batte col remo qualunque s'adagia, quote from memory so maybe slightly off), thus the scene in Michelangelo's Last Judgment of a Caronte with an oar over his shoulder beating the souls off his boat. Glengordon: Even in that scene you could argue he's not beating the souls, but when a figure is (to use the term that appeared earlier, though it was never MINE) "poised" to do so, one has to surmise from the pose what's actually about to happen. In some of the Charun scenes, the mallet\labrys hingamajig\sword\oar [I've never seen the sword to my recollection] is "pending" over the head of the soon-to-be-defunct individual. It's not held upright, as one might expect from a labrys. Ronnie H. Terpening 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Ron Terpening[reply]

No worries. I already distance you from Scott because I respect individuality. I also love facts and I appreciate that you use them to justify your views even when these facts are logically irrelevant. Here are some relevant facts:

Dante's Charon is Greek-based, not Etruscan, ergo Dante's mention is automatically irrelevant here.
Greeks are not Etruscans, making this doubly irrelevant.
Dante Alighieri is Italian, not Etruscan (except *perhaps* by descent). Etruscans were fully absorbed as Romans a millenium before Dante. Irrelevance x 3.
Middle Ages are not Classical antiquity. A senseless conflation of historical epochs. Completely non sequitur at this point.

It shouldn't have to be said that the 13th c. CE is not the place to look if we want to understand Etruscan religion as practiced circa 400 BCE. Charun is seen with both sword and double-sided hammer in this artifact and Scott is unaware that other people also question the "Charun stereotype" such as this individual who wrote about the same topic two years before me: http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/450232 --Glengordon01 06:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)\n-----[reply]

Nice image of Charun with sword! Thanks.

Dante's Charon, of course, is largely based on Virgil (thus ultimately the Greek), so no problems with that. But here's a statement I make in my book in the chapter dealing with Virgil: "Virgil's representation of Charon is, in part, a result of contaminatio. The poet's awareness of previous epic (notably Homer, Hesiod, Apollonius, and the epyllia), Greek drama (see Aeneid 4. 469-473), Alexandrian poetry, Greek philosophical thought (including mystery religions), and the Etruscan underworld has been attested by scholars." And then I cite Cyril Bailey, Franz Cumont, Franz De Ruyt, T. R. Glover, Eduard Norden, Friedrich Solmsen, and R. D. Williams [for which see the bibliography in my book], saying also that more specific studies are cited where appropriate (later in the chapter). [Many of the sources that Virgil might have known are analyzed in the first section of my book.]

Note Virgil's description of Charon (6. 298-304), the adjective "horendus," the phrase "terribili squalore," the flaming eyes, the aggression (the use of the verb agredior for Charon's attitude). So the question becomes: Was Virgil influenced at all by the Etruscan vision of the afterlife? Charon in the Greek sources (and see all the Greek art in my book, such as the lekythos by the Tymbos Painter (p. 30) or that of the Reed Painter (p. 62), etc., where Charon seems actually to be smiling--very benevolent as he welcomes, in one case a small flying spirit, in another a woman. Even the first words spoken by Charon in Western literature ("What keeps you? / Hurry, you hold us back" Euripides, Alcestis, see vv. 252-57) are fairly mild, although he is referred to as being impatient.

Virgil's depiction has some of the horror that one finds in Etruscan scenes of Charun and Tuchulcha (Etruscan amphora from Vulci, Cabinet des Médailles 918, Bibliothèque National, Paris). [see my book, p. 45]

What's interesting, however, is that some of the works found in Etruscan digs (artifacts) were actually made by Greeks, so there may be some conflation of ideas. The example just cited is a scene showing Alcestis saying farewell to Admetus, while Charun and Tuchulcha wait. You can't get a clearer indication of conflation, can you? Charun has his mallet over his shoulder, held near the head by his right hand and with his left near the base of the shaft. Tuchulca threatens the two Greeks with a coiled snake. The Etruscan figures stand to each side of the Greeks, so you have to imagine (yes!) that BOTH are threatening the two other figures.

So, while you emphasize a strict division between ages and depictions of figures, I see, perhaps, some continuity, some mutual influence at work--and this is passed on to later ages from authors such as Virgil.

But I also mentioned Dante, in part, to show that figuring out what one is doing (or about to do) in a pose is always questionable (and thus open to discussion). In many of the Etruscan scenes, Charun SEEMS to be a threatening figure.

Can't remember what your last comment about the Middle Ages refers to (?). Who conflated classical antiquity and the Middle Ages? As a person who teaches three courses on culture in Italy (solely via material remains), one part from 700,000 years ago to the Fall of the Roman Empire, the other on the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the third from the Baroque Age to the present, I wouldn't want to confuse the eras. My book on Charon covers the figure from his earliest literary reference through Classical Antiquity (in a variety of literary genres), then in the Middle Ages and Renaissance in Italy (from Dante through Marino). Oh, on reflection, I guess you're saying that since I discussed an example of Charon (not Charun) in the Middle Ages, in the middle of a discussion of the Etruscan Charun, that I'm conflating the periods. I understand.

Thanks for your contribution (I enjoyed seeing the Charun with sword and can't honestly remember if I've seen it before or not, since, as I said elsewhere, I last worked on the ferryman over 20 years ago! Ronnie H. Terpening 18:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Ron Terpening[reply]

I have an interesting image of Charun and Vanth, where Charun holds what looks like a double pick (four edges, two to a side, all curved). That's a horrible description, but the best I can do at the moment. Unfortunately, I'm not sure of the source, although I think I scanned it one day from an old National Geographic and then forgot to label it correctly. If anyone is interested, let me know an email and I'll send along a jpeg. I don't believe it can be posted here, right? [and I'm not sure how to do that anyway]. In looking at this image I found a very funny Charon (not Charun) from Paestum, big grinning face, winged, and in his boat, if interested. Ronnie H. Terpening 19:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Ron Terpening[reply]

Interesting stuff! Thanks a lot. Although, I'm still resisting the idea of the violent Charun. I really think people are mistaking his fearful aspects (which are natural for a grim reaper) from violent aspects (which are not natural from an ethnological point of view since most people find an eternal afterlife solely of torture without happiness to be excessively depressing and unstable as a worldview). Everything has structure but I have yet to see both the Etruscan language and the religion explained thoroughly in terms of any structure at all.

This is what I perceive to be problematic from your talk above:

Virgil is merely anthropomorphizing Death through Charon. Death is decrepit and terrifying just like Charon/Charun, facts unrelated to his assumed use of the hammer.
If Virgil's works are "the result of contaminatio" of so many sources, then it's illogical to think we can extract any unambiguous "Etruscan" perspective from it.
"Etruscan amphora from Vulci" -> Do you mean this?

Eca ersce nac Aχrum fler θrce.

"He rose up [from Aita] when Acheron the gift had received."

Alcsti (Alcestis) is being received by Aita/Achrum/Charun in place of Atmite (Admetus) as in Greek myth. I see Tuchulcha hovering over Atmite as a "god of punishment and guilt" for his self-centered act. (Compare Ammit.) I still don't see blood or axe-murder. Charun is still well-behaved here.

--Glengordon01 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 2: Is the "hammer" typologically related to the "labrys"?

I know that people in general have a hard time with misunderstanding things literally. It's as if they were born without symbolic thought. There's nothing I can do about these people. This was in fact Marija Gimbutas' problem regarding Goddess figurines which some supposedly learned people would rather have considered playdolls than something with a deeper symbolic meaning. In this way, a complicated topic replete with ideas and meaning becomes hijacked by modernday attitudes by nihilists who can't allow themselves to seriously consider a foreign religious mindset like the Etruscan world-view.

Symbols evolve over time. In fact, language evolution is an example of similar symbolic evolution in a non-visual sense. The symbols of the labrys and hammer are as related to each other as the various manifestations of the cross. The fact that these symbols may co-exist within a single culture doesn't guarantee that they are unrelated any more than French and Spanish which exist side-by-side and are regardless related to Latin.

So on issue 2, I will in the meantime search for references that connect the two symbolisms because I'm going to have to accept that people in the 21st century can no longer think about even the most basic things for themselves without bringing in an "expert" on the matter, even if said experts err constantly on the subject. We'll just have to make due. --Glengordon01 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if people feel better calling me "incompetent" despite being the only one on WP providing these deeper insights to the subject, then so be it. Nutbars can live in their own universe of perception, if they so wish. --Glengordon01 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still demonstrate you have no understanding what a source is or Wikipedia's no original research credo. And calling those who disagree with your left-field strategies "nutbars" is not a very good way to argue your case. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When one emerses oneself in a system (eg: Wikipedia, religion, staunch ideology), there can be no understanding. You've emersed yourself in Wikipedia and "WP values", whereas I've purposely remained detached from this system in order to evaluate it in a broader manner. If you identify with my statements about "nutbars", this is your own problem of low-self-esteem talking since if I'm so maverick, you should feel no need to continuely have the last word on my own talk page! Haha, you're a funny one. --Glengordon01 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't enter the personal conflicts that seem to have bedeviled this entry, but I do want to apologize personally for entering comments on your talk page, Glengordon01. I don't really know this system AT ALL and assumed that's where one entered a dialogue with another person. So I'm signing off and hope not to contribute again! And, if I do, I'll try to read FIRST how this system is supposed to work! I know you weren't criticizing me, but I feel I may have overstepped the boundaries of Wikipedia. Ronnie H. Terpening 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Ron Terpening[reply]

I don't see how you committed any sin nor how you need to feel responsible for anyone's views beyond your own... but if you feel ashamed about participating on Wikipedia (which is what Wikipedia makes everyone feel like at times, hehe), I will just shrug my shoulders and hope you overcome your need to punish yourself unfairly <:|

de Grummond and Charun

I can e-mail you the whole of de Grummond's chapter, if you haven't already decided that she doesn't know what she's talking about. I got the impression from her message to me that she wanted you to read it, too.--Scottandrewhutchins 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you can't understand me. I'm speaking plain English. Let's try jotform:

I don't have enough faith that you won't abuse my email address once obtained with more obsessive rhetoric.
I *do* agree with most of the statements you attribute to de Grummond secondhand.
I don't agree with YOUR simplistic statements like "Charun bashes souls".
YOUR statements, not de Grummonds, need to be reworded in such a way that don't violate commonsense and WP:NPOV.
YOUR view is not shared by Terpening (as per above), since even he admits it is an opinion only, not ironclad fact.

You need to adjust to these facts so I encourage you to speak further with de Grummond and other Etruscanologists on the matter. --Glengordon01 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semitic transliteration

Please note that {{unicode}} can enclose entire words, thus {{unicode|ʕṣr}} rather than {{unicode|ʕ}}{{unicode|ṣ}}r. Also note that for generic Semitic transliteration there is {{semxlit}}, thus, {{semxlit|ʕṣr}} would be most preferable. dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about what the standard way of doing it was. Didn't know about "semxlit" either. Hyperrific stuff, thanks. --Glengordon01 09:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Charun

Hi, I responded to your Wikipedia alert a couple of days ago and have attempted to bring a fresh set of editorial eyes to the deadlock on that page. The other editor has responded. Would you like to join us? I think if everyone sets aside personal animosities and focuses on scholarship and site policy, you might work out a very good little article together. Durova 00:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

In an effort to break the deadlock I've opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Glengordon01. You'll probably want to contribute. Durova 01:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Your note about Scottandrewhutchins's comment is meritorious and I have left a message on his talk page.[5] However, I do not make a habit of doing favors for people who are rude to me. I responded to an alert you posted, asked both sides to be more civil, and politely asked for citations that conform to site policy. In return you have called me an idiot, an illiterate, and a troll. You owe me an apology. Durova 23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are deliberately rephrasing my comments into something else to create needless conflict. Reread. --Glengordon01 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps to be more clear:

When a 3rd party admits lack of knowledge in the subject in which they intervene, they invalidate their ability to be constructive in the debate.
You are insulting to me by implying that I'm too lazy to take out interlibrary loans which is ironic because of the next point.
I've cited Massimo Pallottino in The Etruscans and Arnobius, speaking directly about Charun and the afterlife and you've dismissed them... but as per above, you also admit to lack of knowledge.
So being that this is a logical farce, I owe you no apology. You owe me an apology for trying to slander me in a mobrule despite Scott's continuing inability to be civil to me AND OTHERS and being BLOCKED on top of it.

--Glengordon01 00:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the spelling of "school", but I'm not a professional typist and sometimes letters get transposed due to manual, but never mental, errors. --Scottandrewhutchins 10:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that I am a "troll" of a page I created is libellous and shows severe bias in your research methods and a completelte failure to understand Wikipedia credos. You cannot rationally say that I fit the definition of "troll" on the Wikipedia entry. --Scottandrewhutchins 10:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by "completelte", you meant "complete" but your fingers got too jittery while typing this. --Glengordon01 20:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Internet troll: "In Internet terminology, a troll is often someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion[...]" You been all four of those: inflammatory, rude, repetitive and offensive. Examples:

[6] (I'm apparently incompetent. Oh no!)
[7] (I have bad writing ability. Sucks to be me.)
[8] (Dr Scott now recommends I seek mental help. Hehe.)

So as you see it's thus a true statement to say "you are a 'proven troll'" by all definitions of "prove", "troll" and that thing called "logic". --Glengordon01 21:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please change your user page

Please do not use your user page as a platform to prolong the dispute with Scottandrewhutchins. I consider this a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Durova 17:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What in it is not truth? --Glengordon01 20:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corollary question: How has objective truth (ie: "Scott is a proven troll" based on examples) become misunderstood as personal attack (ie: negative comments made without any facts)? --Glengordon01 21:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks deleted

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

In particular, inflammatory comments about other users are not appropriate. Feel free to rewrite and include the material without any attacks against other Wikipedia users.

--EngineerScotty 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth hurts. Scottandrewhutchins has been blocked and been uncivil multiple times with multiple people, all documented in WP.

However, according to Wikipedia "values":

If a person says "Hitler was a murderer", Wikipedians will accuse that person of being a troll.
If Siegenthaler is getting slandered online, it's his fault for not taking a joke [9]

Sufficed to say, you're all living in your own collapsing bubble and it's very interesting to me from the outside of the Wikipedian asylum as an observer of mass psychology in relation to the subjects of mass hysteria and propaganda tactics via WP credos. --Glengordon01 23:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what User:Scottandrewhutchins did or didn't do. The forum to address his behavior is in a relevant RFC (which you have done), or on his talk page. Calling someone a "troll" on your own userpage is not acceptable behavior. Anyway, whatever. --EngineerScotty 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still here? I was just stating an opinion but everybody likes to have the last word on my own talk page for some reason. What? You don't like opinions? Let's disagree and be done with it.

Calling someone a troll **as a personal attack** is unacceptable. When it is based on facts, it is not a personal attack any more than "Hitler was a genocidal murderer" is a "personal attack" on Hitler. Anyways, who cares whether I agree with someone called something "scholarly" like "EngineerScotty" or not? The point is that you deleted, fine. The end. Have a nice day, my Trekkie friend. --Glengordon01 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Everybody likes to have the last word on my own talk page."

Dear Glengordon01, on your own talk page? I thought Wikipedia was the "free" encyclopedia. Maybe I wrong. But why do you attack EngineerScotty and other writers? We disagree on many things you write about the Etruscans, but we do not offend you. In addition, you do not show your sources. Can you tell us what Univ. did you attend, the name of your Faculty of Archaeology/History, and who were your professors of Etruscology/Etruscanology? Thank you. --Nicholas 15:25, 2006 (UTC)

I always show my sources, Nicholas. They're all in the archives. You can look it up if you decide to.
I could help you if you knew specifically *what* facts you wish to question. Be specific. Don't waste my time with vaguery or it comes across as petty provocation.
Wikipedians in general tend to "dare others to educate them" like bratty children. No one has time for slobs like that.
Can you tell *me* what university did you attend, my boy? And why should I care about your life? I have one of my own and I only care about Etruscans, not you. Don't flatter yourself.
Decide now whether you want to be a "status whore" or a "scholar". You can't be both.
Cyrus Gordon (no relation to me) had a degree, but that and any sort of peer-review never managed to restrain him from making a published jackass out of himself with his "Semitic Minoan" hypothesis that brazenly ignored all proper methodology that a qualified linguist could respect.
To add, Sir Wallis Budge may have been published, but his mistakes and that republished An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary of his still plague Egyptology to this day, long after his death.
Moral of the story: A degree and published status mean squat without a fundamental ability in critical thinking. Schools don't teach you how to learn or think, only how to memorize; publishing houses care more about profits, less about quality.

Pay attention to logic, not status. --Glengordon01 11:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Charun.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Hello, Glengordon01. I am curious if you have a return comment about the discussion we were having in teh Shamash talk page. --zbonks 11:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention, please

Don't take thing so personally, as you are doing in Talk:Etruscan_mythology. Also, try to be more polite, and don't BITE the newbies.

Consider this a warning, if you wish, but stop this behavior, you're not helping wikipedia in this way.

Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why admins are useless: They busybody about mandating other people's behaviour while trolls infest articles (as an anonymous IP address tracked to the University of Virginia is doing right now at Etruscan mythology). So when you and your 14-year-old friends decide to improve Wikipedia is the day that I will care about it or what Joe "Snowolf" Blow has to say about my "behaviour".

I don't bite newbies. I bite trolls which most of you on Wikipedia, including the admins, are. --Glengordon01 23:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on User talk:Glengordon01: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 00:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, in theory, but your community was damaged years ago. Again, like I say, why don't you actually police the trolls, Hitler, and stop bugging the ones that have information to add on this system. Otherwise, it's all blah blah blah. Glengordon01 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not send personal messages to me anymore on my talk page. I consider your actions harassment. --Kattie90 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen up, Kattie90.

A) Constructive comments against your behaviour is not harrassment.
B) You violate WP:VANDAL#Types_of_vandalism by page-blanking comments concerning your behaviour on your talk page.

I suggest you read the policies and avoid this vandalism again. --Glengordon01 04:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. I am including this verbatim -

Talk page vandalism: Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.

So, in short, you can even remove this post if you want to! Stop messaging me. Thank you--Kattie90 06:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because criticism doesn't constitute "attack" but calling people "embarrassments" for commonplace spelling errors (as you have) does and I've already told you what that is called: ad hominem. If you continue, I will file a complaint against you as you have done with me. It would be quite fair, but why be childish about criticism like this? Move on with your life. --Glengordon01 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He/She can of course remove them from his/her talk page. It's his/her right. I'll remove your "last warning" for page blanking. It's totally wrong. Please don't go further in this matter. A user has the right of removing everything he/she wants from his/her talk page. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 12:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well ya learn something new. Let's hope he/she doesn't pageblank the article too. Time will tell what these sockpuppets will do... --Glengordon01 12:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he/she blanks the article we're referring to or any other article, I'll be the first to warn he/she and to take him/her to AIV if necessary. It wouldn't be the first time ;-) Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 12:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian names

Hi Glengordon. I realize you don't edit Wikipedia anymore, but in the off chance you still read your talk page, I thought I'd ask a question you might be able to help with. I've become quite interested in Ancient Egyptian recently, and I noticed that you added reconstructed names to a number of articles. Since I'm trying to find some good books and such for this sort of thing, I was wondering where you got your reconstructions from, and if you had any suggestions. Thanks! Take care, --Miskwito 19:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The reference is from Callender and the bibliography is still there on the Egyptian numerals page:

John B. Callender, Middle Egyptian, 1975

If you need books on reconstructed Egyptian, you're never going to find it in a public library or even a regular bookstore. Go straight to your local university library, if you can. Or if you're willing and able to buy your way to greater knowledge, you can order some of these niche books online. I merely added Callender to Wikipedia because it was a source among others, and it's better than nothing at all.

Personally, while I appreciate Callender's book, not everything he says is gold. The words he gives for "four" and "six" (*yAfdáw and *yAssáw) are certainly wrong and proven so, for example, by those nifty bilingual Amarna tablets which spelled out in Akkadian cuneiform the Middle Egyptian numbers "two" to "six" as they were actually pronounced at the time! Here's a toast to ancient bilingualism! As we all know however, I can't write such truthful commentaries on Wikipedia because it's too "POV" and "unsourced" (aka "too realistic, too thinkey, and merely proven by evidence literally written in stone far too many eons ago"). At any rate, I hope that helps. --Glengordon01 23:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, perhaps to add, if I recall correctly, the word "truth", which is the meaning behind the name of the goddess Maat (written [m3`.t]), is reconstructed by Callender as *maʕūʔat, while others reconstruct something like *mūʕʔat. Again, Amarna tablets help out by showing the royal name written nb-m`3.t-r` as Nimmuria. The later Coptic form of the same word is mēʔe in the Sahidic dialect (online source here) and it seems that Sahidic ē points regularly to Middle Egyptian *ū. --Glengordon01 23:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, many thanks for the tips! Take care, --Miskwito 23:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]