Talk:Mende language/Archive 1

Recent additions
Recently, the article was amended to say the following:
 * Some classifications of languages assign the Mende language to the Mande branch of the Niger-Congo language family. However, primarily because of cultural differences, this classification is disputed, with present day similarities attributed mostly to intermarriage between two towns . The roots of the Mende language may also be traced to the ancient peoples of Papua New Guinea.

I've pulled those statements out because:
 * First, one can find a website supporting every outlandish statement, whether true or false. What is demanded by the Cite your sources policy is that we cite reputable, academic sources. The first part needs attribution; otherwise, it's non-notable. I for one have not yet come across a linguist disputing the classification of Mende as Niger-Congo. Additionally, the site linked to does not even dispute membership of the Niger-Congo language family.ge.
 * (University of Iowa disagrees with you. Refer to Mende people: History.)
 * Thank you for responding. However, the site you are linking to now does not even contain a reference to the Niger-Congo language family. It is irrelevant to what I am pointing out here. &mdash; mark &#9998; 16:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (As stated before, the University of Iowa disagrees with you and with this classification system. Hence the reason for no such reference.)
 * Equating peoples with languages doesn't work. It remains a fact that the UIOWA link does not even talk about linguistic classification or Niger-Congo, whereas the paragraph you intended to change does talk about just that. By the way, most surrounding peoples also speak languages of the Niger-Congo language family. &mdash; mark &#9998; 18:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Second, the latter part of the paragraph simply confuses two languages with the same name. Mende of Sierra Leone is another language altogether than Mende of Papua New Guinea . Obviously, having the same name is not enough to establish a genetic relationship.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 14:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (First, Mende peoples consist apparently of many immigrants from numerous different genetic lineages. Please read Mende people: History. Second, in what way is University of Iowa disreputable or unacademic? Third, if Purple Man speaks English to Green Man, and then walks away, genetics is irrelevant. How did the exact same language (with minor variations) get there to begin with? )
 * I think you know very well that you did not insert the UIOWA link in the article; and consequently that I did not refer to that UIOWA link when I talked about some websites not being reputable, academic sources. Please don't distort my words. The fact that the Mende people might consist of numerous different genetic lineages is irrelevant again for the issue at hand. This is the article about Mende language, a Niger-Congo language of the Mande subfamily. It's that simple. &mdash; mark &#9998; 16:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (The proof is here: Before/After Your Edit).


 * This is an obvious circularity. I responded to that text of yours above. &mdash; mark &#9998; 17:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (Quote ... unquote: "I think you know very well that you did not insert the UIOWA link in the article.")
 * OK, now I see. I am sorry &mdash; you did in fact insert the UIOWA link in the article. Again, sorry for my stating otherwise; I was wrong there. The UIOWA link is just irrelevant for the issue at hand. &mdash; mark &#9998; 18:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear mark:
 * I remain steadfastly unmoved by your reasoning. The topic within the University of Iowa article is relevant. But I won't stop you from editing my work or deleting my work, and I shall not argue with you, because my intentions are directed toward far above and beyond to some other end.
 * Nevertheless, I have one small item to point out...
 * You start out by vociferously proclaiming, "...having the same name is not enough to establish a genetic relationship." To which I proved your argument irrelevant.
 * Then, you try to twist the logic to your favor: "The fact that the Mende people might consist of numerous different genetic lineages is irrelevant."
 * I'm not arguing, but please ....
 * Good Bye. -- Roylee

I understand what you mean, and I could have been clearer, but remember that we are talking about the article "Mende language". You changed the paragraph about the classification of the language. In language classification, language families are viewed upon as phylogenetic units (see Language family). I am a linguist. When I talk about the genetic relationship of a language I'm talking about its classification. The sentences you are contrasting clearly differ from each other in this respect; one is about the genetic relationship of a language, the other about 'genetic lineages' of people. I hope it is clear now.

As for the UIOWA link, let me be as clear as possible now: what is said there, does not have any bearing whatsoever on the language classification of the Mende language. That is what you tried to change; that is what I protested against. That's all, really. &mdash; mark &#9998; 00:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again
User:Roylee, I didn't like the way you simply reverted to your misinformed version without responding here, and your misleading edit summary. You added one other statement:
 * and even British English ([2] (http://www.travelphrases.info/languages/Mende.htm)). Remarkable English similarities include "roomui" for room and "beachei " for beach!

Please, review what you are stating here. You make the article say that for a language to have English words in its vocabulary is to be related to English. Along similar lines, almost every language is related to every other language from which it has incorporated loanwords. I have removed this simply false statement. &mdash; mark &#9998; 15:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (Lying in public? The word "remarkable" is no lie, for this is remarkable! The word "related" is your own.)
 * Please don't change my comments. I said what I said, and not for nothing. Having loanwords from the language of the former colonisating power is not definitely not remarkable. As I take it, the statement was clearly meant to imply some relationship, which is simply ridiculous; I have no other word for it. &mdash; mark &#9998; 13:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Dear mark:
 * 1) Referencing "4.241.221.175" above, please refrain from blatantly accusing me of lying ... or purposely making "false statements." Everything I post involves me completely. I go through great lengths to research, cite and meticulously post ALL my sources.
 * 2) The original edits were NOT intended "...to imply some relationship." There you go again with your "Gun Smoke" accusations. Please refrain from so quickly accusing.
 * 3) Please don't attack my work as "ridiculous." Everything I post involves me completely. I go through great lengths to research, cite and meticulously post ALL my sources.
 * Yes, I remain steadfastly unmoved by your reasoning. -- Good Bye, Roylee


 * Roylee. I believe you immediately when you say you devote time to your research and writing. I have never wanted to hurt your feelings or to insult you, and if I did, I apologize.
 * Can you imagine that I found it difficult to stay patient and polite when you rudely deleted my comments, both on your own talk page, on Talk:Mende tribe, and in several other places? Please take a look at my very first question at your talk page (this edit). Was it rude, or was it an attack? I think not. When I subsequently said that I was worried, I meant that. I devote a lot of time to Wikipedia; I think the verifiability and reliability of Wikipedia are very important. Can you imagine that I was worried when it began to look like you were trying to lend your claims credibility by citing things you wrote yourself?


 * You should try learning to read the Page Histories a bit better. All my work is precisely referenced. If it happens that you don't see a reference anywhere, you should not automatically accuse and blame me. What happened was someone else deleted the reference. Check it out sometime. The proof is in the Page Histories.
 * I was questioning your sources and I was asking you about your opinion on certain Wikipedia policies. Please refer to your talk page for what I asked. &mdash; mark &#9998; 02:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is just not what Wikipedia is for, cf. No Original Research. Yet when I asked your opinion about several Wikipedia policies you simple deleted my comments. I'm still interested in your opinion and I still want to know that you think about the examples I gave in this edit. As for the 4.241.221.175 thing, if I may I advise you, don't take that road. You and I know that those IP adresses are you. Please look at the contributions of those 4.241.*.* IP's over the past few months           &mdash; they use the same words, insert the same content, and edit the same articles as you do when you are logged in. &mdash; mark &#9998; 00:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There you go again. Note that large buildings with numerous computers in them will display such activity, because each computer has a slightly different IP address. [1]-- Good Bye. Roylee
 * P.S. Your investigative style is moot. Let me guess: You are a linguist with fancy computer software analyzing my writing. [2] But you should consult a more competent authority to conduct your investigations. Just to show you: A "reference" is to "point out," and you are leading nowhere again. But not me.


 * [1] &mdash;I know, Roylee, I know. When you said above "Referencing '4.241.221.175' above", you were talking about yourself. That's all I pointed out here. &mdash; mark &#9998; 02:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * [2] &mdash; Nope. You guessed wrong. &mdash; mark &#9998; 02:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And finally: this is not about Mende language anymore, so I am stopping this discussion here. Debates like this should take place on user talk pages. &mdash; mark &#9998; 02:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)