User:Jackpaulryan/sandbox

bold bold bold

Paragraph: This helps you set the style of the text. For example, a header, or plain paragraph text. You can also use it to offset block quotes.
A : Highlight your text, then click here to format it with bold, italics, etc. The "More" options allows you to underline, add code snippets, and change language keyboards.

Links: The chain button allows you to link your text. Highlight the word, and push the button. VisualEditor will automatically suggest related Wikipedia articles for that word or phrase. This is a great way to connect your article to more Wikipedia content. You only have to link important words once, usually during the first time they appear. If you want to link to pages outside of Wikipedia (for an "external links" section, for example) click on the "External link" tab.

Cite: The citation tool in VisualEditor helps format your citations. You can simply paste a DOI or URL, and the VisualEditor will try to sort out all of the fields you need. Be sure to review it, however, and apply missing fields manually (if you know them). You can also add books, journals, news, and websites manually. That opens up a quick guide for inputting your citations. Finally, you can click the "re-use" tab if you've already added a source and just want to cite it again.
 * Bullets:
 * To add bullet points or a numbered list, click here.

nsert: This tab lets you add media, images, or tables.

Ω The final tab allows you to add special characters, such as those found in non-English words, scientific notation, and a handful of language extensions.

Article Evaluation

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Lots of passive voice - maybe include "some linguists" or "many linguists" as the subject to show which theories are more widely accepted. - Asked about on Teahouse.
 * Mixed British and American spelling and punctuation. - Asked about on Teahouse and talk page. -fixed
 * There is an irrelevant mention of culture and religion in the introduction. -fixed
 * The version I printed out has weird spacing issues.
 * There are lots of long sentences; this makes reading harder.
 * Weird word order at the beginning of "Historical and geographical setting" section. - fixed
 * Is the subfamilies part even necessary? Can it be moved to an article on Indo-European languages in general?.
 * Do we need to know that the nominative is the dictionary form? -yes
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The "Development of the theory" section begins by saying PIE "has been reconstructed from its present-day descendants using the comparative method," yet goes on to say the laryngeal theory "aims to produce greater regularity in the linguistic reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European phonology than in the reconstruction produced by the comparative method." This inconsistency shows that the article regards two competing claims as facts.
 * Phonology section claims that PIE had a five-vowel system and the section does not mention any doubt.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It only describes Kurgan hypothesis, but it brings up others without saying how widely accepted they are.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * No issues found
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Many things have "citation needed."
 * Some pre-2000s sources.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * No talk about the evolution of PIE.
 * As mentioned on the talk page, there is no "Proto-Indo-European in fiction" section. I could add information about the film Prometheus.
 * Intro says that PIE has "an accent" but does not say which type.
 * Inconsistenty detailed descriptions of subfamilies.
 * The ablaut section does not explain what "all categories" means.
 * Inconsistently detailed description of cases.
 * Noun section does not mention which of the nine cases is controversial. -fixed
 * Locative case definition includes the examples "in" and "on" which may overlap with what the allative case would have done. -checked
 * Very minimal description of the allative case especially considering it is never mentioned again. fixed
 * Description of genders does not describe which types of nouns were which gender.
 * Pronoun section lacks dual, vocative, and allative with no explanation. The article later mentions that pronouns had a dual.
 * Does not explain aspect or how it differs from tense.
 * Does not provide examples of grammatical moods or voices.
 * What are full grade and zero grade?
 * What are particles?
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Some people irrelevantly ask for others to translate things into PIE.
 * Someone requests for Albanian to be included in the Subfamily Clades section. Someone else fulfills this request
 * Someone wants to add a "Proto-Indo-European in fiction" section. I agree with this, and I could add information about the film Prometheus.
 * There is harsh criticism of someone who seemingly did original research. Someone calls it disgusting and horrible and doesn't sign the comment.
 * Someone wants to know more about PIE gender.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C-Class
 * Part of WikiProject Languages
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It uses the word "complex" to describe a language.

I plan to...

 * clarify grammatical terms with examples and better definitions.
 * add sections on fiction and history (active-stative paradigm)
 * fix formatting issues
 * make irrelevant points relevant with connections to the main point or delete the points entirely.
 * clarify when something is an opinion versus a fact
 * discuss why the allative case is controversial. (105)

Using...
The sources from the "Further Reading" section if I can find them at the library. If I can't find them, Google Books has very generous free previews I can use.

W., Fortson, Benjamin (2004). Indo-European language and culture : an introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. ISBN 1405103159. OCLC 54529041.

Additional sources:

 * Info about allative: http://www.academia.edu/1677824/Typology_grammaticalization_and_the_reconstruction_of_the_Proto-Indo-European_case_system
 * I might use this to talk about Prometheus if I decide it is a good source. https://thebioscopist.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/the-linguistics-of-prometheus-what-david-says-to-the-engineer/

Week 4
Here is an outline of my alterations to the sections on Roots and Ablaut

Root
Proto-Indo-European roots are affix-lacking morphemes which carry the core lexical meaning of a word and are used to derive related words (e.g., '-friend-' in the English words ' befriend ', ' friends ', and 'friend ' by itself). Proto-Indo-European was a fusional language, in which inflectional morphemes signalled the grammatical relationships between words. This dependence on inflectional morphemes means that root in PIE, unlike those found in English, are rarely found by themselves. A root plus a suffix formed a word stem, and a word stem plus a desinence (usually an ending) formed a word. .

Ablaut
Many morphemes in Proto-Indo-European have short e as their inherent vowel; the Indo-European ablaut is the change of this short e to short o, long e, long o (ō), or no vowel. This variation in vowels occurred both within inflectional morphology (e.g., different grammatical forms of a noun or verb may have different vowels) and derivational morphology (e.g., a verb and an associated abstract verbal noun may have different vowels).

Originally, all categories that were distinguished by ablaut were also distinguished by different endings, but the loss of endings in some later Indo-European languages has led them to use ablaut alone to identify grammatical categories, as in the Modern English words sing, sang, sung.

Peer Review
Hi Jackpaulryan, I'll be doing your peer review! Here are some comments:

You have a really great article evaluation here; it's clear you've read the article very carefully and come up with a good list of problems. First of all, I think that the article is lacking content in a lot of areas. The development of the theory section is substantial and well-filled out, but a lot of the actual details of PIE are not really addressed in any kind of detail, which is surprising given how much research has been done on the topic. The discussion in the historical setting section could be expanded quite a bit. The Kurgan hypothesis is represented, but the others are really only brushed-over: this is an extensive debate and I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find some more content to add to this section. It's also written very choppily and formatted strangely with a lot of single-sentence paragraphs that don't seem very linked to the sentences surrounding them.

In the subfamilies section there is mention of "other possible groupings," as well as "marginally attested languages," but there isn't really explanation of what these titles mean. Why are there alternative groupings? Is there some disagreement over how PIE-descended languages should be grouped? Or even over what languages should be included within the PIE family? I may just be misunderstanding the section, but it seems that there isn't really a clear explanation of what it means for a language to be 'marginally attested' and what the significance of that title is for the PIE language family.

The sentence beginning with "a few historical linguists" in the phonology section should be cited. In the morphology section, the definition of a fusional language seems to be incomplete in that it doesn't allow us to distinguish fusional from agglutinating languages. Both of these language types involve affixation of inflectional morphemes, but they do this in very different ways, and the article doesn't adequately differentiate these two. I also think that the ablaut section could probably be expanded, perhaps with some examples of ablaut in PIE; the page for PIE ablaut linked in that section contains some such examples, and I think it would help the PIE article if it had some of that information on the main page. Looking at the additions you made to these sections, I think all of your observations about the mood, case, tense, and aspect sections are great: their should be some examples and better explanations of the difference between these categories. I'm also not so sure the numbers section is all that relevant, but at least it gives us some examples and a chance to see what the language actually looks like.

The last observations I have are mostly about citations. Each of the bullet-points in the 'relationships to other language families' section should be cited, whereas currently only the first is cited. Also, the following links in the citations #5 and 28 of the reference section were dead. Finally, the links for "List of online books" and "The Dnghu ('Language') Association" in the external links section were dead.

I think your evaluation is right on the mark and you've got some great ideas for improving the article.

Best of luck editing!

Jack

Fantinij (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Hey Jack, nice work on this for sure. This is a great article and an interesting one for you to choose. A couple notes from your edits and then a few thoughts about the article as a whole.

Root
I'd kind of check out your tense in this section. You say the roots "are", then the language "was" fusional, then the roots "are rarely found", and follow that up with "suffix formed". I get that there is value in using the past tense, but I would keep it one or the other for this section. In fact, I think you could provide some value to the entire article by syncing the tenses. I won't go into all the examples, but there are some inconsistencies.

Also, I would link out to inflectional morphemes and desinence.

Ablaut
I like how you give a quick synopsis of inflectional morphology and derivational morphology. Nice touch. The second paragraph I think could ideally use a citation or even just an example of some of those languages. You reference "some later Indo-European languages" and I am just curious what some examples might be. Again, I'd just pay attention to tense here and make sure you choose something consistent throughout Root and Ablaut.

Noun
Can you give examples of each of these? Maybe that's overkill, but I like how in dative this is done.

Can you also cite each of these? Or does citation 24 apply to all the bullet points?

This is just nit-picky, but the way each bullet is formed after the colon doesn't quite match. If it's saying "A nominative marks the subject..." and "A locative corresponds vaguely...", then "An accusative for the direct object..." and "An allative a type of locative case" don't quite make sense. It's a stretch...but thought I'd mention.

For instrumental when you say:"'used to indicate that a noun is the instrument or means by or with which the subject achieves or accomplishes an action'"Could you add a hyphen so it reads:"'used to indicate that a noun is the instrument or means by -- or with which -- the subject achieves or accomplishes an action'"Otherwise it's just a lot of 'or's in the water. Bad joke.

For vocative when it says:"'used for a noun that identifies a person (animal, object, etc.) being addressed or, occasionally, the determiners of that noun'"It was a little difficult for me to read. Can you add "identifies" after "occasionally"?

The section starting with "There were three grammatical genders" seems a little out of place. Can you make that sentence more formal? Can you include that this is under the noun section? Does that matter? Can we also cite this?

Pronoun
I would add a comma between "reconstruct" and "owing". I'd remove the comma in "first person singular, where" and then would suggest maybe a colon instead of a comma after "dative cases" if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly.

Overall, it's excellent work!

Chh8414 Chh8414 (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Week 5
allative: a type of locative case that expresses movement towards something. Only the Anatolian languages maintain this case, and it may not have existed in Proto-Indo-Europen at all.

Root
Proto-Indo-European roots were affix-lacking morphemes which carried the core lexical meaning of a word and were used to derive related words (e.g., '-friend-' in the English words ' befriend ', ' friends ', and 'friend ' by itself). Proto-Indo-European was a fusional language, in which inflectional morphemes signalled the grammatical relationships between words. This dependence on inflectional morphemes means that roots in PIE, unlike those found in English, were rarely found by themselves. A root plus a suffix formed a word stem, and a word stem plus a desinence (usually an ending) formed a word.

Ablaut
Many morphemes in Proto-Indo-European had short e as their inherent vowel; the Indo-European ablaut is the change of this short e to short o, long e (ē), long o (ō), or no vowel. This variation in vowels occurred both within inflectional morphology (e.g., different grammatical forms of a noun or verb may have different vowels) and derivational morphology (e.g., a verb and an associated abstract verbal noun may have different vowels).

Categories that PIE distinguished through ablaut were often also identifiable by contrasting endings, but the loss of these endings in some later Indo-European languages has led them to use ablaut alone to identify grammatical categories, as in the Modern English words sing, sang, sung.

Noun
Proto-Indo-European nouns are declined for eight or nine cases: allative: used as a type of locative case that expresses movement towards something. Only the Anatolian languages maintain this case, and it may not have existed in Proto-Indo-Europen at all.
 * nominative: marks the subject of a verb, such as They in They ate. Words that follow a linking verb and rename the subject of that verb also use the nominative case. Thus, both They and linguists are in the nominative case in They are linguists. The nominative is the dictionary form of the noun.
 * accusative: used for the direct object of a transitive verb.
 * genitive: marks a noun as modifying another noun.
 * dative: used to indicate the noun to which something is given, such as Jacob in Maria gave Jacob a drink.
 * instrumental: marks the instrument or means by, or with which, the subject achieves or accomplishes an action. It may be either a physical object or an abstract concept.
 * ablative: used to express motion away from something.
 * locative: corresponds vaguely to the English prepositions in, on, at, and by.
 * vocative: used for a word that identifies an addressee. A vocative expression is one of direct address where the identity of the party spoken to is set forth expressly within a sentence. For example, in the sentence, "I don't know, John", John is a vocative expression that indicates the party being addressed.

Pronoun
Proto-Indo-European pronouns are difficult to reconstruct, owing to their variety in later languages. PIE had personal pronouns in the first and second grammatical person, but not the third person, where demonstrative pronouns were used instead. The personal pronouns had their own unique forms and endings, and some had two distinct stems; this is most obvious in the first person singular where the two stems are still preserved in English I and me. There were also two varieties for the accusative, genitive and dative cases, a stressed and an enclitic form.

.

In popular culture
The Ridley Scott film Prometheus features an android named 'David' (played by Michael Fassbender) who learns Proto-Indo-European to communicate with the 'Engineer'. David practices PIE by reciting Schleicher's fable and goes on to attempt communication with the 'Engineer' through PIE. Linguist Dr Anil Biltoo created the film's reconstructed dialogue and had an onscreen role teaching David Schleicher's fable.

The House of Romanov (also Romanoff; Рома́новы, Románovy, ) was the reigning royal house of Russia from 1613 to 1917.

The Romanovs achieved prominence as boyars of the Grand Duchy of Moscow and later the Tsardom of Russia under the reigning Rurik dynasty, which became extinct upon the death of Tsar Feodor I in 1598. The Time of Troubles was caused by the resulting succession crisis, where several pretenders and imposters (False Dmitris) fought for the crown during the Polish–Muscovite War. On 21 February 1613, Michael Romanov was elected Tsar of Russia by the Zemsky Sobor, establishing the Romanovs as Russia's second reigning dynasty. Michael's grandson Peter I established the Russian Empire in 1721, transforming the country into a great power through a series of wars and reforms. The direct male line of the Romanovs ended when Elizabeth of Russia died in 1762 leading the House of Holstein-Gottorp, a cadet branch of the German House of Oldenburg that reigned in Denmark, to ascend to the crown under Peter III. Officially known as the House of Romanov, descendants after Elizabeth are sometimes referred to as "Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov". The abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on 15 March 1917 as a result of the February Revolution ended 304 years of Romanov rule, establishing the Russian Republic under the Russian Provisional Government in the lead up to the Russian Civil War. In 1918, the Tsar and his family were executed by the Bolsheviks and the 47 survivors of the House of Romanov's 65 members went into exile abroad.

In 1924, Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, the senior surviving male-line descendant of Alexander II of Russia by primogeniture, claimed the headship of the defunct Imperial House of Russia. Since 1991, the succession to the former Russian throne has been in dispute, largely due to disagreements over the validity of dynasts' marriages, especially between the lines of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia and Prince Nicholas Romanovich Romanov, succeeded by Prince Andrew Romanov.

Surname usage
Legally, it remains unclear whether any ukase ever abolished the surname of Michael Romanov (or of his subsequent male-line descendants) after his accession to the Russian throne in 1613, although by tradition members of reigning dynasties seldom use surnames, being known instead by dynastic titles ("Tsarevich Ivan Alexeevich", "Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich", etc.). From, the monarchs of the Russian Empire claimed the throne as relatives of Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna of Russia (1708–1728), who had married Charles Frederick, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. Thus they were no longer Romanovs by patrilineage, belonging instead to the Holstein-Gottorp cadet branch of the German House of Oldenburg that reigned in Denmark. The 1944 edition of the Almanach de Gotha records the name of Russia's ruling dynasty from the time of Peter III (reigned 1761–1762) as "Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov". However, the terms "Romanov" and "House of Romanov" often occurred in official references to the Russian imperial family. The coat-of-arms of the Romanov boyars was included in legislation on the imperial dynasty, and in a 1913 jubilee, Russia officially celebrated the "300th Anniversary of the Romanovs' rule".

After the February Revolution of March 1917, a special decree of the Provisional Government of Russia granted all members of the imperial family the surname "Romanov". The only exceptions, the morganatic descendants of the Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich (1891–1942), took (in exile) the surname Il'insky.

House of Romanov


The Romanovs share their origin with two dozen other Russian noble families. Their earliest common ancestor is one Andrei Kobyla, attested around 1347 as a boyar in the service of Semyon I of Moscow. Later generations assigned to Kobyla an illustrious pedigree. An 18th-century genealogy claimed that he was the son of the Old Prussians prince Glanda Kambila, who came to Russia in the second half of the 13th century, fleeing the invading Germans. Indeed, one of the leaders of the Old Prussians rebellion of 1260–1274 against the Teutonic order was named Glande. This legendary version of the Romanov's origin is contested by a more plausible version of their descent from a boyar family from Novgorod.