User talk:Amire80/Archive 2011 - January–July

video made at Wikimania
Hi Amir, we are nearly finished with the editing of the free educational video on Wikipedia with footage from the Wikimania conference last July in Gdansk Poland. We have decided to include a short clip of you talking about your passion for linguistics. I would like to get a video user agreement to you for signing to give us permission to use that short footage in our free video. Can you please email me at katrina.ling@insead.edu to discuss next steps? Thanks, Katrina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.219.69.138 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Amir :) On behalf of WMF I would like to thank you for your cooperation during the last fundraiser and we look forward for more fruitful and successful fundraisers over the next years. Thanks again :)--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! You were great! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

help for traduction
hi, i'm an italian wikipedia user, i need an help for trasnlate a word from hebrew to italian; the word is ישוד( with the "vowels": יָשׁ֥וּד and in latin alphabet, if i don't make a mistake, is:yâšûd) i think that the traduction in italian is "il distruttore" or "che distrugge", but i don't know betwen this wich is the correct traslation, i also ask you if the word(yâšûd) is a verb or a substantive, --Francescorussig (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that you refer to the Psalms 91:6, which in King James is translated as "Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday."
 * I am not a true expert in the Biblical language and it is a very hard verse. It is a verb, and it's an ancient form that is only used in the Bible once and not used in the modern language at all (in the modern language it is ישדוד - yišdod). It means "destroying" or "will destroy"; maybe in context it means "that will destroy", but the word "that" doesn't appear in the original and is added by the translators into English - that's why in translations it is often written in an italic font. The word "that" is often omitted in Biblical poetry, but you need a serious Bible expert to say where it should and should not be, and even experts need to guess sometimes.
 * I hope it helped. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * yes it's from the psalms, thank you so much for the response... i ask you that question because in the book les démon de midi """Il testo ebraico del Salmo 91 (versetto 6) non menziona propriamente un demone di mezzogiorno. Il termine yâšûd designa solamente «il devastatore». Nel versetto 6 non si tratta quindi che della «devastazione che imperversa a mezzogiorno». [Cfr. P. de Labriolle, Le démon de midi, in «Bulletin Du Cange» IX (1934),pp. 46-54.] Tuttavia le diverse traduzioni greche della Bibbia introducono più o meno esplicitamente l'idea di una potenza demoniaca individualizzata:«dalla sventura del demone meridiano» [apò symptómatos kaì daimoníon mesembrías] (Settanta), «dal morso demoniaco di mezzogiorno» [apò degmoȳ daimonízontos mesembrías] (Aquila), «il diabolico accidente di mezzogiorno» [sygkýrema daimoniōdes mésembrías] (Simmaco), «dall'imbattersi nel demone meridiano» (Apollinare di Laodicea) [apò daimoníon te mesembrinoū antióontos] . La lingua dei traduttori è certo povera e imprecisa; la parola δαιμόνιον in particolare corrisponde a cinque diversi termini ebraici. Ma una simile penuria non può bastare a spiegare la trasposizione, perché è difficile ammettere che i traduttori abbiano confuso yâšûd con šêdîm, che d'altronde non significa «demone», ma piuttosto «signore», ne con wešêd «demone», che si sarebbe potuto introdurre grazie a un'errata lettura [ Cfr.F.G. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Paris 1895-1912, 5 voll., s.v. démon, vol.2, col. 1367; S. de Muis, Commentarius literalis et historicus in omnes psalmos Davidis, Paris 1630; J.C. Frommann, Tractatus de fascinatione, Norimbergae 1675, p. 897.] . Checché sia di queste difficoltà testuali, che gli specialisti dell'esegesi biblica non sembrano ancora aver definitivamente risolto [Cfr. S. Landersdorfer, Das daemonium meridianum, in «Biblische Zeitschrift», XVIII (1929), pp. 294 sg.], è certo che almeno lo spirito del passo è indubitabile. Si tratta di una forza demoniaca la cui azione è temibile in pieno mezzogiorno [...] """ Roger Caillois present that the word yâšûd means, i think out of the "context" of the psalms, "il devastatore"(in english, i think:the devastator, the destroyer) and in ""relation"", ""combination"", with the other word means "la devastazione",("the devastation") without the that, i made you the question because an other user, that for his admission don't speak and don't know the hebrew language, changed my version from "il devastatore" to "che devasta" and he told me on discussion that: «yâšûd ovvero ישוד è ciò che devasta da שָׁדַד»(yâšûd is what that devastates, from shadad), and with a research on internet i founded here the english version with that, i think it is the same of your version, and effectively it's also become from shadad(or shaodad, i think, because on the compendium grammatices linguæ hebrææ of spinoza, it present that the qames means the sound compose from a and o, but i don't know other hebrew's grammatic more modern and i don't know if it is correct), but i see that traduction of the singles words it is without the "that" and now i see that the greek version translate yâšûd in δαιμονίου(daimonioy), i don't know the correct translation of this greek word, but in the site is translate in "the demon" and i think that the greek translator made a ""entityfication"" of wasteth, in a demons, that caillois, if i don't make a mistake, call, in relation with the hebrew version, il devastatore,(the devastator, if it is the correct english translation of the word). this is the "thesis" of caillois, after in the book i think it make an identification of the "wasteth at noonday" with the hot temperature of the noonday and his effect on the life form(i think "human" especially), i don't understand why the other user changed my version without know hebrew's language at without the insertion of sources of his change... because it is an user that, time ago, changed soo much of my modification with the accusation that i didn't present sources or these(sources) was too old, but i think that this question is not for you. but i ask you another question:how translate into Hebrew "il devastatore"("the devastator") or/and "il distruttore"("the destroyer")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francescorussig (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all it's very important to reiterate that i am not a Biblical Hebrew expert, so don't be convinced that ישוד is a verb just because i said so :)
 * I can tell you how i understand it, more or less. In that verse there are six words: מדבר באפל יהלך מקטב ישוד צהרים. According to Cantillation, it has two parts of three words, and there is Parallelism between then:
 * noun with preposition: מדבר (from pestilence) is parallel to מקטב (from destruction);
 * indication of time: באפל (in darkness) is parallel to צהרים (noon);
 * verb: יהלך (walking) in parallelism to ישוד (destroying).
 * In parallelism the grammatical structure of the sentences is similar and there is correspondence between the forms of the words. There is supposed to be a verb in each part - יהלך in the first and ישוד in the second. Also notice the prefix י - it means that they are both in the imperfect tense.
 * That's probably as much as i can tell you about this. If you want to be really sure, ask a better expert.
 * And of course, if there are two sources that say different things about this verse, then both should be cited, unless there's a reason to think that any of them is particularly bad. That's the usual practice in Wikipedia. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

note

 * thank you very much for the response, for the information and also for presenting at me to insert both sources, i think this it's what, for the moment, i'll make in the voice... it's possible that in the ""future""(presenting of the presence, i think, or something like this) if i meet a philologist, an expert on sacred text's language, or a rabbi i'll ask at them... thank you another time and good day, presence--Francescorussig (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

schedim
hi, amire, i hope i'm not disturbing you(i hope also that is the correct english expression), but i present to you another questions for the same italian voice, if you want, and if you can present to me a response... the question is if there is in hebrew, or biblical hebrew, these terms: "schedim", "seîrim" and "šêdîm"?? and what is the correspondence, translation of these in english?... and if you know a sources where i can find these and their translation... (i think for the sources i can search on internet, but i saw that you are a language student, and you know some interesting sources on internet... i see a your link to an hebrew's grammar), i put you this question because they are translated... in wikipedia with "idolo vendicativo"(i think, in english: "vengeful idol") for "schedim", and "satiro"(satyr) for "seîrim", but here i find that "satyr" in hebrew is "sa'iyr" שָׂעִיר (from "sa'ar" שָׂעַר), instead for "seîrim" caillois in the same quote that i presented translated it with "signore"(sir, lord), and for "vengeful idol" i don't know... i promise you that, for the hypothetical next question, i search on wikipedia for a biblical hebrew's text expert... ahh two last questions, for curiosity, when a word that present an "idea" that there is not represented in the hebrew language, it is translate with more word that explicate it, or it remain the same and for intuition, and perhaps also with some explication, is make the ""correspondence"" with the idea(the presentation) and the word(for example in italian some word of the german, philosophy like weltanschauung rest the same in the texts and it isn't translated with other italian word, but it's explicate with them...or i know that in japanese, and i think also in german, there is some words that represented one emotion, with one word, that in italian, also in french i think, doesn't exist or, i think is more correct...but i'm not sure, it isn't possible to translate it with only one word/emotion but with more of these..., perhaps of it is possible), or it is translated with the creation of a new word, neologism??(i know something, that i heard in a conference at milan, about Eliezer Ben-Yehuda; and the problem of the old hebrew's language of the sacred texts, and i think the kind of thinking that it present, and the relation, need??, to adapt this language to present; represent ideas that "didn't exist", i don't know if it is totally correct, in the past), and the lastest question is if when the sign(i think the name of this is "nikud") for the vowels doesn't appear in the text(for example i know that there is an edition [on google book, after page.128] of the great parchment without these), there is a fast way to understand what type of vowel there is between two letters? or is interpreted all the time? And after this last question I say goodbye to you, and good day --Francescorussig (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to answer the first question. Can you please point me to the particular Bible verses which interest you? Puoi scrivere in italiano, perché posso leggerlo un po' :)
 * The answer two the second question: As in many other languages, sometimes neologisms are created, and sometimes the foreign word is simply used as is, with some phonetic correction. For example, "computer" is mahshev (literally, "computing instrument"), but "telephon" is simply telefon. The Academy of the Hebrew Language creates many "pure Hebrew" neologisms and they are also created by writers and sometimes by the general public, without the help of the Academy. Some of them are adopted by the public, and some other remain unused; it is impossible to predict which words will catch on and which will not. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda is indeed credited with the creation of many neologisms; some of them were adopted, and some others forgotten.
 * The answer two the third question: This is a very, very complicated matter. There is no general rule for guessing the vowel when it is not written. There are many different and often unpredictable rules. Despite this, people who can speak Hebrew are usually able to guess the vowel correctly most of the time; it is quite strange, but that is the fact. For computers, however, it is a lot harder, because programming the rules is nearly impossible. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

re Issam Machul
(moved to cs:Diskuse:Issam Machul)

Thank you
For the correction in Nikkud B-) --JewBask (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Eleccions al Consell d'Administració de la Wikimedia Foundation
Benvolgut,em permeto posar-me en contacte amb tu, perquè com veuràs a la taverna catala [|taverna] hi ha eleccions al Consell d'Administració de la Wikimedia Foundation.

La meva comunicació amb tu la realitzo perquè segons el teu historial de contribucions veig que tens dret a vot i molt poca gent llegeix la taverna. Em permeto comentar-te que seria molt interessant poder portar membres de les minories al Consell d'Administració de la Wikimedia Foundation, però certament tots nosaltres votem individualment i en consciència.

Cada vot és molt important. A les eleccions de l'any 2009 la diferència entre ser escollit o no va ser de 60 vots i aquest any està votant menys gent. Et demano disculpes anticipadament si consideres aquesta comunicació incorrecte, rep una cordial salutació.

Pots trobar instruccions de com fer-ho per votar

--Gus.dan (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Amire, Thank you for your edits here --أحمد ش الشيخ (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! As you said, الجميع يعاني :)
 * (I can read Arabic a little.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

your email
(moved to User talk:Tiamut) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

my page is missing
~new msg~

hi, basically a random person decided to tag my page (most likely out of the goodness of this person's heart) after all this time when nobody else did. so i just need my resource page that was on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rm2dance -- it doesn't seem to be on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Rm2dance and i don't know if it's supposed to? basically i just need my page, i guess you can just post it back on my page and then i can move it out of wikipedia. thanks~

~original msg -- (just forget everything -- too much trouble)~

my page is missing out of nowhere and there's nothing in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Rm2dance and i can't check the history of my page? is that how it's supposed to be?

hmm.. so my page is missing randomly just today with no problems after all this time. then a random person decides to tag it because the person felt like it? is there like mediation or something for something like this?

but basically if it's too complicated or too much trouble, just nevermind, im just wondering if they have mediation

also, was there any way to protect my page? just wondering

hmm.. it says "If all else fails, try another wiki" so i'll just do that -- where is my resource page? the history for it that is. so the page took years to build up so im glad a random person decided to tag it... it's fine. i'll just put it on wikia for the time being. wikia doesn't have any problems and wikipedia also... but it depends on the random people.. well.... rm2dance (talk)