User talk:Brutal Russian

Welcome!
Hello, Brutal Russian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! The Bushranger One ping only 05:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting Started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

March 2014
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Holodomor seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. '' Please see the Talk:Holodomor page for further information, including the archives and sanctions section at the top of the page. Basically, adding a dictionary definition is OTT. It's understood that you edited in good faith, but please use the relevant talk page before making changes. The article is extremely controversial and you'll end up triggering an edit war.'' Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Iryna Harpy. The reason for my edits was exactly that: questionable neutrality. You see, I'm a native Russian speaker and specialise in linguistics, and I can say with certainty that the word голодомор doesn't mean "extermination by hunger". In fact, the word мор has no inherent connotation of intent, which leads me to conclude that the etymology presented in the start of the article is biased and intentionally loaded with a purpose of supporting the genocidal theory of Holodomor. The other terms I corrected are simply mistranslated. Before you ask, all the related words and expressions have the same semantics in both Russian and Ukrainian. How do you suggest I go about changing the article then? Do I need to cite dictionary sources, and does simple translation need any sources at all? In the meantime, I propose to remove the etymology/translation information from the page intro altogether and combine the links in the proper section, since it already includes both the literal and the loaded variants of translation. Brutal Russian (talk)
 * Hi, Brutal Russian. My Ukrainian and Russian is a little better than I would have it on my user page. What has happened here is that English WP:COMMONNAME has been used (in other words, these are the terms used in English language texts).


 * I'd suggest that you start by reading through the talk page archives as it's one of the articles covered by the Arbitration Committee's sanctions as a result of interminable edit warring. Trying to employ WP:BRD is likely to get you blocked from editing in this area and on other Eastern European articles if you don't approach the subject with diplomacy.


 * If you read through the old discussions, it will give you a better understanding of how convoluted and painful the development of the article has been and, yes, I think you'll find that those of us who haven't been blocked are well aware of the need to tidy it up. The kind of tidy-up is another question altogether.


 * Best approach - Query the the wording on the talk page as you have here with me in order to get a discussion going and state what you would like to change and why. Don't be too disappointed if you don't get an immediate response as many of the editors still entitled to be involved in this article - both Russian and Ukrainian - are frantically working on current affairs (for obvious reasons)... but they (I am including myself) will end up responding to you. In all seriousness, sneezing in that general direction without consulting on the talk page is hazardous to your health. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

De rerum natura
Quick question about this edit. Should the "m" be an "n"? I've always heard it pronounced "rerum", not "rerun", but I'm not familiar with the sandhi.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  22:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A word-final -m in both Old and Classical Latin are markers of nasalisation (see any grammar for reference, e.g. Vox Latina), so if the word "rerum" stood alone, its IPA would have been [reːrũ] (some argue nasalised vowels were probably long but I haven't seen any substantiation of this, and in either case it's non-phonemic as long as nasalisation is maintained). However when followed by a following non-fricative consonant inside the same segment, the -m was sort of restored by assimilating to that consonant by place of articulation, so a dental [n] in our case, but [m] before labials and [ŋ] before velars. This assimilation is older than the disappearance of the final consonant (and still productive even in modern Romance), thus tam + dem = tandem [tãndẽ] and tam + quam = tamquam/tanquam [tãŋkʷã], but [m] intervocalically preserved in tam + em = tamen [tamen]. That's what I was referring to by "sandhi". Since the name of the book is one speech segment, I think it makes sense to transcribe the pronunciation of that and not of individual words that comprise it. Brutal Russian (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I had forgotten about the phonetic feature of the final -m in Classical Latin (it's been awhile since I've scanned poetry, and I believe that's when features like this were first mentioned to me). Anyway, I appreciate it.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  14:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Results from global Wikimedia survey 2018 are published
Hello! A few months ago the Wikimedia Foundation invited you to take a survey about your experiences on Wikipedia. You signed up to receive the results. The report is now published on Meta-Wiki! We asked contributors 170 questions across many different topics like diversity, harassment, paid editing, Wikimedia events and many others.

Read the report or watch the presentation, which is available only in English. Add your thoughts and comments to the report talk page. Feel free to share the report on Wikipedia/Wikimedia or on your favorite social media. Thanks!

-- EGalvez (WMF) 19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sardinian language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gascon. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Minor question
Hi Brutal Russian, the edit was motivated by the following reasons: with respect to Spanish and Italian, a link has already been provided to them plenty of times already (even though I concur that, by this logic, we should keep doing so with the rest of the links); I did not check whether Portuguese was already mentioned, so I left the link. As for standard Italian, I agree with you that this term is cited in academic literature and might have well been kept as it was before, but my preoccupation with it was its ambiguous denotation field, especially because (at least in Italian linguistics) it is rather common to be found to reference the degree of divergence between both the Italian varieties and the linguistically non-Italian lects; I simply grew concerned that someone who is not knowledgeable about the topic might be led to believe, from the context of the comparisons with other Romance languagees, that Sardinian may be in fact... a non-standard form of "actual" Italian. Feel free to revert the changes if you think that such worries are just not valid enough to justify them; I've made them in passing while focusing on providing sources to non-related paragraphs.--Dk1919 (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, I see regarding Italian, it never occurred to me that this was a possible interpretation, and I agree that it's a potential problem. Perhaps adding something like (but not all of its dialects) would be desirable. As for language links, I think that we should rather track them inside one section (such as Phonology), not in the entire article, because, if my own reading habits are any indication, people typically read by section. So we might want to avoid too many identical links inside one section, but I feel that linking the first occurrence within a section is necessary. Brutal Russian (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not an easy thing to settle I am afraid, as even the page regarding the varieties of Regional Italian is not particularly developed relative to other linguistic articles. I know what you mean, though; even in the form of italiano popolare specific to Sardinia, things like the 5-vowel system are carried over from the originary language. That being said, I am of the opinion that until we have a better page to build on, it might be better to imply that by "Italian" only the standard form thereof is mentioned (even though we know that languages don't work like that!), leaving the question of the actual fragmentation of Italian into internal dialects and/or their degree of divergence from the standard to another page entirely; I don't find it myself a particularly satisfying conclusion, but I can't come up at least at the moment with another that might obviate potential misunderstandings on the issue (which are common enough in Italy itself, ironically). Regarding the links, I agree with you that leaving the links per section might be the best policy overall.--Dk1919 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice
This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at. Nardog (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)