User talk:D. Webb

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Good Work
G'day! Thanks for reverting the vandalism at Pericles. Remember that you can place vandalism templates on user talk pages from WP:VAND. Otherwise, Keep up the good work! Cheers, Jpeob 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. Cheers. --D. Webb 03:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, your suggestion about separating the wikings in wiktionairy and telling about the true ones in the article about vikings is genious, never thought about that. Dan Koehl 00:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Edda
As you and I seem to be in a disagreement about the etymology of Edda, and since you may not check all your contributions every day, I'd like to use this way, where you can't possibly miss it, to ask for a derivation Oddi->Edda. This is not asked in any kind of animosity. After all, I agree with most of your statements on your user page. But Ásgeir Blöndal lived to be 77 years old and his dictionary of which I own the 1995 printing, has yet to be superseded. Whom else would you like to consult? Pokorny? Alexander Jóhannesson? They are both out of date and so is practically everyone else. Don't take this as an insult. It's just that you seem to have fallen victim to Volksetymologie.

All the best Io 16:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, I am not of the opinion that "Edda" is surely derived from "Oddi". However, I don't think that the other explanation is by any means clearly right either. But you made it sound as if it were almost obviously true. My point was simply that the "Oddi" theory can't be refuted simply by pointing out that Snorri was only there for a short period of time, it's not implausible for that reason; and that Ásgeir Blöndal isn't exactly cutting edge. Now, favoring the "grandmother" explanation, if I may call it that, is fine by me, but I wouldn't say that other theories were simply Volksetymologie. I learnt both of them in school. And neither one can be verified. Both of these two "theories" really are no more than speculation. --D. Webb 17:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As of now Ásgeir Blöndal is the cutting edge. There is simply no sound law to explain the o->e. That is Volksetymologie. (Unless you count Voyles, who is an expert, but neither he, nor anyone else, can claim fluency in all the languages he takes under consideration). But there are sound laws, rarely with an exception, and Oddi->Edda is not an exception. Both Snorri and Ágeir Blöndal knew this. As a matter of curiosity: If you don't accept Ásgeir, which sources do you use?

All the best Io 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But koma/kemur isn't the only example. Think of sofa/sefur or geta/got (e->o). In Indo-European languages o/e are often exchanged. --D. Webb 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw your comment. Will you allow me to think about it and look it up? If you are right, I'll surrender, but I don't believe in that explanation.

Cheers Io 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, take all the time you need. But look, I'm not really arguing that "Edda" is from "Oddi". I'm only saying that it's not quite so clear that the "Oddi" explanation is incorrect or Volksetymologie, that it's not phonetically impossible and that the fact that "Snorri Sturluson was just raised at Oddi, he spent most of his life elsewhere" makes absolutely no difference regarding the plausibility of the "Oddi" explanation. So I'm really not arguing for any one explanation, but rather against your dismissal of it. I don't think it should be dismissed as Volksetymologie. That said, the "grandmother" theory might very well be right or perhaps neither one is right. Who knows? --D. Webb 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just got into an "editorial conflict" with you. You were the first one to save. But I'll study this thing to the best of my abilities, including your additional examples. I guess it won't be till morrow.

Cheers Io 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Indo-European correspondences are far older than the proposed Oddi->Edda. They were simply not functional at the time (the 13. century or so). As for sofa/sefur there is a v missing and Ásgeir Blöndal connects the word svefn (same root) to Latin somnus. But note: That particular correspondence had long ceased to operate. As for geta/got, the word got is derived from gjóta, not geta, although they probably are related in some sense, but in that case, as in the case of sofa/sefur, long after the speaking public had ceased to feel the relationship. And, in your opinion, what is the cutting edge in this field of study?

Cheers Io 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, admittedly, Ásgeir Blöndal isn't as old as I thought, but I wouldn't call anything 20 years old or older cutting edge. Ásgeir Blöndal is 18 years old. I wasn't claiming, of course, that PIE correspondences were contemporaneous, only that o/e changes were not uncommon in Indo-European languages in general. If we find such correspondences in Icelandic, it's not shocking. We have them in PIE, we have them in Ancient Greek (pretty much from Homer throughout and beyond antiquity), we have it in Latin and other more recent languages too, don't we? Oddi->Edda may perhaps not be extremely likely but hardly impossible. The toughest thing about the competing explanation is what it actually means to call the book grandmother; not impossible to imagine tat either, but never sounds very convincing either. I'm not sure the missing v in "sofa" makes much difference, but I have only mentioned examples that come to my mind, there might be others if we bother to look carefully. Anyway, Snorri could possibly have known about such relationships that were nevertheless not felt by the speaking public in the 13th century, couldn't he? The coinage would thus be "learned". --D. Webb 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I basically agree with you. Some points however. In the 4. ablautclass the verbs koma, sofa and troða are irregular.


 * Koma: The 1. person indicative was ek køm/kem > ég kem. No real o/e correspondence.
 * Sofa: The 1. person indicative was ek søf/sef > ég sef. No real o/e correspondence.
 * As for sofa, there are two things to keep in mind:
 * 1. The original sound in Proto-Norse was u, not o. The o is the result of the A-umlaut. (See other related verbs for comparison, and also Ásgeir Blöndal, but cf. gull/gold.)
 * 2. The v has been known to cause a variety of U-umlaut, cf systir/sister/Schwester. Another example is gerva->gørva.


 * Snorri was a genius in his way, but the only reasonable connection between Edda and Oddi is that he knew the word edda (which he certainly did) and may have noticed an alliteration and a half-rhyme between those two words. After all, the sound laws were no longer functional, and the theoretical apparatus was not in place at his time. As for Edda, it is more plausible that the two works were named so in reference to something old and venerable than anything else.


 * I really think that we can dismiss some inherited "awareness" out of hand. People speak their language and it takes a scholar (with a better background than Snorri could possibly have had) to point their linguistic history out to them.


 * Ásgeir Blöndal is not the cutting edge in PIE-studies, but in Icelandic etymology he is. If you have a counter-example, I'd be glad to know about it.


 * As a final question, since I'm to lazy now to look it up: Was Snorri even the one to name his work?


 * Cheers Io 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether he named the work or not. I take your points. I don't have any more counter examples, though. But thanks for the lesson :) --D. Webb 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks for your civilized attitude. There are topics I didn't touch, but I'd have to say, all in all, it's been a pleasure. Yours Io 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing. Ryan Delaney talk 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Icelandic Logicians
I renamed Category:Icelandic Logicians to Category:Icelandic logicians, per conventions (small "L"). Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool! :)

Icelandic language
Please show your support for WikiProject Iceland by voting for the Icelandic language article for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive! To place your vote, please click here! Max Naylor 09:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Iceland Newsletter
// ENewsBot (talk) on behalf of Max Naylor 21:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Iceland Newsletter
Delivered by ENewsBot (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Iceland Newsletter
→ To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist · Delivered by ENewsBot · 04:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The University of Iceland Science web
A tag has been placed on The University of Iceland Science web requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Noetic  Sage  22:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)