User talk:Erutuon/2012

Reversal of changes made in List of Greek phrases
Θα σε παρακαλέσω πολύ να μην κάνεις αλλαγές αν δεν καταλαβαίνεις Ελληνικά σε βαθμό που να σε επιτρέπει να το κάνεις. Ευχαριστώ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.157.127.66 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidently you speak Modern Greek. Do you understand Ancient Greek? Most of the Greek phrases are Ancient Greek, not Modern. Your translations of them were not literally correct, so I have been modifying them. — Eru·tuon 01:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hoppa
Hello Erutuon,

I have trouble finding the correct spelling of the expression 'hoppa!' in Greek alphabet, can you help me out?

Simon de Danser (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Commons inline listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commons inline. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commons inline redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Johnsc12
Hi Erutuon, I think you too have had some problems with this user. I invite you to comment here. — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 21:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thematic stem
Hi! Do you mind if I use material from User:Erutuon/Thematic vowel for expanding Thematic stem? -ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be delighted if you did, since I intended to move that page to article space at some point, but am unlikely ever to do it. I wonder, however, if you would be willing to move the article to Thematic vowel at some point and rewrite it accordingly, since thematic stem is a misleading term — neither the stem nor the endings can really be called thematic; only the vowel placed between them. That was my original intent in creating that page. But perhaps you would not want to take the time to make such a drastic change. Either way, you're welcome to use whatever you want from my page. — Eru·tuon 15:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've hit upon the somewhat mad idea of turning it into a GA, although this project is unlikely to get finished in the near future...
 * Moving the article to Thematic vowel is probably a good idea; it also avoids the problem that it is about athematic stems/nouns/verbs as well as thematic ones. Pleas feel free to review/correct my additions if your time allows. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Intervocalic alveolar flapping
Hey, thanks for the message. Perhaps I should have discussed the move on the talk page first or put it up on WP:RM. I may have been overly "bold" in moving it myself.

I did consider that it might be possible to interpret alveolar as a noun modifying flapping, and that this might justify the use of a hyphen. The reasons that I didn't find this persuasive are:
 * Alveolar is usually an adjective, not a noun, so it seems more plausible to interpret it as such if it makes sense to do so. The relative rarity of nominal alveolar can be easily demonstrated. For example, there are zero Google hits for "flapping of alveolars", versus 99 for "flapping of alveolar stops". If phrases like "flapping of alveolars" and "alveolars are flapped" are vanishingly rare, it casts doubt on the theory that the alveolar in "alveolar flapping" is a noun. In addition, "alveolar flapping" seems like it may be derived from "alveolar flap", in which alveolar is definitely an adjective.
 * I couldn't find any other sources that used the hyphenated version, other than those derived from Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, the linguistics community doesn't usually hyphenate phrases like this. (Actually, they don't use the phrase that often at all. E.g., there is only one Google Scholar hit for "intervocalic alveolar flapping", versus 175 for "flapped /t/". Maybe we should retitle the article completely.)
 * Even if "alveolar" is a noun, the hyphen doesn't usefully disambiguate. Indeed, either of the two possible hyphenations would be justifiable: "intervocalic alveolar-flapping" (alveolar-flapping that occurs between vowels) or "intervocalic-alveolar flapping" (flapping of an intervocalic alveolar). Of the two, I actually find the latter more compelling.
 * MOS:HYPHEN doesn't indicate this as one of the uses of the hyphen on Wikipedia, so I thought perhaps the use of a hyphen here was contrary to house style anyway. However, there's quite a bit of equivocation in MOS:HYPHEN (e.g., "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here"), so this admittedly isn't definitive.

However, I see your point of view too, and I apologize for not discussing the move first. If you like, feel free to start a discussion at Talk:Intervocalic alveolar flapping or WP:RM, or if you feel strongly about it, you can even just revert my move. Sorry for the length of this message; this is more than I intended to say about a single hyphen. ☺ —Caesura(t) 13:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Cyclamen
Great job with all those Cyclamen articles, by the way. First Light (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Diphtongs in Turkish
You are right to ask a clarification, because the edit you noticed in Turkish language is not correct. The explanation about "soft" g (ğ)" is one used in the teaching of Turkish to non-Turkish speaking people, to make it easier for them to understand a rare sound. Nothing more than that... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

angle brackets
Hi. Saw your reversion at infix. I am not used to seeing such square brackets in linguistic texts, is the convention specific to that sort of morphological analysis? Or are you getting this from WP:MOS. My fear is that the boxes I am seeing (and I assume they are meant to be boxes) make it look like their are unsupported characters. Perhaps that's the case, that I should be seeing some other character? I will await your answer here, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the image on the right at angle brackets it appears we should be seeing something like relaxed more-than and less-than signs. If so, we should get some sort of help rendering this better. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are typical for analyzing infixes. For instance, in the Na'vi language article (the only language with infixes that I could think of), they have the morphological analysis:
 * Oe-ri	ontu	teya	l⟨äng⟩u I-top	nose	full	be⟨pej⟩
 * And yes, they should appear as something similar to less-than and greater-than signs, but a little taller and thinner. I suppose the reason that you see them as boxes is that the font you're using does not contain them as characters, and somehow another font does not automatically get triggered to display them. Probably encircling all the angle brackets in the article with the Unicode template, to force them to display in a font with a greater character map, would solve the problem. That wouldn't be particularly neat, alas.


 * To test if it works, I enclosed the Na'vi morphological analysis in the Unicode template. Do the angle brackets on the last word (in both the Na'vi and the gloss) display properly? — Eru·tuon 19:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it still appears as boxes using Safari, but shows up as the brackets using Internet Explorer now. I suppose that's a definitive answer, thanks! μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for
Hi Erutuon. Hope you are doing fine. Please, be so kind and take a look at this proposal. Thank you! Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)