User talk:Kwamikagami

Word/quotation of the moment:


 * "Astrology has no effect on reality, so why should reality have any effect on astrology? – J.S. Stenzel, commenting on astrological planets that astrologers acknowledge don't really exist"

"Do you think the liberals are using these school shootings to further their anti-tragedy agenda?" "yod-dropper" "ALL keys matter" "The Lunatic-in-Charge becomes the Lunatic-at-Large" "Lame duck à l'orange (AKA canard à l'orange)" "It is a mortifying circumstance, which greatly perplexes many a painstaking philosopher, that nature often refuses to second his most profound and elaborate efforts; so that often after having invented one of the most ingenious and natural theories imaginable, she will have the perverseness to act directly in the teeth of his system, and flatly contradict his most favorite positions. This is a manifest and unmerited grievance, since it throws the censure of the vulgar and unlearned entirely upon the philosopher; whereas the fault is not to be ascribed to his theory, which is unquestionably correct, but to the waywardness of Dame Nature, who, with the proverbial fickleness of her sex, is continually indulging in coquetries and caprices, and seems really to take pleasure in violating all philosophic rules, and jilting the most learned and indefatigable of her adorers. [...] The philosophers took this in very ill part, and it is thought they would never have pardoned the slight and affront which they conceived put upon them by the world had not a good-natured professor kindly officiated as a mediator between the parties, and effected a reconciliation. Finding the world would not accommodate itself to the theory, he wisely determined to accommodate the theory to the world." "Pela primeira vez na sua vida a morte soube o que era ter um cão no regaço. For the first time in her life, death knew what it felt like to have a dog in her lap." "It is now generally accepted that the megaliths that make up Stonehenge were moved by human effort." "Anybody who says you only have yourself to blame is just not very good at blaming other people." "When poppies pull themselves up from their roots and start out, one after the other, toward the sunset – don't follow them." "And the dough-headed took their acid fermentation for a soul, the stabbing of meat for history, the means of postponing their decay for civilization." "The Church says that the Earth is Flat, but I know that it is Round, for I have seen its Shadow on the Moon, and I have more Faith in a Shadow than in the Church." "In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot." "Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. [...] Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown."
 * Ecce Mono


 * Keep Redskins White!
 * "homosapiens are people, too!!"
 * a sprig of spaghetti
 * "I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."
 * awkwardnessful
 * anti–zombie-fungus fungus
 * "Only an evil person would eat baby soup." (said in all sincerity)

Nomination of M-T pronouns for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M-T pronouns is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/M-T pronouns until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Proto-Human, Nostratic, and WP:FRINGE
Please remember, since you seem to be editing along these lines and have a counterfactual statement on your userpage, that neither Proto-Human nor the techniques used to reconstruct it are taken seriously within linguistics. Edits along those lines need to take WP:FRINGE into account and be made carefully, especially if it accidentally ends up reading as advocacy for those theories. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The existence of the M-T pronoun pattern is not FRINGE. Some of the conclusions drawn from it are. — kwami (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply it was, though it certainly fails WP:N considering there's the source you utilized and a singular other paper. It doesn't appear to have any wider significance within linguistics at present. I'm more referring to the conclusions you drew and this WP:PROFRINGE statement on your user page:
 * By comparing basic vocabulary across the established families of oral languages of the world, we have been able to reconstruct the Proto-Human language. We find that all reconstructed words are *na. An extension of this method to additional lexical items (in other basic word lists) finds that those items also reconstruct to *na. We therefore conclude that the ancestral human population used the word *na for everything.
 * I don't mean this to give you a hard time at all, I just don't necessarily know from some of your edits and this statement if you're aware of the actual acceptance of those theories. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nostratic (and Amerind, which depends on a similar pattern of pronouns) are definitely FRINGE. Yet these patterns have been noticed for over a century, and people have struggled to explain them. I don't see how a fringe hypothesis could be notable, yet the real evidence provided for it not be notable. We need to understand the evidence if we want to be able to evaluate the claims that depend on them.
 * As for your claim of PROFRINGE statements, you've failed to see the sarcasm. — kwami (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But this isn’t evidence for those theories. That it’s claimed to be evidence can be thrown in the large pile of things Nostraticists et al consider to be evidence that nobody takes seriously. That’s why it’s a WP:PROFRINGE concern.
 * Either way, I wasn’t intending to be difficult on this and sorry if it came across that way. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The evidence is the evidence they present, not the evidence you accept. And we can't debunk those claims without a consideration of the evidence. Not that we should be advocating debunking either, but the claims can't be evaluated by the reader without consideration of the evidence. If we don't present the evidence, then the only ones that do are the advocates. If we only present the theories and their advocates, then we're engaging in FRINGE by omission. — kwami (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

regarding whether the halogens all rhyme or not
Huh, apparently the /-aɪn/ pronunciation is older. In James Knowles' 1835 pronunciation dictionary, both iodine and fluorine have a long i (never mind that the spelling varies between iodine, fluorine and iodin, fluorin.)

Unfortunately, the page with chlorine is missing from this copy. And instead of bromine, we have brome, a direct borrowing from French.

It does raise the question of when precisely the /-iːn/ pronunciation came into the picture, and how it became the most common one for F and Cl. (I have the impression that for iodine, /-aɪn/ is more common in AmE than BrE. Google seems to confirm this.) Double sharp (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe about the time the capital of Peru changed from /aɪ/ to /iː/? — kwami (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a copy on GBooks. 'Chlorine' has the ee vowel. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is pretty weird. My current working hypothesis is that Cl was better-known than the other halogens by then, because it was already known as a bleaching agent (as stated in Knowles' definition). But it's just a guess. Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe they already had both pronunciations, but only one was chosen for the dict? — kwami (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Could well be! Double sharp (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Prenasal/Post-nasal sound transcription, and Yele sounds acc to sources
Sorry, but you are wrong about the prenasal sounds according to Levinson (2022). They are never transcribed as voiceless, they are always voiced. And regarding the transcription of the prenasal/post-nasal sounds, yes they are always transcribed with a superscript. Don’t believe me? Then take a look at the IPA. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Levinson transcribes them in different places as both phonemically voiced and unvoiced. I think it might be more straightforward to transcribe them as voiced, as you have done.
 * "Take a look at the IPA" is not a ref. They are usually not transcribed with superscripts, and positing 4 different types of prenasalization and 4 different types of nasal release is not supported by our sources. That works phonetically but not phonemically. It's also harder to read. — kwami (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The only time you see “unvoiced” is when he writes the orthography. But both phonemically, and phonetically they are voiced. Henderson (1995) also transcribes them the same.
 * But you are still wrong about the prenasal/post-nasal transcription. They *are* transcribed with superscripts. I’m sure you have seen it quite a lot within phonetic and phonemic transcriptions. And whether the sources don’t use superscripts, or 4 types of prenasalization/nasal release is irrelevant.
 * According to Prenasalized consonant in the IPA, “in the IPA, a tie bar may be used to specify that these are single segments: ⟨m͜b, n͜d, ŋ͡ɡ⟩. Another common transcription practice is to make the nasal superscript: ⟨ᵐb, ⁿd, ᵑɡ⟩. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not true. He writes them as unvoiced in some of the phonemic-IPA consonant tables, as voiced in others.
 * So you concede that superscripts are not "the" way to transcribe prenasalized stops? That's good, but you shouldn't cite me for what the IPA is. I'm not a RS. Cite the IPA. — kwami (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * “Some of the phonemic-IPA consonant tables.” No, there should only be one standard table that we use, and that is the one where they are transcribed as their main sound, which is voiced. Not more than one consonant table
 * And yes I did cite the IPA, and you are just refusing to look at the source. That is what it states on prenasalized consonants, I don’t know where you are insisting otherwise. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And what I cited said that they can be transcribed with a tie-bar or a superscript, in the IPA. Using standard consonant symbols like  is not “the” way to transcribe them, and is only used unambiguously by different authors. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You never cited the IPA. For a citation, you need an author, title, date and page number. And don't cite me. To cite the IPA, you need to cite the IPA.
 * We cannot use one table, because the inventory is split across multiple tables. You can write Levinson that he wrote his grammar wrong, but that's not relevant here.
 * Levinson gives the singly articulated stops as /mp nt ṇṭ ŋk/ on p.42 and the doubly articulated stops as /nmtp ṇmṭp ŋmkp/ on p.43.
 * Anyway, I've already conceded that your way is probably best, so I don't know why you continue to misrepresent the source. — kwami (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * BTW, the reason for not using the tie bar for NC and CN consonants is that, when they're doubly articulated, that would create a mess of 3 overlapping tie bars per consonant, e.g. ⟨n̪͡m͡d̪͡b⟩.
 * We might be able to improve that by using an under-tie for the NC or CN part and an over-tie for the double articulation, or vice versa, e.g. ⟨n̪͡m͜d̪͡b⟩ or ⟨n̪͜m͡d̪͜b⟩. But that still looks rather messy. — kwami (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I strongly believe that using a superscript is the best option, because it looks less messy and less ambiguous.
 * But using the chart as per Levinson (2022:42-43) is pointless. That does not represent the true sounds of the prenasalized consonants. He states “Prenasalized consonants (such as /mb/) are however voiced, but post-nasalized stops are initially voiceless”. Nowhere does he actually state that the prenasals are ever heard as voiceless. Fdom5997 (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, you apparently don't know the difference between phonemic and phonetic. The oral stops are also 'lightly' voiced between vowels. So what? This is a phonemic transcription. We could use signs of the zodiac for all it matters.
 * Anyway, I've already conceded that it's probably better (because it's more accessible to our readers) to transcribe NC with letters for voiced stops, as you prefer, and restored your edits doing just that. — kwami (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Listing prenasalized-voiced sounds is not just phonetic. Even Levinson (2022) himself lists them as phonemes on page 45. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're not listening. I have no problem with listing the phonemic inventory in our sources. I have a problem with you claiming phonemic distinctions that do not exist in our sources just because you think it's pretty. — kwami (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t “think it’s pretty”, it is just incredibly misleading to list them as “voiceless” when even the sources themselves say that they are always voiced. *You’re* not listening, and you’re the one who’s claiming nonexistent phonemic distinctions! Fdom5997 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I was talking about the superscript nasals, which you apparently only want because you think it looks better. I don't know why you continue to harp on the voicing when there's no disagreement about it. — kwami (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course the superscript nasals look better, because they are approved by the IPA. You're method is not, and it is too ambiguous. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously, can we just settle on the nasal superscript? What is the big deal if they are transcribed this way. You just don't want it because you personally don't agree with it. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Where are they "approved by the IPA"? I've repeatedly asked for a citation, and you evidently don't actually have one.
 * It seems that you're just making stuff up, and projecting your own biases rather than owning up to them. — kwami (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well how about you show me a source that proves that your way of transcribing them is correct. I'll wait.. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't be an ass. You've already conceded that it is. But if you like, check out the Tukang Besi chart in the IPA Handbook.
 * BTW, arguing for a change by demanding that your opponent prove why you shouldn't is not generally a productive approach. It is a good way to have people ignore you for not being a serious editor. — kwami (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly, because you don't have a source either. At least I have some information (that you wrote!) to back me up, you clearly don't. So therefore, we should settle on the superscript nasal transcription. Like it, or not. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's see if I understand: The IPA Handbook is not a source for the IPA because you disagree with it. Your lack of any sources doesn't matter because you set an ultimatum, and that's what counts. Even though you don't understand the WP article that you're using instead of a source. So, yeah, talking with you appears to be a waste of time. I'm done. Good bye, and stay off my page. — kwami (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Boma dialect
@Kwamikagami: Hirayama (1966)'s 琉球方言の総合的研究 talks about the prosody of the Tokunoshima Boma (母間) dialect on page 151-152. However, I am fine if you leave the redirect as redirecting only to Teke language. Chuterix (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's nothing about that on the Toku-no-Shima page, and it's not in the list of dialects, so people won't know why a link directs them there. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)