User talk:Thanatos666/Archive 3

Hermes e-ma-ha
Regarding Hermes and the e-ha-ma, is this the pronunciation used for the name? So Hermes is 'was' pronunciation eh-ha-mah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B111:1DB:5100:BCB6:38EE:D429 (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, e-ma-ha is not the pronunciation; it's the transliteration/transcription of the Linear B word at face value. For the or a probable reconstructed pronunciation, see e.g. this. Thanatos|talk|contributions 16:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I don't understand, I read a pronunciation for Posiden and not Hermes.


 * Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B111:1DB:5100:BCB6:38EE:D429 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, now it's me who doesn't understand you: Poseidon?!? P.S. In any case, e-ma-ha, when and if it denotes the NOM sg. form, is interpreted (according e.g. to Beekes' and van Beek's Etymological Dictionary of Greek) as . Thanatos|talk|contributions 22:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=619484500 your edit] to Terraforming may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , forming the word from the Greek οἶκος, oikos, "house", and ποίησις, poiesis, "production". but the word was also used for brick tiles on the roofs of houses and for pottery sherds . Afterward, the men proceeded to mutilate her and, finally, burn her limbs. News of Hypatia's

repent bastard
666 = 2x above Holy 333 Trinity

666 = 2x above Holy 333 Trinity
repent bastard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.104.108.125 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=624523175 your edit] to Glass harmonica may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * *Alasdair Malloy (United Kingdom) {{cite web|url=http://www.alasdairmalloy.com/glass-harmonica |title=glass harmonica |

English words of Greek origin
Thanks for your edits to this article. If we have individual links to sources, I'd prefer that they be to the Oxford English Dictionary, rather than the Online Etymology Dictionary, because I used the OxfordED in researching the article, and I think it's a more authoritative source than the OnlineED. I know that the OxfordED is behind a paywall, but WP policy says that's OK. --Macrakis (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1.Thank you for your kind words. 2.Well if you prefer OED citations, feel free to add them... ;-) The Online Etymology Dictionary can also be used (other dictionaries too). No XOR there, the former is renown, the latter is more specialised (it's etymological) and of course, to say the least, is not hidden behind a paywall, as you've indirectly said. In fact I'd say multiple sources are most of the time preferable; no single dictionary is a thesphaton... :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving comment of User:Adambrowne666 here
Writing this on phone so forgive formatting sins. Really my edit was meant to be a goad to get someone to write something that actually explains the word hellenistic in addition to the stuff now there which only tells us that it's a crap word
 * OK, no problem. Thanatos|talk|contributions 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631814134 your edit] to Helicopter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * helikos (the κ being romanised as a c); see . and pteron (πτερόν) "wing". {{LSJ|ptero/n|πτερόν|

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=632000827 your edit] to Helicopter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * helikos (the κ being romanised as a c); see . and pteron (πτερόν) "wing". οὐράνη (ouranē) and οὐρητρίς (ourētris,<
 * {=}}chamber|οὐρητρίς|shortref}}. from οὖρον - ouron, "urine", σκωραμίς / (skōramis), χερνίβιον (chernibion).  It was reported too that neither birds flew over it nor fish approached

Error fix
Thanks for spotting my careless error re. Fahrenheit/Centigrade. Opus33 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, errare humanum est. And I should know, I've made far worse ones... :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Patience
Hi Thanatos666. I think you should be a little more patient in dealing with other people here on Wikipedia. If a good-faith editor reverts you, don't ever revert them more than once, or things will invariably get heated. Though you might be frustrated, don't say things like "Egad.... /facepalm/". Jot it down if it's gonna help, but then take it out before pressing "Save". If you think another editor's in the wrong, just try to explain why. It shouldn't surprise you to be questioned by people who're not quite as knowledgable; this is the encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit". Anyway, that's my 2 lepta. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am; I need NOT ALWAYS and FOREVER be with ALL people no matter what...
 * petitio principii; also good faith assumption does not last for ever no matter what,
 * why, who said so? have I missed the memo that 3RR got promoted to 1RR?? also, does this not apply to others?
 * let them get heated!
 * why not? I may and hence I possibly will when appropriate,
 * 1.I did...;-)
 * 2.People that can't stand heated discussions, have imo no place discussing stuff other than smalltalk :-" ,
 * I (or others) was not questioned; among other things nonsense about basic stuff was stated as a fact,
 * this doesn't mean anyone should or that there would be no appropriate consequences or reactions, be they heated or not, after such an action and event (use common sense and competence is required among many other things),
 * Among other things I can't find any advisory lepton of yours towards any other party in this dispute... ;-)
 * Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd have weathered it, but other people might not welcome your conversational style. Wikipedia is a place where people are quite easily offended. As for 1RR, there's no such rule; it's simply what I find works for me. If you enjoy getting into this kinda arguments, then by all means, I suppose. As for said dispute, I agree with Dr.K.'s observations. You may also be interested to know that he's filed an SPI against Lunaur here. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with clarifying that Ἀρβώνιος and Ἀρβωνίτης is the singular form, but I'd have copy-edited against verbosity. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's their problem... :-" In this case for example, changing/removing stuff and reverting edits while stating as a fact and insisting on and on again and again, that we don't know for example whether Ἀρβωνίτης and then (as a justification) Αρβανίτης and then Γάλλος are singular number forms (and therefore <=> they could be pl forms), and then doing the same thing all over again with the excuse that no ref has been provided verifying the gr. number, is, to say the least, not imo a reasonable nor a good faith discussion or stance, attitude... :-" This and the irony, something already immense, get doubled/squared or tripled/cubed or... when one recollects that
 * 1. the cited source is in not in English, i.e. that the opposing party is perfectly happy to accept a foreign (non English) language source claiming x,y,z without a translation, but the same party does not accept, objects to and removes an important (imo) explanation of basic grammar stuff about some words in the language of the text,
 * 2. the cited text itself explains in a way said basic stuff (ὡς Ἀντρώνιος καὶ Ἀσκαλωνίτης) and
 * 3. even if we were to disregard these things, the possibility of using cn tags or similar, instead of the repeated deletions and edit revertions etc., seems to totally ellude the aforementioned party.
 * If my behaviour towards such things is to be regarded as impatient, rude, uncivilised or whatever, then so be it!!!
 * Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd have weathered it, but other people might not welcome your conversational style. Wikipedia is a place where people are quite easily offended. As for 1RR, there's no such rule; it's simply what I find works for me. If you enjoy getting into this kinda arguments, then by all means, I suppose. As for said dispute, I agree with Dr.K.'s observations. You may also be interested to know that he's filed an SPI against Lunaur here. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with clarifying that Ἀρβώνιος and Ἀρβωνίτης is the singular form, but I'd have copy-edited against verbosity. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's their problem... :-" In this case for example, changing/removing stuff and reverting edits while stating as a fact and insisting on and on again and again, that we don't know for example whether Ἀρβωνίτης and then (as a justification) Αρβανίτης and then Γάλλος are singular number forms (and therefore <=> they could be pl forms), and then doing the same thing all over again with the excuse that no ref has been provided verifying the gr. number, is, to say the least, not imo a reasonable nor a good faith discussion or stance, attitude... :-" This and the irony, something already immense, get doubled/squared or tripled/cubed or... when one recollects that
 * 1. the cited source is in not in English, i.e. that the opposing party is perfectly happy to accept a foreign (non English) language source claiming x,y,z without a translation, but the same party does not accept, objects to and removes an important (imo) explanation of basic grammar stuff about some words in the language of the text,
 * 2. the cited text itself explains in a way said basic stuff (ὡς Ἀντρώνιος καὶ Ἀσκαλωνίτης) and
 * 3. even if we were to disregard these things, the possibility of using cn tags or similar, instead of the repeated deletions and edit revertions etc., seems to totally ellude the aforementioned party.
 * If my behaviour towards such things is to be regarded as impatient, rude, uncivilised or whatever, then so be it!!!
 * Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, but it seems he doesn't speak (or read) Greek and he's been confused by the fact that both "Epirotes" and "Arvonites" (the way you've transcribed it, without diacritics) end in -es. I think that's an error he made in good faith. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This possible erroneous conflation has already been suggested, to no avail... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He didn't insist on it after you explained it in your 2nd reply. I think he's lacking WP:COMPETENCE, which is all the more reason not to get riled up over it. Just try to explain why they're wrong briefly and nicely, and if they still don't get it, grab someone to help. If you turn the argument into some kind of pissing match, other people won't be so eager to come to your assistance. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason you think he/she didn't insist upon it is because I had missed, I failed to realise that he/she had done it again - relevant edit, I missed the Stephanus part change - and he/she just continued changing/reverting other stuff, letting it slip silently under the radar; then came the page protection, after which, though I had by then realised that he/she had also changed again the Stephanus part, I couldn't do anything about it. ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 05:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway, keep up the good work. By the way, what's the diacritic on the "i" here? I think you meant to use "i̯", which means it's non-syllabic (i.e. part of a diphthong). 83.168.23.138 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I know (though I'm not an expert); it seems that out of the many ways/symbols/diacritics I've seen used (possibly non standard or idiosyncratic or arbitrary or simply, plainly wrong), this has stuck, perhaps out of similarity to the combining double breve below (tie bar) which seems, at least to me, more logical as a symbol of a diphthong (but not of a long vowel), and also to contrast with generally a non syllabic or a semivowel/glide or a palatal approximant (which would be the case (or anyway something like it) prevocalically, which again might be the case (or something similar) when the following word starts with a vowel). Change, correct this (and others instances in which I've used it) if you must, though I'd prefer the tie bar and though again, as I recall and at least on web-browsers, all three diacritics seem to have a mind of their own, changing at times appearance at will (by shifting left or right, or even up or down, changing alignment). Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with a tie bar. It's also how it's done on Wiktionary. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1.I might be wrong, but I'm not sure they always do. 2.Unfortunately on Wiktionary they also use the tie bar for classical long vowels constrasting them with hellenistic ones...(e.g. Μακεδονία i.e. < wikt:Template:grc-ipa-rows) I've been meaning to try to sort this out, but other stuff keep intervening; a hypothesis I've made is that perhaps someone had this idea in order to somehow, indirectly, indicate the later, tone to stress change. Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Classical long vowels are typically analysed as bimoraic. Their use of the tie bar appears to be consistent. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) That's what I alluded to; the problem is that, unless I'm missing something important, they didn't stop being bimoraic nor did the language stop being in parallel tonal till way later though "exactly" when is uncertain; following Vox Graeca here (i.e. it seems to me that long vs short vowel distinction, morae and tonal accents were, more or less, contemporary; am I wrong?); not come Alexander... I.e. what's the difference between this (5th BC Attic): IPA: /ma͜akedoní.a͜a/ and this (1st BC Egyptian): /maːkɛdoníaː/ ?!?!? As far as I know, there is none. But the reader gets the impression that there is in fact one; if I'm wrong, if there is indeed a difference, I would be very happy to know what it is... PS They also, on the other hand, use the same symbols/diacritics for both tonal and stress accents, making stuff even more on the one hand artificially/arbitrarily distinct and on the other hand blurry and mixed up; let alone inaccurate... PPS Also, why i.a͜a (i.a) vs iaː (ia)? Or is this perhaps a tonal vs stress accent representation convention? If so, isn't it dated wrongly? PPPS In any case, when did people begin to explicitly show Greek morae in writing or in pronunciation 1.generally, 2. only in Greek long vowels and 3. by using the V&#860;V symbolism?!?!?!?!? NOTE-TO-SELF: You :) have to discuss, in due time of course, all of the abοve at the relevant talk page; don't also forget to discuss, to ask why /e/ -> /ε/ -> /e/ etc.. Thanatos|talk|contributions 18:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the mora distinction was lost before the length distinction was. My knowledge of Ancient Greek phonology is wanting. What difference? The difference in pronunciation? Those transcriptions are phonemic, so they're not meant to capture the actual pronunciation of words, per se. The high pitch tone diacritic has been popularly used to indicate stress, but, yes, it is confusing. Anyway, all I've wanted to say is the diacritic you used to indicate that the "i" isn't syllabic (I'm guessing) probably won't be understood by anyone as that. IPA diacritics, though they might in some cases be interchangeable, do have generalised definitions. In fact, that particular one doesn't appear in the IPA -- at all. Unicode says that it's meant for Hittite transcription. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, we or rather I, simply have digressed; I was thinking about said template and stuff therein recently; your innocuous offtopic question and reference to wiktionary, made me think about this subject again and so I digressed a bit; όσο πατάει ο ελέφαντας δηλαδή... :D Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * haha, fair enough. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Lunaur blocked as a sock
Hi Thanatos. Lunaur has been blocked as a sock. Please feel free to revert any additions he has made. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded here. Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)