User talk:Zsero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] avir comes from greek

You said that hebrew awir comes from greek awer. This is interesting. Could you provide a source for this assertion? Everything I've read says that nobody knows whether the one got it from the other, which way the borrowing went, or if they both borrowed it from somewhere else. Tomer TALK 20:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it doesn't appear at all in the Bible, but is used extensively in the Mishnah and Talmud, which also contain many other Greek and Latin loanwords, strongly suggests that it came into Hebrew from Greek or Latin. And since the Latin word came from Greek anyway, I wrote that it came from Greek, which I think is a fair way of putting it even if the path was via Latin.
Is it possible that it was a Hebrew word that happened not to be used in the Bible (there must have been many such words, which are now completely lost), or that was coined or borrowed after Biblical times, and that Greek and Latin borrowed it from Hebrew? I guess it's possible, since I don't know the earliest Greek use, but it just doesn't seem to me very likely. In any case, it seems to me extremely unlikely that it developed independently in both Hebrew and Greek, which means it's not a false cognate.
As for the Welsh word, no I have no source for it coming from Greek or Latin, but again it seems almost impossible that it didn't. I think the burden of proof would have to be on someone asserting that it had a different origin.
Be that as it may, "strongly suggests" is not an acceptable rationale to make an assertion and call it fact. Do you have a source you can cite that says that the one was borrowed from the other? Otherwise what you've done is technically a violation of Wikipedia's ban on "original research". Tomer TALK 20:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Better question: does anyone have a souce they can cite showing that the two words are false cognates? If not, then it seems to me that including them on the page in the first place is "original research", which I have merely corrected...
My guess is that whoever put it there in the first place just thought it unlikely that Hebrew and Welsh would have come in contact with each other, or would have a source in common. Except that that isn't the case, at least with regard to Mishnaic and later Hebrew.

I'm sure somebody does, just not me. User:Angr or User:Dbachmann or User:Mustafaa may. I'm not trying to push it too hard, it's just that everything I've read says that "nobody knows", just like origin of Greek oine vs. Hebrew yayin. Tomer TALK 01:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Except that yayin and oine are both attested farther back in their respective languages than the time when they came into such extensive contact. While I guess it's theoretically possible that Hebrew picked up yayin from the Philistines, and hence from Greek, that would need proof. But avir is first attested in Hebrew at a period when it included hundreds of Greek and Latin loanwords. And Latin and Greek definitely had a far greater impact on Hebrew than vice versa, because practically all Hebrew speakers were in contact with Roman soldiers in Judaea, while the vast majority of Latin and Greek speakers had little or no contact with Jews. It seems to me that the default assumption must be that avir is just another loanword, from either Latin or Greek, and that the burden of proof rests on anyone claiming that it was a native Hebrew word that just happened never to be used by any of the authors of the Bible.

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Zsero, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 06:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks. And thanks for the tilde tip. Any particular reason for the welcome now, though? I've had an account for well over a year, after all. Zsero 06:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kay Kosher Supervision...

...has been proposed for deletion. FYI. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

NN = Not notable in wikipedia lingo. I am sorry for rushing and using a contraction. Too minor an organization to merit an article per WP:CORP. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two points

1. We need a source for whoever said that critics claim that Kerry has a record of insulting troops. It's not unreasonable (and is Wiki policy), and it's not difficult to find one critic who agrees with your statement and then include it and attribute it in the article. On the other side, it would be akin to me including a statement, "It was obvious that Kerry did not mean that as an attack against the troops, but President Bush." which you would probably revert immediately, claiming the same reason.

2. Deleting the second part of the quote which starts off that: "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'" The second part takes Kerry's quote into context, and it's deceitful to readers by withholding part of the truth. What is wrong with letting readers decide their reaction to the quote instead of stacking the cards against Kerry? Also, a personal interpretation of Kerry's statement by deleting part of it is potentially libelous. --Folksong 08:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The news is full of critics. You can't deny that they exist, or that they've made this argument. (For that matter, I'm one such critic, if you need names! But you know very well that I'm very far from the only one.) I just don't see the point in compiling a list of references to blogs and commenters making this point.
Kerry's previous criticism of USA soldiers is too well-known to need documenting. See Winter Soldier earlier in the Wikipedia article, and see his widely reported statement in 2005 that USA troops in Iraq were terrorising women and children. (Now if I were to include those as examples, I would have to document them, since they're statements of fact, not of opinion.)
2. The rest of the quote isn't relevant here. You seem not to understand for what purpose the quote has been cited. Kerry's original joke seems to refer to a common but erroneous belief that the army is composed primarily of the uneducated, the poor, and minorities. To decide whether Kerry actually meant to say what he said, it's relevant to look into whether he holds that common belief, at least subconsciously. A quote from 34 years ago shows that at that time he did think this was what a volunteer army would look like. That doesn't prove he still has that picture in the back of his mind, but it significantly increases the likelihood. The other ills he thought might come from a volunteer army don't shed any light on the current question, so there's no reason to cite them. Indeed, citing them is something of a red herring; it hides the point in verbiage, and distracts the reader with irrelevant matters.
Zsero 08:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
First off, your edit history shows a pattern of editing against liberals and progressives and promoting a conservative viewpoints. Do you believe Wikipedia is a place to promote conservative thought?

1. Have you read Wikipedia rules? It doesn't matter what you think here, and it doesn't matter what I think either, because we need verifiable sources. Is it so difficult to find one name (Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly) and add their specific commentary? I didn't say all, I just said one.

2. Your reply makes it seem that you want to take the quote out of context and make John Kerry look bad. Whether you like him or not, that's not in accordance with Wikipedia's goals. Your quote about believing he "still has this picture in the back of this mind" strengthens my belief that you are pushing an ideological viewpoint. Did you read about the part where he says it's disproportionate, and did you ever consider that he was talking about the imbalance of poor people to rich in the military? Or were you just trying to look for that "silver bullet" to make Kerry look bad? Hell, I used to be a Republican myself, I know (and used to engage) in those tactics.--Folksong 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rashi B-day

You obviously did not read part of my original comment: “If it was held in 2006 to commemorate his 900th b-day [death, typo] in 2005, I'm sorry for changing it.” Read the comments better next time. You need to explain the fact that it was held in 2006 for the 2005 anniversary of his death.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

I don't need to explain anything. You find a page that says an exhibit was held in 2006. If you have reason to believe that it was actually held in 2005, then you should feel free to change it. But if you have no such reason, then you have no business editing the article, based merely on a guess that if the anniversary was in 2005 then the exhibit "must" have been held in that year. Wikipedia is for facts, or at least alleged facts, not random guesses. Zsero 23:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you do need to explain the matter better as it is misleading to those who are unaware of his death date (just in case they overlook it at the top). It might lead someone to believe there is conflicting information on the page. I’m sure you have noticed it by now that I have slightly changed the sentence to show the difference. You are correct in saying “Wikipedia is for facts”. So present all the facts the next time you try to edit a page. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 23:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC))
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/s/e/User_talk%7EZsero_c13e.html"