User talk:64.131.180.206

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Bilad al-Sham

Don't try to propose Semitic etymologies until you've learned a little about triconsonantal roots. AnonMoos 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your change to Ubangi River

Hello,

Someone has challenged the POV of your November 2006 edit to Ubangi River. Could you give a source for your information? DBlomgren 13:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The etymology of "Denmark"

Do you have any source or explanation for your recent posting on the Denmark page? --RenniePet 22:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "mark" is the cognate of "march" in English and French, and even that of 'marz' in Persian. They all mean border as well as borderland. Your translation of Denmark meaning "borders of the Danes" would better be translated as the marches rather than borders. What it would correctly imply is that those are the outlying territories populated by the Danes: which is exactly what Denmark is if it is viewed from the heartland of Europe. Therefore, the term "Danish Marches" or "Danes' Marches" would be better translation of Danemark than what you originally had. However, you were not incorrect. Just that the English word 'marches' is more accurate, and indeed related to the word 'mark'.

Thank you for your answer.
I am not the person responsible for the current definition with "borderland" and "border-forest". I am the one who misunderstood your contribution, and thought you meant "marshes" and had spelled it incorrectly. :-(
I've now checked into the meaning of the word "march" (and "marches"), and can see what you are talking about. But I'm a native English speaker, and my vocabulary is better than most English speakers, and yet I was totally unaware of that meaning of the word "march". This makes me suspect that most English speakers would not understand your translation of Denmark.
There's a discussion based on your contribution (and my incorrect "correction") on the Talk:Denmark page. You might want to participate... --RenniePet 15:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for your civil tongue and constructive response--something that is not very common among those who participate in improving Wiki (just note the bluster and the fatal self-confidence of the fellow whom I corrected on the etymology of the term "Syria." You are correct: not very many people still remember the old meaning of the term "march." In fact, the English term: 'margrave' (the 'guardian of the marches/borderlands') is derived from the same old root, with 'mar' being the abbreviated form of march or mark. By the way, the term 'margrave' is 'marzban' in Persian and marchpana in Sanskrit (MI)

> Thank you for your civil tongue and constructive response...
You're very welcome.
As for your comments on Wikipedians, my (fairly brief) experience is that most (80% ?) are helpful and friendly, most others (18% ?) are overly engrossed in their own opinions but tolerable, and then a few (2% ?) are, well, let's not get into name-calling, but a certain word comes to mind. :-)
Two suggestions, if I may be so free:
1. Get yourself a user-id. It is very easy, and gives you more credibility.
2. Provide a summary when you post a contribution, even just a couple of words.
The problem is that there is so much vandalism going on, and almost all of it is from IP-addresses (no user-id) and posted with no summary, and the result is that all postings from IP-addresses with no summary are viewed with suspicion and almost assumed to be vandalism.
Good luck. --RenniePet 08:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
PS. Another big advantage of having a Wikipedia user-id is that you can post contributions from any computer anywhere in the world and still keep track of them as your own. --RenniePet 09:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)