User talk:Akerbeltz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Damaidi 2 Scottish Gaelic 3 IPA 4 Your request at Talk:Basque language 5 Speedy deletion of Rio Grande, Región Autónoma del Atlántico Sur 6 Chich'en Itza' 7 Reference changes for Iroqouis 8 Mojave names 9 Cheyenne Names 10 Scots lenition 11 Neilston 12 Skerryvore 13 Award 14 Image copyright problem with Image:Zeanuriko bola jokoa.png 15 Re Aralar Mendilerroa 16 Love the combo of langs you have 17 Word "col" used in the article Txindoki 18 Strathblane 19 History of democracy 20 Cider template 21 5/26 DYK 22 Basque People 23 Skye 24 Mural art map 25 Sgiathan

[edit] Damaidi

Are you sure 大麥地 is the right damaidi in Ningxia? Elijahmeeks 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I was read various articles in the Chinese press regarding the new petroglyphs and that's the place name all of them use. (Akerbeltz 09:27, 30 May 2007 (GMT))

[edit] Scottish Gaelic

Hi, can you please not change the Scottish Gaelic link in articles to Scots_Gaelic. What you are linking to is just a redirect to Scottish Gaelic, so all you are doing is introducing a needless redirect. Thanks, SFC9394 15:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK ; ) I'm just going through a lot of the Gaelic place names adding {{prounounced| tags and I was using copy and paste from a template I have which happens to use Scots_Gaelic for the redirect rather than Scottish_Gaelic. Not that it matters as it still comes out the same place but I'll try and leave Scottish_Gaelic in ... there doesn't seem to be much consensus about it though, I've seen at least 4 variations of the ling

PS: Ah, I get you know, ok, I'll stick to Scottish_Gaelic in future

Hi, your addition of the Gaelic name in one or two places is also questionable, for example in Loch Ryan it makes no sense - at the end of the day this is the english language wikipedia, and while town names may make some sense, geographic locations (that are not used by anyone other than Gaelic speakers) is something more suited to the Gaelic wikipedia. Thanks, SFC9394 15:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Err.. says who? Last time I looked at a map it was still in Scotland, the name is blatantly Gaelic in origin and if you look at other English wiki pages (such as the entries on Irish and Welsh placenames) you'll find that they usually cite the Irish or Welsh form of the placename irrespective of whether the area is Irish or Welsh speaking. It's at the very least information pertaining to the locality, it's harly like I've added trivia about Mrs MacDonald on Cairnryan High Street. By the way, Scots Gaelic is gd, ga is Irish ; ) Akerbeltz 15:59, 1 December 2007 (GMT)

[edit] IPA

Okay, thanks for including pronounciations in IPA, but you do realise that a phonetic rendition in English spelling can be just as useful to most readers? It may be "international", but like Esperanto, only a handful of people actually know it to a major degree... meaning that its "international" aspect is somewhat undermined. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look across Wiki's entries almost all use the IPA because other ways of indicating pronunciation just aren't reliable. I agree that knowledge of the IPA isn't as widespread in the English speaking world as in other countries but that is best tackled by educating people, not by "dumbing down" (sorry, but I have spent too many hours sorting out Gaelic learner's pronunciation because of bad teaching and English "phonetic spellings" to be polite about it anymore >.<), wouldn't you agree? Someone who goes onto Wiki must clearly have a thirst for knowledge. --Akerbeltz 10:20, 09 January (GMT)

[edit] Your request at Talk:Basque language

References are included by using the <ref></ref> tags. Inside the tags you write the author, work and page numbers that you wish to refer to. Then it will appear as a note in the reference section. remember to add the work cited to the bibliography section as well. A reference in this way might look like this <ref>Aguirre Sorondo, 1988, pp. 212-218</ref> or you could include the title of the work as well and write <ref>Aguirre Sorondo, A "Tratado de Molinología: Los molinos en Guipúzcoa" Donostia: Eusko Ikaskuntza, 1988, pp. 212-218</ref>. Hope this helped. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's grand, thanks very much! --Akerbeltz 16:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]

[edit] Speedy deletion of Rio Grande, Región Autónoma del Atlántico Sur

A tag has been placed on Rio Grande, Región Autónoma del Atlántico Sur requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Yngvarr 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the page so that it is now free from the speedy deletion threat. When you create pages it is a good idea to include just a little more than that, so the article actually gives some information. Otherwise it may deleted at any time. BTW i have moved it to Rio Grande de Matagalpa since this seems to be the rivers full name.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Akerbeltz 13:26 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. And welcome to the project, I think i didn't get around to say that earlier. Looking forward to contributions from one more linguist.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to what Maunus says above, if you create a very short article, use one of the "construction" templates, like template:Underconstruction. I've also seen people create the page with template:hangon, for the same reason. That way, people with itchy speedy-delete buttons (like me) won't jump too fast. Yngvarr 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hints/help and the welcome! Beats the sort of argument I'm having with another user over whether the Gaelic forms of place names are relevant to articles on that place or not >.< --Akerbeltz 13:35 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts to that argument as well.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! I hope that should be the end of that argument, it's not like there's a lack of space on Wiki ; ) --Akerbeltz 14:15, 10 January 2008 (GMT)

One more thing: Can you find the Sumo/Ulwa name for the river? This page says its kiwaska - can you confirm that?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I don't have anything printed to hand on Ulwa (my brother refused to carry more dictionaries back !)but the Ulwa (online( dictionary (http://slaxicon.org/files/ulwa/dict/index.html) does give kî rocky waska water, river. There seems to be some confusion over the placename in Spanish too, there's an ethnographic report which lists the Kiwaska as a tributary of the Río Grande de M. (http://butler.cc.tut.fi/~fabre/BookInternetVersio/Dic=Misumalpa.pdf) but looking around, the name seems to have undergone changes (for example http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2006/febrero/12/mosaico/mosaico-20060212-02.html). I would say that it seems likely that Kî Waska is the Ulwa name for the Río Kiwaska but whether the Río Kiwaska and the Río Grande de M are the same, I cannot tell right now. I'll see if I can find something about these two rivers somewhere reliable --Akerbeltz 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, i wont add it then untill we are sure its the same river.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chich'en Itza'

By the way: I am not sure that your inclusion to the Chich'en Itza' page is necessary since it only provides a different orthographical version of the Yucatec name than the one that is already provided. While I appreciate that Yucatec has tone and vowel length distinctions many orthographies do not distinguish those. The pages title is in fact the same name from the yucatec language it just uses and orthography that doesn't distinguish tone and vowel length. Maybe the best solution would be to put the yucatec pronunciation side by side with the english pronunciation? Also it would be good to cite the source for the pronunciation given. Where do you have it from?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the modern standard for Yucatec which is based on the Diccionario Cordemex. I've sort of steered clear of giving references for place names I've added as long as the orthography used is a standardised and accepted form (I looked around before I decided on that, for most place names people don't cite references unless it's an actual discussion about diverging forms). I agree that spelling conventions are a bit muddled in Central and South America but I think that it's a matter of respect that one should cite the "correct" form if a linguistic community has gone to the trouble of deciding on a standard, no matter how sloppy people spell in everyday life. The way my mother writes chinese you wouldn't want to match up against what the dictionary says but that doesn't affect the "correct" form now does it? ; ) --Akerbeltz 13:43, 10 January 2008 (GMT)]

Actually now I see that you add indigenous pronunciations to many placenames. It would be very good if you sourced it each time: I don't suppose you speak Yucatec Maya and Cheyenne fluently and knows the placenames by heart. I feel that placenames like these might be challenged when someone comes and asks "how do we know this is correct" or "my teacher said it was ...". Also I would like you to source it just to satisfy my own curiosity :) Anyway for Yucatec the Cordemex is the authoritative refernce and I agree that it should be used when representing Yucatec. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL you're just trying to create work for me, aren't you? When it comes to languages I don't speak (well, even when it comes to the ones I speak) I only ever add native place names from printed sources, preferring those which adhere to a/the standard or are used in educational programmes. In case of Cheyenne, that would be the English Cheyenne Student Dictionary Northern Cheyenne Language and Culture Centre Bilingual Education Programme, Lame Deer 1976, the Karuk is from Lang J. Ararapíkva Heydey 1994. I can't remember which source exactly the Maya T'àan is from, I used a document I prepared some time ago for a presentation but it way either the Cordemex or a book based on that, possibly the Grabowski/Kolmer guidebook. --Akerbeltz 13:55, 10 January 2008 (GMT)]

OK. I've added the cordemex as source for Chich'èen Ìitsha', just to avoid it being challenged. I suppose for lesser known mayan cites its not first priority to add citations for the names - although it is always easier to do it when first adding it than if someone challenged it later and you have to dig through the books. Good work anyway, I appreciate any job done that give people a better feeling and understanding of native american languages.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I think I'll do that in future where it's likely to be controversial. And you're very welcome, I'm not proficient enough in anything native american to contribute to linguistic articles but I figured that adding the place names (as you get on so many European and Asian place related pages) should add to the presence of such languages. After all, someone en route to a beach holiday to Kan Kum Kàab might just get curious enough to click on the Maya link. --Akerbeltz 14:09, 10 January 2008 (GMT)]

[edit] Reference changes for Iroqouis

I saw you last couple of edits and thought to leave you with a link to Wikipedia:Citation templates. I don't know enough about the subject to comment on content of the edits but I've found such templates helpful in the past for my own edits. Have a good day. :) Trilobitealive (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mojave names

Thanks for these!

For whatever reason, I wasn't able to find the Mojave name for Kingman in Munro's dictionary. Perhaps I was looking at an older edition? A word of caution, be careful when adding these - I got into a lengthy edit war at Tucson, Arizona where a RfC was held and it was eventually decided that names in Native American languages do not belong on the first line, a decision that struck me as very discriminatory and which I have not followed in any case outside of Tucson and Mesa, Arizona, where it has since been moved to the Trivia section.

However, I'd also like to ask that unless there's justification (for example, Phoenix is the capital of Arizona, a state in which part of the Mojave reservation lies), you not add names for places that are outside of a peoples' traditional homeland, for example the Mojave names for Yuma or Maricopa or Peach Springs, or say the Navajo name for Needles or Kingman. --Node (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome :)

I agree in general principle about "out of area" place names, hence the lack of the Navajo name for Washington DC but it's a little tricky at times telling where the "territory" ends. For one thing, does one take the historic territory or the current "reservation" area? If you take the latter, then native american names would mostly disappear off Wiki so I guess I cast the "net" a bit wider to include a number of names in the general area. --Akerbeltz 19:06, 20 January 2008 (GMT)]

It definitely doesn't end at the current reservation, if it did, I would want us to take off the Mojave name for Kingman, for example. It's not that hard to find a map of pre-contact territorial boundaries of Native American groups in a specific area. While such boundaries fluctuated somewhat in some parts and were by no means set in stone, it is quite different to put, say, a Yavapai name on a place that is 100 miles from what anyone would consider traditional Yavapai territory than it would be to put a Yavapai name on a place that could be considered near the border. For example, Maricopa is definitely over 100 miles from traditional Mojave land. So it's certainly subjective, but there are limits, I think. Also, if a modern settlement is at the heart of a group's traditional territory rather than on the periphery, I personally think it would be inappropriate to put another group's name for it (for example Yuma, which is Cocopa and Quechan). --Node (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheyenne Names

Following on the dialog about Mojave names above, I am wary of the addition of names in languages other than English for reasons I outline here. I see that you have added Cheyenne names for places like Miles City, Montana, and Rapid City, South Dakota among others. Some have already been deleted by other editors (eg. Billings, Montana).

First a couple questions. Are these names phoneticizations of the English names or historical Cheyenne names for the places now widely known by their American English names? Either way, why aren't pronunciations provided for these?

Second as you indicate above, "out of area" place names are tricky, but not just because it is difficult to tell where the traditional area occupied by a colonized or occupied people was in relation to their current reservation. But consider that in the example of the Cheyenne Indians, they traditionally occupied territory further east in Minnesota and the Dakotas. The area in and around their reservation has only been assigned to them by virtue of their struggles against other tribes and European Americans in the 19th and 20th century. Have you considered this obscurity in applying these place names?

Third, if these names are phoneticized versions of American English names, some of these may be insulting to native speakers of the language. For instance Miles City, Montana is named for Nelson A. Miles who served in the so-called Indian Wars against the Cheyenne people, among others.

Fourth, per the guidelines for WP:USCITY,

"Names of the city should be given in each of the city's official languages. Pronunciation of the city name should be in IPA as per Help:Pronunciation, though can also be in the main local language(s) if thought helpful."

The "main local language" is certainly English, and no Native American language would be recognized as official off the reservation. Currently, the Wikipedia article concerning the Cheyenne language, indicates a distribution of 1,700 speakers on the reservation. Given these reasons, I'd say that the addition of Cheyenne language (or other American Indian language) to geographic places outside the reservation boundaries would be exceptional.

If your goal is to advocate for the expansion of First Peoples languages, I might suggest expanding the presence of the language in the Cheyenne language article. Firstly by providing resourced historic ranges for some of these languages.

Using the above rationale, my editorial choice would be to limit native place names to places on reservations, unless there are a community of speakers off the reservation and/or it is recognized by local governments as an official language.

Thanks for reading. --Ltvine | Talk 03:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have not responded here or on my talk page to the arguments I outlined above. I had thought that I could learn more about your rationale to the application of Cheyenne names to articles. Seeing as how you don't seem to be interested in entering into a debate about the issue or answering my questions, I will follow a course which removes Cheyenne names from geographic articles in Montana, save those which are located on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. If you do in fact wish to discuss the issue after the fact, please let me know. Thanks, and all the best -- Ltvine | Talk 03:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ltvine, my apologies, this somehow must have slipped past me. ^_^ Ok, where to start... they're not approximations of the English place-names but the indigenous forms, Rapid City for example translates as Running Water.

Rationale... apologies for the groan but this seems to happen on every place-name project, someone takes offence at adding the "other" name because the language has been driven to extinction locally. Many settlements all over the world have more than one name and a lot of them are listed on the wiki entries for those places. If you do a random browse through wiki pages on towns in Hokkaido, Scotland, Wales, the Basque Country, New Zealand or South Africa to name but a few, you'll find that they list indigenous names irrespective of the remaining numbers of speakers. Hence the addition of Cheyenne place-names even in areas that were traditionally Cheyenne associated. Does that make more sense to you? :) Akerbeltz 12:01, 22 February 2008 (GMT)]

I am aware that the same place can be called by different names by "others" who speak (or historically spoke different languages), and that those alternative names whether of historical or contemporary use have a legitimate place within the English Wikipedia because it supports a recognition that there once was (or continues to be) another language or languages spoken by a minority of the people. I am also aware that support for this effort is one way of recognizing languages in decline. This is generally a good effort. First, I would ask what place-name project you are advancing? Your own or is it a WikiProject or other Wikipedia:collaboration. I would be interested to know where I could find the guidelines governing your place-name project.

I see that Wikipedia:Naming conventions provides guidance generally for using names in languages other than English:

Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.

Perhaps the note of caution is included because of frequent disputes. I would be interested to know if you, through your project, had other guidelines that come into play when including names in other languages. I see what has been done in the examples you cite, but I can point out other examples that do not (yet).

What was your method for determining which places to apply Cheyenne language names? I draw your attention to your inclusion of Cheyenne names for places on the Crow Indian Reservation (eg. Pryor, Montana, Wyola, Montana, and others). Here--according to the Crow language language article--there are speakers of Apsáalooke. Indeed there are more speakers of Crow than any other Native American language. Logically, it would be more useful to include Crow language names for these places. What do you think? -- Ltvine | Talk 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a formal project as such, though I am aware of a handful of people who regularly work on place-names too. Maybe an organised project would be a good idea, not that I have the time to take one another one but establishing a framework sounds like a good plan. My experience, especially within the European context has been that the addition of place-names in minoritised languages that are or were spoken in a particular area are generally accepted to be relevant and tend to be included in the headline right after the name in the official/majority/predominant language. For example Rennes has both its Gallo and Breton listed in the headline in spite of the fact that Breton hasn't been spoken in that area since the IX century.

The only serious arguments that have cropped up can be summed up in "I think that language is dead, go away, leave my page alone", for example with one chap who's very possessive about "his" pages about the Galloway (Loch Ryan). The other issue that has sometimes cropped up has been spelling but those problems are usually straightforward to settle.

For most European languages such a broad approach works well, there are extensive records for most languages. Languages in some parts of the world (North America, Central America, Australia) aren't quite as lucky and records are often scarce and hard to come by. So in the case of Cheyenne and a few others I basically took relevant dictionaries, went through them and if I found a place-name I checked if it was broadly speaking within that nation's (historical) area and if yes, I added it. Doing it the other way round isn't really practical for these languages, especially since there are thousands of new settlements in those areas.

I agree that in some of these areas Crow, Absaroka etc are equally or even more deserving of inclusion but my library is currently short of material on both and I don't regard lifting them off random sites on the web as good practice unless it's a bona fide site. : )

Would you be interested in a place-name project yourself? Akerbeltz 21:04, 22 February 2008 (GMT)]

First let me apologize for the length of time since my last post on this issue. I had other things to do, and wanted time to think about this place name issue in light of my own perceptions and biases; think about the complexity of the proposition of a place-name project; evaluate what sort of time commitment I could afford; and do some research.

Let me begin by saying that I think an organized project of some kind is a good idea for several reasons. Firstly, I think the existing guidelines--those that I was able to find, and have quoted in part above in previous posts--don't cover the expansion or addition of minority or extinct languages to articles subordinate to the language in which the article is titled. So as you say a framework for this doesn't exist. Currently, the guidelines don't support the inclusion of minority or extinct languages after the article name in the lead. (see WP:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) Note: In error, I mis-linked the reference for the quote of the guidelines I made in my previous post). Changing this state of affairs might be one of the initial elements of a place-name project. You'll note that I refer to the guidelines for global WikiProject Cities. I see that the UK Cities Wikiproject doesn't address the issue of toponymy. One example I did find was Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) which gives guidance for place names in Māori. As you may know New Zealand has three official languages including Māori. I really wonder whether consensus could be reached for the inclusion of minority or extinct place names in the broader community. Here I should clarify, that I'm concerned with the application of this in the American context in particular. I don't disagree that the European context has more traceable historical and linguistic characteristics.

Second, in casual reading of local newspapers this past week I see where territorial disputes--historical and current are in dispute. I'm not sure how to equitably sort through what indigenous names to apply where in light of what I've been reading, or formulate any general rules or guidelines. (Perhaps other national or subnational governments have a framework for recognition, but I'm not aware of any federal recognition of place names other than those considered official by the USGS). One example I ran across concerns plans by a tribe recently acknowledged by the federal government, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe. They are planning a casino that locals and one other tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, believe for whatever reason isn't within the Cowlitzs' "traditional homeland". I'll note that the Cowlitz also don't have a reservation which clouds the issue further. You can read more at the website of the Seattle Times. This is why I earlier made the argument that by keeping the application of indigenous languages to areas of their sovereignty provided some clarity to the issue. It also wards off disputes in the wiki, and avoids problems of original research and maintains neutrality--which as you know are official policy not merely guides. You say that you found the Cheyenne names in dictionary sources you have? May I have the title? Perhaps I can find it in one of my local libraries.

Third, I'm not sure I have the stamina for an endeavor like this project. The only formal project I currently present myself as a member is the Montana WikiProject. Even there my involvement is cyclical. Primarily, I think because of issues like these. Issues which mirror the complexities and inequities in society but also aren't easily reflected in a balanced way in an consensus driven encyclopedia. But its very interesting, and I inevitably get drawn back in--because there is so much more to add. (Or because some vandal is stripping meaning from the work.)

In closing a reminder that if anyone presents the argument that "I think that language is dead, go away, leave my page alone", they're running afoul of Wikipedia's policy against article ownership and possibly are in conflict of interest. Tell 'em I said so :).

Thanks for reading, Ltvine | Talk 06:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scots lenition

Hi Akerbeltz,

I no longer have the source I was using for that. Are you saying the labials are e.g. /fj/ rather than /fʲ/, and that the nasal is /ɲ/? If so, they are not examples of lenition and should be removed from the list. kwami (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Kwami

Gaelic has replaced its palatalised bilabials /bʲ/ /fʲ/ /mʲ/ /pʲ/ with either the plain consonant or one with a glide in front of a back vowel: /b/~/bj/ /f/~/fj/ /m/~/mj/ and /p/~/pj/. Each of these eight shows different behaviour under lenition so the lenited counterparts are: /v/~/vj/ ø~/j/ /v/~/vj/ and /f/~/fj/. As far as the nasals go, only Irish has a palatalised alveolar /nʲ/, Gaelic retains the true palatal /ɲ/ which it lenites to /n/. So of course all these are examples of lenition in Gaelic ;) --Akerbeltz 13:21, 19 February 2008 (GMT)]

PS I don't know which source you got that from either but as a general word of warning, linguistic sources on Scots Gaelic have to be read with care as many linguists who don't specialise in Gaelic linguistics often confuse Irish Gaelic with Scots Gaelic. The system you described looks suspiciously like Irish. If you check with good Gaelic linguisits like Oftedal (The Gaelic of Leurbost), Borgstrøm (The Dialects of Skye and Ross-shire; The Dialects of the Outer Hebrides) or Ternes (The Phonemic Analysis of Scottish Gaelic) you'll see that the system of labials and lenition is described just as I put it to begin with. --Akerbeltz 10:28, 20 February 2008 (GMT)]

Okay, thanks. However, since these examples are now either redundant (/bj/ → /vj/ is subsumed by /b/ → /v/) or not actually lenition (there is no 'weakening' in /ɲ/ → /n/, just a change of place; at least, I don't believe an analogous change of say /θ/ → /s/ is considered lenition), I deleted them. kwami (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted some of the changes (labials/ɲ) but I've left the other things you've changed such as the velarisation mark - the tilde is more common in Gaelic linguistics but I suppose in pure IPA it's slightly ambiguous. I've also left the categories that you included and simply expanded the label of Loss of secondary articulation to Loss of secondary articulation or weakening, I think that should keep everyone happy ^_^ --Akerbeltz 16:31, 20 February 2008 (GMT)]

But all of the categories are 'weakening'. That's what lenition means. We could put all Scots examples under that one heading. The point isn't to give a complete accounting of Scots, but to illustrate lenition. We're now illustrating lenition with examples that AFAIK are not lenition. That is, I believe your edits are factually wrong. (The labials I don't care about. They're redundant, but not incorrect.) kwami (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm I'm not really convinced by the argument, especially since no other linguist has ever queried /ɲ/>/n/ as technically not being lenition. I suppose you could argue that the fact it appears in the same environment in these languages may simply be analogy, not lenition from an academic point of view. I think mostly linguists (and some of them spent their lives picking of aspects of Gaelic phonology, believe you me) have been happy to agree with the native speaker intuition that /ɲ/ /nˠ/ and /rˠ/ are "strong" and /l/ /n/ and /ɾ/ "weak" without worrying too much perhaps if it can be rationalised within the existing model of lenition in a strict sense. I'd be more inclined to investigate if our definition of lenition might not require an additional category rather than try to make the language obey the model. After all, the celtic languages provide the showcase examples of lenition so we should pay attention but for the time being I think I can live with where you moved /ʎ/ on the page. I'll ask my old phonology prof next time I see him to see if he can shed some light on this.

I hadn't realised that m > v is typologically that rare. It did go through the intermediate stage of /β/ mind you /as did /b/) and in modern Scots Gaelic is usually accompanied by nasalisation. Quite a few of the consonantas had intermediate stages, /t/ went via /θ/ and /d/ via /ð/. --Akerbeltz 22:28, 20 February 2008 (GMT)]

LOL I'm a fool [...] <- NM that posting, doesn't work --Akerbeltz 00:14, 21 February 2008 (GMT)]

Ah, if I understand you correctly, and /m/ lenits (is that a word?) to [ṽ], that's very interesting. Not only does that look like typical lenition phonetically, but nasalized fricatives are very rare, and so fascinating in of themselves. (Some South "Arabic" languages have them, and they are reconstructed for Middle Chinese.)

Also, I have no problem with /ɲ, ʎ/ → /n, l/ being lenition. That is completely intuitive to me. The problem I have is that I've never seen a change from more to less marked place of articulation called lenition. (For example, in Latin /k/ before a front vowel becoming French /s/, people talk about palatal assimilation, and spiratization, but I don't recall the change to alveolar ever being included as lenition.) I'm worried that we're getting into potentially misleading claims we can't justify. If we can find a source that says this explicitly, I'd be happy. Otherwise, we can give these as examples of historical degemination, as you suggest. kwami (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

lenites is the word ; )... Gaelic does have nasalisation but it's rarely obligatory or distinctive. I don't think anyone has ever done a proper study of this but nasalisation tends to be more frequent near a lenited /m/. It's usually marked on the nearest vowel but tends to spread in either direction. No one has ever researched properly though if the nasalisation starts on the /v/ or on the vowel.

I agree about the /k/>/s/ thing, that's normally classed as assimilation since it went through various intermediate stages like /kʲ/ and /tʃ/. But overall I don't think you CAN draw a clear line between assimilation and lenition actually, the two quite comfotably overlap if you put the definitions for either side by side.

Sources... hm, since a degree in linguistics and celtic doesn't seem good enough, what kind of source do you suggest? The ones that I mentioned above all list /ɲ/>/n/ /ʎ/>/n/ as lenition but I can find others I'm sure. --Akerbeltz 11:39, 21 February 2008 (GMT)]

Sorry, I'm not sure what sources you're referring to there. What I am assuming (based on total ignorance) is that a class of grammatically related changes are all lumped under lenition because most of them are lenition, and it's not worth the effort to nitpick. That is, lenition is being used as a grammatical term only loosely based on phonetics. Or perhaps Scots is just seen as having undergone a shift from an original /nʲ/>/n/ /lʲ/>/l/, so it's historically lenition. I certainly wouldn't have any problem listing all of these under 'lenition' in the Scots phonology article, since people could come here to look it up and say, well, these couple cases aren't actually lenition today; they must've been thrown in cos of yadda yadda yadda. Or are /ɲ/>/n/ and /ʎ/>/l/ considered to be loss of 2ary articulation? Are they actually palatalized palatals, /ɲʲ/ and /ʎʲ/, as they are in Spanish, so we could argue it that way? Or maybe /ɲ/, /ɲʲ/, and /nʲ/ are close enough that no one cares.

My point of /k/>/s/ could have been better made with French creoles which have undergone /ʃ/>/s/ and /ʒ/>/z/. This is a reduction of markedness similar to /ɲ/>/n/, but I've never heard it called lenition. My concern is not to nitpick about Scots, but to avoid examples that do not clearly illustrate the topic, or which may be misleading. People come here because they don't know what lenition is. If we tell them that /ɲ/>/n/ and /ʎ/>/l/ are lenition, wouldn't it be reasonable for them to assume that /ʃ/>/s/ and /ʒ/>/z/ are also lenition, and by extension /θ/>/s/ and /ð/>/z/? Such loss of markedness often leads to fortition, as with /θ/>/t/ and /ð/>/d/ in many dialects of English, so it might not be a good idea to confound these processes (i.e. "loss of markedness = weakening") in the minds of our readers. kwami (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I bet Joan Bybee would've loved Scots. The nasalization left over from the /m/>/v/ calls the idea of discrete phonemes into question, and I bet it would be a nuisance for that warmed-over Generative Phonology we call OT. kwami (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I agree. I'm not sure if they'd ever come up with GP at all if they'd started with something other than English.

Now back to lenition (it's Scots Gaelic by the way, Scots is a Germanic language). We're having this discussion spread over 3 pages, the sources were on one of the other 2 ; ). It's not that easy to establish whether the historical origins of /ɲ/ etc are /nʲ/ or not. Given it's ultimately Indo-European, it probably all started out as conditioned /n/ /nʲ/ etc but that doesn't help us.

I've done a quick look around and I think Lass (Phonology, Cambridge 1984) has a way out for us. On page 178 he defines the beast as follows: Perhaps the best way to look at lenition/fortition overall is in terms of two strength scales, one of openness and one of sonority. (with I nice diagram I'm not even going to try and replicated here but it has a voiceless stop at to top left corner of a rectangle and a Ø to the middle right). I think we can both agree on that. The helpful bit comes on page 183 when he talks about strength hierarchies: The Uralic data in (8.16) shows another interesting pattern. If you look at which segments weaken in particular languages, you not there doesn't seem to be - in any position - an across-the-board lenition: certain place categories are 'weak' or 'strong' and they vary from language to language. ... The strength classes also seem to be determined by different features: Hungarian has [+grave] as the weak initial class, [+anterior] as the weak medial; while [+grave] is the meadial weak class in Ostyak and the strong initial in Vogul etc.

I have always read that as there being no absolute definition of lenition from a purely phonological sense that can be applied across the board; there are strong tendencies but in the end it boils down to the hierarchy in the language.

And beyond that, if we take features into account then we get the following /ʎ/ is [+high] [+tense], /l// is [-high] [-tense], /ɲ/ is [+high] [+tense] and /n/ is [-high] [+tense], so you could even argue that lenition in these two cases is both (from the languages POV) a shift from strong > weak variants of the same sound and a loss of the [+high] and/or [+tense] feature. That is, if you accept the existance of the feature [+/- fortis], then we can reduce both arguments to loss of +feature here.

Alternatively, if you're just looking for a linguist who lists these two under lenition, then how about Ternes, E The Phonemic Analysis of Scottish Gaelic Hamburg: Helmut Buske 1989 (p. 69) --Akerbeltz 11:39, 21 February 2008 (GMT)]

Shall we add an extra session then for place lenition? It does make sense that place would be affected - lenition tends to occur in 'weak' positions, like grammatical endings, and there you often find a reduced number of place distinctions. We could note that it seems to be language specific, unlike the other forms of lenition which are found across the board, but I'd like to avoid specifying features, so we're not held hostage to a particular theoretical approach. kwami (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a plan, stick the extra section at the bottom of the lenition list with a mention that in Goidelic languages there is also place lenition and that place lenition is rare/unusual. I'll look around a bit when I get some time to see if there are any other cases of it in other languages. Not holding out that much hope, usually when lenition is mentioned everyone starts reaching for the Celtic books ; )

By the way, do you know how to make the colums align better in the loss of 2ndary section? Akerbeltz 23:59, 21 February 2008 (GMT)]

Combined them all into one table, which forced the columns to align.

I forget the author, but there's an introductory historical linguistics text that draws most of its examples from Austronesian rather than IE. kwami (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neilston

I've reverted the addition of a Gaelic "name" at the Neilston page for reasons outlined at Talk:Neilston. If you wish to restore this, please seek a consensus to do so first. Your addition lacked citation and so can be removed outright at any time. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the source you found, I've restored the Gaelic translation and apologise if I came across stubborn. I have to say I'm still surprised such a name exists! The experience of having a cherished article on the main page is very stressful and this, coupled with some issues of civility I was dealing with elsewhere, meant I was perhaps more uptight than ususal.

I suppose now Neilston just needs an article on the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL you have my sympathy. It was perhaps the wrong time to add the Gaelic as I'm sure you've had hundreds of edits to check on since it was featured. I may have been a bit forceful too, it's just the frequency of this sort of argument from people less open minded than you. We'll see about the Gaelic article ; ) Akerbeltz 18:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)]

Acutally the issue has been raised before, but about Welsh, and translations for "English" places (such as Chester and Liverpool). I help contribute to a guideline for UK settlements at WP:UKCITIES and input from someone with greater knowledge about when and where to include the Celtic language names would be a help, if not now, then perhaps further down the line. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to help. What are you looking for? Sort of a list of areas where they should be included in the first line and where they should be kept to a separate section in the text body? Akerbeltz 19:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)]

The main problem has been verifiability but also summising how notable/widespread the name is, coupled with how and where to present it (in the history section, in the lead, in the infobox or a combination). What would be helpful would be a matrix or table of examples which includes examples of their use/a third party source. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I forgot to mention (well just forget) that I had searched for Neilston's Gaelic name here (from the list at the bottom of this page), but didn't find it. It's a good source however. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I know. That was his first "batch" that he did some time ago, he's been busy since but the new/other data hasn't been put together in the same way and is currently only available via the college's website :) Akerbeltz 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)]

I'm going to put together a proposal page on how to deal with this issue. The link will be at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements/Alternative language place name. I want to put together a draft (based on discussions I've seen) on when and where these are appropriate, how they should be displayed and what sources people can use. Once a draft is put together, I'd like to share it with yourself, then, bring it to the community and see what's what. Hopefully it should help. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skerryvore

Thanks for the directions re Foula. If you have a spare moment could you look at this diff [1]? The translations of the small rocks are not as the source says and this may just be speculation. Thanks. 07:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Hm, what is it the source actually says? Here's my twopence about the Skerrymore page: 1) the infobox says Great Skerry, the body Big Skerry... you can translate it as either but I think consistency would be better. 2) Bonn Sligheach: I'd expect that (especially with the definite article in the translation) to be Am Bonn Sligheach (most Gaelic descriptive place names contain the definite article anyway, much more so than in English, even though it was dropped a lot when they were recorded on English maps). The translation is fine otherwise. The main question here is of chicken and egg... if the source states Boinshley as the name only with no meaning given, then it's a possible interpretation but can't be guaranteed to be right. Unless there are other sources which state at least the meaning. If Boinshley is given with a meaning that would make the individual elements quite clear. The problem is that without a source stating the meaning or Gaelic form it could be something else too. 3) Bo Ruadh appears on maps but should be Bò Ruadh or more likely even A' Bhò Ruadh because without the article it would be A Red Cow which is highly unlikely.

If you tell me what the source actually says, then I might be able to be more clear. Is this H Smith again? ; ) Akerbeltz 12:11, 4 April 2008 (GMT)]

It's Bella Bathhurst's (2000) The Lighthouse Stevensons. She says: "Boinshley (the 'deceitful bottom') lay [near] the proposed site; Bo-rhua (the 'red rock') lay between Boinshley and the main reef." Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes it clear, thanks. That makes Boinshley Am Bonn Sligheach without any doubt but Bo-rhua is nothing bovine but without any doubt Am Bogha Ruadh (bogha is a submerged rock in Gaelic). You want me to change that? I can add the phonetics at the same time. Akerbeltz 14:03, 4 April 2008 (GMT)]

That's great - many thanks. Let me know if I can do anything in return. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No need, pleasure... most of the time I have to fend off anti Gaelic wikipedians so it's a refreshing change to have someone ask for help with a Gaelic name/entry. Let me know if there's anything else you want me to look at! Akerbeltz 22:04, 7 April 2008 (GMT)]

[edit] Award

		The Basque Barnstar of National Merit
		For some really outstanding work on Basque-related articles, I present you with this barnstar. Please keep up such remarkable work. Regards, Húsönd 22:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Zeanuriko bola jokoa.png

Hi Akerbeltz!
We thank you for uploading Image:Zeanuriko bola jokoa.png, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally uploaded Image:Zeanuriko bola jokoa.png and Image:Oholtzar pasaboloa.png on this account rather than my Commons account... presumably deleting these will not affect the others? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Aralar Mendilerroa

Hi Akerbeltz, I appreciate your English language corrections, there's still much to improve for me in the writing of it. In contrast, I reverted my sentence on grazing, as I have remarked on the Edit summary. In addition, I think the heading "Aralar Mendilerroa" is not very appropriate; it is hardly used in Basque (only science or educational texts) and for an English-language reader can be misleading or obscure. I would change it, if possible (I don't know how). Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Iñaki, ez horregatik ; ) As far as the name goes, I'm going by the name on the maps (the Basque school maps and my wall map). It's the (or at least one of the) official names irrespective of how common that is with English speakers - I don't think it has an English name anyway and making one up won't be that helpful I think. At the moment Aralar leads to a disambiguation page, it would be easy to add another for (for example) Aralar Mountains but I doubt that any English speaker would enter that as a search term. What did you have in mind? Akerbeltz (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Akerbeltz, I think it would be better to stay in line with this pattern: Name (most relevant and accurate description in English between brackets), eg Aralar (massif) or (mountain range). I find this to be the best way out for an encyclopaedia with this disambiguation problem. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm I'm not sure. I think the fundamental question is whether generic elements in place names (Mountain, Lake, Loch, River etc) are translated from other languages or retained. There are obviously cases where there are long established English forms of foreign place names (for example Lake Geneva) but for less well known place names the native term is often retained, especially if the elements are not that ... common. For example Zugspitze remains in its German form, not *Zug Peak. Take the case of Mont Blanc for example - both elements are clear but the full native name is retained, not *Mount Blanc or *White Mountain. There's no clear cut rules but I think for such - if you pardon the word - obscure place names (from an anglophone POV) shouldn't need translation except in a note on the meaning of the name. After all, where would you draw the line? By the same token we would have to consider listing Arrigorriaga as Redrockton or something. I think the safest way of dealing with this is to use a form that is used on maps unless there are established English names. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think you've pushed too far the example. In the case of Mont Blanc, a well-known reference as such, if disambiguation was needed that would be something like Mont Blanc (mountain) and Mont Blanc (pen brand) (isn't it?). Besides, Aralar Mendilerroa is a rather technical term. As for your corrections, I appreciate the grammar, but please don't mess with style unless it is neatly unclear or obscure. Cheers Iñaki LL (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Iñaki, just checkin: are we talking about the name (ie URL) of a page like Aralar or are we talking about the name given in the text?

I'm quite happy to leave in words like "stunning" or "dramatic" even though I personally don't think that's a good style for an encyclopedia (not an English one anyway). But I think you'll find that some editors take a much harsher line and it's actually against Wiki guidelines (see peacock terms). Akerbeltz (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Akerbeltz, I'm referring to the name of the article, as opposed to the political party Aralar. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Love the combo of langs you have

It is definitely one of the more interesting combinations I've seen to date *grin*. -Yupik (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL thanks but you're not doing too badly yourself ; ) Akerbeltz (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• grin*. -Yupik (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Word "col" used in the article Txindoki

I discussed this issue in a translation forum. Apparently, most often pass is used in English (ES collado, FR col, EU lepo), but a an English-speaking participant (senior member of the forum) approved of the word as follows: "in English there is the geographical term col from the Old French form for "cou" meaning neck, a low point between two summits, in other words, a mountain pass. This appears to correspond to the definitions of collado given by Inaxio L and Californio". I hope it's alright. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you learn something new every day. Well, the word exists... but since I had to go look it up and a couple of other native speakers I asked had never ever heard of the word either, I wonder if it might not be better to use pass here instead. I think col is the kind of word that a geologist might know or a mapmaker but not most people. You know, as a technical term on a geology page I'm all for it but since the caption is only to describe the location in general, I feel that the word is out of place personally. Up to you, I won't argue. Thanks for answering! Akerbeltz (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, in fact I was quite surprised to see that apparently there was no mountain specific English term for that meaning, but since it's not common I'll revert it to pass. Thanks! Iñaki LL (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strathblane

Hello again! I hope all is well,

I just wondered, do you know what the Gaelic name of Strathblane might be, or, even better, where I might be able to verify it? Hope you can help, :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, life is as ok as one might expect; hope you'Re ok too.

Certainly, I've added the Gaelic and a reference for it, save you having to fight with accents and IPA. I've also amended the Gaelic nonsense that's there at the moment about the meaning of the river-name. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I have roots in Strathblane so it's an article I'm hoping to improve. Doesn't seem to be a great deal of material around about it, but I'll see what I can do. Thanks again for the Gaelic. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, any time. Let me know if there are any others in that article/area you want looking at. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of democracy

Thanks for your addition at the article of the history of democracy. Please note that at the moment the article is under revision. It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide some sources relevant to your entry.

Thank you in advance. A.Cython (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. The sources would be on the elizate page but if you want to cite them on the history of democracy page too, that would be Kasper, M. Baskische Geschichte Primus: 1997. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, I will add the citation in order not to be forgotten and I will look at them in more detail as soon as possible (even though it will in a few weeks time)... Again, thank you! :D A.Cython (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cider template

Category:Wikipedia page-section templates is your friend :) --Stlemur (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5/26 DYK

On 26 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sagardotegi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 00:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Basque People

(copy-pasted from User talk:French Tourist)

I agree, the reason that something is a fact doesn't make it notable but in the absence of a good reason of why the fear of imprisonment/death is *not* a notable fact when talking about emigration, there is no good reason either for removing it. You wouldn't delete the fact that the recurring wars in Afghanistan are responsible for the millions of refugees either, would you? Akerbeltz (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not in Afghanistan for two reasons : 1) this is very recent history, and articles are biased in favour of present ; 2) the numbers of refugees can be quoted and are indeed impressive ("Over five millions refugees" according to the article). But I would delete that Edict of Fontainebleau was responsible of emigration of about one million of French people (and of persecution of many others) in a general article about French people (too ancient), or indeed in the article about Basques for two reasons : a) a bit ancient but mostly b) no hint of a numerical proportion of departures due to political reasons. Anyway, you should think about sourcing a polemical information if you wish to reinstate it. French Tourist (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skye

I'd much appreciate it if you could take a look at Talk:Skye#Etymology. I just launched into a GA nomination, and the derivation of "winged isle" is now being queried. I'm in no position to unravel the myths from the realities. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I responded on the talk page. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Scottish Islands Award of Excellence
		This award is given with many thanks to Akerbeltz for assistance in helping Skye to become a Good Article from Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Hey, thanks a lot - it was a pleasure, any time again! Akerbeltz (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mural art map

Sorry, Akerbeltz, I have no idea where the cave systems exactly are - probably everywhere, at least in the mountain area. It looks like a gigantic puzzle and would only add "noise" to the map maybe. Another issue would be to place all (or all important) archaeological locations, with or without art, and maybe even separate the different cultural phases... but I could never find that info for all the region together, as somebody drew a line in the middle of it and since then the academies of each side of it, blank the other, as it would be desertic. I was lucky I could find a reasonably good generalistic map for France online, as otherwise I may have needed to travel to Bordeaux to buy a book in a language I would not be able to read in - and well... I'd never do it surely.

But if you think you can do that yourself, please feel free: I released all rights.

Note: also my image tech is pretty poor, as it's all my obsolete software. --Sugaar (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sgiathan

Do chonac ar an alt i dtaobh an Oileáin Sciathánaigh (Skye) go bhfuileann tú ag rá ná fuil aon taifead ar sgiathan i nGaelainn na hAlban, agus an tátal a bhaineas as san ná fuil an focal sgiathan é fhéin i nGaelainn na hAlban seochas an iarmhír -an gan a bheith sa teangain chuige. An dtuigeas i gceart tu nó ab ea go mbain dearmad dom? Ná fuil seó focal de shórt lochan, abair, i nGaelainn na hAlban? D'aontóinn leat ná fuil puinn dealraimh le sgiathanach ach ní dh'fhágfainn as an áireamh go hiomlán é mar sin fhéin. Cím ar do leathanach go bhfuil beagán de Ghaelainn na hÉireann agat ach scríobhfad so i mBéarla, leis, ar eagla ná tuigfeá me.

I saw in the article on Skye that you are saying there is no record of sgiathan in Scottish Gaelic, and the conclusion I drew from this is that the word sgiathan itself does not exist in Scottish Gaelic rather than the affix -an not existing at all in the language. Did I understand you correctly or am I mistaken? Aren't there many words such as lochan, for example, in Scottish Gaelic? I would agree with you that sgiathanach doesn't look very likely but I wouldn't discard it completely all the same. I see on your page that know some Irish but I'll write this in English, as well, just in case you don't understand me.

Beir bua is beannacht, Best wishes. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Táim agat, a chara agus d'fhreagair mé i dtaobh an Oileáin Sciathánaigh (focal atá i nAtlas 1 do scoileanna na hÉireann mar Sgiathanach gun fada, dála an scéil). Mar adúirt mé ann, tá -an againn i nGàidhlig ach níl aon scéal ann áite ar bith ar sgiathan mar "sgiathán". Mar sin, b'fhéidir, díreach b'fhéidir go bhfuil sgiathan ag an ainm mar fréamh ach ní móide go bhfuil. Slán Akerbeltz (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat. suffix ba cheart dom a scríobh gan amhras agus ní affix! Cím gur aistritheoir tu. Aistritheoir mise, leis. Bím ag obair san Oireachtas (Dáil Éireann agus Seanad Éireann). Dia leat. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)