User talk:Doric Loon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Yiddish page

Hey Doric Loon, were you planning to return to the Yiddish page at all? It desperately needs someone with your erudition to help out. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistics

Hi Doric Loon, your remark on Talk:French grammar about the article Relative pronoun that "It is not meant to be about any one language..." made me think that you might like the linguistics section of project Countering Systemic Bias. I'd be curious to know your thoughts! — mark ✎ 11:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I'll mention it there. --Doric Loon 18:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Umlaut "diacritic"

It's a well known quagmire, and much of what you've done with the umlaut article is very good, but I am somewhat disturbed by some other details.

Your usage of the term "umlaut diacritic" in connection with certain languages is contradicting since the text still, correctly, notes that the dots do not serve as diacritics. In particular your change of the other languages heading seems to call for revision or reversion.

I'm a pretty irregular contributor to Wikipedia these days, but I guess I will try to change (back) some of your edits.
--Ruhrjung 06:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's your prerogative, but I'm not sure what your objection is. This sign was designed for German where it has a very logical function, and was borrowed into some other languages, where it simply represents a sound without the same relational function, but significantly in these languages it represents the same sound as in German - or the nearest phoneme. So it IS the Umlaut diacritic which has been borrowed in a simplified fashion. I think Swedes do think of Ä as A with dots; the fact that the treat it as a separate letter when alphabetising doesn't change where it comes from. But by all means try to express these things more clearly. --Doric Loon 06:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's always hard to know how people think, but (having lived four year there and having worked with Danes in Denmark) I would suggest that they don't think so any more than we think of a 'R' as a P-with-an-extra-line, or the danes think of 'æ' as a+e. If one has to describe the character for someone who doesn't know it, of course that's how to express it, but in our everyday thinking one doesn't go around considering 'W' and 'U' as variants of 'V', does one?
 :-)
--Ruhrjung 08:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Though it's a bolle-a they have in Danish, not a double-dotted a like in Swedish, isn't it? (Just going by the Wiki articles on the alphabets of these languages - I don't speak them at all!) You will see I changed a couple of things in this section before I saw your comments, and changed the title of the section after I saw it, so maybe you are a little happier now, but go ahead and make improvements if you see fit. The only thing I would ask is, if these symbols are NOT to be called umlaut diacritics in these languages, should they be in this article at all? --Doric Loon 06:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good job and thanks for your work on ablaut

Ditto. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germanic verbs

Hi Doric loon, and thanks for your kind comments on my work. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on Old Norse. I consult secondary sources. I will have a look for information about strong verbs in Old Norse, but I don't think I can do the work as fast as you hope. Concerning modern Scandinavian, I think Bokmål would be the best example, because it is in many ways intermediary between Swedish and Danish. You could try with a Norwegian contributor, such as User:Egil.--Wiglaf 06:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS, you're doing amazing work on the verbs. Keep up with your good work.--Wiglaf 06:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Doric Loon, I have responded to your request to add the Afrikaans forms to the Germanic weak verbs table. The distinction between strong and weak verbs does not exist in Afrikaans as the language has lost the strong verb so all verbs follow the weak pattern. For example "he sang/he has sung/he had sung" (for practical purposes Afrikaans only uses the perfect tense to express the past) is hy het gesing rather than the ancestral Dutch hy heeft gezongen. This follows exactly the same pattern as werk: "he worked/has worked/had worked" is hy het gewerk.

Hope this helps. Booshank 12:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moving articles into parent Category:Germanic languages

Hey, I was just wondering why you are moving massive numbers of articles from West Germanic languages and East Germanic languages to the parent category. If these categories are depopulated of their languages, then they're rather useless, eh? --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Laura, the reason is that the category system for Germanic philology seemed pretty chaotic (as is that for Indo-European). I found it very difficult at first to get an overview of what had already been done, and it seems other people are too, because in the last couple of days one user has written a long (and excellent) article on an phenomenon which already had an article under a different title. So I thought I would try to simplify things by experimenting with a single category for Germanic languages. You are right - that would then render the sub-categories redundant. But now I am wondering if this is really helping or not. Try it out yourself and see what you think. I'll do no more until I get some more feedback. --Doric Loon 17:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In general it's a good idea to have articles in the lowest possible category. For one thing, it keeps the number of articles in any given category down to a manageable size. I would say any article specific to North, East, or West Germanic should be in the respective subcategories, and the only articles in Category:Germanic languages should be North Germanic languages, East Germanic languages, West Germanic languages (since the title article of a subcategory belongs in the parent category as well as the subcat), plus articles on phenomena shared by all branches. --Angr/comhrá 22:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source

Hi Doric loon, here is a link to strong verbs in Old Norse [1], weak verbs: [2], and irregular verbs: [3], [4].--Wiglaf 21:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks interesting. Though the "holy language", English purged of non-Germanic elements for use in holy rites, is a truly weird idea. --Doric Loon 08:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a weird idea. However, they have scanned the information from a scholarly work and I am pretty sure about the reliability.--Wiglaf 11:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

Thanks for your constructive contributions to the Germany page. Question: Where is the "POV" in the article that Gidonb was talking about? I can't see any. PS I have long stopped posting on the Germany Talk page, because there is too much aggro there. - Heimdal 15:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, no, I don't see his point. But I gather there has been a history of arguments on this page, and I haven't followed it, so I don't want to judge that. I would advise you not to stop posting on the talk page unless you intend to stop editing the article, because you need to justify what you are doing. But if there is aggro, stay sober and factual. --Doric Loon 22:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Every time we've got a half-way decent Germany page, here come the loonies to disrupt the page. We've seen all that before. Gidonb is well-known for his hatred of Germany and the Germans. I think it's got to do with his personal background - because, apparently, his family was a victim of the Holocaust. Some months ago he insisted on adding an image of a Nazi camp mass grave to the article, which I reverted. Since then it's war between us. Just try to discuss with such a person. It's impossible. - Heimdal 12:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on the Germany talk page. I just read the above accusations for the first time. Being of German descent, a child to a father who fosters German culture worldwide, and strengthening the cultural aspects of the Germany article in the past, I was amazed to read Heimdal's interpretation of my efforts. Yet there is no need to answer my posting and I will not answer subsequent accusations, if any are placed here again. I just thought that some word of disagreement is necessary as these may effect my reputation on Wikipedia. I favor a discussion of the contents of any article on the relevant talk page, without insults. gidonb 20:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you clarified that. It confirms my suspicion that there is no really big issue here. This is an irritation which has gone out of control, and I am obviously not the only one who is bewildered by it. --Doric Loon 20:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Doric Loon, I wanted to inform you that User:Gidonb has just deleted your piece about the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (ZJD) which you posted yesterday on the Germany page. I reverted, not least to save your edits. Please excuse me this shameful act of vandalism. - Heimdal 14:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Yet another shameful accusation in a list of too many lies. The text has been moved to another article, as explained in the edit summaries. Only one person vandalises the Germany page and thinks that he can do whatever he likes, while telling plain lies about the course of events. Heimdal went as far as to delete large sections of the Germany talk page, including your comments. This is my last reaction to his lies on this page. gidonb 15:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Please spare us from moving edits to other articles. Who asked you to do so anyway. - Heimdal 16:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The point of an overview article is to point to the relevant places. To me it is not so important whether this information is in Germany as that the reader of Germany can easily find the links to the places he or she needs to go. There has to be a link to the ZJD in some form. Surely, though, three lines on today's Jews is not too much, given that, precisely in view of the Holocaust, the situation of Jews in today's Germany is something lots of people must wonder about! And I would give the Muslims more space too. Remember, this article should be about today's Germany, and the reason some people were arguing that the history section was too long was because they wanted to make space for that. There is no pressure at present to shorten the information on contemporary affairs. --Doric Loon 16:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geschichtsaufarbeitung

I thought vaguely remembered the concept being slightly distinct from Vergangenheitsbewältigung, but if you are sure they are effectively the same, the redirect is fine... I also notice that the German 'pedia has no article on Geschichtsaufarbeitung, and I'm sure they know best, so I'm fine with this. Thanks. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:28, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Image:Benrath-Speyer.PNG
The Benrath and Speyer lines are marked in red

Thanks for clarifying. I guess it is now only the combination tz that I am a bit puzzled about. Was it pronounced [tz] or was it a way of writing ts? I am sorry if it sounds like a silly question.

As for maps, I'd love to make some. Just tell me what kind of map you would like, and allow me some time for research.--Wiglaf 21:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS, if you want someone who knows Old Norse well, you could leave a message to User:Haukurth.--Wiglaf 22:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have made a map. I am not completely happy about the colour composition, but I chose yellow, green and blue in order to show continuity. Red was chosen for the borders to make them more clear as black was already taken. Don't hesitate to ask for changes.--Wiglaf 22:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sound changes to and from Old Irish

Hi, For PIE -> Old Irish the standard is Holger Pedersen's Vergleichende Grammatik der Keltischen Sprachen, or if you don't read German, its abridged translation Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar by Henry Lewis. It also include PIE -> Welsh/Cornish/Breton. I don't know of anything adequate for OIr. -> Scots Gaelic, I'm afraid. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The main alternative to lexical diffusion is the Neogrammarian hypothesis that sound change applies simultaneously to all words in which the context of the sound change is found. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] grammatischer wechsel, wandel

i've never heard of either of these terms used in english historical linguistics and i think it would be preferable if possible to use more descriptive english terms, all the more so since the literal meaning of these german terms is so vague. for example, what you call "wandel" is known to me as "pre-nasal raising"; since that term could describe various sorts of changes, however, the preferable title would be "Germanic pre-nasal raising". as for "grammatischer wechsel", all the old english books i've seen simply list this as "due to verner's law"; hence, you might simply want to merge this into "verner's law" as a "synchronic effects" section.

see also my comments in Talk:West Germanic strong verb. Benwing 04:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Benwig, I would certainly be against merging GW with VL, as it is too important a phenomenon for that. I would be afraid that the same might happen to VL as often happens to Ablaut, namely that the diachronic phenomenon which affects the entirel language is generally seen as nothing more than the synchronic effect in the verb paradigm. But I don't mind using English-language terminology when there is any. In these cases I only know the German terms, but your suggestion of "Pre-nasal raising" seems OK, so go for it. It's more descriptive than Wandel anyway. For GW, though, you don't seem to have an English term to offer me, in which case I would tend to leave it as it is. At the end of the day, it was Germans who invented this discipline back in the 19th century, so we can accept with a little humility that some of the terminology is German - the amount of English terminology which the Germans have accepted in science and technology is very much greater! --Doric Loon 07:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval German Literature

If you had to move medieval German literature, with a lower-case l, to medieval German Literature with a capital L, then why didn't you just move the page instead of doing a copy-and-paste? That would have kept the edit history intact, but instead you've mangled it. I was going to move it back, because the L is incorrectly capitalized, but now I have to do another copy-and-paste that will leave the edit history in two distinct places. Michael Hardy 13:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, well I certainly didn't set out to move that page, but possibly I was editing two files at once and made a cock-up. It happens. --Doric Loon 21:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption of 1843

I have written this up, think you might like to take a look? I've also done quuite a lot of work on the Free Church of Scotland and the related Presbyterian denominations - probably full of typos but its a start --Doc (?) 12:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Reads very well. I'm glad you've done this. Well done! --Doric Loon 21:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup tag on Vergangenheitsbewältigung

See Talk:Vergangenheitsbewältigung. Feel free to comment further there. Buffyg 22:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unionists (Scotland)

You might want to have a look at this awful article. It is in urgent need of some help. --Doc (?) 23:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unionists (Scotland)

It's back - and User:Mais oui! has called your redirect 'vandalism'. I've rebuked him/her on their talk page, but I think we'll need to have the discussion again and pull some other views in. --Doc (?) 21:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me there, Doc. There are some people here on Wiki who are just very difficult to deal with. Mais oui! seems to be very reluctant to see opposition to the independence movement properly represented. But I may of course be wrong to impute an agenda to him, because he doesn't explain his reverts. You are right that we now need a broader consensus. But if we get it, Mais oui! should not be allowed to bully us all. --Doric Loon 23:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tron photo

I tarted up image:Wfm tron church glasgow.jpg per your suggestion (at the expense of entirely bleaching the sky out). It's called the Tron because, at night, it tranforms into a giant Japanese robot, which stalks the streets of Glasgow, zapping neds with its massive sandstone gun. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:45, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "the Low German / Dutch continuum"

Hi Doric Loon. I'm trying to give a fresh impulse to the chaos of language variety naming conventions by renaming several German varieties into "XXX German" (in analogy to the "XXX English" scheme which is common for English varieties).

I've stumbled onto a remark of yours at Talk:German language that uncovers the weak spot the naming scheme "XXX (parent language)" has as well: It doesn't work for articles such as Low German which includes not only German varieties, but also independent standard languages.

You won't have the solution either, but noticing your comment (which I then overread being into other things), maybe some interesting thought? However, I wouldn't blame anyone who shuns such desperate problems. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 16:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, the terminology is a problem. For one thing, the distinction between a dialect and a language is impossible to pin down, and finding the sensible middle way between listing the lingo of every Bavarian village as a language and at the other extreme calling Yiddish or Dutch forms of German is like walking a tightrope. My tendency would be to say there is one German language (with many high and low dialects), and not to use the phrase "German languages", even in the phrases "High German languages" and "Low German languages" - to be honest I rarely hear those except on Wikipedia. However I would be more comfortable with dividing West Germanic into three: High, Low and Insular West Germanic languages. But that raises the next problem: where to draw divisions. For example, is English a Low WG language, or is Insular to be treated separately? Probably separately. Then what do we make of the term Ingvaeonic (which we use at Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law? The high-low split is not as clear as we like to think either; partly because that is a continuum too (our article High German consonant shift shows that well) and partly because it is very difficult to argue that that one consonant shift devided the language more fundamentally than all the other things that have happened to it: the differences between Low German and English or even between Low German and Dutch are so very much greater than those between Low German and High German, for example. So, given the choice, I would not work with stemma-type tables at all for dialects and closely related languages. Better to think in terms of waves of influence, a bit like the way we do with political thought, or schools of art or literature. (But if you try to remove the classification tables from the Germanic languages pages you will get into an edit war: I'm not sure we would get away with that!) I don't suppose that helps you, though. --Doric Loon 05:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The use of the trias Insular/Low/High Germaniic languages might be feasible. The plurals seem to be justified since all of these embrace more than one language in the sense of Ausbausprache (if we count English creoles). Are these common in English linguistics. For what I know (that is, according to the Metzler Lexikon Sprache), Nordseegermanisch is more common in German linguistics, and it is also mentioned at Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law. This might also appease Frisian fundamentalists. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 12:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Encyclopedia

I've noticed you have worked on an article that is covered by the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia. While a religious resource, there is a great deal of impartial information about historical events, persons and ideas that are covered by the CE. I've created a project page for the Catholic Encyclopedia as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles project to coordinate incorporation of relevant information from the CE into wikipedia. I would appreciate any help you can offer in the project. Reflex Reaction 21:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A merge to reduce the permutations of articles

There is a discussion about merging United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland into United Kingdom. If you would like to contribute, please do so at: Talk:United_Kingdom. Regards Bobblewik 17:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Begijnhof, Amsterdam

Hi Doric, I do not know whether you are still making use of the Begijnhof, Amsterdam article, but if you are, I should like to point out that I have just reverted a few alterations which to me seemed mistaken. But then, I myself may be the one groping towards light. (Aren't we all.) Regards, Bessel Dekker 02:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, thanks. This still needs a couple of stylistic alterations, but it is becoming a nice article. --Doric Loon 18:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think your recent alterations make a lot of sense. I am not a historian or an architect myself, and am not completely sure what some of the phrases in the article in my native Dutch mean. -- Bessel Dekker 21:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Minim" etymology

Hi,

Please see my comments on Talk:Half note about a remark you added to Half note about the etymology of the term "minim" in music. Got any sources for your suggestion? Lukas 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yiddish, Basque

Could you please see my question at Talk:Yiddish_language#Basque.3F.3F.3F? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:140px-Hemau.png

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:140px-Hemau.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion★talk 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It was taken over from the German wikipedia - I can only assume that they have already dealt with copyright questions. But I am pretty sure they made it themselves, so it is public domain. --Doric Loon 09:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assimilation

Hmmm... the articles you mentioned, [5] [6] [7] [8], are you saying these edits are incorrect? They seem correct to me. There was one mistake which was in germanic spirant law, which I have now corrected. I DO read the article and simply made a careless mistake (which I have no idea how I made in the first place).

[edit] evaluation of ish ishwar

hi. long time no type.

recently, someone has nominated me for an adminship (Requests for adminship/Ish ishwar). one of the questions asks about prior conflicts. i have not had any real conflicts (i dont think), but the most conflictish encounter, i believe, was our discussion over Indo-European ablaut-Ablaut-Apophony. because of this, perhaps you would be interested in participating in the evaluation of my behaviour. if not, that's fine, too. thanks & peace – ishwar  (speak) 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. That wasn't a conflict, though. --Doric Loon 06:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British English Subjunctive

Alright dude, I've been thinking of doing a drastic overhaul to the article on the Subjunctive (specifically the English section) as I'm not convinced about the whole American/British usage arguments found in it, and generally needs a bit of expansion and a clean-up.

I noticed from its talk page that you felt the same way about some of it, so I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at the article sometime over the next few days to see what you think of the changes that I'm considering. I'll not get round to it before tonight at the earliest so don't be confused if you see no amendments when you visit it. Cheers! Brian 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright Doric, how are you keeping? Have another look at user:brianlacey/sandbox both for general appraisal and also specifically to see where you think an Indo-European Copula connection could be made. I think that after a few more edits it will be ready to be unleashed upon the world! Cheers. Brian 11:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch language

Could you please take a look at talk:Dutch language. I have a dispute with user:Sandertje about this article. Thanks. Andries 14:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration request

I would like to inform about the Arbitration request concerning the long discussion on Talk:Dutch language.

[The link to the Arbitration request will follow soon, as I have to inform you before posting]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Sander_on_Talk:Dutch_language

Sander 10:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ablaut

Just a word of thanks for your large improvements to this article. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Orthography

Hi Doric. I have been looking at the article Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse spelling on the Dutch wiki. A translation was being requested and I am keen to do one. On looking again at the article Dutch Orthography it seems to me that it might be best to merge the two to avoid duplications. This would produce a more substantial, feature sized article. Any problems? Hikitsurisan 07:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no sense in having two. More work for you, of course, if you are collating as well as translating, but if you are up for it, rock on! --Doric Loon 10:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your rude behaviour

Comments like "rv. Stelen has no GW!!" when reverting serves no purpose at all. If you want to scream at people for nothing fine, but not at me understand?! Nearly every Dutch linguistic term has Germanic and not Latin roots, therefore Dutch people, like myself, often experience difficulties with the more international Latin based terms. I thought a change of vowels was meant, and so I changed the verb in which that was more clear.Thank you. Sander 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My dear Sandertje, that remark was certainly not rude, but merely factual. I did not use bold and italics to give the impression of flaming - you have added those. However, I have seen you operate often enough not to be surprised that you expect and respond with confrontation. Grammatischer Wechsel is not a Latin-based term, but there is no shame in not being familiar with it. I trust we have clarity now. --Doric Loon 16:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting two exclamation marks behind a comment is rude. No 'dear sandertje' will help you there Doric Loon.I trust we have clarity now. Sander 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old English weak verbs

I notice that you requested Benwing to help out with Old English weak verbs. You may find just what you are looking for at Old English morphology#Weak verbs. --teb728 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that may be useful. --Doric Loon 15:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bertold von Regensburg

Hi Doric Loon,

I think it was you who added the section on Bertold of Regensburg to Flat Earth. Do you have a bit more detail on what Bertold said, and ideally a citation. -- I'm afraid I'm succumbing to the historian's vice and going overboard with footnotes (something of a reaction to the undocumented claims I've come across). --SteveMcCluskey 01:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History Man

Thank you so much for your words of encouragement; they are very much appreciated. I am beginning to get very cynical, I am sorry to report, over the whole Wikipedia enterprise. You may be interested to see what I have written on the main Wikipedia talk page (Highest Quality?) You would not believe-or perhaps you would-some of the breathtaking distortions and factual inaccuracies I have come across over the last few weeks in items touching on aspects of Scottish and British history. Perhaps the worst of all was the assertion that Pope Boniface gave Edward I a medal for the massacre of men, women and children at Berwick-upon-Tweed in the sack of 1296. I can recognize nonsense when I see it in areas with which I am familiar; but what about the many areas where I have no prior knowledge? More to the point, what about the school-age children or even students who are absorbing lies and misinformation as fact? I will keep trying, though; at least for a little while longer. Rcpaterson 22:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason why we have a responsibility to try to put these things right. I am a university teacher, and really got involved in Wikipedia when I discoverd that my students are using this as a resource. Some colleagues try to stop them, saying it's not academic enough. That's true, but unrealistic. I think it is better to teach them to use it intelligently, and at the same time to make it as good as I can. Now some of the articles I have worked on are splendid resources for my classes, and I can actively point them to it. --Doric Loon 09:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regensburg

Thank you for drawing my attention to this informative piece. I have nothing to add, but I do have a question. Do you know in which parts of Scotland the Regensburg mission of the early seventeenth century operated? It would have been highly dangerous for them to have preached openly in much of the Lowlands; so I assume that it must have been in the more remote parts of Scotland, where people retained some commitment to the old faith. There was an important Franciscan mission to the Western Isles in the 1620s, which made great headway, especially among the Gaelic speaking communities of Clan Donald. I assume some co-ordination must have been at work? Rcpaterson 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Doric, pleas look her to my answer. Hast Du vielleicht auch ein Foto von Max Buchhausers Garten? Greetings Pelz

[edit] Prescription

You're welcome.

The Soviet Writers' Union was the stylistic authority. The grammatical authority was less formal, but that made hardly any difference, since every published author went through the SWU and the SWU was always in love with one dictionary and grammar or another. --VKokielov 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for adding Schami to List of German-language authors!

I love his work; thanks so much for adding his name! Further contributions are welcome, also to the List of German-language poets and List of German-language philosophers. Gruss, Universitytruth 12:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historiography encyclopedia/dictionary

Hi - Stbalbach here from the Dark Ages.. is there an encyclopedia or dictionary that deals with historiography? I see so many articles on Wikipedia with terms that need explanation.. like Hundred Years War recently came up as a question when and where the term originated. I don't know if such a thing exists, but thought you might possibly know if such a thing exists. -- Stbalbach 00:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lebedev

I was looking through the Mikhail Lebedev page and it seems to be vanity and non-notable to me. First of all, there is hardly any information about him on Google. Then, none of the publications seem to be news-worthy and notable. Finally, the scientist does not have many 1st author publications and seems to be non-important in his field. If you agree with me, can you please help me nominate Mikhail Lebedev for deletion? --GoOdCoNtEnT 08:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basque language

Hooray! Somebody's done it! I've been contemplating that 'absurd sentence' wondering what to do with it for a while. --ColinFine 19:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germanic Strong and Weak Verbs

(I posted this as a reply to your comment on my Talk page, but I'm putting it here, too, in case you wouldn't check there.)

I'm glad you approve of my edits. I have added some more comments about the semantic shift of PIE perfect to Gmc preterite. I have thought of contributing to the Germanic strong verb page, but right now it's geared toward the West Germanic languages, and what I would be best able to contribute would involve Gmc and Gothic info that would not fit well into the article's current thrust. I welcome suggestions, though. Nice job with all your contributions! Unsigned comment by User:Dr. Elwin Ransom, 18 Oct 2006

Great, let's think about that together. So far I have almost been the only person to write about strong verbs, and that is why the page is entirely geared to the languages I know. Let's continue this at Talk:Germanic strong verb and see what we can do with it. --Doric Loon 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split infinitive FAR/C

Hi there

I wonder whether you're in a position to help to bring this one back to FA standards. Tony 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aberdeen Grammar School

Any comments made on the Aberdeen Grammar page were not made by me. As this computer is used by others I can only fathom that other individuals have been creating mischief.

Unsigned comment by User:El Loto, 30 Oct 06.

[edit] English Irregular Verb Questions

Greetings, the Loric Doon!

I'm the Queen of English. Could you take a look at my questions on the talk page for [Wiktionary Irregular Verbs - English] and give me your Doric opinion? Thank you! Dblomgren 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Queen of English. OK, I've made a couple of points there. Tell me if you need any more. --Doric Loon 13:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good article, needs armor.

I like your Place names with English meanings and the reasoning behind it. Its place here may be questionable, but if you can bring it to meet the three major guidelines, WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:V (preferably by WP:CITE) then it should be well protected from deletion. If it ever comes up for WP:AFD please let me know on my talk page. — coelacan talk — 20:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split infinitive

The review for this really needs to be closed as it's been up there almost two months. I can't in good faith close it as keep with only remove comments standing. I just thought I'd let you know that a remove is not a comment on your work—you obviously put in some effort and the page is improved. Barring some last minute change, I will close it tomorrow. Marskell 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Clearly there is no consensus for keeping the status, and I don't have a problem with that. --Doric Loon 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Wappenhemau.png, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 15:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved again, again

See Talk:Minister (Christianity). -- roundhouse 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-off, I hadn't really been watching there. My thoughts are on that talk page now. --Doric Loon 10:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This PW chap is getting notorious for unilateral moves. I agree with all your remarks. -- roundhouse 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britain

Doric, sorry if you feel my "swift sword" was too swift. Actually, I would have been a lot harsher and redirected the thing to Britain (well, actually, move Great Britain to Britain and redirect Great Britain there, but that's the kind of job would call for a claíomh mór, which I don't have).

In the end, it was Robdurbar's sword that landed the fatal blow. I just moved the previous content to Wikionary after his blade had cut the page down. --sony-youthtalk 12:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No no, you're doing fine. (The sword metaphor was meant positively - there was pruning to be done!) It's just the encyclopedia/dictionary thing where alarm bells rang: I think a lot of Wikipedians understand the rule as a taboo on discussion of linguistic aspects; the way I see it, Wiktionary has a very rigid, neat, user-friendly format, ideal for presenting basic dictionary info, but anything more discursive doesn't belong there; and what isn't right for Wiktionary must belong in Wikipedia, even if it is a section focussing on linguistic aspects of a topic. But I suspect I don't have to persuade you of that. --Doric Loon 13:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I agree to a good enxtent but don't think Britain was the best place for that article, even Britain (word) would be better. --sony-youthtalk 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-mutation

Thanks for the warning. Unfortunately, I don't think I am knowledgeable enough about the topic to come up with an argument to keep the article. :-( FilipeS 22:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prescription

OK, I think my changes were mostly limited to removing some rather dubious and unsourced claims from the article (e.g. that prescription increases clarity, that written language requires "more conservative" syntax...). I guess the most productive thing to do would be for me to list the parts of the article I object to on the talk page and explain why I object to them. I'll do this later today or tomorrow. Cadr 11:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's the way to go.--Doric Loon 15:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch spelling

Hi Doric, see perhaps: Talk:Dutch orthography 152.1.193.137 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question Doric Loon, about the page Germanic strong verb. It says something about the verbal noun being stage 5 or so, but the thought is not carried much further. I have always wondered about the verbal nouns in my own dialect (Dutch) (or is that a language?). There still seems to be a fair bit of systematics left, like bieden -> het bod, schieten -> het schot and interestingly with a 'short' rather than a long o as in the past schoot. Is there any sense in saying more about this?

Not that the verbal nouns are not a bit of a mess as I have tried to show on wikibooks.

I quickly looked at the classes 1,2 and 3 and got this: Class 1: mostly in -ee-? and masculine

bezwijken
bijten - de beet
blijken (-het blijk)
blijven -
drijven - de drift
glijden (-de glij(ding))
grijpen - de greep
hijsen -
kijken - (de kijk)
knijpen - de kneep
krijgen (-de krijg?)
lijden - het leed
lijken
prijzen
rijden - de rit
rijzen
schijnen - (de schijn)
schrijden - de schrede
schrijven - het schrift
slijpen
slijten (-- sleets?)
smijten - de smeet
spijten (- de spijt)
splijten - de spleet
stijgen
strijden - (de strijd)
strijken
verdwijnen (verdwijning)
vermijden
wijken
wijzen - de wijze
wrijven de wreef?
zwijgen.


2

neuters with o, feminines with -eu-?

bieden - het bod
genieten - het genot
gieten - de goot
kiezen - de keuze
liegen - de leugen
schieten - het schot
verliezen (- het verlies)
vliegen - de vlucht
vriezen - de vorst
with ū-present
buigen - de boog
druipen - de drop
duiken
fluiten
kruipen
ruiken - de reuk
schuilen
schuiven (-de schoof?)
snuiven
spuiten (-de spuit)
stuiven
zuigen (-het zog?)
zuipen.

Class 3 masculines in -a-?

beginnen - het begin
binden - de band
blinken
dringen - de drang
drinken - de drank
dwingen - de dwang
glimmen
klimmen - de klim
klinken - de klank
schrikken - de schrik
springen -de sprong
stinken - de stank
verzinnen
vinden - de vondst
winnen (- het gewin?)
wringen (adj.: wrang?)
zingen - de zang
zinken.
oiginal 3b
bergen - de borg
gelden
schelden
smelten
vechten
zwellen.
3b by analogy (original class in brackets)
schenken
scheren (4) (schering)
treffen(4)
trekken (6) (-de trek)
wegen - de waag
zenden (3a)
zwemmen (3a).
3b with preterite in ie
bederven - het bederf
helpen - de hulp
sterven
werpen - de worp
zwerven.

(obviously pretty corrupt..)

nl:wikt:Gebruiker:Jcwf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.1.193.137 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi. Now that is quite interesting. First of all, though, when the Germanic strong verb article talks about the verbal noun, it means the original PIE verb-form which became the Germanic past participle. What you are asking about is nouns related to verbs, which is a different thing. But yes, these nouns can be a vowel-shift away from the verbs. There are several possible causes of this, but the most obvious one is Indo-European ablaut. As you have noticed, ablaut should create a set of nouns which bear a regular relation to the verbs, and when viewed on a class-by-class basis you would expect to find an identical vowel in all the nouns related to a particular class. I've never looked into the Dutch forms, so I don't want to make any pronouncements, but I would expect that the irregularities and anomalies in your pattern will be explained in one of two ways. One possibility is that a random change has taken place in a particular word, which can happen at any time, though the fact that the Dutch strong verbs have remained relatively regular compared with English or even German might indicate that the language is fairly conservative at this point, which may mean that random irregularities will be seldom. (But that's only a guess - there is no real reason why the nouns should have stayed as regular as the verbs!) The other possibility is that the nouns which don't fit the pattern may be more recent. If they do not date back to PIE as separate words, but have instead been derived from the verbs later in the history of Germanic, they could have been formed in quite different ways. Possibly in some cases the irregularity will not be explicable at all; but linguists can usually have at least a tentative guess at a solution to most problems in Germanic language history. At any rate, I find that the pattern is usually more interesting than the exception. It would be interesting to write this up in a Wiki article, but do try to find scholarly literature rather than just noting your own observations. At any rate, Germanic verbs is not the place for it. user:Angr is usually pretty well up on such things, so do ask his opinion before you do anything too innovative. Dutch is a cool language, though, and is often a truer representation of Germanic origins than English or German, so we should look at it more often. (BTW, linguists are usually not too bothered about the distinction between a language and a dialect, but in popular usage Dutch is certainly a language.) Where have you worked on Wikibooks? --Doric Loon 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words Doric. I am no liguist and would rather leave such things to the pro's. I had no intention to write here. I seldom visit en.wiki. I just never saw a discussion of the one-vowel-away nouns and am curious about my own netherly tongue. You are right I had missed the bit about the participle. On wikibooks I have mostly worked on the Dutch book, where I happily conjectured about a few things, like where our gender system is going in relation to pronominal adverbs I'd value your comments. BTW any idea wherefrom the hereins and wheretofores came? They seem to have acquired a second wind in Dutch because of the grammatical shifts we have been through since the 'golden' age.

..is often a truer representation of Germanic origins than English or German.. ouch. Ich hoffe unsere lieben Nachbarn lesen das nicht. ;-)

cheers

Iarlagab/Jcwf

[edit] User:AlexNewArtBot

Hi Doric Loon, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: incorrect edit of Germanic strong verb

Apologies for that mistake and thanks for pointing it out to me. I've added Old English language tags to those words in the article so that 'writen' will not be picked up as a typo by AWB. Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umlaut

Since you are a Scotchman (as I recall you don't like being called Scotch) :-), we're probably related way back - say 30 generations or so (I'm Icelandic). I have to admit that I did not pay enough attention to the disambiguation character of the page, but I still have reservations. I also freely admit that I was unduly harsh (a national trait - arrogance is too). But I still feel that the Umlaut (disambiguation) page could do with a bit of revision. Germanic Umlaut is something I know a bit about, and as the subject is presented on the page, it is more confusing than needs be. I'll voice my comments on the talk page next weekend as promised. Wikipedia has, alas, taken this opportunity to have technical problems, and it is bedtime for me now, so I'll just wait for an opportunity to send this, and then I'm headed for the sack. OK, Wikipedia just came online again. Linguisticically Umlaut only refers to the Germanic phenomenon. But seeing the page again, I see I might have jumped the gun. But I have never heard of the Celtic changes called anything but mutations. The A-Umlaut in particular is a specific Germanic development, present in every living Germanic language. Anyway, I may just be rambling, so your talk page might be a better place to talk things over instead of exposing my ignorance to a wider public (that last sentence is also an example of a national trait). :-) Anyway, see you and cheers Io 04:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the disambig page needs tidied up. I personally would agree with you that the word Umlaut should be reserved for the Germanic phenomenon. That's why originally the Umlaut discussed precisely that. But others wanted to use the word in much wider ways, and the page was in danger of becoming a mish-mash of different things, and that was when I moved the original article to Germanic Umlaut and made this a disambig. The Celtic phenomenon can indeed be called other things, and although I wrote part of that article, I think it is not a good article. Do try to improve on it. --Doric Loon 09:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Tell my about it! I once rewrote an article and then put it up for deletion. Remarkably enough, the voting turned out to be a tie, so there it stands. :-) Cheers Io 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge missions

Hi. I had misled you by directing the discussion to the wrong place (as became clear when the merge-tags were restored). I thus moved my comment and yours to the proper place, at the Hiberno-Scottish mission talk page. Sorry for that. — SomeHuman 07 Jul 2007 16:25 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a big deal, because if the merge goes ahead we can still unmerge later if it e-merge-s that I am right. But I think we have better scope to develop both things separately. Then again, I am not particularly planning on working on this... Best, --Doric Loon 19:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Saltire Society

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Saltire Society, by Betacommand (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Saltire Society seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Saltire Society, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kirk as a placename element

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Kirk as a placename element, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. hbdragon88 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Ages

Hello, I just want to let you know I've restored the {{fact}} tags and commented on it in the talk page. Reinistalk 18:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shawlands Academy

Hello! Yes, I did indeed create it. Didn't attend it, went to the far superior Holyrood. :P Stay near Shawlands but and was bored so decided to create the page. The Holyrood page has had some interesting libellous edits, have a wee swatch thro the history if you're ever bored. Hehe. Regards,GiollaUidir 14:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Brian O Murdoch

A tag has been placed on Brian O Murdoch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment. He has multiple books published, but it seems the only relevant Google hits are to sales or catalog listings of the books. They seem to be rather obscure. I have very serious doubts that you will be able to prove notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval popular Bible

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Medieval popular Bible, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Grammar Nazi

Hi. You were one of the editors discussing whether or not the article grammar nazi would qualify for a move to Wikitionary or its deletion. I made a proposal in the article's discussion if you're interested in participating. --76.214.226.199 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Place names with English meanings

An article that you have been involved in editing, Place names with English meanings, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place names with English meanings. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aberdeen Grammar School

Hey, just thought I'd tell you that I deleted the image and the paragraph it was in because I couldn't find a source for the information. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.☆ 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Doric Loon! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scotch

I don't suppose an IP check would show you were responsible for the earlier contribution would it? Anyway, we have something called a talk page if you want to discuss it. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:MCS-Logo.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:MCS-Logo.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)