User talk:Jalen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!

Hvala za popravke glede števila Slovencev. --Eleassar my talk 14:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Jakopin

Hi,

The expertise of this gentleman is outside of my own range of abilites; however, I noted problems with his article because of the nature of the sources given: the lack of English language sources does raise possible verifiability problems at English Wikipedia. I freely admit that I have no firm opinion here, and am using the deletion processes as a means to solicit involvement of editors more knowledgeable of this area. The PRODing, by the way, was done by me after removing a speedy deletion tag. Now that you have contested the PROD, I must decide whether to proceed to an AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand. I was disturbed by the claim of him being a non-notable computer programmer, when he is in fact a linguist, a university teacher and a language technologist. So I took the effort to add some content on his profession. I believe his personal URL page offers enough information to attest to this (the titles of his publications are all provided with English translations). I also translated his bibliography into English and added a link to his Expert profile from ELSNET's (a European forum dedicated to human language technologies) Directory of Language and Speech Technology Experts. Please take a look at the two links. Regards, --Jalen 10:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your revert on Venetic to being "very close" to Italic languages

Hi,

I disagree with your comment "(Revert- this article has contains references to many competent linguists (Lejeune, Prosdocimi, Pellegrini, Wallace, Chieco Bianchi), all of whom agree that Venetic is closely related to Italic)". Could you quote any of the above authors using the the concept of "very close" or equivalent? Pellegrini for one advocates the opposite theory, which says that Venetic sits in his onw branch and is perhaps more similar to Germanic than to Italic. Prosdocimi notes several similarities with Latin and attributes them to a contact of Venetic people settling in Lazio and imposing a linguistic superstratum on proto-Latin. To my knowledge he never says that Venetic is "very close" to Latin or other Italic languages. On the contrary about everyone recognizes that there are similarities but also remarkable differences, for instance Venetic has a aorist time close to Greek and Sanskrit. I am going to re-edit what you reverted, adding quotations from Beeler that reviews the work of Prosdocimi and Pellegrini on the Venetic language. However, before proceeding, I am ready to hear your arguments. Nozdreff 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi,
the position of Venetic is an interesting issue indeed. The languages does show certain traits that are particularly close to those attested in the Italic branch, and particularly in Latin, especially in the domain of phonetics.
Most notable is the development of PIE stops *bh, *dh and *gh, which produce [f], [f] and [h], respectively, in word initial position, but [b], [d] and [g], respectively, in word internal position. The only reference I currently have with me is Lejeune's Manuel de la langue vénète (1974), so I shall quote Lejeune. He states: Les trois séries d'occlusives i.e. (sourdes, sonores, sonores aspirées) sont réduites à deux en vénète (comme dans l'ensemble de l'italique) par élimination des sonores aspirées; celles-ci aboutissent à l'initiale du mot à des spirantes sourdes, et à l'intérieur du mot à des occlusives sonores, double traitement qui (au moins de façon sûre pour *bh et *dh) est commun au vénète et au latin.
Also worth mentioning is the development of PIE diphthong *eu > ou (as in louderobos dat. pl. < PIE *leudheros).
Lejeune further mentions that there are indications of the developments of PIE *gw- > w-, PIE *kw > *kv and PIE *gwh- > f- in Venetic, all of which are parallel to Latin, as well as the regressive assimilation of PIE sequence *p...kw... > *kw...kw..., a feature also found in Italic and Celtic.
Among lexical isoglosses he mentions:
- *dhə1k- 'make', 'do'; not known in Germanic and Celtic, but extended in present tense with -yō in Venetic, Latin facio, Oscan FAKIIAD, Umbrian FAÇIA.
- The plural meaning of PIE *leudheros is 'children' in Venetic (dat. pl. louderobos) and Latin (liberi).
On the other hand, I am aware that Venetic displays certain intriguing similarities with the Germanic branch, particularly as concerns personal pronouns.
I disagreed with the --verify source-- tag because I thought it was rather counter-productive. I have not attempted to claim that Venetic is "equivalent" to Italic, but I believe that a close relationship with Italic seems certain.
Here are a few other quotations from Lejeune (Manuel de la langue vénète, 1974; Chapitre VIII: La position du vénète, p. 164-173):
En 1949, M. S. Beeler (The Venetic language) montre que la vénète n'a pratiquement aucune connexion avec le messapien, mais en a de nombreuses avec les langues italiques, et spécialement avec le latin; il s'agit, pour lui, d'un dialecte italique, tôt séparé des autres, mais conservant des traits remarquables qui l'apparentent de près à la branche italique latino-falisque.
En 1950, H. Krahe (Das Venetische) marque la position préhistorique du vénète au voisinage du germanique, du celtique, de l'illyrien et de l'italique (particulièrement, du latin), au contact desquels, conformément à la Wellentheorie de Johannes Schmidt, se sont dessinées les isoglosses qui le définissent. Encore que les correspondances avec l'italique (particulièrement, avec le latin) soient les plus marquantes, le vénète ne doit pas être considéré comme une langue italique, mais comme un idiome i.e. autonome.
Lejeune concludes this section by resuming that Venetic is an independent IE language, pertaining to the Western IE dialectal area, and within the latter, it shares the most affinities with the Italic branch: il s'y caractérise, d'une part, par une attitude souvent conservatrice, d'autre part, par des affinités plus marquées avec le latin et l'osco-ombrien (notamment, avec le latin) qu'avec les autres idiomes connus de la même aire (ce qui est une définition possible: ..., non génétique mais descriptive, de l'»italique«).
Perhaps that sentence in the Adriatic Veneti article could be corrected to: They spoke the Venetic, an independent Indo-European language, which was related to the Italic and Germanic branches.
However, I find it rather difficult to view Venetic more closely related to Germanic since Germanic shows strikingly different phonetic developments, especially as regards the development of PIE stops, if you consider the Germanic sound shift (Grimm's law). To my knowledge, in its early history Germanic was closer to the Balto-Slavic phylum (save that it evaded the satemization process of the latter), which is proven by a large number of lexical isoglosses and some important phonetic isoglosses as well. The three are sometimes collectively termed North Indo-European. A good overview of the shared Germano-Balto-Slavic features is available in Zbigniew Gołąb's The Origins of the Slavs: A Linguist's view. A particularly notable isogloss is the replacement of the PIE -*bh- sound in the dative-ablative plural cases (*-bhos, *-bhis) with a *-m- sound (cf. Gothic wulfams, Lithuanian vilkams, OCS vlьkomъ 'to the volwes'; the Venetic dative plural ending is -bos, cf. Latin -bus). Also, Germanic merged PIE *ŏ and *ă to *ă, similarly as Slavic, while Venetic preserved the two sounds distinct.
If you plan to add more information on the Venetic language, it would be most convenient to do it in the main article Venetic language, which could use a bit of expansion. See also it's talk page.
Best wishes, Jalen 09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jalen,

thanks for your detailed and interesting reply. I didn't mean to offend with the --verify source-- tag, I was about to add --citation needed-- but then noted that Wikipedia instructions direct to use --verify source-- when one notes a dubious statement, like (for me) that "Venetic" "was very close to the Italic languages".

I agree with all that you write above, which coincides the little bit I read on the topic. I would summarize the status of the knowledge on Venetic following Beeler, "Language", Vol.4 N.4 (Dec. 1969) pp. 904-913, who writes that, after linguists considered Venetic grouped with Illyrian until about 1950, there are "two competing theories. There is first the idea that the undeniable similarities of Venetic with Latin require that it be classified as an Italic language." (this is Beeler, 1949) "The competing theory, with which Krahe 1950 is prominently associated, emphasizes the difference between Venetic and Italic, and the isoglosses which Venetic shares with other IE languages, especially Germanic; it thus sets up Venetic as an independent branch of IE. Both positions currently have their adherents; and of the authors of La lingua venetica, Pellegrini is a partisan of Krahe, while Prosdocimi favors a form of the Italic doctrine." It is interesting to report how Beeler summarizes Prosdocimi's position. "[Explaination for similarities between Venetic and Latin] is found not in an antecedent common ancestor, a common language, but in a hypothetical Venetic-like superstratum brought from NE Italy to Latium in about the 10th century B.C., which overlays there the much more ancient proto-Latin level."

Your proposal is fine (They spoke the Venetic, an independent Indo-European language, which was related to the Italic and Germanic branches). I would propose the following, which in my view gives the reader a better perspective also on the difficulties in classifying Venetic: They spoke Venetic, an independent Indo-European language, which is not well known because of scarcity of documentation. Venetic appears to share several similiarities with Latin and the Italic languages, but has some affinities also with other IE languages, especially Germanic. Nozdreff 09:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds OK. Just one comment: is Venetic really not well known because of scarcity of documentation? I believe its inscriptions number around 250-300 (although none is over 10 words long). In his book In Search of the Indo-Europeans J. P. Mallory states: Venetic is sufficiently well known to argue about its linguistic affinities with other Indo-European languages. Similarities with Italic and Germanic have all been suggested, especially with the former, but some linguists regard Venetic as an independent Indo-European subgroup which shares some similarities with other Western European languages but not enough to link it closely with any particularly one.
How about putting: They spoke Venetic, an independent Indo-European language, which is attested in approximately 300 short inscriptions dating from 6th to 1st centuries BC. Venetic appears to share several similiarities with Latin and the Italic languages, but also has some affinities with other IE languages, especially Germanic.
Regards, --Jalen 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jalen,

I would adopt your last wording. The remark on scarcity of documentation was meant to introduce the reader to the fact that it is not easy to classify poorly known languages, and different linguisti have (and especially had in the past), different theories. Venetic is surely much less known than Latin or Greek. A possibly way to connvey what I meant could be: They spoke Venetic, an independent Indo-European language, which is attested in approximately 300 short inscriptions dating from 6th to 1st centuries BC. Venetic appears to share several similiarities with Latin and the Italic languages, but also has some affinities with other IE languages, especially Germanic. Linguists have not been unanimous about the precise classification of Venetic: some stress its similarities with Latin and the Italic languages, others classify Venetic in a separate group together with Liburnian. However I would prefer your simpler statement for "Adriatic_Veneti", reserving further adjustements and improvements for the "Venetic" entry. Nozdreff 15:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad we agreed. Regards, --Jalen 16:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Venetic language

Jalen The edits by the previous user were correct. The Venetic territory ended at the Timavo river, which is located in the Friuli. The Venetic archaeological finds in Slovenia are due to trade with the Illyrians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LOM (talk • contribs)

If so, can you please provide a reputable source for this statement. --Jalen 08:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Try these pages.

http://www.trentini-srl.com/trigallia/cartine/gallia_cisalpina_07.jpg
http://www.trentini-srl.com/trigallia/cartine/gallia_cisalpina_09.jpg

and read the historic works of Pliny the Elder and Dr. Anna Maria Chieco Bianchi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LOM (talk • contribs)

[edit] Slovenia

Hey. I don't know if you are aware of it, but this edit of yours removed the "Administrative divisions" again. Thanks, Prolog 06:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I noticed that an anon user made several unconstructive edits in article Slovenia by adding vulgar remarks but then I made a mistake when I reverted the edit by user 125.131.195.68 who actually reverted some of previous vandalism, so I reverted myself. During that time you made another revert so it seems there has been a case of cross-editing. I reverted back to last version by you. Thanks for reminding me. Kind regards, --Jalen 07:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slovenian or Slovene?

As a linguist maybe you'd want to chime in here. Is it better to follow dictionaries (prescription) or the prevalent use (description)? --Eleassar my talk 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you have a look at Slovene alphabet and correct the mistakes you may perceive? Thanks. --Eleassar my talk 09:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic settlement in the Eastern Alps

Zdravo:

Sem pogledal poglavje, ki si ga dodal. Zdi se mi zelo v redu, sem ga pa malo razširil, spremenil in dopolnil: poglej, kako se ti zdi. Mislim, da bi bilo pametno čimprej storiti en korak, s katerim se lahko izognemo temu, da nam podobne polemike preplavijo vse strani o zgodnji slovenski zgodovini: postavimo novo stran z imenom "Venetic theory", kamor se potem lepo preusmeri vse "venotološke" razprave. In naj se potem na pogovorni strani te nove strani z Veneti ukvarjajo vsi tisti, ki jim je to v veselje. Kaj praviš? Bom čisto po pravici povedal, da se meni ne da tega gesla zdaj ne da pisat: obljubim pa, da bom pomagal, če bo enkrat napisano. Premisli. lp, Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hvala, tvoj dodatek se mi zdi zelo v redu. LP Jalen (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Slovenia

Hi:

please check out this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/Slovenia. A wikiproject Slovenia has been started, I think it would be great if we had as many good contributors as possible. Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wends dialect

I think this article should be verified and corrected by a linguist. Currently, it is unclear whether the Wends dialect is a language by itself or a form of Slovene language. --Eleassar my talk 15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slovenes: dead links

Some of the links regarding statistics that you provided are no longer accessible and should be updated. --Eleassar my talk 11:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)