User talk:Lavintzin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So talk (if you feel like it)

Contents

[edit] Chicano

Hello,

My name is Marcelino and I wanted to ask you to see the Chicano wikipedia entry to see if you would agree that it is incorrectly define in various places. I myself have been going thru the history and have found some of the earlier entries to be correct but as of today I find the current page falsely misleading and full of errors.

I ask for you support since I see that you have good knowledge of Nahual people. I basically seek to properly define Chicano as those descedants of the Nahual civilization and that have been constantly misinforn of their history.

Thank you for your time, Marcelino 21:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Marcelino,
I agree that the Chicano article could use some work and tightening up. I myself don't know enough about the subject matter to be the one to do it, though. It makes sense that the name is a shortening of Mexicano as (mis)pronounced by Americans, and undoubtedly Mexicano comes from the Nahuatl words Mexihco and/or Mexihka(tl), with the -ano suffix from Spanish. And it is true, fwiw, that the Nahuatl pronunciation of 'x' (like English 'sh') is closer to the 'ch' of 'Chicano' than the 'j' sound of the standard Spanish pronunciation. But the term has for 500 years been used with wider reference than just to Nahuatl-speakers or their cultures or descendants. I don't know that any group who are today called Chicanos are any more Nahuatl than the majority of Mexican citizens are. Likely less, since those from the north of Mexico were, at least historically, highly represented in the Chicano population, and their indigenous roots would more likely be Tarahumara, Yaqui, Tepehuan, and so on.
Hope that's not too disheartening!
--Lavintzin 03:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Garbled expressions

My favorite is "We'll burn that bridge when we come to it", a combination of the saying, "We'll cross that bridge when we get to it" and the expression "burning bridges", or unwisely cutting off ties. It doesn't have anything to do with beatings or horses, but I thought you might be interested.--Rockero 22:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Yes, that's a fun one, and seems fairly widespread. I have a couple of variants on it: "Don't burn your bridges before you get to them", and "Don't burn your britches behind you".

I'm certainly interested in all kinds of blended phrases, not just those with beatings and horses! I just included that as one of many cool sub-collections.--Lavintzin 22:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closed class and loanwords

Hi, thanks for re-wording the sentence at productivity (linguistics). However, for many historical linguists, the issue about the difference between the open and closed classes very much is about which class allows loanwords and which doesn't. And they, their, them are indeed loanwords; they were borrowed from Old Norse. Angr/talk 06:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can accept that the open/closed class distinction in some parts of the linguistic world is about loanwords being acceptable or not. But that has nothing that I can see to do with productivity. Loan words by definition are not the results of a native grammatical process (whether productive or not). As for borrowings from Old Norse, I suppose one could argue that just about everything in English is borrowed, from the Romans, the Angles and Saxons, the Normans, and everybody else you can think of. I have a hard time imagining any class of words so closed it would have no borrowings into it if that kind of time span is allowed. (I happen to think that the whole "closed class" idea is an ideal of some kind, but it's pretty hard to find a convincing example of one, that lasted for very many generations. Usually they are made to look more closed than they are by ignoring "peripheral" data.)--Lavintzin 23:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Swifties

You said, in part:

I don't find the mincing one that great, but maybe I don't know (maybe don't want to know?) what the verb mince means nowadays. If it is reference to the stereotype of homosexuals as literally mincing when they walk or talk, I don't find it particularly funny. Is there a pun on Brad Pitt's name? Otherwise why put it in? (Whether he's gay or not—I assume he is?) The standard spelling of the adverb is "gaily", not "gayly".

According to Merriam-Webster, one definition of mince is:

2 : to utter or pronounce with affectation

So, yes, it is a reference to the stereotypical speech pattern of homosexuals, but aren't Tom Swifties all about bad jokes and painful puns? As far as I know, Brad Pitt is not gay, but he is (reputed to be) considered very attractive and desirable. I am abashed to admit that I had forgotten the correct spelling of "gaily" when I wrote it, although I would argue that the misspelling actually underscores the joke, such as it is. I didn't write it to bash gay people, or anything, I just wrote it because I found it clever, and it makes me laugh. If you really feel it is beyond the pale, though, you can take it out again. Feel free (he said, liberally).

I also added a response on the talk page. --DavidConrad 09:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll respond there.
I'm glad you like the blivit cross: it was fun to think of and work out. Would you believe I actually carved a version in wood (bas-relief) once? It turned out surprisingly well.

P.S. I really like that BlivitCross image on your user page. Nice! --DavidConrad 09:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CuevaDelGuacharo.jpg

You have listed this image as GFDL but the page it is taken from is clearly copyrighted. Did you receive some other permission? Rmhermen 18:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote (emailed) the copyright owner and asked if he would allow it to be used in the Wikipedia. He was happy to do so, and asked/permitted me to submit it with the standard license. You could write him and check, I suppose, or I could try to find the email he sent me. He looked at the page and liked what had been done with his picture.--Lavintzin 22:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chesterton's Book

Good for you that you think that the paragraph isn't beyond salvaging. However, the tone is unacceptable. With a few mitigating phrases, it could be acceptable, but I don't have any desire to read a sales pitch for a book I find morally reprehensible while perusing Wikipedia (not to be shrill, but this stuff cuts pretty close to home). If you want to work something out in the way of a collaboration on the article, I know I'd be up for that.

I think that something more along the lines of the specific content (which you're probably more keen on anyway) would be more beneficial to the Wiki as a whole--while only a miserable few like myself will take issue with your having injected your opinions (be they never so well-deserved) into an article, everyone who reads the article will have been better off if they had actual material or summary to deal with (I know that you've already covered this earlier with the rather lengthy quotation, but perhaps an elucidation of Chesterton's "extremely unusual animal" argument--the hinge of his allegdly mean left hook at Wells' tempting temple--would both serve to express your passion and edify the general intellect). Again, if you can't bear to see the paragraph go, by all means put it back in. Seeing it for me was shades of something completely unrelated to our dear Free Encyclopedia, so my comments are probably unreliable, definitely unremarkable, and, at this point, unreadable. Have a Good Summer.

[edit] Proposed orthography changes: what do you think?

Hi Lavintzin. I recently boldy suggested that wikipedias articles on aztec related subjects should use an orthography that marks saltillo and vowel length (in particular a carochi/jesuit/Launey style classic orthography), contrarily to current practice. We are having a discussion about that particularly controversial topic here Talk:Aztec and I would like to hear your opinions. Maunus 18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huasteca

Thanks for the Andrés de Olmos article!
Thanks for the Andrés de Olmos article!

You are quite right that Tampico isn't Sierra and that the area is largr than just the Sierra Huasteca- I have been trying to think of a title for a page on the Huasteca area but can't really come up with one that is good, I had settled on Sierra Huasteca but I can see that it isn't perfect. Unfortunately La Huasteca is already used for a hiking trail near Monterrey. If you want to help me think of a separate article name or even starting it I would appreciate it. And thanks for creating the Olmos article! Maunus 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Should have commented here, but anyway: back in Dec I made a La Huasteca page and made the hiking trail a minor alternative to the name.--Lavintzin 04:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of Image:CholulaPyramidPopocatepetl.jpg

Dear Lavintzin,

I used above image you originally uploaded back in 2005 in the Dutch article on the Cholula pyramid. Now I'm being chased by some other users on the dutch WP, saying that the cc-by-sa-2.5 license as stated cannot be verified on the given website (www.sil.org/~tuggyd). Do you have any other information regarding the validity of this license, and that David Tuggy actually agreed to this (and that he's actually the author of the picture). Kind regards, Mhaesen 16:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What's usual in cases like these? Do they want a piece of paper with his signature on it? Should I ask him to put up on his website a list of pictures he's agreed to have licensed? I can assure you that the information given is correct, but what weight does that carry? I dunno. Send me an email, maybe, and we can hash it out?--Lavintzin 03:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What I've seen before in cases like this, is that the original photographer is asked to upload the image him/herself, or an email of the photographer should be sent to a moderator and included in the associated text. More info to be found at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Kind regards, Mhaesen 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, permissions, including that one of the Cholula pyramid, have been posted on his website. Does that take care of it? --Lavintzin 07:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent change to Nahuatl - Most populous indigenous languages

I think that your recent edit although warranted because what the article was saying was untrue, obscured an important point, namely that Nahuatl, when counted as one language rather than a group of languages, is the amerindian language with most speakers along with Quechua and Guaraní. K'iche maya which is the most populous mayan language has only 1,000,000 speakers according to the figures given here - although The mayan language family has more speakers than nahuatl but it is comprised of thirty different languages (it also has more speakers than the combined speaker of Uto-Aztecan languages but that is beside the point). I hope you see my point and that you can think of a way of wording the sentence so that this point isn't lost. Basicaly I am saying that there is no need of adding "along with the mayan languages" to the phrase - but maybe the entire phrase as it is is redundant.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but the kicker is "when counted as one language rather than a group of languages". I don't speak any Mayan languages but I understand the differences among them are no greater than those among the Nahuatl languages. The fact that they are called by different outsider's names while Nahuatl is (generally) called by the same outsider name, is more a historical accident than anything significant. I have a good friend who grew up speaking a kind of Tzotzil, and he can get along pretty well in Tzeltal and Ch'ol as well as other Tzotziles. If you just lump K'iche and Yucatec Mayan, you've already outstripped Nahuatl. There are a *lot* of Mayan speakers. --Lavintzin 23:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
While you are right there is one problem with this approach. And that is the power of the name: to most people Nahuatl, Zapotec, Mixtec etc are just is single languages with great dialectal diversity whereas the Mayan langauges are seen as separate languages because, for some reason, they are called by different names. The Mexican government for example count around sixty indigenous languages, Nahuatl, Zapotec and Mixtec each count once on that list while some 10 different Mayan languages are counted separately because they have separate names (just like a bunch of different languages, some non-related, are also counted together under the term Popoluca). It is simply customary to count nahuatl as a single language but Mayan as many.

In the article we describe nahuatl as one language with dialectal diversity - in the article on mayan languages we describe them (in accordance to the views of most Mayan peoples as expressed throuhg the ALMG) as disctinct languages. That means that the comparison of Nahuatl to Mayan is not justified by what we write in the articles. I think that maybe the most populous language comment is better left out altogether.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the power of the name is a real thing. I recently saw a very beautiful and expensively made picture book, put out by CDI (the old INI) on Mexico's indigenous groups, and it had about 10 pages of pictures on the Nahuas, and about 10 pages on (would you believe) the Mexicaneros. But the fact that people have this sort of language-induced or language-preserved misperception doesn't mean that we should perpetuate it.
It is also true that the articles currently go along with this standard in their organization. My response would be that maybe the Nahuatl article should be changed in this regard, to emphasize that this is a language *family*, and in that way comparable to Mayan, etc. You may be right that the best solution for the populous language comment is to omit it, but that doesn't seem quite right either. Nahuatl is indeed notable among NA indigenous languages for its huge population, and that is worth saying somehow. But it is not, or at least not clearly, the most populous comparable group, and I don't think it irrelevant or overly distracting to say so.
I think I'll copy these exchanges over to the Nahuatl talk page: it'd be relevant for others to put in their two cents worth.
--Lavintzin 16:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iztaccíhuatl

The event actually occurred, and the data on there is not bogus. All the events have occurred, and I can direct you to the pictures and events that took place if yah want -nima baghaei 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it was about, they couldn't even spell the mountain's name reasonably close to right. I'm too skeptical of it to want to waste time looking at it. Sorry if that's offensive, but it's true. --Lavintzin 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nahuatlahtolli

I just noticed that in 2005 (!) you wrote that the name nahuatlahtolli "was never used until the 19th century and that it was almost certainly coined by a linguist type rather than arising as the standard term for the language within any of the dialects". This might be too late to be useful, but I thought I should point out that actually it was already in use in the 16th century: see [1] teopixq[ui] ynipã nauatlatolli oq[ui]mocuepili "priest who translated it into Nahuatl" (translated as "the language of the Nahuas" on the Spanish side). --Ptcamn 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't say it was true: I had heard it (it surprised me) and I wanted some documentation pro or con, which you have here provided, and I appreciate it. I'd also still be interested in documentation from a modern variant where that is the standard name, not imposed from outside. --Lavintzin 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monasteries Of Popocatepetl

Hi there. I need help with this article on the world heritage site: monasteries on the slopes of the popocatepetl. It's finished already, but I need some help with the links. Thanks in advance. I'm New At This

Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monasteries_on_the_slopes_of_Popocatepetl

Dragon Lost In Mexico O.o

Thanks for starting this article: it's a good one. See if the links are there that you want. I edited the article a bit, too—hope it's to your liking.--Lavintzin 01:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Monasteries on the Slopes of Popocatepetl

Your recent edit to Monasteries on the Slopes of Popocatepetl (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the redirect (which was done by someone else) would be the best way. You can put in a redirect by using #REDIRECT [[New page title]] - simply removing all of the content from a page doesn't actually delete it, it's still in the index (and indexed by the search engines etc.) There is a tool administrators can use to remove a page from the index, in the future if you need it removed, simply put {{db|your reason here}} and someone will take care of it. Please let me know if you have any other questions. -- 03:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock paintings of Sierra de San Francisco

Hi there once again. This article on this World Heritage Site is done, but I need help with the links and i think i may have some grammar mistakes, would u mind correcting them? Thanks in advance again. More articles are on their way :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Paintings_of_Sierra_de_San_Francisco


[edit] Nahuatl getting into position for FA-drive

I have been working intensively on the Nahuatl article for the past few days - I am intent on taking it to FA status within the next few months. In that regard I'd appreciate all and any copyediting, peerreviwing, additions and suggestions to the article from knowledgeable and careful editors such as yourself. Thanks beforehand. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My changes to your changes

I have recently undone or changed a few of your edits to Nahuatl and I feel I should explain my reasons for doing so. You changed the gloss to an example of a Nahuatl sentence with agreement markers to four participants - you correctly stated that te:- and tla- are non specific prefixes referring to "someone" and "something" and not to "him" and "it" as the gloss staed. The gloss however were from Suárez' book "The Mesoamerican Indian Languages" and I believe he used the gloss he did in order to show the possibilities for polypersonal headmarking in Nahuatl. While your gloss is undoubtedly more correct I feel that we should use the gloss used in the example so as not to be guilty of neither misrepresenting quotes or doing Original Research. Your other change introduced a very good and thorough explanation of the gloss of an example of a modern Nahuatl sentence that had various loaned words. However it was a bit too detailed for the scope of the section and I moved it into a footnote. I hope that you can agree with my reasoning for changing your edits, and if not I am quite ready to discuss how to do it in a better way. I hope I haven't discouraged you from adding any more of your high quality contributions to the article. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes plenty of sense to me:—I like what you did with it. The footnote probably isn't even necessary: why not just leave the Spanish words bold-faced?
I think the Suárez glosses as they stand are actually a misrepresentation. It is only in fairly exceptional cases that you get so many object prefixes, and only one of them is ever a specific non-reflexive. It's certainly historically accurate to give his glosses for it, but I think it's misleading for the audience, which is a more important consideration to me. I'd vote for putting his glosses in a footnote.
The line between "no original research" and "don't leave what you know to be false, even if you can't quote somebody else on it" is a slippery one.
and btw, sorry about messing up one of your edits: apparently we were both editing the same section at the same time. Fixed now, anyhow.
I'm going to copy this to the Nahuatl talk page, I think, fwiw.--Lavintzin (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for the INALI map. I hope the new map at Nahuatl adequate - it is really difficult to make them fit just right. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)