User talk:Philx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Philx, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some good places to get you started!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

FireFox  T C E 18:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] HELP US MAKING THE PROJECT OF ANCIENT GREEK WIKIPEDIA

We are the promoters of the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.

Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FORTIS CADERE,CAEDERE NON POSSUNT!

To my friend, PhilX, for BEING BOLD in his contributions to Wikipedia's knowledge of Roman military tactics, I hereby award this Aquila. Sapere aude! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
To my friend, PhilX, for BEING BOLD in his contributions to Wikipedia's knowledge of Roman military tactics, I hereby award this Aquila. Sapere aude! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient greek subordination rules

Thanks for the invitation to edit your contribution. I will read it more carefully and see in I can make improvements. I already introduced polytonic writing in the examples as it fits for Ancient Greek. I am not a linguist, and I have only a rudimentary knowledge of Ancient Greek, therefore I cannot make any significant contributions. Also, I am participating in a debate on the classical pronunciation of the mediae. I am supported by several other editors in the theory that the letters β,γ,δ were pronounced [b], [g], [d] in classical times and became fricatives during Hellenistic times. However, User:Thrax argues that these letters represented fricatives from the beginning. In reading the comments in Talk:Ancient Greek pronunciation you will see that this debate has ideological undertones. If you have an opinion about this, you are welcome to participate. Andreas 18:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plosive-fricative transition

Click on this link: Talk:Ancient Greek pronunciation. For a summary: User:Thrax does not deny that outsice Greece, the "Erasmian" view regarding the mediae is the consensus. What he asserts - and what we other editors dispute - is that in Greece, the hypothesis that the mediae were voiced fricatives from the beginning, represents the dominant view of Greek scholars. His only source is a spurious article by Caragounis (a theologist living in Sweden). What we are trying here is to convince the Wikipedia community that Greek linguists have no disagreement with the rest of the world. What we would need for this is reference to Greek sources regarding the classical pronounciation of classical Attic Greek, in particular the consonants. Apart from scolarly works in Greek, this would also include contributions of Greek linguists in international scientific journals and at international conferences that cover the subject of classical Greek phonology.

This whole issue is an example of a problem that Wikipedia has, namely, that it is vulnerable to attacks from ideologists who insist on imposing their opinion. In my opinion and accoarding to my experience, the ideological context iis as follows: Modern Greek is, and is percieved, as a direct continuation of Ancient Greek, i.e. as the same language. There are innumerous words in modern Greek directly adopted from the ancient language, and this process is continuing right now. In fact, an ancient Greek word can legitimately be used in modern speech or writing, without changing of spelling (except minor adaptatons in the declension suffixes). (In Italian, latin words can also be easily introduced, but with adaptation of spelling according to rules; correct me if I am wrong). Ancient Greek is also used in prayer: most Greeks pray the πάτερ υμών in Ancient Greek). Citations from ancient texts and ancient proverbes are also cited in ancient Greek. The result is that the modern pronunciation of ancient Greek is seen by most Greeks as natural and therefore as a fact. If they corrected in this respectg by foreigners, many regard this as an attack on Greek pride. Andreas 19:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

ημών - υμών: another proof for the pronunciation [y] for υ. I fell victim of the Modern Greek pronunciation (I am of Greek descent from my mother's side).

Philx, are you a linguist? Do you have some expertise in Indoeuropean phonology? Maybe you know somebody who has. As you know, I have been involved in the hypothesis of C. Caragounis. In my opinion it is nonsense, but I am not an expert. If you don't minde to read nonsense, do you think somebody can do a real critique of Carabounis's hypothesis, with reference to sources etc.? One project that came up is to give a history of the pronunciation of classical and New Testament Greek in schools starting from the 1500s. I guess Erasmus was the first to address the issue of how scholars should pronounce ancieat languages when the pronunciation is not known. I assume that the hellenistic atticists were mainly concerned with vocabuolary, style, spelling, and not so much with pronunciation, but still there must be some reason why accents and breathings came up. Also, a historical account of the theories of the evolution of Greek pronunciation both from Greek and other scholars would be an interesting theme. I know, this would amount to a PhD theses, but maybe somebody has already published something like this. Andreas 20:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Hi again. If you have time left, could you give us an English translation or summary of the following? (Italian would also do). Thanks, Andreas 22:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Ac Erasmus quidem quâ occasione ad scribendum de rectâ pronunciatione fuerit impulsus, paucis cognitum arbitror. Itaque visum hâc de adjicere, quod in schedâ quadam habeo, scriptâ olim manu Henrici Coracopetræi, viri egregiè docti, doctisque perfamiliaris. Ea ita habet: ‘Audivi M. Rutgerum Reschium, professorem Linguæ Græcæ in Collegio Buslidiano apud Lovanienses, meum piæ memoriæ præceptorem, narrantem, se habitâsse in Liliensi pædagogio unà cum Erasmo, plus minus biennio eo superius, se inferius cubiculum obtinente: Henricum autem Glareanum Parisiis Lovanium venisse, atque ab Erasmo in collegium vocatum fuisse ad prandium: quò cùm venisset, quid novi adferret interrogatum, dixisse (quod in itinere commentus erat, quòd sciret Erasmum plus satis rerum novarum studiosum, ac mirè credulum) quosdam in Græciâ natos Lutetiam venisse, viros ad miraculum doctos; qui longè aliam Græci sermonis pronunciationem usurparent, quàm quæ vulgò in hisce partibus recepta esset. Eos nempe sonare pro B vita, BETA: pro H ita, ETA: pro ai æ, AI: pro OI I, OI: & sic in cæteris. Quo audito, Erasmum paulò pòst conscripsisse Dialogum de rectâ Latini Græcique sermonis pronunciatione, ut videretur hujus rei ipse inventor, & obtulisse Petro Alostensi, typographo, imprimendum: qui cùm, fortè aliis occupatus, renueret; aut certè se tam citò excudere, quàm ipse volebat, non posse diceret; misisse libellum Basileam ad Frobenium, a quo mox impressus in lucem prodiit. Verùm Erasmum, cognitâ fraude, nunquam eâ pronunciandi ratione postea usum; nec amicis, quibuscum familiariter vivebat, ut eam observarent, præcepisse. In ejus rei fidem exhibuit M. Rutgerus ipsius Erasmi manuscriptam in gratiam Damiani à Goes Hispani pronunciationis formulam (cujus exemplar adhuc apud me est) in nullo diversam ab eâ, quâ passim docti & indocti in hac linguâ utuntur’. Henricus Coracopetræus Cuccensis. Neomagi. CI I LXIX. pridie Simonis & Iudæ.

I try to summarize: Erasmus had lunch with Glareanus who told him that native Greeks pronounced beta as v etc. Erasmus believed him, but he could not change his book because it was already in print. Frobenius told Erarasmus that this was a joke, in reality Greeks pronounce their language the Erasmian way.

If the translation is correct then this is probably the conversation in which Glareanus revealed to Erasmus that he had lied to him in their previous conversation and is now setting the record straight. --Thrax 22:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If you compare this with what is written in Ancient Greek phonology, it seems that it is exactly the opposite. It was not Glarenuns who lied, but Frobenius. The important point here is: Erasmus did not write his book because Frobenius told him how Greeks pronounce ancient Greek; the book was already written when Frobenius spoke to him. The issue here that User:Thrax tries to convince us that Erasmus invented the Erasmian pronunciation because he was played a trick by somebody who told him that Greeks pronounce Greek the way he writes in his book. Thank you for your effort. Would you like to participate in the debate? Andreas 20:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. of course your translaton is correct, you are the expert, I absolutely trust your translation. I had only two years of latin. The text says that Glareanus lied to Erasmus, this is what Henricus Coracopetræus wrote. What is the reality? The Greeks he had met in Paris pronounced beta = v etc, this is how Greek was pronounced at that time. So, in reality, Glareanus did not lie, he said the truth. In reality, Frobenius was lying, because he told Erasmus that Glareanus was making jokes whereas in reality Glareanus was telling the truth. This is what I understood from your translation. Am I right? Indeed, already at that time the fight on how to pronounce ancient Greek was going on in full swing, at this has not changed until today. AS

Sorry Philx but I've checked through the Latin and your translation is totally wrong. The text says what Caragounis says it does. Here is my literal translation of it into English. Its not very good English but it proves you wrong. The basic jist of it is that Erasmus soon after hearing the lie where instead of B (vita) this letter was pronounced beta (pro means instead of) etc, he wrote his dialogue and rushed it to the printer who being too busy to verify the validity of Erasmus argument put it straight into print and Erasmus then sent it to his friends for comment. In the following spring Erasmus found out he was lied to and never used this pronunciation again not did his friends. --81.178.214.51 00:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ea ita habet: ‘Audivi M. Rutgerum Reschium, professorem Linguæ Græcæ in Collegio Buslidiano apud Lovanienses, meum piæ memoriæ præceptorem, narrantem, se habitâsse in Liliensi pædagogio unà cum Erasmo, plus minus biennio eo superius, se inferius cubiculum obtinente: Henricum autem Glareanum Parisiis Lovanium venisse, atque ab Erasmo in collegium vocatum fuisse ad prandium: quò cùm venisset, quid novi adferret interrogatum, dixisse (quod in itinere commentus erat, quòd sciret Erasmum plus satis rerum novarum studiosum, ac mirè credulum) quosdam in Græciâ natos Lutetiam venisse, viros ad miraculum doctos; qui longè aliam Græci sermonis pronunciationem usurparent, quàm quæ vulgò in hisce partibus recepta esset. Eos nempe sonare pro B vita, BETA: pro H ita, ETA: pro ai æ, AI: pro OI I, OI: & sic in cæteris. Quo audito, Erasmum paulò pòst conscripsisse Dialogum de rectâ Latini Græcique sermonis pronunciatione, ut videretur hujus rei ipse inventor, & obtulisse Petro Alostensi, typographo, imprimendum: qui cùm, fortè aliis occupatus, renueret; aut certè se tam citò excudere, quàm ipse volebat, non posse diceret; misisse libellum Basileam ad Frobenium, a quo mox impressus in lucem prodiit.

Translation

It goes like this "I have heard M. Rutgerum Reschium the teacher of the Greek language at Collegio Buslidiano at Lovanienses, if my memory serves me right, narrates himself that living in Lilienisi the slave that took children to school of Erasmus, more or less two years or longer, himself below the bedroom got hold of: Henrucus also Glareanus of Paris Lovanium came as well as Erasmus in the midst of the collage called to have been about the lunch: of which might have come, asked one who might bring to know, to have said (which in his journeys feigined this, which might know Erasmus, much sprung of the things new the student bring to miraculous and credulous) was in the City of Light, to have come a man of wondrous learning, who gave another rumour of Greek pronunciation to which the common utterance was received. They truly said instead of B (vita), BETA, instead of H (ita), ETA, instead of ai (ae), ΑΙ, instead of OI (I), OI and thus in its derivatives. For which reason when Erasmus heard this not long after he wrote his dialogue the right Latin Greek way of pronunciation to see of this thing himself the inventor and to have offered Petro Alostensi the printer to be printed, which came to be having other occupation, declined to certify this himself so cited it to be printed out, and himself was whishing to be able to hear what others might say sent the little book to Bassileus at Frobenius and by which soon impressed in the light that came forth. In the spring Erasmus became aware of the fraud and at no time did he use his pronounciation afterwards, nor did his friends who he had told. In faith M. Rutgeru had written of Erasmus in esteem Damiani of Goes Hispani of the concocted pronunciation (of which the model thus far takes off) in no one oppositie by which everywhere taught and untaught of this language to use. Henricus Coracopetræus Cuccensis. Neomagi. CI I LXIX. the day before Simonis & Iudæ. --81.178.214.51 00:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There is an important difference between your translation and the other two, regarding the passage:

  • Eos nempe sonare pro B vita, BETA [etc.]

pro means instead. If you take into account the comma then this means:

  • 'I greci infatti pronunciavano B vita como BETA

- in fact, instead of B vita they pronounced BETA. You translated:

  • I greci infatti pronunciavano B come vita (meaning that B was pronunced like v )

so the BETA is missing from your translation. The B and the vita belong together and are opposed to BETA which is capitalized for emphasis. In any case, this has nothing to do with how good your Latin is, I am certain it is excellent. This is just a matter of logic. So please, do not feel offended, the text is really confusing in this respect. With best regards, Andreas 12:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greek syntax

Dear Philx,

Thank you very much for your compliments on my translation of the Erasmus anecdote! I worked on it for quite some time to get it just the way I wanted it.

I have printed out the section you added to Ancient Greek and am studying it carefully. It seems to deal with two topics:

  1. The fact that tenses outside of the indicative mood express aspect rather than time in independent sentences.
  2. The sequence of moods and tenses in complex sentences and indirect discourse.

Would it be clearer if you put the second topic in a separate section? Then the first section would have room for examples of tenses in the subjunctive, optative, imperative, infinitive, and participle. Eventually the discussion of syntax will be long enough to merit an article of its own. Meanwhile, I shall edit it a bit or send you some more comments as soon as I can.

By the way, did you notice the message on my talk page from Edoardo about the Babel templates for ancient Greek? He has prepared corrected versions for the Italian Wikipedia, and I intend to make a few suggestions of my own when I have a chance.

Best regards, Flauto Dolce 03:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Caro Philx, at last I have had some time to reply to OrbiliusMagister's message about templates. And have you seen Yannos' reply to you on the Ancient Greek talk page? I couldn't have put it better myself. If you proceed according to his outline, working up from the basics of tense, mood, and aspect to the most complex constructions, readers will follow the discussion more easily. We do need a good treatment of syntax; as it is, Ancient Greek covers only phonology and morphology. -- Flauto Dolce 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Philx, could you write a one-line comment under my proposal for resolution on Ancient Greek phonetics saying what you said on my Talk page? Thanks --Macrakis 22:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what your position was because you never said so explicitly... and you said a few things which made it sound that Thrax had persuaded you. I did not want to presume to speak for you! Thanks for your comment. --Macrakis 22:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About grc templates

Dear Philx,

I hope you'll forgive me if I shift to Italian language, which I handle much better than the English one. I'll deeply appreciate any comment from Flauto Dolce too:

molto interessanti i tuoi interventi, e finalmente piuttosto dirompenti: era diverso tempo che aspettavo qualcuno così competente. Ti ho risposto nella pagina in questione. Visti i tuoi interessi potrebbe interessarti un fantastico strumentino per scrivere brevi frasi in greco politonico con Unicode: si tratta di BabelMap, una specie di Mappa caratteri di Windows ampliata: la trovi qui, è un archivio zip che non necessita di alcuna installazione. Con questo ho cominciato qualche mese fa ad aggiungere scrittine greche dove necessario. Se invece volessi preparare brani in greco più estesi e ti stufassi a scriverli con BabelMap, prova a fare un giretto presso http://www.wikisophia.org dove trovi un laboratorio di sperimentazione di nuove tecnologie per wikimedia. Nella mia pagina utente locale troverai qualche esempio di cosa sto masticando: è possibile scrivere facilmente in formato testo dei lunghi brani in greco che vengono resi come immagini esportabilissime su Commons o qui. Ciao da εΔω

P.S. Per curiosità, non ti andrebbe di iscriverti e contribuire anche su it.wiki? E' per te un brutto posto o cercavi il dialogo con qualche classicista senza trovarlo? Beh, per quanto possa valere eccomi, e non sono solo.

...YouHaveMail...εΔω

Dear Philx, I haven't forgotten you and OrbiliusMagister. Unfortunately, I've been too busy this week to do anything at all on Wikipedia, but you'll hear from me this weekend. -- Flauto Dolce 00:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching

Philx, could you contribute some content to Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching about the situation in Italy? Thanks, --Macrakis 03:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you think about this and the recent changes in Ancient Greek phonology? +MATIA ☎ 10:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching. There, you say:

X is pronounced like germanic ich, that is an aspirated k.

But Germanic ch is not pronounced as an aspirated k! It is pronounced /ç/ or /x/, depending on the preceding vowel. In Modern Greek, X is also pronounced /ç/ or /x/, but it depends on the following vowel.... So what do you use in Italian? Aspirated k, or ç/x? --Macrakis 21:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Philx, regarding this and your reply on my talk page, thankyou for the reply, but could you please keep the discussion together and keep it on the article's talk page? Thankyou. I've posted a response there as well, because I'm not sure your response has clarified the issue, but please see it for more details. Thanks again! —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 00:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subjunctives/Congiuntivi

Well, it is true that all roads lead to Rome, don't they? Affirmative, that's the same Wikipedius all over except for Germany. I fixed the subjunctive table, but if you see anything just gimme a holloa, I'm definitely "on patrol" these days.

Grazie per avermi segnalato il problema. Ho aggiunto i tempi mancanti al congiuntivo e ho sostituito first, second, third...con 1st, 2nd, 3rd che risparmiano spazio ed evitano di allargare troppo la pagina. Mi fa tanto piacere che anche tu e Edoardo abbiate deciso di buttarvi su wiki inglese, dopotutto è anche un ottimo banco di prova per imparare cose nuove e migliorare il proprio inglese! Colgo l'occasione per fare anche a te tanti auguri di Natale e per un felice 2006! Wikipedius 12:05, 27 dec 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Modern Greek "subjunctive"

Many questions in linguistics depend on the specific grammatical theory or analysis: is English "NOUN's" a genitive case? is Modern Greek "να VERB" a subjunctive? does English have dative pronouns in "I gave him a present"? There is no definitive answer in some sense. It is possible to write a grammar of Modern Greek or English which uses these categories which are motivated by the history of the language and by a Classical-Greek or Latin theory of grammar. However, since Saussure, the tendency is to reject history (diachrony) as a motivation for grammatical theories, and to focus on economical descriptions of the language in its own terms (synchronic description).

As the grammar article says: "Traditional grammar is the collection of ideas about grammar that Western societies have received from Greek and Roman sources. ... Modern descriptive grammar aims to correct the errors of traditional grammar, and generalize them, so as to avoid shoehorning all languages to the model of Latin. Nearly all materials used in teaching language, however, are still based on traditional grammar."

So the question in modern descriptive grammar is: is it useful to posit a "subjunctive" form for Modern Greek? Well, certainly it is not useful in terms of morphology. Does it describe some specific syntactic phenomenon? Does something special happen in clauses which begin with "na"? Well, there is one interesting thing. The perfective present can appear in those clauses, though it cannot appear in main clauses and some kinds of subordinate clauses (introduced by οτι for example), e.g. Θέλω να τρέξει (I want him to run (now).) but *Τρέξει γρήγορα. *Βλέπω οτι τρέξει. This leads traditional grammar to classify this form as subjunctive. On the other hand, all three other forms of the verb can also appear in a να clause: Θέλω να τρέxει. (I want him to run (in general).) Δεν νομίζω να έτρεχε. (I don't think he ran (in general).) Δεν νομίζω να έτρεξε. (I don't think he ran (on one occasion).) Is it useful to classify those as subjunctives as well? It turns out that exactly the same distribution (allowing all four forms of the verb) is observed with other particles as well, so we have Θα τρέξει. Πριν τρέξει, .... Εάν τρέξει, .... There is perhaps one reason to prefer the subjunctive analysis -- that μην can only be used in a να clause (or by itself, which can be interpreted as elision of να). Does that justify talking of a subjunctive? Honest linguistics can differ. --Macrakis 16:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You say "all grammars have to have a model to wich refers to, as you said latin perfectly fits this role". Using Latin as the model grammar has been rejected by linguistic science for 100 years or so, though traditionalists still use it sometimes. Modern linguistics attempts to find categories that make sense in the language's own terms. Different languages have different structures, and Latin has its own peculiarities.

va is Not subjunctive mood, it is only a particle that applies to the subordinate a valor of dubious and wish, but this is not what the subjunctive mood does morphologically?

Yes, but so what? In English, "to" is used to express the recipient of giving (John gave it to Mary) but it makes no sense to say that "to Mary" is a dative.

The modern Greek verb is, in my opinion, best analyzed as having past/nonpast tense and perfective/imperfective aspect. The ancient categories of "perfect tense", "aorist tense" etc. aren't really applicable. --Macrakis 18:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You ask why it is not useful to call "to Mary" in "John gave it to Mary" a dative. First, there is no special morphology. Pronouns take the general oblique form "to him" -- there is no specific dative form. Secondly, how do you decide which prepositions correspond to a case? Latin has gen, dat, acc, abl, but other languages have many more cases. Should you call "into the house" an illative case (as in Finnish)? In that case, why not call the Latin "casam" in "in casam" an "illative case" rather than an accusative? That would better reflect its meaning, though the form is the same as the accusative. In English terms, as opposed to Latin or Finnish terms, there is no dative or illative case, just a prepositional phrase.

 Voglio che tu corra = Θέλω να τρέξεις. (once) or Θέλω να τρέχεις. (habitually)
 Pensavo che fossi corso = Νόμιζα οτι είχες τρέξει. or Νόμιζα οτι έτρεξες.

You say: "...the subjunctive tells 2 important information... The type of action that is seen by the writer\speaker, that is in this case of doubous.... The relationship of anteriority of between the regent and its subordinate." Yes, that is its function in languages which have it. It is especially important when you can make distinctions with it. --Macrakis 20:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Philx, the point remains about illative/accusative. Would you call "in Romam" an illative? Of course not, because Latin doesn't have an illative, even if Finnish does. You analyze Latin in terms of Latin categories, Finnish in terms of Finnish categories, and Modern Greek in terms of Modern Greek categories. As for modern vs. ancient Greek, yes, of course the tense system is very different. In modern Greek, we don't have optative and subjunctive (by the way, if Latin is your reference, how do you talk about ancient Greek optative mood?), we don't distinguish between middle and passive voice (again, a voice that doesn't exist in Latin), etc. It is different. Not obsolete. Non-existent. --Macrakis 02:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Px: Ancient greek optative is subjunctivus obliqus in latin.

Subjunctivus obliquus is a use of the subjunctive; it is not a mood. Latin simply does not have an optative mood...

Px: In casam is for latin accusative case while for finnish illative, but the always indicate the same things! Only that Latin Feels this case as the object of arriving of an action, so that's why accusative. Like ancient greek too i should say.

I don't understand. Do you claim that it is useful to say that Latin has an "illative case"? If not, why not? Certainly the meanings correspond, as does the meaning of "go to Rome". That, again, does not mean that English has an illative (or for that matter an accusative of motion).

Px: You would then making me believe that modern greek doesn't need to express subjunctive features in the past tenses? A bit strange don't you think?

Why strange? Different languages express things differently. Not every language has a Latin-style subjunctive. --Macrakis 03:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HQITWS

Hi. I noticed you wrote answers to my hardest questions in the world section on my user page. I'm sorry however that I can't accept the answer, even though it was correct, because all answers were supposed to be submitted on my talk page. Please don't let this hinder you however. Please come back & try some more answers. There's one question there that has been there for a long time...... Spawn Man 04:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ciao!

Caro Philx,

non ti si legge da un pezzo su it.wiki e temevo che fossi sparito! Mi fa piacere vederti in grande azione qui, e spero che tornerai dalle nostre parti ogni tanto. Daresti una letta al mio nuovo articolo e un cenno di commento? --εΔω 01:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Leggendo il libro L'impero dei draghi di V.M. Manfredi, in cui si pongono a confronto la mentalità dei pretpriani romani e dei guerrieri cinesi mi sei venuto in mente: ci sono dei passi che ti esalterebbero sicuramente: lo hai letto?

[edit] Menander

Please don't move my comments. I generally object to it, and some people will object to it far more vehemently.

I had two points.

  • Italian commentators should be quoted in English, on this encyclopedia, and where possible from works available in English.
  • I see there is an Italian article on Menander, although unlinked to. Is that paragraph on psychology more or less what you had in mind? If not, you should probably fix and source it first, in your primary language, before translating it here. Septentrionalis 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I quote from my own page:

Hi. Phil, I think he means, why dont you translate the work into Italian first on the Italian Wiki, then translate that into English and move it over here to the En Wiki. If you want me to help on this part, plz let me know. Ciao for now--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless the present discussion there is yours, or what you would say; if so, just translate it. Regasrds, Septentrionalis 04:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Translate this"

"They" were right, the text on Ancient Greek grammar you edited looked like abracadabra. It is certainly better now, but as yet far from ideal, still a little too complicated. I for one don't know what a "storic" mode is supposed to be. Anyway, thanks a lot. Caesarion 23:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Join us!

This user is a member of the
Military history WikiProject.

Phil, consider this an invitation to join us over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Just click on the link, add your name to our member's list along with your areas of interest. And this tag, if you wish to your userpage. See ya ther amico! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lingua italiana

Come si dice da queste parti, ti dò una buona notizia e una cattiva notizia. Prima la buona: la lingua italiana è la più vicina a quella latina. Lo sostiene la maggioranza degli studiosi (Segre, Bruni et. al.) ed è la maggioranza degli accademici che fa testo. Il rumeno è una lingua romanza con un sostrato slavo, anche se moltissime parole latine si sono conservate perfettamente. L'italiano resta comunque la prima delle lingue neolatine. Tempo fa scrissi una History of Italian dove discuto del problema (con la dovuta bibliografia). Non c'è ancora sufficiente chiarezza, l'equivoco parte ahimé proprio dall'Italia che non conosce ancora la lingua che parla. --Wikipedius 00:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ciao Philx, ho avuto bisogno di qualche giorno per consultare le fonti. Per non riempirti troppo la pagina ho messo tutto qui. --Wikipedius 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006
Project news
From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals
  • Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy e 05:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ancient Greek Wikisource

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Some Help

Well, there are three main problems:

  • The article doesn't cite its sources. This is pretty much the cardinal sin as far as articles are concerned, and basically kills any chances of moving up in status even in the absence of any other problems.
  • The organization is quite bizarre. The article can be laid out either chronologically or thematically, but this one seems to combine them and jump around between describing periods and describing concepts.
  • There is a lot of choppy prose and lists. This is a fairly minor issue in comparison to the other two, though.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 12:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm not all that familiar with Roman warfare or the sources used, so I might not be too much help. You'd probably be better off asking some of the members of the Classical warfare task force working on those topics instead. Kirill Lokshin 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't need the exact sources he used, merely sources that support what's in the article. (And I don't think he's entirely left; you might try sending him an email.) Kirill Lokshin 17:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Special:Emailuser/R.D.H._(Ghost_In_The_Machine), maybe? Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't exchanged emails with him very often, but he's responded fairly quickly in the past. Kirill Lokshin 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a "quality scale" (which is linked from the project banner template on the talk page) that's used as a guideline; while the exact rating given does vary somewhat depending on who is reviewing the article, they tend to be quite close on average. (And it's expected that, as an article is improved, it will rise in rating; so later reviewers might rate it higher than earlier ones.) Kirill Lokshin 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it should go back up fairly quickly once the issues (particularly the references) start getting worked on. (It's only a move of one level, in any case; that may just be attributable to different reviewers looking at the article somewhat differently, as I mentioned above.) Kirill Lokshin 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Meh. It shouldn't be all that common. In any case, see WP:MHA#FAQ, particularly #7; pick a few project members who haven't touched the article before and ask them to rate it. You should wind up with a firmer consensus on where it falls. Kirill Lokshin 18:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Try the main project list, then; I'm sure you can find some people who are completely uninvolved ;-)
(There's no real need, in my opinion, for them to be experts in the subject matter, since what we're really concerned with at this point are things like structure and writing style.) Kirill Lokshin 01:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Short paragraphs and lists, mostly. They should be combined into longer chunks of prose. (But this is fairly minor compared to the referencing and structure.) Kirill Lokshin 16:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman infantry tactics

A new user intents some changes on Roman infantry tactics to include ancient sources. I'm a bit sceptic, could you give him a helping hand. Thank you. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)