User talk:Thrax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) will produce your name and the current date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German pronunciation of "g"

You will not be able to teach me anything here, German this is my first language. Morever, the German phonology is well documented. The name "Wenger" is pronunced [veŋɡɐ]. In fact, there is a velar fricative in some German dialects. For example, in Berlin, the word Wagen is pronounced [vaγn̩]. This is a recent development form an original plosive. You can look up the ethymology of most words of the main Indoeuropean languages in textbooks. Go to the library and do some research. You will also be interested in Spanish phonology where the plosive-fricative transition is in full swing, the fricatives appear as approximants. Andreas 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Gimm's Law dictates that gamma must came first and hard g later. Unless you can provide me with gramophone recordings from 100 years ago to prove that gamma did not exist in Spanish or German at this time I shall assume that gamma was the original pronunciation of g, since that is what I am hearing from the sound of the majority of German speakers, and that hard English g is the recent development. --Thrax 18:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Germans pronounce German with a German accent whereas the English pronounce German with an English accent and vice versa. If both languages sounded alike then there would be no accents therefore German g and English g are not the same sound. Greek spoken by Italians sounds closer to Greek spoken by Greeks than Greek spoken by the English and this is why I refuse to accept the English pronunciation of ancient Greek as being either scientific or accurate. The English pronunciation of Greek is the least Greek sounding of any European pronunciation of Greek so must be wrong. --Thrax 18:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean *gʰ→g. Grimm's law#In detail. The example given isGans/ Greek χήν. why do you think it has something to do with gamma? Andreas 18:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That's right. gH (the symbol does not display properly but I assume that's what you mean) is the equivalent of gamma. Look at Dionysios Thrax description of the Mediae which places the sound of γ midway between the sounds of κ and χ. Unaspirated k is kappa which is pronounced g or j (English j not the IPA y sound) in Cypriot dialect which is the most indicative of ancient and Mycenaean Greek and h is hi therefore gamma is gH (actually its somewhere in between the sound of g and H). By Grimm's Law German g cannot evolve back to gH since gH is how it started. Grimms Law should be written more fully as gH > γ > g > k > kH > h (where k is un-aspirated k and kH is aspirated k). --Thrax 18:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The table looks at the correspondence Greek <χ> (χήν) -German <g> (Gans). Where is the <χ> in your sequence? Andreas 18:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Greek χ is h (gH > γ > g > κ > kH > χ = gH > γ > g > k > kH > h). --Thrax 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This table deals with evolution from proto-Indo-European but since the Goths originally used the Greek alphabetic script to write their language in the Gothic Bible and incorporated many Greek words into their language Germanic g must have still been pronounced as γ in the 5th century AD in order to correspond to the symbol for gamma in the Greek script and in Greek words that were introduced into Germanic unaltered. --Thrax 19:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hm - interesting. Are all these phonological changes documented somewhere, or is it your own theory? There is something I do not understand: When you refer to Grimm's law, you wrote gH > γ > g > k > kH > h. Does this mean that proto-indoeuropean gH became h in German? The the goose should be "Hans" in German. (Maybe someone's pet goose is actually called "Hans"). Seriously, I am not really qualified to have an independent opinion about this, I have to follow what the experts say. There should be enough experts in Indoeuropean phonology aroud in Wikepedia that might be willing to discuss these very interesting questions with you. Andreas 20:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Proto-Indo-European gH became g in Germanic, h in Latin, h in Sanscrit and h (χ) in Greek, whereas proto-Indo-European g becomes k in Germanic and proto-Indo-European k becomes h in Germanic. Goose in Greek is χηνα which is gans in German and 'anser in Latin (aspirated a) so this follows Grimms Law. The Proto-Indo-European root is *gHans [1]. In English *gHans is also Hen as well as goose so Hen must have come from Greek χηνα. --Thrax 22:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
See Proto-Indo-European Phonology --Thrax 22:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diphthongs

The passage that you deleted sait that in classical times ει was not a diphthong any more, but a digraph. I do not understand why you contest this. Andreas 21:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I am unsure what diphthongs actually were. Dionysios Thrax (100 BC) says that there were only 6 diphthongs and ei was one of them. If that is correct the above statement is either incorrect or the definition of a diphthongs in modern linguistics does not correspond to the term Dionysios Thrax is using. Are diphthongs testified to before Dionysios Thrax's time and if so by who and how many and what were they supposed to be. --Thrax 21:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Dionysios Thrax's definition of diphthongs is the same as the colloquial meaning in Modern Greece does not correspond to definition of a diphthongs in modern linguistics. Andreas 19:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
So am I to take it that Dionysios Thrax defined diphthongs as two letters pronounced as one ? If this is the case why should I take anything said by modern linguists seriously since it is obvious that they cannot understand the meaning of basic ancient Greek texts on grammar and they are making it up as they go along to suit the ends of their ethnocentric theories which are all based on imposing Germanic pronunciation on every other indo-European languages by deliberately ignoring their pronunciation by their native speakers. Have they even considered that their ideas on the pronunciation of proto-Germanic might be wrong and that it could have been pronounced exactly like modern Greek. --Thrax 19:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
What if the original proto-indo-European so-called stops were pronounced as pH, tH and kH for the Psila as in Glottalic theory, β, θ and γ for the Mediae as in modern Greek and bH, dH and gH for the Dasea as in standard proto-indo-European theory. Do you think that this would be a pretty good compromise between all camps ? --Thrax 19:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
This would be own research. Andreas 19:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I wish to apologise my presumption in translatin the text, i was probably influenced by my point of view, and for sure thinking that as a classical latin text not considering so many changes in syntax and style wich inficiated my translation, F.S.S.D (Filippus suo salutem dat ) Philx Philx 17:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I enjoyed doing the translation. --Thrax 19:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
err, not to make problems, you were right with "instead B vita, beta" but you translated Quod sciret erasmus, as "wich might know erasmus", but as far my mind concers, quod sciret, being a causal it had to be translated knowing erasmum, because that subjunctive is not a potentional or dubious subjunctive, but a cosecutio modorum attracted conjunctive, considering that all is a oratio obliqua, so all must be subordinate as rected by an infinitive. Or i'm messing all around again? thanks for a your reply. F.S.S.D Philx Philx 21:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I hoped in a your reply but, fine thanks don't minf F.S.S.D Philx Philx 19:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, knowing erasmus is right. --Thrax 19:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Philx Philx 10:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] phonology

I think that article has too many tags and "problems". Let's avoid adding new "tags" (I'm talking about the see the discussion link). Thanks. If you know of any sources other than Caragounis that I could look up, let me know (I believe all of us can contribute for a NPOV and good article). +MATIA ☎ 12:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Block

Thrax, I am blocking you for 24 hours. You have reverted the Ancient Greek phonology article 9 times in less than 2 hours, despite numerous requests for you to stop, and very patient explanations from several editors as to why your source isn't of acceptable quality for an encyclopedia. After the block expires, please try to work with the other editors to reach a reasonable compromise. kwami 22:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thrax, since none of the prior warnings/requests were on this page, and one of the other editors of the article thinks you should be given another chance, I'm lifting the block. Note however, that any revert/restoration of the Ancient Greek phonology article within 24 hours of your last edit of a few hours ago will again put you in violation of Wikipedia:3RR. kwami 02:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again,

Based on your editing comments, it seems that you might think the 3RR rule allows you to revert an article 3 times a day. No - that would be considered abusive. Revert/edit wars are highly disruptive to the development of the encyclopedia, and the 3RR rule is meant to give people time to cool off when they get hot under the collar. However, a calculated move to "play" the rules by going to the limit day after day is considered to be bad faith, and you can be blocked for that as well.

You just moved the article to a new title. I'm not sure what the point is, since that doesn't accomplish anything, but the other editors feel that you're playing tricks. Moving articles is normally only done after discussion, whereas in this case it appears you may have done it out of spite. Again, this is disruptive and can be grounds for blocking you.

Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise. That means that we need to work together. There are some very knowledgable people working on this article. You need to work with them. Wikipedia is not the place to push unsubstantiated ideas, which it appears that your source is. It is instead a place to share the state of the knowledge. That means standard scholarly understanding. Marginal ideas get marginal coverage. They don't get equal time. If you look at the Earth article, you won't find equal coverage given to the idea that the Earth is flat. It doesn't matter if it is flat; Wikipedia is a collection of scholarship, not a collection of truth.

Please try to convince the other editors of your views. If you have the evidence, you'll be able to do so. However, if you don't have the evidence to convince people, and your ideas are not mainstream in the literature, then you don't have the right to insist on your POV simply because you believe it's correct. That's simply disruptive, and couterproductive. We'll never get anything done if that's how we operate. kwami 23:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, I get it now. By the time I saw the article, it had been moved to Reconstructed pronunciation of ancient Greek. I didn't understand why people had gotten upset, or what you had hoped to accomplish by such a move, until I noticed that you had actually moved it to 19th-century reconstructed pronunciation. Yes, that is being dishonest. You know full well that this is the 21st-century understanding, even if modern scholarship started in the 19th. That's like moving "Earth" to "15th-century round-Earth theory". If you pull crap like this again, I will block you for vandalism. kwami 23:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block warning

Hi, Thrax. I see that you have moved Ancient Greek phonology a second time, in defiance of many appeals, of consensus, and of common courtesy. (User:Ανδρέας has now undone your move.) My first thought was to block you straight away for these actions, but I suppose the title of the article must be extremely important to you, to make you behave so cavalierly. I'm giving you one more chance. Please do not move the article or its talkpage again (at any time, or to any title), or I will block you from editing for a good long time. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

P. S. Should you perform any other (further) disruptive editing of this article, it will also result in a block, since you have apparently been sailing close to the wind in that respect also. Please do not unilaterally revert against consensus. Edit wars are considered harmful. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Bishonen. You might want to take note that Thrax has been doing just that: He changed the overall structure of the article, re-ordering sections, in a way that had been suggested a few days ago on the talk page, where discussants had in the end consented not to make that change. (The original proponent had explicitly withdrawn the proposal, having been convinced by another editor's arguments.) Not that it's an issue most people would probably feel strongly about, but still it's illustrative of Thrax' disruptive tactics. Lukas 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Bishonen's being more patient than I would have been. If I'd gotten here first, you'd be blocked now, but I'll not trump her decision. kwami 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia rules state that users cannot be blocked for expressing an opposing point of view and that blocking other users cannot be used as a tactic to win in a POV war. Instead of using and abusing administrator privilege I suggest that arbitration be called on. --Thrax 20:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
A user can be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia, which is what you're doing. Marginal and crackpot ideas get marginal coverage, unless they're culturally important. This isn't two sides pushing their own POVs; it's you pushing your POV against others who are trying to report the scholarly literature. Wikipedia isn't about who's "right", it's about reporting the state of knowledge. kwami 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thrax, I'm assuming you created the fork in good faith, and that you won't edit war about its redirection. If you do, please do not by any means suppose that I will hesitate to block you. I'm in no way involved in a POV conflict. I have never edited Ancient Greek phonology, have no knowledge of the subject, and no reason to favor one side of the issue over another. What I've been doing so far is trying to clarify the nature and importance of the concept of "consensus" to you, as it's understood on this site. Another point: if you want arbitration, you're supposed to call on it, by listing the user/s you have a problem with on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. However, arbitration is designed to be the last, not the first, step in dispute resolution. A better first step for you would be to list the page/s on Wikipedia:Requests for comments, to get more eyeballs evaluating the conflict. Note that for a content dispute such as this, your first step should be to list the page (or pages), not your opponents, on Requests for Comments. Look, I'm not the enemy, I'm not against you; I'm giving you good advice. Please listen. Bishonen | talk 00:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block warning: disrupting the talk page

I'm crossposting the note I just left on Talk:Ancient Greek phonology here, to make sure you don't miss it.

Unfortunately, I see that Thrax has ignored Lukas' and my pleas above ("Anti-bloat measures") for keeping this page managable, civil, and useful, and has continued to try to shout down all opposition and add long posts to the wrong section. I'm sorry it had to come to this, but I've moved the long argument between Thrax and Enkyklios to Talk:Ancient Greek phonology/Thrax's responses to RFC comments. I don't mean to marginalize Thrax or make it difficult for him to take part in the discussion, but I don't see any other alternative to the (still less desirable) option of premature archiving of this whole page, outside responses and all. Thrax, please put any further responses you wish to make to Enkyklios or anybody else who responds to the RFC at Talk:Ancient Greek phonology/Thrax's responses to RFC comments. Feel free to post a brief note in "Responses to RFC" that you have done so, and a diff pointing to your post, but don't argue in that section any more. This is not optional, since you have been making this talkpage unusable. Stop shouting and personally attacking other contributors. You are currently violating WP:CIVIL and disrupting this page. Desist or I will block you. Bishonen | talk 11:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] You have been blocked

Crossposted to Talk:Ancient Greek phonology.
You have been blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks and disruption. Please note that if you continue the same actions after the block expires, I will block you for longer. Many people have recommended WP:NPOV and WP:CITE to your attention. I hope you will click on those links and spend some of the next 24 hours studying them, as well as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vregamoto

User:Vregamoto (translates roughly as 'fuck it!', not an acceptable user name) has two edits to his account:

  1. A reply to User:Bishonen's block of Thrax, posted soon after the block 2005-12-27 01:26:30 [2]
  2. A comment during an earlier block of Thrax, posted soon after the block block: 2005-11-29 23:07:47[3]

Suggestive evidence of sock-puppetry. --Macrakis 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

Vregamoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been determined, using CheckUser, to be a sockpuppet of Thrax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I have advised Bishonen that she may block Vregamoto indefinitely and Thrax for any time up to one month for the use of sockpuppets to continue disruptive editing practices after repeated warnings. Anybody who has a problem with this may take it up with the Arbitration Committee. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked you for three weeks for inveterate disruption, especially for using a sock to evade a block (twice), and to create a false impression of support for your position. The Vregamoto account was already indefinitely blocked for inappropriate username. Please edit constructively and work with others when you return. Don't use sock puppets disruptively again, or you may find yourself the subject of a request for arbitration. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Er... I see. Block extended to one month, new sock puppet Yarak blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
New sockpuppets AntiCensorship (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and ZeroK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely and the IP involved blocked for one month. Please don't abuse proxies. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop creating sock puppets now

Thrax, if you want to ever again edit Wikipedia legitimately, I strongly advise you to stop creating sockpuppets and evading your block now. Wikipedia doesn't have any use for editors who don't even try to work with others. Bishonen | talk 02:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)