User talk:Varoon Arya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comparative linguistics/History of linguistics > Joseph Scaliger

This is the information I considered incorporating into either Comparative linguistics or History of linguistics.

—

One of the earliest attempts in the field of comparative linguistics was undertaken by Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609). Based on his observation of the words used for 'god' in a number of European languages, he organized them into four rudimentary 'language groups', i.e. (1) a ‘deus’-group (Latin deus; Italian dio; Spanish dio; French dieu), (2) a ‘gott’-group (German Gott; Dutch god; Swedish gud; English god), (3) a ‘bog’-group (Russian bog; Ukranian bog; Polish bog; Czech buh) and (4) a ‘theos’-group (Greek theós). In essence, Scaliger had hit upon what are today referred to as the Romance, Germanic and Slavic language groups, though he did not realize the implications of this discovery.

References:

Robins, R. H. (1997). A Short History of Linguistics. New York: Longman.

Adams, D. Q. and Mallory, J. P. (2006) The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. New York: Oxford University Press.

—

I hesitate to include this, for technically Scaliger never understood how these groups were historically related, and as far as I can tell, never set up any kind of hypothesis to explain what was going on. Thus, I'm not sure if he can be considered an early comparative linguist per se - though I think he deserves be mentioned for this accomplishment somewhere. Perhaps you know of a better article for this information? Also, do you think a table would be a better way to present his correspondences? Varoon Arya 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pforzen buckle

This is the image I would like to include in the article Pforzen buckle.

Rendition of the runic instription from the Pforzen buckle.

it looks very nice. Maybe you could add a reference to your souce -- did you draw it after a photograph, or after another drawing? --dab (𒁳) 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notebook: Agnihotra

Agnihotra (अग्निहोत्र) is a Vedic yajna (ritual or sacrifice) performed by members of orthodox and heterodox Hindu communities. In recent times, agnihotra has also been promoted by various individuals and groups as a non-sectarian ritual for the healing and purification of the atmosphere. It is also a primary source of vibhuti or sacred ash.

The term agnihotra is a karmadharaya compound meaning 'sacrifice (hotra) unto fire (agni)'. It is mentioned in the Atharvaveda (11:7:9) and described in detail in the Shatapatha Brahmana (12:4:1).

For rituals in which agnihotra may play a part, see "Havan" and "Homa".

[edit] Purusharthas

Hi Varoon. The inclusion of the word 'sexual' is certainly necessary for describing Kāma. The description given on the Kāma page is: Kāma (Skt., Pali; Devanagari: काम) involves sensual gratification, sexual fulfillment, pleasure of the senses, love, and the aesthetic enjoyments of life. You can see that it is primarily love or sexual enjoyment. Pleasure can be attained through a variety of means other than sex, expecially material prosperity or Artha. Pleasure as such applies to both Kāma and Artha. Now to use the word 'pleasure' alone to denote Kāma would be an extreme generalization and create an ambiguity between Kāma and Artha. I am certain that using the word 'sexual' is correct. Thanks. Arjun Menon 12 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-proto-germanic

Boo! Nordic Bronze Age. Yes they are. They are before Proto-Germanic and they are not known. Look up pre-proto-germanic on the Internet. Look up pre-Germanic on the Internet. Nothing before Proto-Germanic is known and furthermore proto-Germanic is only a reconstruction. Check Lehmann. But you seem to have something else in mind. Let's have it. What have you got? Set the stub up, let's have a look. I suggest for credibility you have some references handy. The only reason I do not revert you right this moment is that I am fascinated by this concept you just presented. In fact while you are doing that I am going to check the Internet. I hope you have something substantial here.Dave 01:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no need to get snippy. I realize the concept of GPL might be new. I'm working on the stub as I write this. The first draft should be up shortly. Also, my comment was directed at the word 'unknown' - not at the fact that they are unattested or reconstructed. A bit of patience, please. =) Varoon Arya 01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not snippy, I just want you to be be right. Here is what I have so far. Bloomfield page 298 uses Germanic Parent Language but he is not the first. It goes back at least to 1908. But what those people mean by that is Proto-Germanic. Now, "Germanic Parent Language" is used only rarely. It is used however. That does not concern us though. GPL dates to the pre-Roman Iron age. This is the Bronze Age much before it. The language had to evolve from PIE to GPL and while it was doing so it was NOT GPL. I and others cover all that in Proto-Germanic. Furthermore, other than that it was some form of PIE or subsequent we do not know what it was. The previewable books on Google call it pre-proto-Germanic or Pre-Germanic and those are all dated later than 2000. But let's take a look at what you have.Dave 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. Maybe you should stop work on GPL. We HAVE an article on Proto-Germanic. It will just end up getting merged and what have you to say about GPL that is not already in Proto-Germanic?Dave —Preceding comment was added at 01:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If it gets merged, fine. (In fact, I'm fairly certain that someone like DBachmann will insist that it be merged.) But I think it's worth putting up in a separate article anyways. The main reason for this is that - in contradistinction to Proto-Germanic, GPL (particularly as defined by Van Coetsem) includes the incipient non-Germanic stage of PIE, and it covers the entire period from ca. 2000 B.C.E. to ca. 1 C.E. New research shows that the First Sound Shift, for example, didn't happen until ca. 500 B.C.E. But this research also goes on to show that the FSS was not the 'primary marker' of Gmc. development that it has been held to be since the 19th century. Just let me get these notes up and we can talk about it over there. OK? I'm neither a kook nor a fringe-fan. I'm honestly trying to report on what appears to be a new and useful approach to chronology in Gmc. Studies. Varoon Arya 02:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed. It appears that you may be right. And, you got a chance to do it first, as you wished. Here are my observations. First it seems that you are still a little new to Wikipedia. So here are some hints. We seem to be going for in-line notes and page numbers. So, if you could give us a note and a page number on as many ideas as you can that would be more helpful and more in line with what we are doing. Second, you are still relying on weasel words. What we want to know is who says it. If it really is generally said then give us an example and a page number. Those are my main comments. Apart from those things you seem to write like a pro. For myself I am delighted to know so much work has been done, which evidently has escaped the attention of most of the books I checked. That is why you must cite chapter and page, so to speak.

On the notes and biblio items we are using cite web, cite book, etc. I can can get you some help links on that. The idea is, if you have a ref that is repeated, to assign it a name like this: ^[1] and the next time you cite it you use ^[1] If you cite a book only once just cite book it in a note but if you are going to refer to different places in it then cite book it in the bibliography and then just note the author's name and page number. All this stuff is tedious but believe me it is worth it. Some writing hints: assume a lower level of knowledge than your own. Don't presume the audience will automatically know what you are talking about. We are not trying to impress the professionals - nothing can impress those buzzards anyway - but make it clear to the general public. Since we have to be concise, keep going over it to make sure that everything it says is exactly true and does not imply an error. And now for the grand finale. As for Bachman, well, I wouldn't hesitate to speak up if he is wrong. The trick is to be right yourself. I don't know what he does in real life and I do not care. He makes mistakes like everyone else. I've been trying to straighten out Proto-Germanic and it was a total mess and Bachmann's signature figured heavily in the history. As for the article, I changed my mind. It is not identical to Proto-Germanic and therefore I would not merge it. Proto-Germanic is long enough. What we need to do I think is use

Main article: [[{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]

and {{detail}.

And finally you created some work for us. These other articles such as Proto-Germanic now have to be checked to see that they are compatible with your article. One thing I like about Wikipedia is that when it is working right the latest ideas get in there so you do not have buy a thousand books and buy them every year. You get to know what is current. Excuse me but it is late and I am tired. I jump around a lot. I am going to take a break and stop work on the Germanic articles. Then I will start with your article as much to learn from it as anything else. Then the other articles have to be updated, but since most of them were in an absurd mess anyway that can be combined with clean-up. Let me encourage you that if you get attacked by anyone, even Bachman, stick with it.Dave 06:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Dave. Thanks for the constructive criticism. It is appreciated. Yes, I am a relatively new editor here, and I know it shows in my writing and formatting. But I try to make good contributions, and I am willing to learn from more experienced editors.

Regarding the notes and page numbers: I tried to include all the information, but apparently put it in the wrong format. I will try and rearrange the material. The links you mentioned could be helpful here. Also, if there are ideas or phrases that you see as requiring sourcing, please don't hesitate to mention them on the talkpage. I will try and source any such things ASAP, provided I have the literature in front of me (To some degree I'm at the mercy of my local public library, so bear with me.)

Regarding the ‘weasel words’: I wasn’t aware of having used any, as it certainly wasn’t my intent. But I would appreciate it if you could point out individual cases for immediate correction or clarification.

Regarding your comments on style and tone: Duly noted. I will remember these points in future edits here and elsewhere.

Thanks again and I look forward to working with you on future versions of this and related articles. I personally welcome your recent tightening-up of a few Germanic articles. Varoon Arya 13:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Varoon Arya, you are right that I think the article should be merged, but that's because I am a mergist, not because there is anything wrong with it. I really fail to see anything "new" here at all, except for the term. So "GPL" refers to (Pre-Germanic + Proto-Germanic). What is supposed to be controversial about this? It's just a definition of a new term. If people find the term useful, they will use it, and if they prefer to keep talking about Pre-Germanic vs. Proto-Germanic they won't, but there is no disagreement, and no innovation, in substance at all. Your claim that

"this research also goes on to show that the FSS was not the 'primary marker' of Gmc. development that it has been held to be since the 19th century"

is completely mistaken. What research? Saying "hey, let's call Pre-Germanic 'GPL' and include it in 'Germanic' too"? All you have done is re-defining the meaning of "Germanic". That's pure terminology and doesn't affect the central importance of the FSS at all. Every proto-language has a pre-proto-stage. Lehmann likes to talk about pre-proto-stages, since he is into internal reconstruction. But it is perfectly arbitrary to talk about "GPL" in particular. You might just write the same article verbatim, mutatis mutandis for, say, the "Tamil Parent Language", the "French Parent Language" (Vulgar Latin), or any other language to care to mention. I am also afraid this may have some ideological baggage of the "antiquity frenzy" type attached. So we redefine "Germanic" to extend back into the Bronze Age. To me, this is reminiscent of Greek patriots insisting on redefining "Hellenic languages" to include Macedonian by definition. That's "proof by fiddling with terminology", not a very satisfying procedure in my book. dab (𒁳) 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The point with the FSS is that, though central in the current defintion of Proto-Germanic (some saying that to even think of a pre-FSS Proto-Germanic constitutes an affront to good sense) and the most readily identifiable marker used to contrast Gmc with non-Gmc IE languages, it is not central to language development in the GPL. Rather, it is seen as a consequence of earlier changes which were partly areal (including Balto-Slavic and Celtic, possibly including some near-east representatives) and partly unique to Gmc. In other words, from the perspective of GPL, FSS is not the ‘benchmark’ it has been portrayed to be (Schutz in 1983, for example, makes FSS out to be the ‘birth certificate of Gmc’, a view which Van Coetsem, Birkhan and others have rightly criticised), but rather one (gradual; see Volyes’ Early Germanic Grammar for a very interesting discussion on the identification of overlapping, partly areal stages in FSS) change among many. As such, GPL helps to put all this in one theoretical framework, and I, for one, find the term and its attendent concepts extremely useful.

Van Coetsem also discusses the possible drawbacks of the term GPL, admitting that it could be interpreted as “not entirely adequate, since it includes the notion of Gmc and at the same time refers to an incipient stage that is PreGmc”. He is quick to note, however, that it fits better with the actual work done on FSS, and thus merely provides a theoretical framework for examining the open issues on the matter as formulated by Birkhan back in the 70’s.

If others want to write articles with titles like the ones you mention, I’m not going to stop them, provided they have respectable literature to document the actual use of the respective terms. I’m not coining the phrase GPL. I’m just reporting on its use in the lierature.

And no one (that I have quoted, at least) is suggesting that we redefine Gmc to extend back to the NBA. To do so would be to contradict the entire notion behind GPL. So, though it may or may not provide fringe-writers with cannon fodder for their publications and web-hatched concoctions, I hardly see any reason to dismiss it offhand as suffering from "antiquity frenzy".

Thanks for the feedback and I hope to see your participation in future edition of the article. Varoon Arya 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

only by severely misrepresenting the mainstream view GPL is supposed to be replacing can you claim that the concept holds anything new. GPL isn't a "theoretical framework" at all, it is just a new term for a period that has been assumed all along. dab (𒁳) 16:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

dab, it is not my personal intent to misrepresent anything or anyone. GPL is not meant to ‘replace’ the mainstream view. As far as I can tell from Van Coetsem’s description and use of it, it is meant to complement and confirm the mainstream view. The only possible point of contention with the mainstream view that I have been able to identify thus far is the significance attributed to the FSS and its (mainly ideological) indicatory status of the ‘Germanic-ness’ of the language in question. No, GPL doesn’t throw the importance of FSS into question. But it does work as an Überbegriff which facilitates an understanding of synchronic variations which preceded and possibly led to FSS, and which belong to Pre-Gmc.

Yes, it is a new label for a connection that is implicit in a great deal of modern research. I’m not claiming (and neither is Van Coetsem) that the conceptual content of GPL is revolutionary or even new. It’s just an effort at making explicit what has been assumed on good grounds for decades. However, this is, unless I am missing something, no reason to debunk it and deem an article on it unwarranted. (And BTW, I didn’t claim that GPL is a stand-alone theoretical framework. A careful reading reveals that I said it helps to put the data discussed into one theoretical framework. Sorry for the misunderstanding.)

If I understand you correctly (please correct me if necessary), I think your main concern here is that the term ‘Germanic’, which, in its most narrow and technical sense, has been limited to the dialectical manifestations of the Common Era, is being used to apply to a much greater span of time. But the point you may be overlooking (or perhaps rather: the point you are concerned that the more casual reader will overlook) here is (1) the term ‘Germanic’ is not one cast in stone and notions regarding what it indicates can (and certainly should, given the collective track record of the last century) change with an increase in the differentiation of our understanding, (2) the term GPL itself refers to the Parent Language (which was certainly not identical to PIE, and can safely be termed an IE dialect) and not to ‘Germanic’ as commonly perceived, and (3) if anything, the notion of GPL offers a justifiable and welcome broadening of the linguistic nomenclature while simultaneously diffusing its potential for leading to notions of ‘Germanic Genius’ or ‘Indigenous Innovation’ when discussing (arguably ‘radical’) changes like the FSS. (In fact, it could well be argued that this connection of FSS with said ‘Germanic-ness’ and the apparent unwillingness to see it as a natural change, dictated by reflexes of simple rules inherent in the (P)IE grammar, and even somewhat predictable given the circumstances, was one of the contributing factors in the appearance of theories such as the Germanic Substrate Hypothesis, which has done more to fuel socio-political agenda of the Post-WWII era than to help develop useable linguistic results. Granted, it has done something in the direction of working out theories of language contact, but a number of these have been developed more as a reaction against GSH than as a refinement of the same. I don’t recall who it was at the moment, but one Germanist referred to it as a ‘linguistic deus ex machina’. But, I digress…)

Regarding what I can discern as your comments of a more editorial nature, I will henceforth reply on the appropriate talkpage. Thanks again. Varoon Arya 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates n' stuff

Wikipedia:Citation templates Dave 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably going to put a lot of inline templates on there marking places where I think there are weasel words or it gets confusing for the ordinary reader or it is perhaps too concise for comprehension. I started out to do that but you started working on it so I lost them all. To say something concisely yet clearly is not really an easy task. Anyone can summarize what they know but can those summaries be understood? I have a book on the chemical evolution of life which I thought was going to enlighten me on the subject but the author did nothing but make vague reference to inaccessible books and journals throughout the entire work without explanation or summary. I don't know why he bothered. Only those with his knowledge could understand it, but then they wouldn't need to read it. Writing is a different game, the art of making yourself understood. But I'm rambling. As to whether Bachman is right that is not clear yet. Let's see how the article develops. There are two points of view on it now, the one expressed by him and the one expressed by us. Only further development of the article can clarify which will be more appropriate. Meanwhile don't get upset by the templates. Just keep thinking about it. There is plenty of time, it is not as though we are working under a deadline here.Dave 10:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dave, so far your edits haven't bothered me in the least. In fact, you have been quite helpful. Your continued participation on the article is more than welcome. Aryaman (☼) 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paleolithic Continuity Theory

As expected Rokus has failed to proved the "explicit sources" you asked for, but has tried argue his point that he must be right because it would be a contradiction in terms to "link reputed scholars to a fringe theory". Of course anyone can link reputed scholars to a fringe theory. That's what WP:SYN is about! So I would suggest that you should not be asking Rokus whether he objects or not before going ahead. I'm sure other editors would support you. I don't feel sufficiently confident about this particular topic to intervene boldly myself. Best Wishes, Paul B (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

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

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ring of Pietroassa

The article you asked me to have a look at looks good, but if you intend to have it pas GA or FA, I believe that you need to add inline references of the type <ref name="xxx">reference</ref> when you support the article with references.--Berig (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Adoption?

Hello Varoon! I'd be happy to help you out however you need. I can formally adopt you, or you're more than welcome to drop me a line on my talk page whenever you have a question. Which would you prefer? GlassCobra 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Think you deseve some..

		Cookies!
		Here are some cookies as a way of saying "thank you" for contributing to our project. Keep up the good work! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ring of Pietroassa, revisited

Hi Aryaman. I have had a few looks between our correspondences and if you want me to nitpick, there is one thing I'd like you to watch out for and possibly fix in the text. It is convention to have transliterations of runes in bold e.g. gutaniowi hailag, and transcriptions in italics, e.g. gutaneis weih hailag. When I read the article, I am not sure if you are consistent with this, but in case you are you should just ignore this comment. However, I do not think you should have transliterations between brackets [...]. Brackets are only for lost runes that are conjectured.--Berig (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When I see the parentheses as in hailag (i)owī gutanī, I get confused as to whether it is transliteration or transcription. If it is transcription, then the (i) represents an optional rendering of Gothic, but if it is transliteration, it means that the i rune is difficult to read. Since you have the original sources, you know much better than me what it is. Since I write a lot on runes, tiny details such as a neat separation between transliteration and transcription mean a whole lot to how I understand the text :).--Berig (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Düwel made a mix of transliteration and transcription, mainly marking the difference between the two with brackets.--Berig (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem can appear during a few minutes, but it works for me now. The conventions I talk about may seem like pedantry, but I am still impressed with how cleverly worked out they have become through four centuries of runology in Scandinavia, and they are very useful for conveying information.--Berig (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)--Berig (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a little "guide" on top of the talkpage.--Berig (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

You've done some impressive work on the Ring of Pietroassa, and it's definitely getting ready for a GA review. It's late here though, so I'll have to wait until tomorrow before I give you some deeper feedback on the article.--Berig (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is fine for GA nomination. There are no objections that I would make for GA status.--Berig (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nine Herbs Charm

Hello Varoon, thanks for the additions on the Nine Herbs Charm article. I should have gotten around to that some time ago! I would like to see this extremely interesting (to me) poem reach GA status. So, of course, if you have anything to add, you are welcome to. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wielbark

Hi, and thanks for the book tip. I've heard of Heather, but so far I haven't got around to buy the book. You are right that the Wielbark culture was an ethnically mixed society, but I think that it's pretty obvious. As far as I know the ethnicities of the migration age consisted of charismatic clans who gathered allied groups around them and the Goths who finally invaded the Roman Empire were probably a very mixed bunch of people. BTW, you might want to read the book "Well-spring of the Goths" by Nordgren[1]. It also stresses the multi-ethnic composition of the Gothic people and it features the Ring of Pietroassa on its cover.--Berig (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, thanks for the link to Google books. I was relieved to see that Heather's maps were in agreement with the sources I have used (at least in the selection of pages Google allows us to read).--Berig (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I only know the author Ingmar Nordgren by way of e-mail, and he has explained his ideas to me. He is a very nice man, so don't hesitate to write him if you wonder about anything.--Berig (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greece Runestones

I'd be flattered if you would review Greece Runestones for me. Thanks!--Berig (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good feedback that you have given me. I will go through the points you have given me during the next few days, and you are also welcome to improve it according to your suggestions. I doubt you'll make any changes that I wouldn't approve of.--Berig (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll continue tomorrow night. Thanks for the help!--Berig (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll have some time this evening to go through the article. As for the {{fact}} tag I was a bit surprised. As a group these runestones are assumed to be raised in memory of members of the Varangian Guard, although all of them were probably not. By entailment every single runestone are covered by the statement "may have been raised in memory of a member of the Varangian Guard". It is, however, not necessary to add such a statement for every runestone, so I'll just remove the sentence you wanted a ref for.--Berig (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You must have been surprised by the mention of Visäte as the runemaster of U 73. He is not mentioned by any of the two stones that he made at the location. However, scholars have made laser scans of the inscriptions and discovered that every runemaster had his own very special way of working. It's like a fingerprint. They have even discovered that a runemaster may have begun the work and then let his apprentice(s) continue. The results of these identifications have been included in Rundata and so they tell who the runemaster was, whether he is mentioned by the inscription, or identified by modern runologists.--Berig (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your help is most welcome, and I think the article is getting better. I'll get back to the article later this evening.--Berig (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have as much time as I thought I would tonight. Please check if you have any additional points, or if there are points that I have forgotten to fix.--Berig (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Saxon category question

Hello Aryaman, I have a question that you might have an answer to since you seem to know your way around technical matters on Wikipedia pretty well. Right now, we have the category [[Category:Anglo-Saxon mythology]]. I think this would do much better and be much more encompassing as [[Category:Anglo-Saxon paganism]]. Is there any way to just rename this category without having to go through the process of deleting the other first? Do we need to vote on a category name change? :bloodofox: (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration/transcription

Hi Aryaman. Sure, I can write something on this. Luckily, there is an online reference on the site of the Swedish National Heritage Board (similar to the National Trust or English Heritage). They don't call it transcription, but normalization, though.--Berig (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If included into MoS, I think I need to establish consensus first on whether to call it transcription or normalization. What we are talking about is the transcription of runes into normalized spelling, so both terms should be equally possible and I'd prefer not to change the terminology in every single runic article that I have written.--Berig (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started the article Runic transliteration and transcription.--Berig (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. I also avoid editing articles that someone else is busy working on, and that is why I limited my involvment in Ring of Pietroassa quite a lot.--Berig (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Ancient Germanic culture

You invited me to add runic content to the portal. I think that I am too involved in the subject and I would not be very good at adding what the general reader would find interesting. However, if you want some suggestions, you could add the Rök Runestone, the Piraeus Lion or some inscriptions from the Sigurd stones.--Berig (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Barbarians

Any idea where we can vote for the fate of this? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

Thanks Aryaman for telling me you liked my help. I never deline a cookie or any other kind of award though ;).--Berig (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I am really flattered to receive that award from you :).--Berig (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what can I say

Thank you, I had an enjoyable time reviewing the article and to get cookies as well. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Germanic peoples

I've added my name to the list since the project appears to need at least five signatures to get started, and now it has five signatures. I believe that you, Bloodofox and Skadinaujo have the dedication needed for a working project.--Berig (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award

		The Odin Award
		What could be more fitting as an award for your organizational skills and work on Germanic articles than an award referring to the great organizer in Germanic myth and legend, Odin.--Berig (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you like it :). It is well-deserved.--Berig (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Task force

I have started here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies/Runes. I saw that there is a wikiproject which calls "task forces" "work groups" and I think it's a better name which emphasises the collaborative aspect.--Berig (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manx Runestones

Sure, it's a good subject for an article. I will need to write the article on the Bornholm runestones first, though.--Berig (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rhetoric

Varoon Arya, hi, I very much appreciate that you are offering some intelligent opinions in the discussion, but can I ask you to tone down your rhetoric a bit, at Talk:European ethnic groups? The level of personal attacks there (from multiple parties) has been steadily increasing, and this comment of yours was a bit excessive.[2] I do realize that you weren't so much attacking him, as discussing the tone of the discussion, but I'd prefer if we could find ways to de-escalate the dispute. To keep the conversation on track, I'm trying to encourage everyone to focus on discussing article content, instead of the contributors. Thanks, El on ka 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Awww, I was hoping you would continue, as the conversation definitely needs more signal and less noise. But up to you! :) --El on ka 15:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surrender, Arya

No, please do not! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to give up on the European Ethnic Group article I am not sure the article has much hope. I have written a lot recently trying to make it a more amenable place for you, and I am not alone, hope you will stick around. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, i know what it is like, I have three journal ms.s I have to review and can't be too active myself. But thanks for getting back to me, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] feedback

Am I wrong about this and the paragraph preceeding? Can you make a constructive comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)