Jump to content

User talk:Gilgamesh~enwiki/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Hi Gilgamesh! This is Mustafaa. I noticed you were interested in IPA too, so I thought you might be interested in giving a second opinion on some diagrams showing place of articulation that I've been working on. They're already on ar.wikipedia, and can be seen by going to bilabial consonant and clicking on عربية at the top (a MediaWiki gives the other places of articulation in Arabic.) I'm no phonologist, so I definitely don't vouch for their 100% accuracy - can you see any problems? - Mustafaa 23:01, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The bilabial diagram appears correct. Bilabial consonants are articulated with both lips and no teeth (hence "bi-labial" is Latin for "two lips"), and labiodental consonants are articulated with a combination of the upper teeth and the lower lip (hence "labio-dental" is Latin for "lip-tooth"). As for other things, I have no idea what to look for; I don't know much Arabic at all, not even the abjad. - Gilgamesh 00:39, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
I think the relevant links would be labiodental consonant, dental consonant, alveolar consonant, postalveolar consonant, palatal consonant, velar consonant, uvular consonant, pharyngeal consonant, and glottal consonant (linguolabial consonant having yet to be written), if that helps... But no rush! ;) - Mustafaa 04:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gilgamesh,

Do you live in Utah?

Why? Gilgamesh 01:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Curiosity. I live in Utah (temporarily).
Yes, I do. I wasn't born in Utah, and I wasn't raised in Utah, but I currently reside in Utah because it is the convenient central location between various relatives (none of which have longterm roots in Utah either :P). Gilgamesh 03:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi, you list the Apostle Peter as having a greek name, but he was of course renamed this, not named it originally. Petros is the greek, but in fact scholars believe Jesus spoke aramaic and the name given to Peter was the aramiac Kephas, the greek name peter being rather an artifact of the compostition of the gospels in greek.--Samuel J. Howard 06:01, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'll make the change. - Gilgamesh 06:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Cool. I am psyched to have been able to contribute a bit to this worthy topic. --Samuel J. Howard 06:05, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, actually, Esther, while Persian, is closely related to Canaanite Astarte, which, if I remember correctly, is Venus. Danny 03:35, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

At some point, yes; but Persian setâre, and English star, is a more direct relative. The name of Astarte is often cited as a Proto-Indo-European loanword into Semitic. - Mustafaa 21:31, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Biblical Nations

Hi, it seems we have some common areas of interest so I just wanted to say Hi! Most of my knowledge is from the ortodox Jewish perspective, but I do try to be NPOV and include the ideas from other groups too. Anyway that is me so I am just indroducing myself. All the best. Zestauferov 16:35, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen your posts. I can't remember which ones, but I recall them being helpful. My interest stems partially from an LDS belief in Israelite tribal lineage and adoption. Mine is Ephraim. From a personal viewpoint (probably not entirely uninfluenced by my high-functioning autism), I regard Jews and Samaritans as no less than family, so I want to be friends and help build interfaith bridges of communication, mutual respect and friendship. Wikipedia seemed to be a very good medium for that, especially since it requires NPOV. By helping expand articles and striving for the facts and that NPOV, I'm helping in general. Regardless of whether or not my efforts are ultimately appreciated, it makes me feel better. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 20:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Hebrew City Names

Hey, here's a few: Ashdod, Ascalon, Bethshean, Cities in Israel. Mustafaa 07:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Mustafaa. :) But it may not be as simple as that. Though, of course, a lot of modern Israeli cities are built on older cities abandoned by Palestinians, but many others were built on previously sparsely habited or uninhabited plots of land, and don't have significant histories before 1947. - Gilgamesh 07:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
That's certainly true - Tel Aviv springs to mind. But it's a starting point, at least; the country's so darn full very few places don't have some sort of history if you look hard enough... - Mustafaa 07:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I'll do my best. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 07:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Lod, Ramla... - Mustafaa 08:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
A map from just before 1948: http://netfinity2.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story582.html Mustafaa 08:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
That's very useful. Thank you. - Gilgamesh 08:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jew

I saw your new page Mizrahi Jew. Can you please explain what this page adds that is not in Sephardi? Moreover, have you considered that the "Mizrahi movement" (religious zionism) has been largely filled by Ashkenazi Jews? I hope you'd be able to clarify, before I start changing things around according to my limited understanding. I have changed you edit to Jew back to Sephardi - most "Mizrahi Jews" consider themselves Sephari. JFW | T@lk 11:34, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm just going by the reality, and I'm actually trying to avoid direct social labels. It is my understanding that, technically, Mizrahi Jews are Jews of Middle-Eastern origin whose ancestors did not live in Spain nor did they speak Ladino. Considering these distinctions of tradition, I think Mizrahi Jews warrant their own article separate from Sephardic Jews; whether or not modern Mizrahi Jews in Israel colloquially call themselves Sephardi is irrelevant. I've gotten much of my information from http://www.loolwa.com/ and the Jewish Multicultural Project. Still, if you see any clear mistakes of fact in my edits, I encourage you to correct them. - Gilgamesh 11:45, 1 June 2004 (UTC)

Slavic peoples

I removed those categories ecause it's now redundant, as the Slavic peoples is now in the category:Slavs, which is included in those two categories. If a new category connected to an article is created which is a subcategory of the categories the article was previously in, it's usually removed directly from the upper categories. Ausir 10:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--- hey Gilgamesh, why did you writed that de Berber are an ancien peopel.the berber of being aware of their identity and here is the proofs:

i think that you will improve your misunderstanding . Aziri 15:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They are an ancient ethnolinguistic continuum, not necessarily united politically. Their ethnolinguistic distinction has been recorded since ancient history. They are an ancient people, if not necessarily united. It really has nothing to do with politics, political units nor ethnic pride. - Gilgamesh 02:42, 14 June 2004 (UTC)

okke, thanks for the explanation. Aziri 12:58, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Samaritans

You seem to be interested in Samaritans. They have a website at: http://www.the-samaritans.com/ --Yoshiah ap 03:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I've visited and taken a good look already. But thank you very much all the same. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 03:55, 18 June 2004 (UTC)

Philistines

There's a claim on Palestine that Philistines comes from a root meaning "invaders". Plausible though this might be a priori, the only entry I can find in my Biblical Hebrew dictionary for pl$ is hithpallesh = rolled themselves in dust! Can you think of a root pl$ meaning "invade"? - Mustafaa 03:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that too, and it's not surprising. Consider that the Philistines are believed to be descended from the Sea Peoples, believed to be refugees from natural disaster and following social breakdown of the Minoans. The Philistines would be the descendants of Minoan refugees who fled the Aegean Sea after the explosion of Santorini volcano. Of course, Canaan was already inhabited, so a massive influx of refugees looking for new land would be considered an invasion. - Gilgamesh 04:57, 20 June 2004 (UTC)
Without having read any of the above articles, and without getting into politics, from a purely linguistic perspective:
  • Philistines = פלישתים
  • Invasion = פלישה
  • to roll around in dust = להתפלש
All from the same linguistic root, פלש.
As with everything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, the matter of the Hebrew spelling of the word Palestine is touched with controversy. Haaretz refers to modern day Palestinians as פלסטינים, the slight difference in spelling is actually significant, as it implies that the Hebrew is merely a transliteration of the Arabic, and in effect severs the historical-etymological tie to the Philistines. The different spelling also creates a distinction between פלסטין, the yearned-for homeland of the Palestinians, and פלשתינה, the name given under the British mandate to what is now Israel, both of which in English are called Palestine. --Woggly 08:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cool - that word plisha was missing from my dictionary. Thanks! - Mustafaa 19:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kyoto

Do you think Kyoto really qualifies as a holy city? Though there are many temples and shrines there, it isn't especially sacred to Shinto as compared to any other region of Japan. The emperor doesn't even live in Kyoto full time any more. If anything, I would say that Ise is the most sacred city in Japan in a strictly Shinto sense....

Well, if you know it's not a sacred city, then perhaps it should be removed from the category then. - Gilgamesh 12:56, 21 June 2004 (UTC)
Well, it's not that I "know"; it's that I want your opinion of why you think it should be considered a holy city. Do you know something about Kyoto that I don't? I don't want to remove it from the category if you put it there for a good reason. And really, it's not like it's un-holy or anything. The US did refrain from bombing it during WWII because it has so many important historical/cultural/religious sites... But is that enough justification? --Carl 16:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, I know that both Nara and Kyōto are historically associated with four sacred beasts of Shinto. They protect the four sides, one beast for each side of the compass. They are Genbu, Byakko, Suzaku, and Seiryū. Originally associated with Nara, they became later associated with Kyōto, or at least with Heiankyō. - Gilgamesh 23:41, 12 June 2004 (UTC)

The 'okina

While you are correct, the 'okina in Hawaiian is or can be represented by ‘, in discussions much earlier, it was decided that a straight single quote was a suitable substitute not requiring the complex formatting code that may not be properly represented on all browsers. There are now hundreds of places where the simple vertical mark is used, sometimes after considerable debates with those that want only "English" spellings of place names. I think it would complicate many issues to start using different representations. I also note that in the typeface I use for Wikipedia (?standard) both ‘ and ' are indistinguishiable, except where ‘ appears in bold. Unless you have a good argument against the single quote, I'm going to revert the changes you made at Laie, Hawaii back to the wiki standard - Marshman 03:55, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Linguistic academic completeness. I also work with a variety of other languages and their orthographies, and I am very meticulous about ‘okina, as well as the Semitic ’āleph and ‘áyin. The Hawaiian language standard mandates the left-leaning quote for ‘okina. It's easily displayable, and I'm not about to argue with that. Besides, with simple vertical apostrophies, it's a lot easier to get mixed up with the tags used for italic and bold, considering that many Hawaiian words BEGIN with ‘okina. Using the proper ‘okina avoids this formatting risk.
I cannot argue that you are not absolutely correct about the Hawaiian language standard. However, I was warned early on not to use codes like ‘ because it is not correctly interpreted by some browsers (in fact it is interpreted as exactly the same as the single quote (') by my browser). I would prefer ` the left leaning `okina on my computer (far left upper key on the main keyboard). The ‘ is an upside down single quote. I do not know the coding for the left-leaning mark - Marshman 04:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, upside down single quote is just another way of displaying the left-leaning quote. Anyone well familiar with the ‘okina and its typeface variants will recognize it. The two quotes are either shown as left-leaning or right-leaning curved lines, or as vertically lines that are thicker at the top or at the bottom, and that's just the way it is. If someone edits the source text to make it appear as a simple apostrophy, then I'm going to challenge the POV of the article. I'm here to be academically complete, and the ‘okina falls far within that reach. - Gilgamesh 04:29, 23 June 2004 (UTC)
You are preaching to the choir and being a bit foolish (your youth is showing ;^). I introduced the idea of using 'okina for Hawaiian words at Wikipedia and had to fight for it. But messing with the functioning of search engines to code something that in fact is not even rendered correctly hardly is academic completeness. While I really could care less what the coding is (I for one would prefer the correct representation; but either way ' looks the same despite being not really correct in either representation—the reader sees not the coding but simply the apostrophe). What is the code for the left-leaning mark? = ` Can the &#X2018 be used in article names? - Marshman 04:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Of course the article names are kept relatively simple, often using just US-ASCII names. But the texts themselves can afford far more detail. I know that international text can throw off search engines sometimes, but modern engines like Google get around this by allowing searches like "la-ie" that consider the dash as either nothing, a simple space (or series of whitespace), or punctuation of some kind (even ", " or ". "). Unicode is good for us, not bad for us, and I'm not about to muddle things for the sake of inefficient search engines, regardless of their popularity. (BTW, it's not youth, I'm 24. It's autism. :P) If I were to go around and get rid of all the ‘okina, then I might as well go back and eliminate all the Japanese text, the Chinese text, the Arabic text, the Hebrew text, the Cuneiform text, everything, and that would be ridiculous. So is this. Anyway, I can see all the differences between normal apostrophy and the leaning quotes, and they become very crucial especially for the transliteration of Semitic languages where the two opposite quotes represent entirely different phonemes. ‘Okina is easy to render: ‘ or ‘. - Gilgamesh 04:48, 23 June 2004 (UTC)
You are missing my point; and 24 is youthful. I'm the proponent of the 'okina. I'm stating a problem that you are likely to run into and will have problems convincing the more conservative community members on, given that the &#X2018 is no more of an 'okina than is the single quote in the current font rendering used by Wikipedia. Does it come out different on your computer screen? (it does only in bolded and enlarged texty on mine), which gives an article like Laie, Hawaii two different types of 'okina. If you can convince the copyedit police that &#X2018 is actually useful (not academically correct), I'm not opposed to any rendering of the 'okina. If you make future changes to &#X2018, I'll leave them alone and we can see what kind of attention you attract - Marshman 05:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it appears quite different on my screen. They all do: apostrophy, grave-mark, left quote, right-quote, IPA ejective diacritic, etc. You should realize that Wikipedia has multiple skins, each with a different font setting. Just because old school users can't see it doesn't mean it should be eliminated; that would be very boorish in regard to all of us who can see all the differences quite clearly and immediately. Besides, these distinctions, while mostly a matter of standard in Hawaiian, are absolutely crucial to transliterating languages such as Arabic and Ancient Hebrew. - Gilgamesh 05:21, 23 June 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure who "old school users" are. My font changed (without my choosing) along with the new software changes a month back. I assume I'm using the "standard" (what readers as opposed to logged-in editors see or choose). Good luck on the change %) - Marshman

I support your efforts on Hawaii. But be prepared for resistance! I've had my 'okinas reverted several times. Also, check out Hawai'i. What do you think? I recommend making it a redirect to Hawaii (or perhaps the other way around) 8^0 - Marshman 21:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've decided. If anyone forcefully changed the beautiful ‘okina back to a muddled apostrophy, then I will challenge the NPOV of articles that do so. - Gilgamesh 21:18, 23 June 2004 (UTC)
Calm down, you will need the energy. It will be the removal of both that you need fear. Read the lengthy discussion page for Hawaii - Marshman
I read it all, and I remain resolute. Names and words of the Hawaiian language must not be prostituted by mass ignorance. - Gilgamesh 21:47, 23 June 2004 (UTC)

More on the ‘okina

I've just largely rewritten the article okina with much expansion, partly indicating that there is a standard proper coding which is fully supported by the Hawai‘an government in theory, though in fact there is much foot-dragging. Such things do cost. I have also explained the difficulties in proper display. Note that the recommended encoding is actually ʻ in HTML entity form. But I've explained why at the moment it might be wiser to stick to the left quotation mark in Wikipedia. Actually, I'd rather use ʻ now to be future compatible and encourge people to use more complete fonts if blank boxes start appearing. But I suspect it is too soon. Perhaps about two years from now that will be a very reasonable course to take.

No-one should be able to complain about old browsers not displaying the left curly quotation mark properly. The only ones that would have trouble would also display en-dashes and em-dashes incorrectly and use of those fancy dashes are required by current Wikipedia style specifications (though many/most don't use them). Even two years ago I can appreciate that one might have wanted to avoid fancy dashes and curly quotation marks for the sake of older Un*x systems and older browsers. The decision to avoid a curly quote ‘okina probably made sense when formerly discussed. I don't believe it does now.

I believe the real opposition, as with the opposition against en-dashes and em-dashes, will be from those who are honestly typographically blind to such things or who honestly find it too much trouble. Not eveyone is a facile typist. And indeed it is easier to just use a straight apostrophe.

Also, I wish this new skin would stop the POV forcing of sans-serif fonts.

If you have an authorative reference to support your statement above that the "Hawaiian language standard mandates the left-leaning quote" it would make a good addition to the article. Anything to make clear that use of a straight apostrophe, while probably acceptable, is only barely acceptable as a kludge. It is as substandard as displaying facade instead of façade and displaying resume instead of resumé unless it is very difficult to include the proper diacritics in a particular environment. jallan 19:29, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Very understandable. ^_^ I've had a similar practice with scientific transliteration of Hebrew. The most academic transliteration uses lots of obscure Unicode characters that most fonts cannot display, so I compensate by using a font-friendly transliteration; see Hebrew alphabet for details on this. - Gilgamesh 01:05, 29 June 2004 (UTC)


Melchizedek

How many redirects did you have in mind? :-) JFW | T@lk 02:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wow, someone noticed! :P It occurred to me that there are so many English language spelling conventions among Jews for Biblical names. By providing as many spelling variations as possible, it minimizes the number of attempts someone has to make, hopefully to just one. I've been doing the same for many other Biblical names, though most don't have nearly as much variation as the Hebrew transliterations for Melchizedek. Anyway, I'm almost done. Just have six more to enter under Melchizedek before I move to the next name. ...Am I in the wrong? - Gilgamesh 02:29, 24 June 2004 (UTC)

I am familiar with the problem of Hebrew names. You may have noticed that none of the redirects are being used (whatlinkshere). I'm not sure which redirects would be appropriate, and which superfluous... JFW | T@lk 02:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's mostly for search convenience. :) I remember how extremely frustrated I've been in the past, trying many article search queries and not guessing a one search query that pointed me to the article info I was looking for. Besides, almost certainly one or more will be used. And if even one of them is used, I've done my job and made it easier for someone else. :) - Gilgamesh 02:35, 24 June 2004 (UTC)
I just finished my sweep of מ mēm names. I'm taking a break. I've also observed that the next name on my list, Nebuchadnezzar, has quite a few Hebrew phonemes that are transliterated different ways. Of course I think realistically about the types of transliterations people might be expected to use. Not just from Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi Jews, but from Christians, Messianics, and dry linguists too... Not everyone immediately thinks of the spellings used in the King James Version of the Bible. I mean, isn't that what redirects are supposed to be all about? :) - Gilgamesh 02:56, 24 June 2004 (UTC)
I think they mostly serve the purpose alluded to by Jfdwolff, not necessarily searching but actual use in the Wikipedia somewhere. Certainly another approach would be just to list a lot of variants on the article page and let Google track those down. However, I find the Google search sometimes frustrating for words that I know are in the Wikipedia, so I can think of no harm in what you are doing that cannot be undone where a name conflict (ambiguity) arises. - Marshman 04:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. ^_^ And any future conflicts can be turned into disambiguation pages...or used as a different page, with a small note redirecting a different concept to another article. I think maybe there's no such thing as too many redirect pages. :P - Gilgamesh 04:40, 24 June 2004 (UTC)

Altaic?

This might interest you: [1]. - Mustafaa 19:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of Proto-Semitic roots?

Look at List of Indo-European roots; it occurs to me that it could be fun to set up a similar page for Semitic, possibly including some of the principal cognate sets... - Mustafaa 22:45, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sure, if I knew any. :P However, maybe I could help refine a list format, since I'm so good with lists. :) - Gilgamesh 00:23, 4 July 2004 (UTC)


Garden of Eden

Since you've edited a revised link to "Abrahamic religion," maybe you'd contribute with some actual quotes the Garden of Eden myth as it appears in the Qu'ran. It's a variant unfamiliar to most of us, I'm sure. Wetman 08:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I knew it was regarded to some degree in Islam, but I don't know all the details. Go ask Mustafaa and tell him Gilgamesh sent you, and he'll be happy to fill in what he knows of, or (if I was wrong) to correct my mistakes. :) - Gilgamesh 08:23, 4 July 2004 (UTC)

Moved Mormonism articles in error

Moving Mormonism and Mormonism and Judaism were mistakes and you need to change them back. Next time please propose and discuss making such drastic changes in the talk pages before doing so. For example, please review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism) and the Church's media guide here stating: "The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine [i.e. "theology"], culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." —B|Talk 17:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved the page back pending a discussion. However, I can't possibly agree that the term "Mormonism" is acceptable — I find it very derrogatory and I won't accept it. It may be easy for Latter-day Saints who live in the Wasatch Front who don't deal with as much persecution. But it's still used pejoratively out there, even as a slur. We do not politely call the Roma "Gypsies", nor the Sami "Lapps", nor Catholics "Papies", nor Muslims "Saracens" nor "Mohammedans". And we do not correctly call Latter-day Saints "Mormons", because it's very belittling, especially for those who had to grow up from childhood dealing with the hurtful words, name-calling and inquisitions. No. It's vulgar, it's hurtful, it's ignorant, and it has no place in civilized (let alone academic) discussion. As far as I am concerned, "Mormon" is a body of water and a prophet. - Gilgamesh 01:55, 5 July 2004 (UTC)

--

Gratias

Suspicor quem dicere velim: Gratias tibi, Gilgamesce; sed non linguam Galliae scio ipse. =) --Djinn112 23:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry; I had the benefit of Babelfish, but there's no such help for reading Latin. "I think that I would opt to say: Thanks, Gilgamesh; but I don't know French myself." --Djinn112 23:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jesus

"I'm sorry, but "s's" in this case is the correct spelling for this grammatical singular possessive case." Correct, but not standard in this case. Gotta be standard and conventional, I am afraid, though it be inconsistent. Tom 23:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I will not dispute it. But I do not grammatically approve. :) I'll divert my energy to disputing things worth disputing. - Gilgamesh 23:15, 6 July 2004 (UTC)

Autism

Gilgamesh, I don't think you're doing anyone a favour by creating this category. I'll be listing it on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Lists like these circulate on Meta, but not here. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd vote for it to be deleted too. :P To be truthful, only after I created it did I realize that it wasn't a good idea. That's why I removed my link from it and deleted the category paragraphs shortly after building them. So it's all cool now. - Gilgamesh 02:09, 7 July 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gilgamesh~enwiki/Archive_1&oldid=869794867"