User talk:Angr

"this isn't Wikipedia"Edit

It's true. But this doesn't mean that here we mustn't apply the same rules. The adding of the asterisk for syntactic gemination is just an intromission from IvanScrooge98. It's not used in any phonetic transcription and above all it's not found in the IPA which is the alphabet used to transcribe the pronunciation of the words here. I wonder why an arbitrary convention as IvanScrooge98's should be kept. He inserted that symbol in the Wiki dictionary on its own initiative and without consulting anyone. He did the same in the Wiki encyclopedia and there he was contested. The issue was discussed and it was decided unanimously to remove the asterisks. Tell me why it's worng to remove his personal IPA convention and right to leave it here please. —This unsigned comment was added by 2001:1600:3:9:7a2b:cbff:fe3e:ee99 (talk) at 18:00, 5 April 2016‎.

I don't necessarily feel that we should use the asterisk notation here, but I do feel that we should discuss it here first, separately from the discussion on Wikipedia, and come to our own conclusion. You can bring it up at the Beer parlor for discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, in this case wouldn't it be better to start removing IvanScrooge98's insertion in order to restore the previous status quo and then discuss about the possible use of the asterisk for syntactic gemination in Italian? It's normally this the ways Wikipedians deal with such issues, when something not enough encyclopedic but quite subjective is added it's removed until a consensus to add it is reached... Furthermore, in the discussion I've mentioned above IvanScrooge98 didn't even take part! 1 + 1 = 2 —This unsigned comment was added by 2001:1600:3:9:7a2b:cbff:fe3e:ee99 (talk) at 18:30, 5 April 2016‎.
If it were a brand-new addition, yes, but it isn't. It's been there several months already and seems to be in use in several entries. By this time, removing it requires discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I understand your point of view even if I don't agree, it's not urgent so I'm not doing it right now. —This unsigned comment was added by 2001:1600:3:9:7a2b:cbff:fe3e:ee99 (talk) at 20:00, 5 April 2016‎.

Fête 2.0Edit

Fête (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) aka Phung Wilson (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks), who is globally locked under both accounts, has reappeared as Fête Phung (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)/À la 雞 (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks). He's been doing mostly Chinese/Cantonese edits, which makes sense, since that's his native language. It's entirely possible that those are ok.

Unfortunately, he's also been doing edits of English pronunciation sections. He's always had a real fascination with pronunciation, but in the past has been really bad at it. I suspect that he's still having problems, but my IPA skills aren't strong enough to properly patrol those edits. Could you look through his English-language contributions and check for any problems? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The English pronunciation edits look fine to me, apart from (1) his insistence on putting British pronunciations first (which strikes me as POV-pushing), and (2) his use of the labels "UK" and "US", which are meaningless in pronunciation sections. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to unblock an userEdit

Hi Angr! I'm contacting you as the last active sysop I found in recentchanges, I notice a fellow it.wiki's admin has been blocked for 9 years for "unacceptable username". I'm pretty sure it was at time but because of sul such this limitation shouldn't be longer in effect. Can you please give me a feedback about the best way to get him unblocked? Thank you! --Vituzzu (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess the best thing would be to ask at the Beer Parlor. I don't see any reason for him to be blocked indefinitely, but maybe other people know more about what constitutes an unacceptable user name than I do. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Special language codes for KhmerEdit

Hello!

  1. I was referred to you by User talk:Stephen G. Brown. Please see: User talk:Stephen G. Brown#Khmer and User talk:Stephen G. Brown#Old Khmer.
  2. Would you please create special language codes for Old Khmer, Pre-Angkorian Khmer, Angkorian Khmer, and Middle Khmer? Thank you very much!

--หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@หมวดซาโต้: Having read w:Khmer language#Historical periods I'm not convinced there's a need for separate codes for Old Khmer, Pre-Angkorian Khmer, and Angkorian Khmer. How about if I just create codes for Old Khmer and Middle Khmer? How do mkh-okm and mkh-mkm sound? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Though Pre-Angkorian Khmer and Angkorian Khmer are part of Old Khmer, Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian terms are sometimes different (e.g. according to this, the Old Khmer term kaṅa was also spelt as kaṅ during the Pre-Angkorian period and as koṅ during the Angkorian period). Separate codes will also enable us to specifically indicate the origin of a term (e.g. the Thai term "จับ" jàp was derived from Pre-Angkorian Khmer cap, not from Angkorian cāp). So, I personally think we need separate codes for them. Anyway, let's hear @Stephen G. Brown's opinion. He principally works on Khmer here. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It's possible to distinguish stages of a language in etymologies without having separate codes. We do this for Latin, where etymologies distinguish between Vulgar Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin, Late Latin, Medieval Latin, and Renaissance Latin, but for entries they're all just la. So it would be possible to have etymologies distinguish between Angkorian Old Khmer and Pre-Angkorian Old Khmer, while still just having Old Khmer for entries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
To clarify: we do that by making etymology-only codes for the variants, so that references to the languages in the etymology templates can use those codes, but the terms themselves and the references to them use the main code. Thus {{etyl|LL.|-}} produces Late Latin, but you would refer to {{m|la|praecocia}}/praecocia rather than {{m|LL.|praecocia}}, which would give you a module error. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
However, you can use the etym-only codes together with the term when you use the templates {{der}}, {{bor}}, and {{inh}}, e.g. {{der|fr|LL.|praecocia}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Still a little confusing. So we would need at least one new code, since the older forms of Khmer will be in the Latin alphabet and presumably in a separate category or categories from the Modern Khmer entries. Thus for Khmer, one would use {{etyl|km|-}} {{m|km|កង}}, Old Khmer {{etyl|mkh-okm|-}} {{m|mkh|kaṅa}}, Pre-Angkorian Khmer {{etyl|mkh-pakm|-}} {{m|mkh|kaṅ}}, Angkorian Khmer {{etyl|mkh-akm|-}} {{m|mkh|koṅ}}, and Middle Khmer {{etyl|mkh-mkm|-}} {{m|mkh|kaṅ}}. —Stephen (Talk) 17:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Almost. We would need mkh-okm and mkh-mkm to be regular codes, which could be used for anything. The codes mkh-pakm and mkh-akm would be etymology-only codes that are sort of subcodes of the other two: assuming that Pre-Angkhorian Khmer is part of Old Khmer, you would have {{etyl|mkh-pakm|km}} {{m|mkh-okm|kaṅ}}. mkh is a family code, and you can't speak a family, so {{m|mkh|kaṅ}} won't work.
As Angr mentioned, there are a whole series of new etymological templates that work like a combination of {{etyl}} and {{m}}. All of these are smart enough to use the etymology-only code for the {{etyl}} part and the main code for the {{m}} part. For instance, {{der|fr|LL.|praecocia}} is exactly equivalent to {{etyl|LL.|fr}} {{m|la|praecocia}}. {{bor}}, and {{inh}} are used for borrowings and inherited terms, respectively, while {{cog}} is used where you don't want it to add an etymological category, so you could safely have {{cog|fr|eau}} (which produces "French eau") in etymologies at agua, acqua, or apă. Confusingly, {{bor}} is different in that it adds "Borrowing from" unless you tell it not to, but there's talk of getting rid of that feature. The other source of confusion is that the order of the language-code parameters in those templates is reversed from the way {{etyl}} has them, but {{etyl}} always was a bit counter-intuitive.
My apologies to Angr for turning a simple conversation into a seminar... Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have now created the language codes mkh-mkm for Middle Khmer and mkh-okm for Old Khmer. Both are set to use the Latin alphabet. These codes can be used in all situations where any other language code (e.g. km for Modern Khmer) could be used.
 In addition, I've created the etymology-only codes mkh-okm-A for Angkorian Old Khmer and mkh-okm-P for Pre-Angkorian Old Khmer. These codes can be used in Etymology sections inside {{etym}}, {{bor}}, {{cog}}, {{der}}, and {{inh}} tags, but not inside {{l}}, {{m}}, and {{t}} tags.
 Finally, I've created the pseudo-regional tags Angkorian and Pre-Angkorian which can be used inside {{lb}} and {{label}} in Old Khmer entries to tag certain senses as belonging to one or the other variety of Old Khmer. This will place words into the categories Category:Angkorian Old Khmer and Category:Pre-Angkorian Old Khmer.
 Moreover, JohnC5 has very kindly set Middle Khmer as an ancestor of Khmer and Old Khmer as an ancestor of Middle Khmer, so now {{inh}} can be used to trace Khmer words as inherited at every stage from Modern Khmer all the way back to Proto-Austro-Asiatic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

:)JohnC5 06:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. Would you please create an etymology-only code for Modern Khmer too? Such code is and will be required by a considerable number of entries. Thank you very much! --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Modern Khmer is a full-fledged language, not an etymology-only language. You can use km in the etymology templates. For example, the etymology section at kouprey says "From {{etyl|km|en}} {{m|km|គោព្រៃ}}", which could be rewritten as "From {{der|en|km|គោព្រៃ}}" or as "{{bor|en|km|គោព្រៃ}}". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand that km is equal to Modern Khmer. But when I need to distinguish varieties of the Khmer language, I just feel weird to manually add the word "Modern" (see the etymology of จวัก for example). Is such manual addition okay? Or should I avoid doing so? --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I think adding the word "Modern" manually is fine. I've done that for Modern Irish and Modern Greek myself. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I am very grateful for your kindness. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Old Irish for Edit

We currently seem to be missing an entry for this rather elementary word. Could you create one? —CodeCat 22:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Old Irish word for "two" is listed at , though it should probably really be at da since that's the oldest form. When used independently (i.e. not directly governing a noun) the form is dáu, which becomes in Middle and Modern Irish, but AFAIK doesn't occur in Old Irish proper. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

A Question... maybe.Edit

When I was dreaming this morning I had a question that I wanted to ask you, but (since I was dreaming) I was unable to ask it. If I remember what it is, I will ask you. I'm a little ticked off that I can't remember it, honestly. Tharthan (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Angr".