Hello Tropylium, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --HolyRomanEmperor 18:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please give references about your ideas, if possible. I gave recent sources, after 1996 and 2008, not after 1960. Although, I cannot see any references supporting your proposals yet. Revived again, Ural-Altaic is a key theory to enlighten our past and you are not an academic expert to decide to exclude such a theory. Please, be scientific and abide the general rules of wiki format. Okurogluselo (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "my ideas" at stake here; I have merely noted that your references do not support your recent edits.

The Ural-Altaic theory has been completely obsolete for long now (you have read our article on Ural-Altaic languages, right?), and remains so; someone's one-off article advocating a WP:FRINGE position does not count as a "revival". Neither do the various versions of Nostratic: for one, they claim no especial relationship between Uralic and Altaic; for two, all of its variations remain non-mainstream as well.

(I also do happen to be working in historical linguistics, but that's neither here nor there. Our job at Wikipedia is not to personally reassess theories, but to report what reliable sources have to say on them.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 08:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tropylium! I saw you're an active participant of the Berlin school article. I was wondering if you would like to help with the Music in Berlin article that I started a couple of weeks ago. It would be terrific if someone started work on the recent developments in the musical history of Berlin. Any contributions are most welcome! Matthias Röder 14:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am also an amateur in linguistics but this is of no importance. When writing on Barrack's objections against Kortland, my aim was to point that those objections exist. Your question is natural however. I think the best way to learn what they are is to ask Barrack. In the meantime, you may be interested in the paper [Preaspiration in the Nordic Languages].

Kortland's view (as presented in the paper of which you write in the discussion to the article) is well known and easily accessible. Counterviews are harder to find. Nevertheless they exist and are well argumented.

Grzegorj 09:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Tropylium. If you ever find or create a conlanging userbox, would you mind letting me know? It would be greatly appreciated.

Yours,
Nick

Hi there. I noticed your comment concerning mis-quoted sources in the above article. It's a major ongoing problem at that article, due to collusion between 2 editors who have been trying to push an unsourced POV on the subject for months, and who have dumped an avalanche of sources into the article in an effort to frustrate any outside attempt to resolve the issue via true consensus. Sometimes the mis-quotes are subtle, with comments merely taken out of context in order to put a different spin on them - other times they are blatant mis-quotes which say the direct opposite of what these editors claim they say. Attempts at reviewing each source individually are frustrated by the editors in question adding further sources, or moving sources around, to confuse the discussion. Any outside opinions/observations that could assist resolving this are very welcome. --Gene_poole 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tropylium - welcome to space music. I'm sorry to see that your first experience of the article is that the conflict has immediately appeared on your talk page.

If you want to dive in and get involved, you're welcome of course. If you do, for context, I recommend that you read the talk page, and also the archives of the talk page.

I thought I should post a note for you with further information, since Gene_poole posted on your page, attempting to poison the well before you've had a chance to make your own decisions. He also discussed editors rather than content, including ad hominem personal attacks, which are unfounded.

Usually, I would not even mention anything about another editor, but since he's already posted an attack about me on your page, I felt I needed to reply so you have the background information. When you read his comments and his edit summaries, please consider whether or not you see his use of words like "vandalism" to be fair and accurate, or if it seems he uses those words in an attempt to influence others in his content disputes.

He runs a radio show that plays ambient music, Ultima Thule Ambient Music and has a likely conflict of interest in editing the article. In a published interview about his radio show that he considers "ambient" rather than "space music" he said he detests the term "new age music", and then he followed that with this statement: "I also detest the term 'spacemusic', incidentally". (I can find the link for you if you want it).

I'm not going to go into all the details, but if you review the talk page, you'll see that there have been five editors who have disagreed with his interpretations of the topic, while so far, not one other editor has agreed with him. So the article is the result of consensus by multiple editors.

There is no mis-quoting of sources. It's possible there may be a small error or two, as in any article, but the references have been carefully researched. You are of course, welcome to review them and make your own decision.

There's no need to rush to figure all this out. Over time, if you stick around and watch the behavior of the various editors, all will become clear.

So, welcome, and best wishes. --Parsifal _Hello 22:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I'm sorry that the above editor has chosen to post personal attacks about me on your talk page. Unfortunately the above is typical of his pattern of behaviour. Other editors are slowly becoming aware of the problem, so it'll more than likely be dealt with via community sanction in due course. It's best to simply ignore the attacks and continue editing in good faith. I'll certainly support any review of the quoted sources in space music if you wish to instigate one. --Gene_poole 06:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tropylium, I'm the other editor immediately attacked. I'll verify the truth of what Parsifal has written, and if you do research, you'll see that it's all sadly true. While I personally welcome you, for your own happiness, I have to recommend that you leave the Space music article and delete everything we've written here on your page. From your short edit history, I assume you are just too new to become plunged into unrelenting mendacity and conflict. Milo 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Re-edited 09:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed have no intention nor time to "plunge into unrelenting mendacity and conflict". But I'm going to assume good faith at least for now, tho. We'll see how well that goes. --Tropylium 10:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Hi Tropylium. You note on the Berlin School entery and comment. I would reccomend you do a search on any search engine to see info required to meet notiable bands. Please restore your edit to include the link that was.[reply]

dale

Thanks for fixing up the consonant table on Phula language. I really hate formatting those darn things. I'd rather just draw them out by hand, but that's not possible here ;)

I've done quite a bit janitorial work on that subject. Nice to hear it's not going unappreciated.

BTW, have you found any decent way to line up the voiceless under circle with the letter above it in Unicode? I've NEVER been able to do it with any degree of success, so I don't do the charts on languages with voiceless sonorants (notice on Phula I used an asterisk behind the segment to mark laryngealization).

Sounds like a font issue. I've never had any problems with that specific diacritic.

I've made the sound charts on Buyang language if you get bored and want to clean up another poorly made chart. (Taivo (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As well as Mpade language and a handful of others, I notice… --Tropylium (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my error in Helsinki slang. I have confirmed my error by studying this. It seems that South Baltic-Finnic has had neutral vowel splits, where /e/ became [e] and [ɤ] in Estonian and Võro, and /i/ became [i] and [ɯ] in Võro. I was previously only aware of the obsolete view. I've been looking for people and/or websites that are concerned with Baltic-Finnic historical linguistics, but they have been difficult to find on Google. How well are you studied in the subject? - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It looks like Xavante does have a velar consonant: /w/ is não-arredondado, according to your source, which I assume means [ɰ]. Still the closest to a language without dorsals that I've ever heard of. kwami (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tropylium. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving some attention to my Finnish language learning needs. :) Heyzeuss (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

btw, since you are familiar with IPA, we're gonna need more of you over at Wiktionary. Heyzeuss (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

continued on heyzeuss's page…

update

Hey, I just wanted to point out, per this edit summary that a number of articles on consonants have sections like that. If you want to search and destroy, I won't oppose. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. You're absolutely right about that. I had not read your statement carefully and, somehow, I had thought you were saying Finnish had turned a Proto-Germanic */ng/ (pretty absurd) to /ŋg/, but you had very clearly written "*ŋg → /ŋː/". Sorry! Pasquale (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I answered a question you had over 2 years ago on the Pittsburghese talk page. Here is what I said:

According to J.C. Wells, in western PA tire, tower and tar can either be: 1.) All distinct 2.) All identical or 3.) Tire and tar can be distinct, as [ar] and [ɑr] respectively, with tower being the same as one or the other. Also according to Wells, in western PA tile and towel can merge as [tɑ̟w]; but both remain distinct from tall, which would be something like [tɒw] or [tɔw]. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tropylium. Why do you think the reader doesn't need to know about this: [1] and have an overview about how Finnic languages have been interpreted over time on wikipedia?[2]. Sure nowadays due to Finnish scholars using "Finnic languages" as a synonym for Baltic Finnic only, the meaning has transformed. But originally it was just a group of the traditional Finno-Ugric tree that also included the Baltic Finnic group. And the table illustrates how different scholars have interpreted the term "Finnic languages" over time. I think it is relevant to the article.--Termer (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Finno-Permian languages"/Finno-Permic languages is not a common term in English, (About 37 results/93 results) on google books. Traditionally "Finno-Permic languages" have been referred to as Finnic languages. (Please see Ruhlen p69). It's only recently when the Ethnologue has listed Baltic-Finnic languages as Finnic. Therefore the article "Baltic-Finnic languages" got changed to "Finnic languaes" on wikipedia. The only thing I was saying, we'd need to keep all meanings of "Finnic languages" under one article, and perhaps redirect "Finno-Permian languages" accordingly by making it a chapter under Finnic languages. As the meaning of the term has changed over time, (in fact originally it also referred to Uralic languages in general (excluding samoyeds though)).--Termer (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was reading a bunch of article searching for a piece of information and randomly came across your username on a talk page or something. You seem pretty well versed in linguistics. If I may have a moment of your time, can you help me with this - often when I read Wikipedia articles where indo-european words are written out, there are a lot of the characters that I don't know how to interpret. For example: k^w or q^u. Also what do all of the diacritics signify? I have seen ä, š, even ǟ denoting sounds in PIE.

I am not asking for you to explain all of these things to me - I am just trying to make it clear what it is that I don't understand. Can you give me a link to a site that explains the characters used to denote different PIE sounds? If not, can you tell me a search term that would be helpful?

Thanks in advance - Bobber0001 (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Partly reverted you at Dahalo language. It's misleading to say the inventory is "inflated" by loans, unless we have a ref that some of the C's do not occur in assimilated words (like ʁ and ɬ in English). Also, by conflating Ladefoged and Tosco, you're double-counting C's: /t'/ and /ts'/ are just different transcriptions of the same phoneme. It is good to note which consonants T thinks are indigenous, and also the NC analysis (what's it based on? we already have a note to that effect), but I haven't had a chance to restore those. — kwami (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some questions at Talk:Proto-Finnic language. Do you think you could help? CodeCat (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the "a" is not original here, what could it have been? CodeCat (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have no idea, really. It's one of several words with irregular vowel correspondences between North Finnic and South Finnic (often with further discrepancises within the SF areal). Quite a few of these involve South Finnic õ, e.g. SF või ~ NF vai "or", SF sõsar ~ NF sisar "sister". Cf. e.g. Alo Raun (1971), Essays in Finno-Ugric and Finnic linguistics, pp. 57–65, Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series 107.

At least some examples result from parallel loaning; e.g. in several Slavic loans ы gets adapted as North u ~ South õ; while Baltic *medja "borderlands" > "forest" has been adapted as Livonian + South Finnic *mecca > *mëcca, vs. Core Finnic *meccä. Probably at least couple other cases are similar parallel loans from the lost pre-Finnic languages of Estonia (the separation of Middle Proto-Finnic into dialects is thought to have taken place well before the expansion into the modern Finnic-speaking area, already somewhere around Pskov).

There's also some evidence for a phonemic y = /ɨ ~ ɯ/ having existed in South Estonian from fairly early on (e.g. sysar "sister") - independently of the more recent changes e ö o õ > i ü u y before nasals, and eee ööö ooo õõõ > iii üüü uuu yyy. This was observed relatively recently I think, cf. Karl Pajusalu (2012), Phonological Innovations of the Southern Finnic languages, SUST 266. There are clearly still many open questions to be solved in the future about the history of back unrounded vowels in Southern Finnic.

Back on topic, if you'll excuse a little speculation, my bet is still on sana being a more original form… as I suspect some relation of this and Germanic *sagjanan "to say". This hunch would need plenty of further work until it could be called an actual etymology, though. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Wiktionary I've written a module that automatically inflects most nominals and verbs for Proto-Finnic. The module automatically applies gradation based on syllable structure. It seems to work ok and since you know more about this than I do, I wonder if you could check it and give comments if you have any. See wikt:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:fiu-fin-decl and wikt:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:fiu-fin-conj for lists of articles. There are a few things that have me puzzled.

1. The automatic gradation turns s > h in closed syllables, but for some reason most Finnic languages don't have s > h gradation in the second syllable when it the s is part of the stem. For example, the automatic gradation turns forms of *pestäk into *pehe- under gradation, but there's no trace of that stem form anywhere, nor anything like it for any other words except consonant stem nouns (*mees, *kuningas etc.).
2. There's the passive endings of verbs. In Finnish, these appear as single -t- that gradates to -d-, but I presume (and our Proto-Finnic article also states) that the original syllable was *-tt- gradating to *-t'-, as the *-tt- morpheme also appears in other "passive" forms like causatives and the passive participles. The interesting thing is that Finnish also has syncope of -e- in this form, which probably only happened before single -t- and not geminated -tt-. So which is the original?
3. The 1pl and 2pl endings are often reconstructed from an earlier *-kme/ak and *-kte/ak with subsequent assimilation. But it appears that in Proto-Finnic this assimilation had not yet taken place. If it had, then you'd expect the resulting -tte/ak to be weakened by radical gradation, which is not actually the case Finnish. So either: there was no final *-k (which is hard to explain as there is *-e and not *-i), or gradation became unproductive in this form before the assimilation took place. And I believe gradation was productive throughout Proto-Finnic, so I think that means the assimilation hadn't happened yet.
4. In "The Uralic Languages" by Daniel Abondolo, it is mentioned that South Estonian dialects have "-hn" in the inessive. If that's true, then it means that it underwent a change *-sna > *-hna and therefore that the assimilation *-sna > *-ssa in the other Finnic languages happened after South Estonian split off. So does this mean that the older form *-sna must be reconstructed for Proto-Finnic?
5. There are two reconstructable forms of the conditional morpheme, *-kci- and *-ici-. In a few sources (and in our article) it's mentioned that *-k- was an old present-tense morpheme. If so, then it seems likely that these two conditional variants represent older present and past tense forms of some kind. Also, the book above mentions that the 1pl and 2pl endings also contain this present-tense morpheme, so I wonder if this ending was only used for the present tense, and the other tenses and moods had simple *-me/ak and *-de/ak? Are these endings with no gemination of the consonant attested in Finnic?

CodeCat (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a source for your edit to Vertical vowel system on Chadic vowel harmony? It sounds really interesting but I'm finding it hard to find.

Kielbasa1 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's so far all from Gravina's thesis, which is downloadable online. I'll add a link. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 18:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sumerian language page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over your CFD nomination, I don't see any notice that was posted on any category page nor was any author informed of the discussion. Please review WP:CFD. People should not have to watch CFD to guess if something is going on somewhere. I closed it as rename but since you didn't list all of the actual articles to be renamed and nothing has been tagged, if anyone anywhere finds any objection and take it to WP:DRV, I will support overturning and relisting it with actual notice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I am not a fan of excessive bureaucracy though, and the individual notice-posting method endorsed at WP:CFD appears to be geared for substantial editing one or two categories at a time, not for contesting minor naming scheme details affecting a large number of categories (where it will become a prohibitively bulky workload really fast, and where no actual content is at stake). I have posted a notification at WP:WikiProject Linguistics, where I'd expect people interested in the linguistic accuracy of the category system might be found.

(Also: since when is deletion review supposed to be used for disputes of renaming?)--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 09:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is about the discussion itself. As you can now see at User_talk:Ricky81682#Misunderstanding_about_a_CfD_outcome_leads_to_hundreds_of_inappropriate_edits, a series of problems have arisen. Next time, follow the CFD procedures. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was the only one opposing the split back in 2012. Since then, Glottolog has listed four separate Khanty languages. (I don't know if Surgut is justified; I'll leave that to you.) Anyway, if you want to split, I'd support you now. There's currently info on the individual languages, so we'd have some meat in the articles. Since there was no other opposition, I don't think you'd need to start a new discussion. And there never was opposition to splitting Mansi, so I think that would be okay too, even though they'd just be stubs (unless you have sources to fill them out). If you don't want to do it, I can, but I might not get it right. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I have sources to extend most Khanty varieties and at least a couple of the Mansi varieties as well with basic info beyond what we already have, yes. Some others might be left at stubs though.

Naming might be the biggest initial question: shall we have e.g. Northern Khanty language (per e.g. Glottolog), Northern Khanty dialects (since they're a dialect continuum with Southern), or simply Northern Khanty (this could be mixed up with the people)? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the last, since AFAIK the "Northern Khanty" are not a nationality. It's also how we tend to name language articles, e.g. Southern Bavarian. (There should be a rd from "language", though.) "Dialects" would IMO be weasel-wording, and suggests to my reading that they are not a coherent group.

Don't let that hold you up, though. Moving articles is easy. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had been told the music was performed and arranged by Tangerine Dream...but I should have verified before I made the edit.

Please stop adding your own interpretations of sources to articles. We list what sources say, preferably what each individual source says, and your synthesis of three sources is, well, WP:SYNTHESIS. Jeppiz (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the policy. Consider reading WP:SYNTHNOT, in particular the sections "SYNTH is not summary", "SYNTH is not presumed", "SYNTH is not obvious", "SYNTH is not a secondary-school question", and "SYNTH is not just any synthesis". Additionally, may I suggest reading WP:ACCUSE?

I look forward to your good-faith elaboration of what exactly you consider a problem in the previous state of Finnic languages.--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 01:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Indo-European sound laws page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tropylium. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you have interest in the so called "Oghur" language. This article here [3] may help you to understand the problem. Cheers. 216.230.226.42 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you reverted my edit in Bactrian language due to "not a family, see discussion". I'm not familiar with this discussion, is it on a talk page? The Verified Cactus 100% 19:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In our article on Eastern Iranian and briefly covered also in the classification section of the Bactrian article: East Iranian is now thought to be a language area within Iranian, not a subfamily. This has the effect of putting a large part of the genetic classification of Iranian languages up in the air. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. The Verified Cactus 100% 18:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tropylium. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nilo-Saharan languages, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reflexive and Possession (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proto-Indo-European Lexicon (PIE Lexicon) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Indo-European Lexicon (PIE Lexicon) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cnilep (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two sections about possessive suffixes. Can you try to merge the two? Rua (mew) 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, my bad, I completely forgot I already wrote a section on them earlier. Should be doable. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tropylium. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea you were on Wikipedia, and yes I did sort of copy from your bog, which I religiously visit because of your unique ideas. I was wondering if you could help me with a project. Do you have a Proto-Uralic lexicon?déhanchements (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support (lol), but please sit tight enough until I have actually published any of these ideas :) (Besides, I have by now developed some new thoughts on issues like the interpretation of *δ´ anyway.)

I do have various lexical resources for PU; see e.g. this for a starting-point listing of the "core" Uralic vocabulary. (Not really citeable as such though, these are working notes combining newer results from several sources and some of my own unpublished work.) If you want something more detailed — or just want to tell me more about your project — well, if you read my blog, you know what email address to get in touch me with at. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the SCP wiki to create a detailed lexicon for a conlang that has been requested, and so far all I have had for a resource is George Starostin's abomination. Thanks for the link. déhanchements (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Tropylium, I notice that in Proto-Uralic, the phoneme *r rarely appears in initial position, if at all. What are your thoughts on the Pre-PU distribution/origin of *r? déhanchements (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The absense of initial *r is a long-established position and I don't see much to add to this; the same is notably the case in several other language families of Eurasia. It may function as evidence to rule out a PU status for various individual etymologies though. UEW's data under *r- has many cases known to be loans from Indo-Iranian anyway.

BTW if you want a less tampered online version of the UEW data than "Starostin's abomination", see Uralonet. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 13:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Proto-Uralic article states, A shift *a-ə > *o-a can be posited for Samic as well as the Mordvinic languages. But it posits *čoarvē < *ćorwa for Proto-Samic. Shouldn't it be *čoarvē < *ćarwa? déhanchements (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, exactly as stated: PU *śarwə > pre-Sami *ćorwa > Proto-Samic *čoarve. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the definition of the Comb hypothesis from Wikipedia like you did on Proto-Uralic.

This image is an example of the Afro-Asiatic (allo-genetic) Comb model:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Interrelations_between_branches_of_Afro-Asiatic.svg

The same image would look the same for the Proto-Uralic language group and it's apparent descendants. And if you know Hungarian, how come you haven't realized that approx. 50% of it's lexicon is borrowed from Indo-European and Turkic (the rest unknown) but almost exclusively on a Ugric substratum? Hungarian is confirmed to be a Ugric language, but it may be misclassified as Uralic. It is not OR (original research) as Afro-Asiatic and Uralic have cognates that are very far, as contrary to Indo-European, Kartvelian or Vasconic etc. that are very near. So whether the apparent Uralic and Afro-Asiatic language groups are real, is pure speculation - and skepticism/criticism on their apparent actual existence is especially valid. For all we know, Ugric could actually be descended from Turkic languages that were mis-categorized as "Uralic". And Hungarian is merely just a dialect of Ugric, which is actually subgroup of Turkic. For example. — Wasylkowski (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I am a linguist and am skeptical that Afro-Asiatic and Uralic are actual real language groups myself. So I would back an Allo-genetic theory. Because the cognates and grammar seem purely coincidental especially for Chadic which also does not seem to share many similarities with Egyptian - especially it's SVO word order and Egyptian's VSO.

And I would classify the Chadic languages as their own distinct language group, and NOT descending from Afro-Asiatic at all.

(they don't call the apparent Nilo-Saharan language group - "Joseph Greenberg's wastebasket" for nothing! Lazy, talentless work, on Greenberg's part.) Wasylkowski (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your picture is not a "comb model", it is a perfectly ordinary family tree. At least not by the pre-existing meaning of "comb model" in Uralistics, which means a polytomous family tree with no non-obvious intermediate groups, i.e. just the nine groups that we currently discuss in Uralic languages#Classification. (For example usage see e.g. Ylikoski's 2016 and Michalove's 2002 papers in FUF, or Janhunen's 2000 paper C9IFU.) To be sure, perhaps there is a different sense out there too that means a "directional binary" tree or a linkage — but then we'd like to have sources stating that (and perhaps an article on the topic first before trying to overapply it).

If you're trying to do credential-waving, simultaneously spouting off nonsense like thinking that loanwords have anything to do with genetic classification is not a very good way to do it. Uralic is really a younger and more compact family than Indo-European (fewer ancient languages to work with, though) and is quite firmly established.

Actually, even those hacks who think the Turkic loanword layer in Hungarian (which is smaller than you think: see our chart in Hungarian language#Vocabulary) should be thought of as native? Usually they only want to remove it alone from the family. Mansi and Khanty have a lot more native Uralic material in them really, and also a lot less Turkic material. Your idea that "Ugric might descend from Turkic" is completely incoherent if you've ever looked at the actual substance involved, and I suspect you simply have misunderstood whatever fringe theory it is you're regurgiating here. Really, take a good look at the Uralic versus Turkic core vocabulary sometimes (available at Wiktionary: wiktionary:Appendix:Uralic Swadesh lists, wiktionary:Appendix:Turkic Swadesh lists): you can find a couple general Uralic-Turkic similarities (#minV 'I', #bVlwV 'cloud') or specific Hungarian–Turkic ones (#nyaŕ 'summer', *jel 'wind'), but nothing that's across the line Ugric–Turkic to the exclusion of the rest of Uralic. There is actually altogether a grand total of only three proposed cases of Proto-Turkic loanwords in Proto-Ugric, and even one of them remains disputed.

Anyway, do bring on sources if you think you're correct and/or your criticism really comes from something other than your own imagination. I am quite confident though they will be shown to be marginal minority views or outright unreliable pseudoscience (after all you are, contrary to your impression, in fact talking to a professional Uralic linguist).

Whatever Afro-Asiatic or Nilo-Saharan has to do with any part of this I continue to not see: each language family needs to be assessed on its own merits. (For the record, yes, I am slightly suspicious on the validity of the former, and pretty sure the latter is to some extent a wastebasket…) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have reinserted the information that Aari speakers are often called Shankilla, which was taken out by an offended speaker some days ago. Though I understand your concern that people may want to find that language by seeing a reference to this name in the article, I'd like to ask you to re-consider your edit, basically on two grounds. The term Shanqalla (and all its variations) is considered very offensive by those to whom it is applied in Ethiopia. And second, it is not applied only to Aari speakers, but to countless speakers of other languages spoken in the Ethiopian lowlands - so this is not only information relevant to Aari. For that reason I let the edit of that speaker go, and I think it would be good to take out all other Shanqalla references from pages on Ethiopian languages. There may be a use for the word on a page on Ethiopian ethnicity, but I don't think it contributes anything to any page on an Ethiopian language, and it needlessly offends the people who find this to be used about themselves on Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration! Landroving Linguist (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. If a term is (sourcably) offensive, if of course should be marked as such, but this is no grounds for censoring it altogether off of an article. How else is an outsider to learn any of this?

Your other concern is more relevant though: if Shankilla ~ Shanqalla is indeed applied to numerous lowland Ethiopian groups, there's less of a point in giving it as a synonym for one particular people or language; per the information given I was assuming this was instead a simple endonym / exonym situation.

We also seem to already have a separate page for the term at Shanqella, though it is not very useful due to not linking to any of the "proper" terms to be used instead. You might be interested to note that this term gets some half a dozen other hits elsewhere on Wikipedia as well (plus one or two for "Shankalla", "Shanqalla", "Shangalla".) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I had forgotten about that Shanqella page, although I even seem to have edited it some years ago. But it remains true (as the page correctly says) that the name is applied to a number of other peoples, and for most Ethiopians Aari would not even come to mind, as they live way in the South, far away from people like Gumuz people or Berta people, to whom it was applied originally. You are right, Wikipedia is not censored, but I think its documentary duty is done by providing the Shanqella page. Someone may add the peoples that were the object of that insult, but I certainly won't do that. :-) Landroving Linguist (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing there's then also no such thing as "the ShanKVlla language". We don't have a page for the Aari people, but even then language articles are kind of the wrong place for etnographic info. I'm removing the mention at this point, yes. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Warm greetings, Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tropylium,

Thanks for creating Pakawan languages! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tropylium. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Classification of Uralic languages".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 09:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tropylium! Can you help me to deconstruct this soapbox article for a fringe theory? I have scrapped OR-comaprison tables, and tagged a "source" as totally unrelated to the topic. The remaining three sources are in Finnish. I could handle two of them via Google, but the third contains lengthy passages about Basque that need a fluent/native reader. I hope you can assist here. Without proper sourcing I'll bring it to AfD; I can't even think for a redirect target for such stuff. – Austronesier (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The material he has added this month both logged in and not logged in to this article is basically one long copyvio. The material has been lifted from Donner's book and mangled into an apparently self-created version of extended Cyrillic. When I called him out on the copyvio, he switched to doing the same with Künnap's material instead to cover his tracks. There is also a clear COI here, as the site he keeps trying to add in to back up his claims is his own amateur website. -Yupik (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least the Cyrillic is clearly OR. I haven't looked if the material might follow Donner too closely, but if so that should be fixable; obviously we could use a description of Kamassian. I've been waiting for various currently-in-the-works materials to come out first though (the new Oxford and Routledge handbooks on Uralic and the Manuscripta Castreniana volume on Kamassian). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same OR/COI stuff all over the incubator and other wps too. As to the other matter: Sweet, I hadn't heard about the Manuscripta Castreniana volume on Kamassian! Hope it comes out soon :) -Yupik (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Late response to this, because i just saw this. 1 I tried to change the wording so it is not literal copying of the material. 2 Also i didn't try to copy Kunnap 3 I stopped linking my websites when you told me so. 4 i took out the cyrillic 5 and the stuff you said is copyvious i deleted. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears our good friend the professor had previously published a work questioning the validity of IE. Just so you know: https://www.scribd.com/document/49199224/Marcantonio-Repudiating-Linguistic-Evidence-Aryan-Hypothesis https://www.scribd.com/document/36578008/Marcantonio-A-on-the-Comparative-Method Apparently published in a JIES monograph as well. IDK what they were thinking... MToumbola (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I've heard of this nonsense too, though it seems to have not gone anywhere near as far. It's in a "monograph series", but seems to be actually just an article collection: [4] --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 13:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this was really something downward unrecognised well issue but it deliberately like most of region side to be withinMrDDBOI (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

however though, indeed very so? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 13:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tropylium, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to Proto-Semitic language in the past and given your interest in languages, I thought you could be interested in reviewing this nomination. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was cleaning up the refs in that article and I noticed that you once added a citation to „Korhonen 1981”, but this work is not listed in the references and it doesn’t link to anything. Did you mean the existing reference to Finno-Ugrian Language Studies in Finland 1828–1918 and misspelled the year, or did you forget to add another work by this author? Cheers! MichaelTheSlav (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, thanks for catching that. He has a 1981 handbook too that I must have been thinking of moment there (about the history of Sami), but yeah those are from the 1986 book. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 13:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It’s corrected now. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry to bother you about an old thing, but you added an unreferenced tag on the Kainuu Sámi article in 2013 and said "Let's slap an unreferenced tag on this for now and see if anything comes forward." I started a new conversation about the matter and wondered if you'd like to comment something: Talk:Kainuu_Sámi#Validity. Thank you. --Vilutar (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. Just saw your change over at Cushitic languages. I don't see a good reason to switch from the Kwermusl orthography (that used by Mous & Kießling) to IPA: If a Wikipedia reader is going to pick up a book on Iraqw, they'll probably look at one of those that uses the Kwermusl orthography or something derived therefrom. Pathawi (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We regularly give phonological transcription in these kind of comparison tables, they're not meant to aid in learning Iraqw or anything of the sort. Cf. e.g. the table of selected cognates at Uralic languages (though fair enough that one retains orthography alongside).

(This is maybe also a discussion better had at Talk:Cushitic languages if you have more thoughts.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's better at the page Talk given that there will be back & forth. I'll comment there. Pathawi (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Regular sound correspondences between Hungarian and other Uralic languages, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular sound correspondences between Hungarian and other Uralic languages until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that in this article you added (in 2013) an entry for Khanty. Do you have a source for that word (in both northern and eastern dialects)? It doesn't look quite right to me as that has the letter for the velar nasal, which always contrasts with ṇ, whereas the contrast between ṇ and n depends on dialect so I'd expect that to be spelt with a regular н. Incidentally the romanization of it seems weird; I'd expect FUT. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]