
== Yiddish page == Hey Doric Loon, were you planning to return to the Yiddish page at all? It desperately needs someone with your erudition to help out. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Linguistics == Hi Doric Loon, your remark on Talk:French grammar about the article Relative pronoun that ''"It is not meant to be about any one language..."'' made me think that you might like the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias_open_tasks#Linguistics of project WP:Bias. I'd be curious to know your thoughts! User:Mark Dingemanse— User:Mark Dingemanse User Talk:Mark Dingemanse 11:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) Good point. I'll mention it there. --User:Doric Loon 18:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Umlaut "diacritic" == It's a well known quagmire, and much of what you've done with the umlaut article is very good, but I am somewhat disturbed by some other details. Your usage of the term "umlaut diacritic" in connection with certain languages is contradicting since the text still, correctly, notes that the dots do not serve as diacritics. In particular your change of the ''other languages'' heading seems to call for revision or reversion. I'm a pretty irregular contributor to Wikipedia these days, but I guess I will try to change (back) some of your edits.
--User:Ruhrjung 06:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) :Well, that's your prerogative, but I'm not sure what your objection is. This sign was designed for German where it has a very logical function, and was borrowed into some other languages, where it simply represents a sound without the same relational function, but significantly in these languages it represents the same sound as in German - or the nearest phoneme. So it IS the Umlaut diacritic which has been borrowed in a simplified fashion. I think Swedes do think of Ä as A with dots; the fact that the treat it as a separate letter when alphabetising doesn't change where it comes from. But by all means try to express these things more clearly. --User:Doric Loon 06:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::It's always hard to know how people think, but (having lived four year there and having worked with Danes in Denmark) I would suggest that they don't think so any more than we think of a 'R' as a P-with-an-extra-line, or the danes think of 'æ' as a+e. If one has to describe the character for someone who doesn't know it, of course that's how to express it, but in our everyday thinking one doesn't go around considering 'W' and 'U' as variants of 'V', does one? :: :-) ::--User:Ruhrjung 08:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) :::Fair enough. Though it's a bolle-a they have in Danish, not a double-dotted a like in Swedish, isn't it? (Just going by the Wiki articles on the alphabets of these languages - I don't speak them at all!) You will see I changed a couple of things in this section before I saw your comments, and changed the title of the section after I saw it, so maybe you are a little happier now, but go ahead and make improvements if you see fit. The only thing I would ask is, if these symbols are NOT to be called umlaut diacritics in these languages, should they be in this article at all? --User:Doric Loon 06:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Good job and thanks for your work on ablaut == Ditto. -- User:Ihcoyc 19:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Germanic verbs== Hi Doric loon, and thanks for your kind comments on my work. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on Old Norse. I consult secondary sources. I will have a look for information about strong verbs in Old Norse, but I don't think I can do the work as fast as you hope. Concerning modern Scandinavian, I think Bokmål would be the best example, because it is in many ways intermediary between Swedish and Danish. You could try with a Norwegian contributor, such as User:Egil.--User:Wiglaf 06:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS, you're doing amazing work on the verbs. Keep up with your good work.--User:Wiglaf 06:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) == moving articles into parent :Category:Germanic languages == Hey, I was just wondering why you are moving massive numbers of articles from :Category:West Germanic languages and :Category:East Germanic languages to the parent category. If these categories are depopulated of their languages, then they're rather useless, eh? --User:Laurascudder | User talk:Laurascudder 17:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Hi Laura, the reason is that the category system for Germanic philology seemed pretty chaotic (as is that for Indo-European). I found it very difficult at first to get an overview of what had already been done, and it seems other people are too, because in the last couple of days one user has written a long (and excellent) article on an phenomenon which already had an article under a different title. So I thought I would try to simplify things by experimenting with a single category for Germanic languages. You are right - that would then render the sub-categories redundant. But now I am wondering if this is really helping or not. Try it out yourself and see what you think. I'll do no more until I get some more feedback. --User:Doric Loon 17:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) In general it's a good idea to have articles in the lowest possible category. For one thing, it keeps the number of articles in any given category down to a manageable size. I would say any article specific to North, East, or West Germanic should be in the respective subcategories, and the only articles in :Category:Germanic languages should be North Germanic languages, East Germanic languages, West Germanic languages (since the title article of a subcategory belongs in the parent category as well as the subcat), plus articles on phenomena shared by all branches. --User:Angr/User_talk:Angr 22:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC) ==Source== Hi Doric loon, here is a link to strong verbs in Old Norse [http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h542.php], weak verbs: [http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h541.php], and irregular verbs: [http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h543.php], [http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h544.php].--User:Wiglaf 21:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Thanks. Looks interesting. Though the "holy language", English purged of non-Germanic elements for use in holy rites, is a truly weird idea. --User:Doric Loon 08:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC) :Yes, it's a weird idea. However, they have scanned the information from a scholarly work and I am pretty sure about the reliability.--User:Wiglaf 11:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ==Germany== Thanks for your constructive contributions to the Germany page. Question: Where is the "POV" in the article that User:Gidonb was talking about? I can't see any. PS I have long stopped posting on the Germany Talk page, because there is too much aggro there. - User:Heimdal 15:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC) :To be honest, no, I don't see his point. But I gather there has been a history of arguments on this page, and I haven't followed it, so I don't want to judge that. I would advise you not to stop posting on the talk page unless you intend to stop editing the article, because you need to justify what you are doing. But if there is aggro, stay sober and factual. --User:Doric Loon 22:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC) Every time we've got a half-way decent Germany page, here come the loonies to disrupt the page. We've seen all that before. User:Gidonb is well-known for his hatred of Germany and the Germans. I think it's got to do with his personal background - because, apparently, his family was a victim of the Holocaust. Some months ago he insisted on adding an image of a Nazi camp mass grave to the article, which I reverted. Since then it's war between us. Just try to discuss with such a person. It's impossible. - User:Heimdal 12:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Thank you for your input on the Germany talk page. I just read the above accusations for the first time. Being of German descent, a child to a father who fosters German culture worldwide, and strengthening the cultural aspects of the Germany article in the past, I was amazed to read Heimdal's interpretation of my efforts. Yet there is no need to answer my posting and I will not answer subsequent accusations, if any are placed here again. I just thought that some word of disagreement is necessary as these may effect my reputation on Wikipedia. I favor a discussion of the contents of any article on the relevant talk page, without insults. gidonb">User:Gidonb 20:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC) :I'm glad you clarified that. It confirms my suspicion that there is no really big issue here. This is an irritation which has gone out of control, and I am obviously not the only one who is bewildered by it. --User:Doric Loon 20:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Doric Loon, I wanted to inform you that User:Gidonb has just deleted your piece about the ''Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland'' (ZJD) which you posted yesterday on the Germany page. I reverted, not least to save your edits. Please excuse me this shameful act of vandalism. - User:Heimdal 14:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Yet another shameful accusation in a list of too many lies. The text has been moved to another article, as explained in the edit summaries. Only one person vandalises the Germany page and thinks that he can do whatever he likes, while telling plain lies about the course of events. Heimdal went as far as to delete large sections of the Germany talk page, including your comments. This is my last reaction to his lies on this page. gidonb">User:Gidonb 15:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Please spare us from moving edits to other articles. Who asked you to do so anyway. - User:Heimdal 16:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC) The point of an overview article is to point to the relevant places. To me it is not so important whether this information is in Germany as that the reader of Germany can easily find the links to the places he or she needs to go. There has to be a link to the ZJD in some form. Surely, though, three lines on today's Jews is not too much, given that, precisely in view of the Holocaust, the situation of Jews in today's Germany is something lots of people must wonder about! And I would give the Muslims more space too. Remember, this article should be about today's Germany, and the reason some people were arguing that the history section was too long was because they wanted to make space for that. There is no pressure at present to shorten the information on contemporary affairs. --User:Doric Loon 16:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC) == Geschichtsaufarbeitung == I thought vaguely remembered the concept being slightly distinct from Vergangenheitsbewältigung, but if you are sure they are effectively the same, the redirect is fine... I also notice that the German 'pedia has no article on Geschichtsaufarbeitung, and I'm sure they know best, so I'm fine with this. Thanks. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 17:28, May 11, 2005 (UTC) == Maps== Thanks for clarifying. I guess it is now only the combination ''tz'' that I am a bit puzzled about. Was it pronounced [tz] or was it a way of writing ''ts''? I am sorry if it sounds like a silly question. As for maps, I'd love to make some. Just tell me what kind of map you would like, and allow me some time for research.--User:Wiglaf 21:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS, if you want someone who knows Old Norse well, you could leave a message to User:Haukurth.--User:Wiglaf 22:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I have made a map. I am not completely happy about the colour composition, but I chose yellow, green and blue in order to show continuity. Red was chosen for the borders to make them more clear as black was already taken. Don't hesitate to ask for changes.--User:Wiglaf 22:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Sound changes to and from Old Irish == Hi, For PIE -> Old Irish the standard is Holger Pedersen's ''Vergleichende Grammatik der Keltischen Sprachen'', or if you don't read German, its abridged translation ''Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar'' by Henry Lewis. It also include PIE -> Welsh/Cornish/Breton. I don't know of anything adequate for OIr. -> Scots Gaelic, I'm afraid. --User:Angr/User_talk:Angr 12:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :The main alternative to lexical diffusion is the Neogrammarian hypothesis that sound change applies simultaneously to all words in which the context of the sound change is found. --User:Angr/User_talk:Angr 21:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, I am the Doric Loon. It's rather a silly handle, when I come to think of it, but I found myself having to think of something fast. "Doric" is the dialect and culture of the part of Scotland I come from (round Aberdeen), and "loon" is the word in that dialect meaning "lad", "guy", "fellow" or whatever. As you see, it's frightfully original. My particular enthusiasms are Scotland, Germany, the Netherlands, literature, medieval studies, historical linguistics and migration studies, and you are likely to find me sticking my nose in wherever several of these interests come together. Articles I have started, written, substantially re-written or otherwise taken under my wing in more than a passing way include: Mediaeval Literature *Medieval German literature *Jans der Enikel *Dukus Horant *Martin of Opava Germanic and Indo-European philology *Germanic verb *Germanic weak verb *West Germanic strong verb *Preterite-present verb *Indo-European copula *Ablaut *Umlaut *Grammatischer Wechsel *High German consonant shift *Anglo-Frisian nasal spirant law English, Dutch, Yiddish *English verb *Pronunciation of English th *English relative clauses *Dutch language (the comparative section) *Dutch spelling *Yiddish language (the section on Old Yiddish) Grammar *Relative clause *Weak (grammatical term) German affairs *Vergangenheitsbewältigung *Reich *University of Regensburg (a project for my students) Britain *Cutty-sark *The empire on which the sun never sets eh? *Turnip
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Doric_Loon:
Doric_Loon
Doric_Loon
Doric Loon
== Yiddish page == Hey Doric Loon, were you planning to return to the Yiddish page at all? It desperately needs someone with your erudition to help out. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Linguistics == Hi Doric Loon, your remark on Talk:French grammar about the article Relative pronoun that ''"It is not meant to be about any one language..."'' made me think that you might like the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias_open_tasks#Linguistics of project WP:Bias. I'd be curious to know your thoughts! User:Mark Dingemanse— User:Mark Dingemanse User Talk:Mark Dingemanse 11:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) Good point. I'll mention it there. --User:Doric Loon 18:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Umlaut "diacritic" == It's a well known quagmire, and much of what you've done with the umlaut article is very good, but I am somewhat disturbed by some other details. Your usage of the term "umlaut diacritic" in connection with certain languages is contradicting since the text still, correctly, notes that the dots do not serve as diacritics. In particular your change of the ''other languages'' heading seems to call for revision or reversion. I'm a pretty irregular contributor to Wikipedia these days, but I guess I will try to change (back) some of your edits.
--User:Ruhrjung 06:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) :Well, that's your prerogative, but I'm not sure what your objection is. This sign was designed for German where it has a very logical function, and was borrowed into some other languages, where it simply represents a sound without the same relational function, but significantly in these languages it represents the same sound as in German - or the nearest phoneme. So it IS the Umlaut diacritic which has been borrowed in a simplified fashion. I think Swedes do think of Ä as A with dots; the fact that the treat it as a separate letter when alphabetising doesn't change where it comes from. But by all means try to express these things more clearly. --User:Doric Loon 06:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::It's always hard to know how people think, but (having lived four year there and having worked with Danes in Denmark) I would suggest that they don't think so any more than we think of a 'R' as a P-with-an-extra-line, or the danes think of 'æ' as a+e. If one has to describe the character for someone who doesn't know it, of course that's how to express it, but in our everyday thinking one doesn't go around considering 'W' and 'U' as variants of 'V', does one? :: :-) ::--User:Ruhrjung 08:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) :::Fair enough. Though it's a bolle-a they have in Danish, not a double-dotted a like in Swedish, isn't it? (Just going by the Wiki articles on the alphabets of these languages - I don't speak them at all!) You will see I changed a couple of things in this section before I saw your comments, and changed the title of the section after I saw it, so maybe you are a little happier now, but go ahead and make improvements if you see fit. The only thing I would ask is, if these symbols are NOT to be called umlaut diacritics in these languages, should they be in this article at all? --User:Doric Loon 06:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Good job and thanks for your work on ablaut == Ditto. -- User:Ihcoyc 19:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Germanic verbs== Hi Doric loon, and thanks for your kind comments on my work. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on Old Norse. I consult secondary sources. I will have a look for information about strong verbs in Old Norse, but I don't think I can do the work as fast as you hope. Concerning modern Scandinavian, I think Bokmål would be the best example, because it is in many ways intermediary between Swedish and Danish. You could try with a Norwegian contributor, such as User:Egil.--User:Wiglaf 06:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS, you're doing amazing work on the verbs. Keep up with your good work.--User:Wiglaf 06:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) == moving articles into parent :Category:Germanic languages == Hey, I was just wondering why you are moving massive numbers of articles from :Category:West Germanic languages and :Category:East Germanic languages to the parent category. If these categories are depopulated of their languages, then they're rather useless, eh? --User:Laurascudder | User talk:Laurascudder 17:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Hi Laura, the reason is that the category system for Germanic philology seemed pretty chaotic (as is that for Indo-European). I found it very difficult at first to get an overview of what had already been done, and it seems other people are too, because in the last couple of days one user has written a long (and excellent) article on an phenomenon which already had an article under a different title. So I thought I would try to simplify things by experimenting with a single category for Germanic languages. You are right - that would then render the sub-categories redundant. But now I am wondering if this is really helping or not. Try it out yourself and see what you think. I'll do no more until I get some more feedback. --User:Doric Loon 17:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) In general it's a good idea to have articles in the lowest possible category. For one thing, it keeps the number of articles in any given category down to a manageable size. I would say any article specific to North, East, or West Germanic should be in the respective subcategories, and the only articles in :Category:Germanic languages should be North Germanic languages, East Germanic languages, West Germanic languages (since the title article of a subcategory belongs in the parent category as well as the subcat), plus articles on phenomena shared by all branches. --User:Angr/User_talk:Angr 22:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC) ==Source== Hi Doric loon, here is a link to strong verbs in Old Norse [http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h542.php], weak verbs: [http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h541.php], and irregular verbs: [http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h543.php], [http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h544.php].--User:Wiglaf 21:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Thanks. Looks interesting. Though the "holy language", English purged of non-Germanic elements for use in holy rites, is a truly weird idea. --User:Doric Loon 08:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC) :Yes, it's a weird idea. However, they have scanned the information from a scholarly work and I am pretty sure about the reliability.--User:Wiglaf 11:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ==Germany== Thanks for your constructive contributions to the Germany page. Question: Where is the "POV" in the article that User:Gidonb was talking about? I can't see any. PS I have long stopped posting on the Germany Talk page, because there is too much aggro there. - User:Heimdal 15:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC) :To be honest, no, I don't see his point. But I gather there has been a history of arguments on this page, and I haven't followed it, so I don't want to judge that. I would advise you not to stop posting on the talk page unless you intend to stop editing the article, because you need to justify what you are doing. But if there is aggro, stay sober and factual. --User:Doric Loon 22:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC) Every time we've got a half-way decent Germany page, here come the loonies to disrupt the page. We've seen all that before. User:Gidonb is well-known for his hatred of Germany and the Germans. I think it's got to do with his personal background - because, apparently, his family was a victim of the Holocaust. Some months ago he insisted on adding an image of a Nazi camp mass grave to the article, which I reverted. Since then it's war between us. Just try to discuss with such a person. It's impossible. - User:Heimdal 12:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Thank you for your input on the Germany talk page. I just read the above accusations for the first time. Being of German descent, a child to a father who fosters German culture worldwide, and strengthening the cultural aspects of the Germany article in the past, I was amazed to read Heimdal's interpretation of my efforts. Yet there is no need to answer my posting and I will not answer subsequent accusations, if any are placed here again. I just thought that some word of disagreement is necessary as these may effect my reputation on Wikipedia. I favor a discussion of the contents of any article on the relevant talk page, without insults. gidonb">User:Gidonb 20:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC) :I'm glad you clarified that. It confirms my suspicion that there is no really big issue here. This is an irritation which has gone out of control, and I am obviously not the only one who is bewildered by it. --User:Doric Loon 20:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Doric Loon, I wanted to inform you that User:Gidonb has just deleted your piece about the ''Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland'' (ZJD) which you posted yesterday on the Germany page. I reverted, not least to save your edits. Please excuse me this shameful act of vandalism. - User:Heimdal 14:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Yet another shameful accusation in a list of too many lies. The text has been moved to another article, as explained in the edit summaries. Only one person vandalises the Germany page and thinks that he can do whatever he likes, while telling plain lies about the course of events. Heimdal went as far as to delete large sections of the Germany talk page, including your comments. This is my last reaction to his lies on this page. gidonb">User:Gidonb 15:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Please spare us from moving edits to other articles. Who asked you to do so anyway. - User:Heimdal 16:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC) The point of an overview article is to point to the relevant places. To me it is not so important whether this information is in Germany as that the reader of Germany can easily find the links to the places he or she needs to go. There has to be a link to the ZJD in some form. Surely, though, three lines on today's Jews is not too much, given that, precisely in view of the Holocaust, the situation of Jews in today's Germany is something lots of people must wonder about! And I would give the Muslims more space too. Remember, this article should be about today's Germany, and the reason some people were arguing that the history section was too long was because they wanted to make space for that. There is no pressure at present to shorten the information on contemporary affairs. --User:Doric Loon 16:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC) == Geschichtsaufarbeitung == I thought vaguely remembered the concept being slightly distinct from Vergangenheitsbewältigung, but if you are sure they are effectively the same, the redirect is fine... I also notice that the German 'pedia has no article on Geschichtsaufarbeitung, and I'm sure they know best, so I'm fine with this. Thanks. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 17:28, May 11, 2005 (UTC) == Maps== Thanks for clarifying. I guess it is now only the combination ''tz'' that I am a bit puzzled about. Was it pronounced [tz] or was it a way of writing ''ts''? I am sorry if it sounds like a silly question. As for maps, I'd love to make some. Just tell me what kind of map you would like, and allow me some time for research.--User:Wiglaf 21:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS, if you want someone who knows Old Norse well, you could leave a message to User:Haukurth.--User:Wiglaf 22:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I have made a map. I am not completely happy about the colour composition, but I chose yellow, green and blue in order to show continuity. Red was chosen for the borders to make them more clear as black was already taken. Don't hesitate to ask for changes.--User:Wiglaf 22:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Sound changes to and from Old Irish == Hi, For PIE -> Old Irish the standard is Holger Pedersen's ''Vergleichende Grammatik der Keltischen Sprachen'', or if you don't read German, its abridged translation ''Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar'' by Henry Lewis. It also include PIE -> Welsh/Cornish/Breton. I don't know of anything adequate for OIr. -> Scots Gaelic, I'm afraid. --User:Angr/User_talk:Angr 12:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :The main alternative to lexical diffusion is the Neogrammarian hypothesis that sound change applies simultaneously to all words in which the context of the sound change is found. --User:Angr/User_talk:Angr 21:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Doric Loon
OK, I am the Doric Loon. It's rather a silly handle, when I come to think of it, but I found myself having to think of something fast. "Doric" is the dialect and culture of the part of Scotland I come from (round Aberdeen), and "loon" is the word in that dialect meaning "lad", "guy", "fellow" or whatever. As you see, it's frightfully original. My particular enthusiasms are Scotland, Germany, the Netherlands, literature, medieval studies, historical linguistics and migration studies, and you are likely to find me sticking my nose in wherever several of these interests come together. Articles I have started, written, substantially re-written or otherwise taken under my wing in more than a passing way include: Mediaeval Literature *Medieval German literature *Jans der Enikel *Dukus Horant *Martin of Opava Germanic and Indo-European philology *Germanic verb *Germanic weak verb *West Germanic strong verb *Preterite-present verb *Indo-European copula *Ablaut *Umlaut *Grammatischer Wechsel *High German consonant shift *Anglo-Frisian nasal spirant law English, Dutch, Yiddish *English verb *Pronunciation of English th *English relative clauses *Dutch language (the comparative section) *Dutch spelling *Yiddish language (the section on Old Yiddish) Grammar *Relative clause *Weak (grammatical term) German affairs *Vergangenheitsbewältigung *Reich *University of Regensburg (a project for my students) Britain *Cutty-sark *The empire on which the sun never sets eh? *Turnip
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
D
DA | DB | DC | DE | DF | DG | DH | DI | DJ | DK | DL | DM | DN | DO | DP | DR | DS | DT | DU | DW | DX | DY | DZ |Words begining with Doric_Loon:
Doric_Loon
Doric_Loon
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
