User talk:Godfrey Daniel

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Godfrey,

your edits on the Danish cartoon controversy page are quality edits, but there is a very contentious debate there about a particular section you've edited. I appreciate that you expounded on the section, citing a need for a reference to the example of capital punishment for propaganda under Western law in the 20th Century. I worked hard for several hours to preserve that reference over the objection of a couple of editors who strongly objected. The solution I finally proposed was that the section be moved to its own subsection about "legal traditions" -- not "opinions" and not "comparable references". But to maintain that section, references to Muslims calling for execution need to be calls for judicial execution, not calls for extrajudicial executions. Focus on Judicial Remedies Also, the debate has been so tedious as to concern itself over whether each concept has one or two sentences. The reference to the cleric has standing there because it is a specific reference to a call of application of Islamic law. But the protesters in the street aren't as specific. I don't want to relegate that to "opinions" on another page, but I can't immediatly suggest where else is should be placed.

My proposal, in hopes of buildin comraderie with you as a valuable editor, is that A. I place the reference you request re: judicial execution of propagandists under International law, B. consolidate the sentence about the cleric and protesters, or alternately, leave all reference to protesters calls for death out of this section unless it is a specific call for strict application of Islmaic law and C. store your thoughtfully sought out evidence of calls for killing by protesters on the talk page so you, you and I or you and somebody can find an appropriate home for them. I'm sort of hoping you recognize the rational for this, and the recent debate on the talk page and work with me to defend a hard won marginal consensus to that allowed this focus to emerge.

does this sound workable? I'm going to do something to this effect now, so reply via my talk page if you want and I'll get immediate notice. Thanks PaxTerra 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed?

Hi! Did you remove this part from the cartoons article?

- a group of Danish imams from several organisations created a 43-page dossier^[1]. This appears to have been assembled and added to until some point after 8 December 2005, with the first lobbying visits to Egypt having taken place before finalization.

If so, was it just moved to a sub-section, or deleted without discussion anywhere? DanielDemaret 15:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I made a mistake. I have a hard time following all the small edits :)DanielDemaret 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I edited that section to make what I thought was an easier-to-read text, but I didn't remove that part. (Sorry for the tardy reply.) Godfrey Daniel 19:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JP intro blurb

Hi Godfrey!

You have recently edited the short introduction to the Jyllands-Posten Cartoon article. Although there is nothing factually wrong in your addition, it would be better to keep the intro very short and move this text further down in the article. The aspect you describe might be there already?

For now I will comment it out so that you can conveniently copy/paste to an appropiate location. MX44 09:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good. I just think that the intro as it stands is unbalanced, as the language ("culturally insulting, Islamophobic, blasphemous, and intended to humiliate a marginalized Danish minority") is very strong, and the pro side deserves an equally strong rebuttal. Godfrey Daniel 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nasalized frics

link: [1]

Hi Godfrey,

I reverted your note on the IPA page. Nasalized fricatives may be rare, but they do occur - in South Arabian, for example. And far from being impossible, they're quite easy to pronounce. kwami 01:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

, I'll go along with the revert for now. However, I know that John O'Hala specifically denied the existence of such segments, saying something like "buccal obstruents require velic closure" (paraphrase, not quote). While I personally can say, for instance, a nasal [z], I don't recall encountering nasal fricatives in Ladefoged & Maddeson's Sounds of the World's Languages (or did I just miss them?).

Any references? Thanks. Godfrey Daniel 01:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a buccal obstruant without velic closure, how about [n]?

My refs are handouts from a conference talk. A UEA linguist working on S Arabic langs reported the nasalized [z̃]; in her pronunciation it was clearly a fricative, and she was quite adamant about this when I expressed amazement.

In SOWL they say "Ohala (1975) offers persuasive reasons for believing that voiced nasalized fricatives are difficult to produce" because of the conflict between two directions of airflow. In languages like Guarani, the nasalized allophones of fricatives are actually approximants, and therefore claims of nasalized fricatives in languages like Waffa (PNG) must be taken with a grain of salt. However, Umbundu contrasts phonemically nasalized [ṽ] from allophonically nasalized [w̃]. Schadeberg (1982) maintained that Umbundu [ṽ] was a fricative even after commenting on Ohala (1975). —kwami 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It seems to me that nasalized sibilants like [z̃] are significantly easier to maintain than other nasalized fricatives like [ṽ].

You wrote:

For a buccal obstruant without velic closure, how about [n]?

Ah, but nasals are, by definition, not obstruents, because the nasal airway is not obstructed (unless you have a cold ;-) Obviously, nasal [d] is impossible, which is why some languages have [nd] (e.g., Fijian) and even [dn] (e.g., Russian).

Interesting data. Thanks for sharing. BTW, the note with nasal frix is gone. Godfrey Daniel 22:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can have fun with the semantics: by this definition, [z̃] is not an obstruent either, and nasalized obstruents are impossible simply because they're a contradiction in terms. ([n] is often classified as an obstruent, and is the direct nasalized equivalent of [d].) kwami 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe you are mistaken when you say that [n] is classified as an obstruent. It is sometimes called a nasal stop, but the term obstruent, by definition, is understood to exclude nasals. A quibble, perhaps, but we have to know what the terms mean in order to make any sense of them and the ensuing exposition.

Also, there is no "direct nasalized equivalent of [d]." That implies that one could, in theory, write [n] as a [d] with a tilde (~) over it, but that would be an abomination in the eyes of St. Henry, St. Daniel, and St. Peter (Sweet, Jones, and Ladefoged). Such a creature simply does not exist. (Or am I so far out of touch with the phonetics & phonology literature that I am simply unaware?) Godfrey Daniel 20:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're correct that no one would ever write dee-tilde for [n], but that could simply be because there's no need, and it's completely counter-intuitive to someone raised on the Latin alphabet. (I suspect that people would think you meant pre- or post-nasalized.) But you do see fish-hook ar with a tilde for a nasalized flap, which is to [n] what [ɾ] is to [d]. In some languages nasalization spreads, turning vowels into nasalized vowels, flaps into nasalized flaps, and [d]s into [n]. (Don't ask me for refs though!)

There are two definitions of 'obstruent', articulatory and acoustic. Phonetically, [n] is an articulatory obstruent, for it completely obstructs the mouth. However, it is acoutically a sonorant. Phonologically, it may behave as either, depending on the language, or may be ambiguous, just as [h] may behave as either a consonant or a vowel, or be ambiguous, depending on the language. I remember that in my intro phonetics class we had to always clarify whether we meant 'obstruent' in the articulatory or acoustic sense. kwami 22:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Coming back out to the left edge of the page)
I think the basic issue is that nasals are inherently sonorants, and stops are inherently non-sonorants. Since [n] and [d] differ in more than one respect (i.e., nasality, continuancy, and sonority at the least), it is only natural to have separate symbols and not just modifiers, and this is (in part) why dee-tilde is an abomination.

Flaps/taps are stops that are so short they've become sonorant, and have therefore lost their obstruency. Of course, all sonorants are able to undergo nasalization, so there's no contradiction between what you and I are saying.

As for the historic--and even synchronic--change of d > n, this is not one change but a set of changes, because each of the relevant features must be changed. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but give me some data and I could break it down into the appropriate phonological processes.

Interesting about the articulatory/acoustic obstruent distinction. It's not one I ever encountered in grad school, or since, before now. I would put it in terms of phonetic description vs. phonological features/functions, but that's me.

As for [h] (etc.) being "ambiguous," I think it would be more accurate to say that in some languages, it acts in both consonant-like and sonorant-like ways. English is one such example, where it clearly patterns with the other obstruents in its distribution (i.e., consonant-like), yet does not block nasalization (i.e., sonorant-like). Godfrey Daniel 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tar Heel Terrorist

Merged, as you suggested. Please check out my comments in the Talk page, where you made yours. Best wishes, Godfrey Daniel 20:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, thanks. --TeaDrinker 20:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ainu language

Hello Godfrey -- I've a question for you about the similarities and differences in glottal stop usage in Ainu and Japanese, and I'd appreciate any wisdom you might have over on the Ainu Talk page. Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi 17:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese language

Hello Godfrey --

I'm interested in possible etymological crossover between Austronesian and Japanese. I noticed your edits over on the Japanese language page, and I'm curious about what you might have read. I certainly don't think Japanese is Austronesian, but I wonder about possible loanwords. Ika pops to mind, as "fish" in Polynesian and "squid / cuttlefish" in Japanese. Given that modern J sakana is a compound, I wonder if ika might be an older root for "fish" in Japanese as well. Elsewise, you'd noted about kaku -> kākau that no language has to write as part of its basic vocabulary. Granted. What of the possible interpretation that "to scratch" was the base meaning, from which "to tattoo" evolved (one way of tattooing is to scratch the skin), and the meaning shifted from "to tattoo" to something more like "make marks that don't go away", and thence to modern "to write"? Meanwhile, looking at かく again as "to scratch", when one scratches, the thing scratching catches on the thing scratched. Noting that かかる "to catch (on something)" comes from かく, might we have a word root meaning "to catch (and stay)"? かかう (modern かかえる "to carry") also looks like it's related, coming from かき + あう.

I think it best to avoid positing compounds unless you can clearly demonstrate that that's what they are. "Scratch" + "meet" = "to carry in the arms" is an awfully far stretch. Maybe it's better to treat kakaeru as a different word that juts happens to resemble kaku. Oh, and the older form was not かかう; it was かかふ.

If I'm way off base here, do let me know. I have only a passing acquaintance with Polynesian through some self-study of Hawaiian and Māori, and I was interested in the small number of apparent cognates with Japanese. That plus some papers I've read suggesting a possible Polynesian presence in the Japanese archipelago and the potential for loanwords and other linguistic influence struck me as interesting. I've been ferreting out possible word interrelations within Japanese on my own for a while, and the traceable etymologies between words also strike me as fascinating.

On a less conjectural note :), where did you study? I'm seriously thinking about delving more deeply into Japanese linguistics. My background has been a bit of a hodgepodge, with a BA in international relations and an MA in translation with some interp thrown in for good measure. I looked at linguistics briefly years ago, but it didn't scratch any itch at the time, and I didn't pursue it. I now find I've grown intellectually itchier in these directions since then. I was beginning to study up on classical J while living in Tokyo, but work and family considerations prompted me to leave before I could get very far, and now I don't know where to turn. I'd love to find a community of similar word geeks to talk with before I bore my wife and friends too badly. :)

Anyway, hope all is well with you, and I'm happy you're contributing to Wikipedia! Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Eiríkr,

I do think that the comparison of Japanese to individual Polynesian languages is methodologically ill-founded, plus the time depth is wrong. (ADDED LATER: The Japanese language entered the archipelago about 500-300 BCE, while Hawaii wasn't populated until about 1000 CE.) I also think that comparing Japanese and Proto-Polynesian is weak, at the very least for geographical reasons. If you're going to compare Japanese with any Austronesian language, it should be one from Taiwan, preferrably the north. However, those languages don't look anything like Japanese, phonologically, morphologically, or grammatically. What's more, the further back in time you go, the less Austronesian Japanese looks. Also, I've never seen a proposed Japanese-Austronesian "cognate" that stood up to any rigorous analysis.

Historical linguistics is the hardest branch of linguistics, because it requires both mastery of large data sets and strict adherence to demanding principles. It's much easier to make up silly "movement rules" and "empty categories" and the like in what passes for syntax than it is to do historical linguistics properly. Also, some of those principles--like regular correspondences are important data, while similarity often isn't--are hard to grasp, even counterintuitive.

Japanese is just one of those languages that looks like a lot of others. In fact, it's possible to find English/Japanese "cognates" that are, of course, totally valueless, like OJ womina : E woman.

Looking just at J kaku : Hwn kaakau, the first problem is that the Hawaiian word is twice as long as the Japanese one. Second, long vowels come from the loss of an intervening consonant. I don't know much about Austronesian anymore, but if I were sufficiently motivated I could find out what the Proto-Austronesian source is, and find the lost consonant. Next, Hawaiian k comes from earlier t, and finally, au in Japanese changed to oo, so this correspondence is wrong. In the end, this becomes OJ kaku : Proto-Polynesian (or maybe PAn) *taCatau (C = consonant unknown to me as I write this but not unknown or unknowable). I don't mean to tear you apart, but this example is demonstrably non-cognate.

I got my Ph.D. at the University of Hawaii. Thanks for the nice thoughts--everything is going fine for me. I hope all is well with you, too. I'd write more, but it's past my bedtime! Best, Godfrey Daniel 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I'd known about Polynesian T - K, but I wasn't sure if this was a defined shift or a general correspondence occurring variably in the population. Nor did I know about the long vowels equating to missing consonants, so thanks for filling me in. :) For Japanese au -> oo, though, I was under the impression that that change was much more recent?

The shift t > k was completely regular in Hawaiian, and is in process now in Samoan. Both were preceded by the shift k > ? (glottal stop).

What I'm saying about au > oo is that if a word had -au- in it long ago, it has -oo- in it now.

I'll take a look at the U of H. I sure wouldn't mind spending time there, though I suspect the cost of living isn't too comfortable. After Tokyo and the San Francisco area, I wonder how it would compare... :) Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No better, possibly worse. Everything is either an import (and it's more expensive to send by ship than by rail, as is possible on the Mainland) or locally produced (with limited land for production, there's no economy of scale). Housing prices, after going through a lull 3-4 years ago, have shot up. Also, cronyism is rampant, with the Democrats being the entrenched political class. Then there's the problem of extremist native Hawaiian activism, in which the UH Center for Hawaiian Studies serves as the primary indoctrination center, to train impressionable minds that they are "victims" of whitey. In fact, the commoners have always been taken advantage of by the elite, and that elite was the Hawaiian royalty and nobles who continued their activities after the arrival of Caucasians in the islands. That's another problem for another time. Godfrey Daniel 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for ika "fish" (in which language(s)?) : ika J "squid, cuttlefish," the semantics are plausible. However, the older Japanese word for fish is uwo (Modern ou, as in tobiou "flying fish"), which may be from earlier iwo (found dialectally and in some Ryukyuan languages). So, while the semantics aren't bad, they aren't good, either. In a case like this, you really need examples with exemplary semantics before you can start saying that ika in Japanese is like deer in English (i.e., more specialized than it was in the past, cf. German Tier "wild animal," preserving the original meaning of the cognate).

What bothers me most about any proposed Austronesian connection is the randomness of the vocabulary. While this is expected if there were a genetic relationship, the morphology and syntax of Japanese are very un-Austronesian, so there's no secondary supporting evidence. Also, different researchers have come up with different "cognate" lists--not a good sign (Alexander Vovin dissected two such lists in an article in Oceanic Linguistics, as I recall).

If there is an Austronesian stratum in Japanese, it might be concentrated in a specific semantic field, such as rice cultivation, seafaring, or the like. Nope--no such luck. While I can't categorically deny any and all premodern contact between the Japanese and one or more Austronesian groups, I have seen no evidence for such a relationship. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I believe the best position to take is the cautious, principled one, so I conclude that in the absence of evidence, there was no contact that can be demonstrated.

This then ties into what a proper hypothesis or theory is: falsifiable. If someone were to start saying, "well, the contact between Japan and Hawaii/Tahiti/New Zealand/wherever was secret," well, they're veering off into fantasyland. If it were secret, then there's no way to disprove it--and you have a non-scientific fable.

Anyway, all for now. Godfrey Daniel 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Godfrey Daniel, 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:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a fag

Just wanted to give you a heads up. 152.2.62.217 17:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—The preceding anonymous comment was added by 152.2.62.217 (talk • contribs) 13 Jan 2006.

My, aren't you the articulate one! Do we feel better about ourselves now? Instead of masturbating with a keyboard, why don't you find a better way to waste your time? Godfrey Daniel 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ "The imam and the unbelievers of Denmark". 2006-01-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |org= ignored (help)

[1] "The imam and the unbelievers of Denmark". 2006-01-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |org= ignored (help)

[1]