User talk:Kwamikagami

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Your comments may be archived here after 48hrs

Word/quotation of the moment:

yod-dropper [1]

(Previous quotes)

ALL keys matter (response to the scale-wandering rendition of the national anthem at CPAC 2021) The Lunatic-in-Charge becomes the Lunatic-at-Large Lame duck à l'orange (AKA canard à l'orange) It is a mortifying circumstance, which greatly perplexes many a painstaking philosopher, that nature often refuses to second his most profound and elaborate efforts; so that often after having invented one of the most ingenious and natural theories imaginable, she will have the perverseness to act directly in the teeth of his system, and flatly contradict his most favorite positions. This is a manifest and unmerited grievance, since it throws the censure of the vulgar and unlearned entirely upon the philosopher; whereas the fault is not to be ascribed to his theory, which is unquestionably correct, but to the waywardness of Dame Nature, who, with the proverbial fickleness of her sex, is continually indulging in coquetries and caprices, and seems really to take pleasure in violating all philosophic rules, and jilting the most learned and indefatigable of her adorers. [...] The philosophers took this in very ill part, and it is thought they would never have pardoned the slight and affront which they conceived put upon them by the world had not a good-natured professor kindly officiated as a mediator between the parties, and effected a reconciliation. Finding the world would not accommodate itself to the theory, he wisely determined to accommodate the theory to the world. — Washington Irving, Knickerbocker's History of New York Pela primeira vez na sua vida a morte soube o que era ter um cão no regaço. For the first time in her life, death knew what it felt like to have a dog in her lap. — José Saramago, Death with Interruptions / Death at Intervals It is now generally accepted that the megaliths that make up Stonehenge were moved by human effort. — as opposed to by what? Anybody who says you only have yourself to blame is just not very good at blaming other people. — It's Happy Bunny When poppies pull themselves up from their roots and start out, one after the other, toward the sunset – don't follow them. — Slavko Janevski, 'Silence' And the dough-headed took their acid fermentation for a soul, the stabbing of meat for history, the means of postponing their decay for civilization. — Stanislaw Lem, Return from the Stars The Church says that the Earth is Flat, but I know that it is Round, for I have seen its Shadow on the Moon, and I have more Faith in a Shadow than in the Church. — (commonly misattributed to Magellan) In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot. — from the WP article Nancy Dorian Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. [...] Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown. — from the WP article 11714 Mikebrown Ecce Mono Keep Redskins White! "homosapiens are people, too!!" a sprig of spaghetti "I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law." awkwardnessful anti–zombie-fungus fungus "Only an evil person would eat baby soup." (said in all sincerity)

Wikimedia ZA Annual General Meeting 2021

This is just to let you know that the Wikimedia ZA AGM will be taking place on 25 September 2021 See below for more details.

• Time: Saturday, 25 September 2021, starts at 10:00 to 16:00. With intermission at 13:00
• Location: held digitally online this link

Third opinion request

Hi,

I saw (here) that you edited Levantine Arabic in the past.

We have an ongoing debate about the content of the summary and the infobox on the talk page. As you are experienced it would be great to have your opinion.

Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@A455bcd9: Not kwami here, but my immediate third opinion first impression: stop WP:textwalling. Seriously. –Austronesier (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Austronesier:,

Thanks for your feedback.

What are you precisely referring to? My initial message on the talk page? If so, I'm surprised because another user who spontaneously came to give their opinion said: "The numbered organisation of points of disagreement meant I was always able to follow the points made by other users" Or are you talking about the tables with "Current version"/"Proposed version"?

Anyway, your opinion is more than welcome as well as you're a member of both WikiProject Languages and WikiProject Linguistics :)

Have a good day, A455bcd9 (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to read all that. It looks like the dispute has narrowed down to what's in the 'states' parameter of the info box -- is that correct? If so, I'd start a new thread so that ppl can follow what the issue is. If there's more to it, what do you consider the last good version of the article? — kwami (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi kwami,

Yes way too long to read I'm sorry...

I've just created a new thread and summed up the remaining 3 contentious points here.

Please let me know if you have any question. Thanks for your help. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi kwami,

Thanks a lot for taking the time to give your opinion. As there was a wide consensus from contributors + other third party opinions (including yours), I implemented most of the suggested changes.

WatanWatan2020, who did not take part in the discussion has just reverted them all ("reverting to original form. No consensus is reached."). He also reverted other changes that had nothing to do with the discussion.

I have no idea how to deal with this kind of behavior and I would love to get some help :) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: tried to help (thanks!) but got reverted themselves: it's frustrating... A455bcd9 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: Pretty simple, really: if they refuse to accept consensus, then they need to rv each of us, which runs afoul of 3RR. It would be better of course to resolve issues through discussion, but if they insist on escalating, they're likely to lose. They just reverted you twice and Austronesier once. I've now restored the consensus version, and warned them about 3RR. (That's the 2nd warning 3RR for this article, and they've been blocked before, so it's not like they don't know how this works.) I haven't touched this article in years, so these aren't my contributions, except indirectly through the discussion. If they rv me, report them to ANI, or I can. — kwami (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! A455bcd9 (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Kikongo

Hello,

I don't know why the next sentence was deleted "Kisikongo is not the mother language that carries the Kongo (i.e. Kikongo) Language Cluster". This sentence summarizes the studies (see references). Somebody040404 (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Because it's unintelligible. What's a "mother language"? What does it mean for a language to "carry" a language cluster? I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

BTW, if you're digging into sources, could you advise on which ISO and Glottolog lects should be included in the scope of the Kongo article? It looks like that needs to be revised. — kwami (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The map on Kikongo shows that Kisikongo is the mother tongue, that the other variants of Kikongo are based from Kisikongo, this is false because the Kongo cultural unit existed before the foundation of Kongo dia ntotila by Lukeni lua Nimi and Kongo dia ntotila was multilingual thus Kikongo of Mbanza Kongo (Kisikongo) was not the only spoken language, The name "Kikongo" is actually used for a cluster of related languages, including Kintandu, Kiyombe, Kimanyanga, Tsiladi/Ciladi, Civili, Kindibu, Kikunyi, Kibeembe, Tchibinda, Kisolongo, Kizombo, Kisingombe, Boko ´s Kikongo, Kihaangala, Kinsundi/Kisundi, etc. This is the reason why I have added the three sources that evoke Kikongo, the archaeology that has been done in some places of the ancient Kingdom of Kongo, etc. Somebody040404 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That level of detail belongs in the main text. The info box is supposed to be a short summary of what's in the article.

I still don't know what you mean by "Kisikongo is the mother tongue". "Mother tongue" means the language you were raised with. Those are all mother tongues. If you mean the ancestral tongue, then that would be Proto-Kikongo.

You say the maps shows "that the other variants of Kikongo are based from Kisikongo". I don't see that either. All it does is give Kisikongo is an alternative label for Kikongo, presumably for Angola. I can remove that from the map, if you like.

We have an article Kongo languages that includes Vili, Sundi and the other varieties you mentioned. I added your map there as well. It might be that we want to merge all these articles into the main Kongo language article. That might depend on how intelligible they are. If people can't understand each other, it's probably best to have separate language articles, even if they all identify as Bakongo. The main Kongo language article would then be those varieties that are intelligible with standardized/literary Kikongo.

Maybe you could take a look at Kongo languages and advise which varieties in that list should have separate articles, and which should be covered in the main Kongo language article? — kwami (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, by mother language I mean Proto-Kikongo. There are people Who think Kisikongo is the Proto-Kikongo. My bad I thought "mother language" also had the same meaning as "langue mère" in French. Yes, They understand each other but not so well (examples : Civili and Kimanianga speakers). Kituba already has its article. Let it stay like that because Kituba is grammarically different from kikongo varieties. It's a good solution to merge all these articles (Kongo language and Kongo languages) into the main Kongo language article. "it's probably best to have separate language articles, even if they all identify as Bakongo" This solution is also good but there are problems : Kikongo varieties and Kikongo ya leta (Kituba) are less and less spoken in Kongo Central even in the Republic of the Congo some Kikongo varieties are less and less spoken. Kisikongo is considered as standard Kikongo in Angola. In Cabinda it is Fyote. Two Kikongo varieties are used in Angolan TV news : Kisikongo and Fyote. Plus all the Kongos taken to the Americas came from all parts of the Kingdom. Somebody040404 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I assume that at least Yaka and Suku should not be subsumed under Kongo? It might be nice to keep the classification of all the varieties separate from the main article, if only for legibility. Whether best to call it "Kongo languages" or "Kongo dialects", I don't know. But I think some kind of split would be warranted. Still, I agree that many of the current language stubs might be profitably merged into the main article. Though I don't know which ones, exactly: according to Vili language, the Bavili were part of the Kingdom of Loango, not of Kongo.

"Mother language" doesn't have any meaning in English. I didn't know what langue mère meant in French -- I would've assumed it was langue maternelle. There is an English phrase "mother tongue", which is probably a direct translation of the French. It can mean either the language you were raised with, or the ancestral language of a community. There's even a journal Mother Tongue for people trying to reconstruct the ancestral human language (or at least looking at long-distance relationships). But when reading the Kongo article I didn't connect "mother language" with "mother tongue". Anyway, "mother tongue" isn't a technical term, and it's ambiguous enough we probably shouldn't use it if we're trying to be precise. It's usually better to paraphrase. — kwami (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Yes, Yaka and Suku should not be under Kongo even if those in Angola consider themselves as Bakongo but those in DRC don't consider themselves as Bakongo. No, langue-mère in French means the proto language. Yes, Vili were part of Kingdom of Loango but they consider themselves as Loangos and Kongos. In the Kingdom of Loango there were Vili, Yombe, Kugni (or Kunyi), Lumbu, Babongo (Forest people or pygmies) and Punu. Vili, Yombe and Kugni consider themselves as Bakongo. Lumbu, Babongo and Punu don't consider themselves as Bakongo. Kingdom of Loango also had influence among Orungu people in Gabon but Orungu people don't consider themselves as Bakongo. Woyo consider themselves as Ngoyos and Bakongo, it's the same with Kakongo. It might be better to classify as follows : North Kikongo, West Kikongo, East Kikongo, Central Kikongo and South Kikongo https://llacan.cnrs.fr/fichiers/nigercongo/fichiers/Bostoen_KikongoNC.pdf. The name Kongo languages is better. Somebody040404 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That classification from Bostoen is a decade old. He's published a lot more since then, and Glottolog is based on his more recent work. From the 2012 pub, it appears that Vili and Yombe should be excluded from Kongo, regardless of ethnic affiliation. — kwami (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I misspoke! I just wanted to suggest that we can use this as a basis for classifying kikongo varieties according to their inter-comprehensibility, the localization also plays a role : North western or west : Vili, Yombe, Woyo, Ibinda, Kunyi…

North eastern or North: Ladi (Lari), Kikongo of Boko, Haangala…

The classification on the inter comprehensibility deserves a reflection.

Somebody040404 (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Both are of interest. Feel free to work on it yourself, if you're interested; it might take me a while to get to it. — kwami (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Irregular moon#Physical characteristics

I guess we're not counting Triton in that chart, because it would totally overwhelm everything (I just added some text about that, because the rest of the article agrees that Triton is irregular). But I wonder how it should be treated in the first place, since Triton's story is probably quite a bit different from that of most irregulars. It's not even irregular by the 0.05 Hill radius requirement, and Nereid is borderline: there's a reason why often they are excluded by a reference to "normal" irregular satellites.

Also, I find it a bit odd that Triton is so commonly considered irregular, but not Iapetus, which actually has a better claim by its orbit (being near the 0.05 Hill radius requirement). In fact, by the orbital criterion, Luna should be irregular too. So it kind of suggests that some people are thinking of the term as meaning "captured", rather than being about the orbit. OTOH Amalthea is probably captured too, because if it were a primordial satellite it would be as dehydrated as Io, which it isn't. Yet no one seems to call it irregular. Might be interesting to do a literature search on definitions. Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. The nice thing about the Wiki graphs, compared the PNG files I used to make, is how easy it is to adjust them for such concerns. I'm not sure how much the graph contributes either, so feel free to modify it as you see fit, or remove it if you think it doesn't contribute anything. — kwami (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. The masses going Nereid >> Phoebe > Himalia > Sycorax I knew (and is sort of guessable from the sizes), but I must admit to not having known that Himalia was more massive than Amalthea. I would've guessed the opposite. Learn something new every day, I guess. :)

I wonder if it'd be possible to design a Jupiter mission for the outer satellites. (Well, we know too little about Uranus and Neptune because small moons are not known yet, so it had to be Jupiter or Saturn. Jupiter is closer and its groups seem to be more compact.) I suppose you'd spend a lot of it flying in the middle of nowhere far from anything interesting, but you'd probably save quite a bit on delta-V costs and radiation shielding by being far from the planet. And one might still use Ganymede and Callisto for gravity assists to get the needed inclinations without getting too deep into the radiation belts, and those are obviously interesting targets that we already know something about. Let's just say that I wish we knew more than just Phoebe up close. Although IANARS. ;) Double sharp (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Amusingly enough, Nereid is actually closer to orbiting in Neptune's equatorial plane than Triton. But of course it is so faint that Neptune's axial tilt was already known by the time it was discovered. If my memory does not fail me, for some time (maybe up till the early 20th century?) the only way to figure out the axial tilts of faraway Uranus and Neptune was to look at their satellites, and while this gave good results for Uranus, understandably everyone thought that Triton was a regular satellite and got quite wrong answers for Neptune. But I need to find the source for this, which I only dimly remember. Perhaps you do? Double sharp (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't know anything about the latter.

As for an outer-moons orbiter, I guess you'd have something like Lucy. Most of them have ≈ 2-yr orbital periods. Your orbiter's elliptical orbits would be shorter than that, but still, that's a long-term project. I'd guess, what, maybe one close flyby per year? Galileo and Cassini both lasted 13 years, so assuming the fuel budget is comparable, maybe we could hope for good images for a dozen (could we get delta-v mass measures for things that small?) and probably several dozen more at the low-res range we currently have for Himalia. Might be interesting to plug the results into the Nice model too.

Saturn would be more difficult. The outer moons have periods up to 4 yrs, and you presumably wouldn't be able to use solar that far out.

We know of plenty of outer Uranian moons, and their periods are even longer than Saturn's, so already more than a single orbiter would be able to visit. A- for Neptune, couldn't we just send something out, and use it to discover more outer moons and then target them? Though the ones we do know of have orbits on the order of decades, so we wouldn't be able to visit all the ones we already know about. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Lucy was the inspiration. It does seem plausible that if you found something interesting while you were already orbiting Neptune, you could just go there, since delta-V travelling around the Neptunian system must surely be quite small compared to travelling around the Solar System. Well, time needed to get there aside, with those long periods. ;) Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Finnic peoples

Thanks for creating a separate article for that main term! I was always annoyed that a "Finnic peoples" article was missing. Good job. --Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Words without consonants for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Words without consonants 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/Words without consonants (3rd nomination) 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.

User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)