User talk:Garzo/archive/2006-11-23-2007-05-23

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garzo/archive/2006-11-23-2007-05-23.

---

ܫܠܡܐ ܐܒܘܢ ܡܝܩܪܐ

ܐܢܐ ܐܪܐܡ ܡܢ ܐܬܪܐ ܕ ܒܠܓܝܟܐ ،ܐܠܐ ܒܫܪܫܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܝܬܝ ܡܢ ܣܘܪܝܐ .

ܗܪܓܬ ܬܐܘܠܘܓܝܐ ܒܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܬܪܬܝܢ ܫܢܝܢ ܘ ܗܘܫܐ ܚܝܐ ܐܢܐ ܒܕܝܪܐ ܕ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕ ܠܝܐܓ

ܘܐܢ ܡܪܝܐ ܢܨܒܐ ܒܥܐ ܐܢܐ ܕܐܗܘܐ ܡܫܡܫܢܐ ܒܥܕܬܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܪܚܝܡܬܐ ...ܥܕܬܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܬܐ ܬܪܝܨܬ ܫܘܒܚܐ

ܪܚܡܬ ܕܐܩܪܐ ܫܠܡܐ ܥܠܝܟܘܢ ܘ ܕܠܡܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܚܒܪ݀ܐ ܒܕܥܬܝܕ ܘܐܢ ܒܣܡ ܠܟܘܢ ܗܘܢܐ ܗܕܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܕܦܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܥܠ ܘܝܟܝܒܝܕܝܐ ܥܪܒܝܬܐ ܐܪܡ

Dear Garzo, Danko has once again infected the article. I have removed the related text, but would like you to keep an eye on this guy. The article is getting more and more un-ecyclopedic by the minute. This has to stop! Below is the exchange that promted my action. P.S. "Phil Sci" archive is NOT a peer-reviewed journal or archive and have previously removed Danko's paper, whcih I will request once more to do.--Prof. Afshar 07:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC):[reply]

" For example Danko Georgiev works from a pure math position and a QM definition of complementarity. He arrives at a situation in which he has two incompatible equations. The "=" sign doesn't work. And so one divides the universe in two, one in which one equation obtains, and the other in which the other equation obtains." Carl Looper

I am pleased that at least one person has realized the importance of my paper, and has verified the math content of it. The next step is to find out what have proved Afshar. While I am prone to accept (after suitable quotation provided by Afshar) that Bohr's view/interpretation of complementarity is wrong, I have mathematically proved that Afshar's claim to have violated the duality relation is inconsistent, and also I have proved that Afshar has not violated the mathematical definition of complementarity that is very nicely and profoundly linked to the (reduced) density matrix of the photon (qubit in general). I have suggested to Afshar that he has gone "too far" but he did not take seriously my advice. Only the claim that Afshar has disproved Bohr's interpretation of complementarity is possibly acceptable [yet, I need to see exact quotation by Bohr where Bohr exposes his own views]. But the absurd Afshar's claim to have proved ${\displaystyle V^{2}+K^{2}=2}$ deserves more attention by all participants of this discussion, because such a huge mistake immediately must question Afshar's competence in QM. Again I want to stress on my main thesis which has never changed - even if there are no wires there is no which way information. This is clear - Afshar starts from wrong premise, and derives wrong conclusions. Unruh and others accept the wrong premise of which way information and then wrongly try to save complementarity. So please do not play with the semantic load of physical terms, mathematical definitions have been already done by physicists, I did not invent them, just have shown how a real scientist must approach the problem through rigorous mathematics. Danko Georgiev MD 05:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is where I draw the line on insanity in Wikipedia. As discussed before the material presented in Danko's paper is Original Research and will be removed from the main article due to the admin. Gareth Hughes's request and Danko's own promise: "I will prepare an article on complementarity in Afshar's experiment that I hope will be strong enough to pass a peer-reviewing and get published in journal - therefore I do not consider anymore Wikipedia as a suitable place this debate to be continued." Your questioning the which-way information in my experiment is a bigger claim than my claim on violation of Complementarity. There is a good reason why Unruh, Drezet and Motl disagreed with you, the conservation of linear momentum ensures validity of which-way information (See my paper on the crossed-beam experiment AIP Cof. Proc. 810, (2006) 294-299.) It has been explained to you a number of times by world class physicists before (in a not so flattering language, which if need be will be publicized), and just because an uniformed person (Carl Looper) happens to agree with your nonsense (I'm sure due to lack of knowledge about your pathological past which included claiming I had falsified facts and committed scientific fraud) you feel justified to advertise your OR in Wikipedia. I am removing the ref.s to your paper and anyone who disputes it can start an arbitration request. I will not allow an article on my work to be tainted with utter crackpottery. -- Prof. Afshar 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin, I would like to inform you about recent vandalism done by Afshar on the article concerning his own experiment. Recently posted by me paper at PhilSci concerning his experiment has been added as reference in the Afshar experiment article by one of the participants in the discussion, namely Carl Looper. Afshar however decided to act by his own will without discussing his modification on the talk page, and started to insult Looper because of his statement that my work is mathematically correct. All of the papers on Afshar experiment are preprints and web blogs, because peer-reviewing itself takes 2-3 years. Afshar's own work is also not published in peer-reviewed journal, but only in conference proceedings. Also Afshar's own paper has been submitted to Physical Reviews series of journals and has been rejected for publication. Afshar never posted oficially the received negative comments for his work, but instead exploited and exploits popular magazines and media to annouce his work, and now abuses Wikipedia. Please revert the changes done by Afshar, as they have not been approved by other editors of Afshar's article. Danko Georgiev MD 08:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Danko, my paper HAS been accepted for publication in a famous peer-reviewed journal. I HAD the support of a number of world-class physicists all along, and more have joined their ranks recently. Your paper on Quantum Logic is at best a reproduction of a very samll part of Robert B. Griffiths' Consistent Histories version of QM, which you have not even mentioned in your "paper." Then you have such scholarly statements like:"This is a very deep argument raised by Georgiev (Wikipedia, 2004), that was completely neglected by physicists." or "Needless to say that the importance of the fact that in the image plane of Afshar's setup one has P(x) = P(x) was not recognized by anybody except Georgiev in 2004 when results from Afshar's result was announced" which is nothing short of delusional. The reason nobody had rasied the issue was because it is wrong! You have been told that so many times, yet you stubbornly refuse to accept the truth. I expet Grazo to deal with this situation swiftly, or ask another admin with the right experites to rectify the problem.-- Prof. Afshar 09:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afshar, I have said "physicists", not "all physicists". Also I have proved that your work is mathematically inconsistent, so it is funny that you resort to consistent histories at first place. Danko Georgiev MD 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Danko, but you have picked the wrong fight with the wrong guy at the wrong time. I'm not going to let you off easy this time. Something has to be done about your behavior in Wikipedia. No ifs and buts about it.-- Prof. Afshar 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU said revert: 'Western Assyrian' is a complete fabrication, there is absolutely no prior record to the use of that term, which was invented in the diaspora - how is Turoyo different? Please explain how Turoyo has a record of prior use by its inhabitants, and how it is not invented in the diaspora? Chaldean 02:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language is generally referred to as 'Turoyo' by its speakers and in academic literature. Often its speakers prefer 'Suryoyo' (always spelt that way), but that causes some difficulty as it simply means 'Syriac'. Thus, 'Turoyo' has historically been used to describe the language of the Turo. 'Surayt' is an old name for the language that is used by some older speakers. I think Aziz Tezel's doctoral thesis offers the best description of the etymology and usage of 'Surayt' as a term for the language. 'Western Assyrian' is a new creation attempting to link the language with the mixture of Ashiret dialects and standard Urmezhnaya that is often called 'Assyrian'. 'Western Assyrian' has no historical use, and is not widely used or accepted by speakers of Turoyo. However, Turoye in Tur `Abdin use either 'Suryoyo' or 'Turoyo' to describe the language — using the former when there is no need to be clear that it is not the classical language that is intended, and using the latter to be clear that Kthobonoyo is not meant. Jastrow always uses the term 'Turoyo'; whereas Tezel uses 'Western Neo-Syriac (Turoyo)', which causes problems as 'Neo-Syriac' is a generally rejected term now, although still found; Ishaq always uses 'Suryoyo', which is clarrified at the beginning of his Lexicon as "Suryoyo d-Tur Cabdin au Suryoyo Turoyo". I cannot find any literature where the language is called 'Western Assyrian' (there seems to be a growing trend of attaching this label to everything — haven't you noticed?), and the term 'Surayt' has become a marginalised term (it's not in Jastrow's index). — Gareth Hughes 14:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language is generally referred to as 'Turoyo' by its speakers by its speakers in the homeland? Gareth do you have any proof of this? While I only visited ACOE villages in Turkey, I did come across some Syriac Orthodox and they all told me they speak Suryoyo. If the majority of Syriac Orthodox in Tur Abdin use Turoyo, I dont mind at all, but I find this very hard to believe. I am more then aware that Western Assyrian is a properganda term created in the West, just as the "Aramae" identity. And oh by the way, "western Assyrian" was not created by Chaldeans or Assyrians, please dont try to make it look like as if were trying to "Assyrianize" Syriac Orthodox, when the truth is that Syriac Orthodox themselves created the term, because of th hostility they got from Syriac Orthodox "Arameas". I dont know if you see it or not, but their are many Syriac Orthodox in Europe whom are strong supporters of the Assyrian identity, up to the point created terms like "Western Assyrian". I did not write this article = Assyrians in the Netherlands, but rather contacted a Syria Orthodox from their and he wrote me the article..notice the "Western Assyrian" being used their. Chaldean 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, 'Suryoyo' is the usual name for the language in the language, but 'Turoyo' is generally used when it's necessary to distinguish it from Kthobonoyo, which is also Suryoyo. For that reason, the academic literature tends to use the latter, more precise term. Yes, I do know that there is a strong Assyrian movement within the SOC, which has unfortunately caused divisions among the people, and it is from the SOC Assyrians that the term 'West Assyrian' has been adopted, in the same way that 'West' and 'East Syrian' has been used. — Gareth Hughes 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month has been reactivated! Please consider going to the page to either vote for one of the nominated articles, or nominate one yourself. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blocking us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.62.159.237 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 3 January 2007.

Why? I blocked 24.62.158.237 for persistant vandalism. The IP address you are using is not blocked, nor has it ever been blocked by me. If your IP address is shared by an institution, then you should blame other users around you who vandalise Wikipedia: they vandalise and the IP addresses get blocked, it's that simple. If you're using an ISP's IP address, you can avoid getting blocked by creating an account. — Gareth Hughes 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently found that the Jesus article on Wikipedia is the first item that comes up when you search for "Jesus" on the world’s most widely used search engine, Google.

Please edit the Jesus article to make it an accurate and excellent representation of Him.

The Jesus article may be a person’s first impression of Jesus. It would be nice if their first impression was from a Christian or the Bible, but for so many in these new days it probably comes from the Internet. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thanks a lot.

Also, watch out to follow Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. It is especially hard for the Three-revert rule and the Neutral point of view policy to be followed because of the nature of the article, but please follow these policies along with citing sources so that the article does not get locked from editing and can't be improved further. Thanks again. Scifiintel 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate mass-spamming messages: don't do it again. — Gareth Hughes 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thought you might be interested in WikiProject Notability. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (5000+ articles), and we need your help! If you have a spare moment, please join and sort an article or tell your friends.

Diez2 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Gareth. I was wondering if I could have your opinion about the article. I was wondering if you think the page is neutral enough (I am trying my best to keep it as such.) Does the page sound wiki-material or too propergandish? Thanks. Chaldean 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit. What do you think of this edit [[1]] Chaldean 02:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the notice that you placed at the head of Kurdish inhabited regions. The notice asks you not to depopulate the category. Seeing as this is a policy which you yourself have used in preparing the category for deletion, the category has now been repopulated. You are also reminded that this category is politically sensitive, and widespread deletions lack such sensitivity. Please let the deletion process run its course, and, if the decision is to delete the category, the links to it from articles may be removed by hand or by bot. As the policy is quite clear depopulating categories again will result in you being temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Gareth Hughes 12:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was removing the categories as per WP:NOR and WP:RS. The policy on populating categories is also quite clear (WP:NOR/WP:RS applies). I wont be reverting you, but I take good note of this nonsense. --Cat out 12:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your swift reply. The notice clearly says "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress", which former you have done. I understand the policies you have linked to above, and realise that while they may be relevant to any discussion to delete the category, they can not be used as excuses to depopulate the category. One is clear, the others require consensus judgment. — Gareth Hughes 12:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Garzo, could you please have a look to the user:PStaple? I think he is a sockpuppet of user:Busca4. Thanks --Garcilaso 10:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a test. From what I know East Timor official languages are Tetum (that's pretty similar to Bahasa Indonesia, but still not Bahasa Indonesia) and Portuguese, not English. — 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The constitution of East Timor provides for Tetum and Portuguese as the official languages, but allows for Indonesian and English as working languages in the government administration. However, even though your change was good, you managed severely to curtail the article — see your edit in this diff. This is sometimes caused by the technical limitation of some browsers, but was flagged up as a test. You may want to try dumping a lot of text into the sandbox to see if your browser can cope with the length of longer articles. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, recently CyborgTosser and I discussed and came up with proposed style guidelines for all the individual consonant and vowel pages wherein the Occurrence section would have a table rather than a bulleted list. You can see the discussion here. So far nobody else has commented on the proposed guidelines and I believe it's safer to get a solid consensus before undergoing the work to change so many pages. If you could comment on what has been proposed, even if it's a simple yay or nay, this would help us out quite a bit. Thank you very much. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hughes, I ask that you reconsider your endorsement of FayssalF's summary in light of my more detailed response thereto, which I have only now found the opportunity to put together.Proabivouac 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Garzo,

I am asking your help in stopping this wikipedia user who is attempting to tamper with the facts in the Oriental Orthodoxy Page. Please read my statement in the discussion page and his answer followed by my reply. I am reporting this to you as an administrator to take whatever action needed to stop him, I think that he will not back up. Please advise. Orthopraxia, 11:44 pm, Pacific Time, January 23rd, 2007

Hey Gareth, could you please check out the question at Talk:Mlahsö language? Thanks, Khoikhoi 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we discussed the phenomenon of wikipedians leveling accusation of "original research" that stretch their definition of "original research" to unreasonable extremes.

I've received another accusation of "original research" -- this time from an administrator -- who left an admonishment that could be interpreted as a threat of blocking, or some other sanction.

Could you take a look at this colloquoy? Do you concur that conflating Yakup with Yakub was original research?

FWIW I believe this is the first exchange I have ever had with this administrator.

As before, I am happy to look for your reply here, on your talk page, if that is convenient for you.

Thanks! — Geo Swan 20:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I hope I can do something for you some time.  :-)

How on earth did you learn so many language to such high levels?! I have trouble remembering new words in my native language never mind in foreign languages. Thulium 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By using them, I suppose. I mug up on them and use them. — Gareth Hughes 18:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard or seen Syriac Orthodox members fasting for baoutha? [[2]] Chaldean 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://sor.cua.edu/Calendar/index.html — sixth line, third paragraph. — Gareth Hughes 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You learn something new everyday. Chaldean 01:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to tell you that I really love your photographs of vestments--they really help on individual articles. I also think your singing voice is beautiful. "Pange Lingua" often resides on my playlist. I hope I do not sound creepy, but I just wanted to thank and congratulate you on your work. Also, your interests are cool--almost exactly like my own. May I add you on Facebook?

Pax Domini Tecum, --Feerique 02:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC), Anissa[reply]

Yes, that's a little creepy, but, seeing as you have my robes and my voice, you might as well have my Facebook profile. — Gareth Hughes 14:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth,

Long time no chat. :-) I've proposed something that you may find interesting over on Meta. When you have the time you might want to give it a peek.

אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steve! It looks interesting, but writing a dictionary that is anywhere useful is a time-consuming process. How many workers to you imagine you will be able to get on board? I don't have the time for it at the moment, but let me know how it goes. — Gareth Hughes 14:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History will look back at this era in that view.סרגון יוחנא 15:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the sillyness and do good work on wikipedia. I think Gareth should've banned you more then 24 ours since this isn't the first time you have missed around here. Join Wikipedia:WikiProject Assyria and improve pages neutrally. Chaldean 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about this — http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_kings_of_Babylon&diff=106053453&oldid=104493504 — pretty silly, trying-to-be-clever political crap. You've been blocked before for vandalism and abusive behaviour. This is to let you know that there are now no warnings. — Gareth Hughes 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway... What do you think about this commentary? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chaldean —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sargonious (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In a word: sad. With two others: badly informed. — Gareth Hughes 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're referring to the anti-religious nature of it.The Tsar is Gone but I am King 17:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I refer to the fact that it's just badly written and badly researched drivel. Anyone can write stuff to try and piss people off and try to look cool in the process: you managed vaguely annoying and missed cool by a mile (again). — Gareth Hughes 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sargon, you just got owned. (turn on your speakers!) Chaldean 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've managed to discredit your priestliness.The Tsar is Gone but I am King 14:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? I'm a priest, but that doesn't mean I'm priestly, the latter is subjective and pejorative. — Gareth Hughes 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is Weasel Talk for $1000 Alex? I believe you've found the Daily Double!18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop trying to annoy me: please, stop writing nonsense on my talk page. — Gareth Hughes 20:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex is in referrence to Alex Trebek of Jeopardy as is the whole statement. Now see; if you can claim this is nonsense, when in fact it isn't, you just didn't understand it, then perhaps is the case with many other situations. Say you don't understand where I'm going with a subject or aren't able to interpret it, but to claim something is nonsense when you don't have an understanding of the topic, THAT is VERY "unencyclopaedic" as you would say. I'm just making a point that just because your understanding on a subject conflicts with another's doesn't make it wrong, it is merely a conflict of belief being either personal, religious, or whatever. History isn't dictated as the events actually unfolded but rather as how it was witnessed by people and people aren't credible witnesses as they even convicted Christ of crimes he was not guilty of. Satana 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you get a degree in Assyriology (a simple bachelor's would be fine), and I'll maybe think that you are someway qualified to talk about this. Notice how my last post had the word stop in it twice — now stop writing — you're just being annoying. By the way, Jeopardy is a Yanqaya TV programme, so it's not shown here — it is just nonsense to me. — Gareth Hughes 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I see vandalism on Wikipedia I like to take action against it. Earlier today (10/02/2007), user 82.38.155.236 made a nuisance of themselves and vandalised the article on Urdu several times. You took action against them but they persisted. You gave them a stern warning on their talk page, which I totally agreed with.

When I came to the Urdu article the most recent adjustment showing under history was by user Islescape. Islescape apparently thought they had undone the actions of the vandal, but had failed. The vandal had managed to leave a URL for a Piczo site in large red letters at the very top and bottom of the page (right at the top, just underneath 'From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia', and right at the bottom underneath categories).

While the vandals first efforts at putting this irrelevant URL on the page were easily edited out (by yourself or Islescape), the final vandalism was more serious as it appeared invisible from 'edit this page'. Interestingly only en.wikipedia.org/wiki/urdu was affected, while en.wikipedia.org/wiki/urdu_language remained unaffected. The only place I could find the code for the vandalism was under Internet Exlorer; View; Source (code).

I searched through Wiki templates, user guides and code for half an hour to no avail. The vandalism remained in place, seemingly untouchable. A few hours later, the vandalism disappeared, without any new entries in the edit page. A mystery (to me anyway).

Do you know how the vandal may have hacked 'Urdu' without using 'edit this page', and more importantly how one takes action against this kind of Vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.127.181 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what this was. I t may have been server lag though. — Gareth Hughes 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Hughes,

In your revision of the article Ge'ez as of 01:05, 7 February 2005 you created a table, which has persisted, with modifications, to this day. In that table you indicated that the language is extinct and that it is the official liturgical language of the Tewahedo Church and Beta Israel. You did not cite sources for these two claims. These claims appear in the current revision and they are still unsourced. I'd like to request that you cite your sources for these claims. Thanks Itayb 13:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Itay,

I should congratulate you on your detective work, going back to 2005 to find the origin of the template. If I remember correctly, my purpose at the time was to include the infobox (Template:Infobox Language) in as many articles on languages as possible. Most of the information was filled in from the article itself or by simple research. There seem to be three questions that you raise:

1. That Ge'ez is an extinct language.
2. That it is the official, liturgical language of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church,
3. and of Beta Israel.

Language extinction is always a difficult and sensitive subject to deal with. It is generally agreed that, although in substantial use still, Ge'ez has no native, first-language speakers. This is the definition of an extinct language, and can be easily referenced from Ethnologue. The use of the language in the Ethiopian Church is fairly easy to verify — it can be confirmed by looking up the entry 'Ethiopian Christianity' in the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity. I do not know much about Beta Israel, but Jewish Encyclopedia upholds that Ge'ez is the language in which scripture is read.

If you wish, I could add references to the article. Please feel free to add them yourself, or ask for clarification. Thanks — Gareth Hughes 14:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If you wish, I could add references to the article." I'd appreciate it, thanks. Itayb 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gareth! Nice to see you're still around here. I was just wondering about a thing since last night I was watching "Suroyo tv" and saw the Syriac Orthodox Church's Bishop in northern Syria talking about the "Arabic numerals" not being Arabic at all. This since Aramaic was the first language to adopt letters to numbers, and since the Arabs call these numbers (1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0) for "European numerals", and we in the west call these numbers for "Arabic numerals". If you look at the Serto script and compare its letters with the numerals you will see a lot common. 1 for Olaf, 2 for Beth, 3 for Gomal, 4 for the strangela Dolath, 5 for Heh, 6 for vow, 7 for Zayn, 8 for Heth (double youth as a double 0), 9 for Teth and 0 for youth.--Yohanun 09:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Arabic numerals, most of those studying the history of mathematics say that the numerals came out of India first of all. I understand that Greek also used a system of (near) place notation with letters for numbers. (Sorry for butting in) David Underdown 09:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shlama Gareth. This user is out of control and is vandelizing my talk page accusing me of vandelism with templates. Can you please try to contain him. Thanks. Chaldean 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is insulting me now; so why dont crawl from underneath that rock & educate your little mind & explore the truth [3] Chaldean 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from myself, I'm Proffessor Marco, and currently i am appointed with the University of N.S.W. I havegreat respect for all priests, and currently I am asking for ypur support to prove the existence of CHaldeans. Many users are now vandalising the Chaldean pages and attenmpting to belittle th Chaldean race, with interests exterior to Wikipedia purpose and policy.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asm ccc (talk • contribs) 22:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the respect, but I should tell you that the question you ask has no answer. Ethnicity is a slippery fish; it has as much to do with presumed connexions between people as anything else, and genetics has little or nothing to do with how any ethnicity is defined. Perhaps 'defined' is the wrong word, because ethnicity does not exist in the realm of scientific enquiry. The history of the Middle East makes ethnicity an even more treacherous question than it would elsewhere. For example, there are no clear definitions of what it is to be an Arab. I can certainly prove the existence of people who call themselves Chaldaean. I could also point to the major features that bind such people together as a group. However, what would be absolutely foolish to do would be to suggest that this means anything more or less than a group of people of shared identity. Exactly the same argument can be made for any other ethnic group. By the way, professor is spelt with only one 'f' in English, Norwegian and all other languages that use the word. — Gareth Hughes 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case (and I think it is), statements like "Chaldeans, who are ethnically Assyrians" are highly subjective and should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. We can only say something about what people consider themselves to be, and what outsiders have called the people in question. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 14:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is clearly an entirely subjective matter. However, if you ask for confirmation, someone will give you a reference from a website that supports such things. What would be better would to rewrite the sentence so that individual parts of it could be verified separately. For one, we know that there are people who say that Chaldaeans are Assyrians (cue references); for two, we know there are people who say that Chaldaeans are a separate ethnic group (cue references); for three, no such arguments have found their way into true academic journals (cue lack of references to support point). Presented this way, neither one stance has prominence, but both are given with their references, with the rider that none of this is supported in respectable, neutral fora. I would hope that that's pretty watertight and neutral. The only problem I could foresee with doing this, aside from outright tantrums (how many times has that happened around here?!), is the inclusion of pseudo-academic journals that might pull the argument one way or another. — Gareth Hughes 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have THE ultimate solution to this. I say ALL people unite as one under the term Sargonite in which I am absolute monarch and diety of Earth.The Tsar is Gone but I am King 19:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sargonious. I didn't really need any more evidence that you are nutty. I remind you that this is supposed to be a project to write encyclopaedia articles, and not a place that you really have anything useful to offer. That is observation based on the rubbish, some of which has been clearly vandalistic, that you have added to the project. You keep suggesting that you're leaving Wikipedia, and I keep hoping that you'll keep your word. — Gareth Hughes 20:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your RVs to faith, I hope you are checking the discussion page (both "definition / article innacuracy" and "Faith vs. Evidence - Creationism" sections) before carrying out reverts in apparent contradiction of the dictionary source.

Regards, 129.12.200.49 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am maintaining the page as it was. You are changing it. The usual method to ask for verification is to flag the text rather than change it. Asking for a dictionary definition is a rather odd request, but a glance at the OED gives "Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority", which suggests the action of reason and facts. — Gareth Hughes 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth,

Thanks for boldly removing the native name from the main Interlingua article. We almost got this article to GA status a while back, but it has become both factually and stylistically messy, to say the least. If you're ever inclined to tweak the grammar, it would be greatly appreciated. If you have a background in Interlingua, I think the greatest difficulties at this point are factual. By the way, you certainly know a lot of diverse languages! – 66.68.174.245 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsence is to create artificial nations and languages, a fact that enhances the conflicts in certain areas of the world. For all of us, used to live in the former Tito's cold-war Yugoslavia, it is well-known that southern Yugoslavia (now separated in "Kossovo" and "Macedonia") is inhabited by major Slavic populations (in fact Serbians and minor Bulgarians), Albanians, and Roma (Gypsies). The Slavs at those areas speak a typical Slavic dialect (like the dialects spoken by us in Serbia) which is a mixture of Serbian with maybe some Bulgarian. Therefore, there is no "Macedonian language" (and moreover "Kosovarian") which could be related to Macedonian language which is of course Greek according to the archeological and historical facts. Thus the area called "Republic of Macedonia" is not Greek, as Kosovo is not Albanian. Please don't contribute in formation of artificial nations and languages which leads to more problems in Balkans and Europe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Athgod (talk • contribs) 02:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, that's not very well argued, and your spelling could do with some improvement. You might want to consider contributing to a Wikipedia in a more appropriate language. You could also read the policy on NPOV to see why your edits were considered inappropriate. — Gareth Hughes 12:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I swear on my fathers head Gareth that I say this with all due respect, but do you think the word Assyrian is a dirty word? A word that you can't stand? A word that you take offesne too? Then what is your reason for removing sourced info? [[4]] This isn't the first time. Do you remember before on how many times I used to ask you how can the average person not think you having an anti-Assyrian agenda? Well do you blame me? Chaldean 05:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I knew you were going to do this. I know that no ancient authority refers to Bardaisan as Assyrian. Now, I do not think it a 'dirty word', but, as you, I am against what I perceive to be the anachronistic of modern ethnic distinctions to historical figures. Now, I believe that there is a case for calling someone from the Mosul/Nineveh area (or at least from the east bank of the Tigris) an Assyrian, I can find plenty of cases where, when ancient manuscripts use the word 'Assyrian', it is used in a negative sense to describe God's use of Parthian/Persian powers to harass the Christians of Northern Mesopotamia (I've just read that in the Life of John of Tella). I may come across to you as anti-Assyrian as I am challenging things that you hold very dear. However, be assured that I am not on some campaign against Assyrians. I have read some of Naum Faiq's Syriac editorials, and greatly admire his drive to consolidate the disparate tribal interests of the Assyrian people. I would like to see increasing cohesion of the people rather than the fragmented identities we see today. However, I stand against anyone who would just try to paper over those cracks, or anyone who would invoke the pseudo-science of disproved racial theories or rewrite history to make a point. The problem I have is that no academic source would ever say anything as bold as "Bardaisan was not an Assyrian" — the question is simply not academic nor debatable, because there is no evidence either way. To ask me to find such evidence is a unacceptable due to its very nature.

Now, I believe that there is a case for calling someone from the Mosul/Nineveh area an Assyrian - excuse me but if thats the case then why were Syriac Orthodox of Tur Abdin calling themselves Assyrian? It seems that you have decided on what the borders of Assyria is/was? Assyria's boders even when it was a province of Romans and Persians always included more then just Nineveh.

challenging things that you hold very dear - I am really getting annoyed of you doing this; painting me as a typical nationalist that goes around make fictional claims. I take pride in my work here and I make sure it is accurate to its best. So I dont understand why you randomly point out this edit when I have time over time have repeatly reverted false/pro Assyrian edits (my last edit as far as I can remember for now.)

I stand against anyone who would just try to paper over those cracks, or anyone who would invoke the pseudo-science of disproved racial theories or rewrite history to make a point - Again, you speak as if I'm making pro Assyrian edits without giving sources, just going on my way, no concern, etc etc. Let me tell you Gareth that I'm here to write our UNWRITTEN history that was never written by the West since throughout history it seems all we were to them was Nestorian (and thats it.) Please note: I am NOT re-writting. I refuse to be baised. And I take pride in that.

The sources I gave were based on an article written in Christiansofiraq.com. Now I do not own the two sources, but I had faith in the writter (William Warda) and I believed it backed the claim. If you think it is false, then thats fine, but please STOP accusing me of being a properganda machine. I am a strong believer in history being as accurate as possible. Chaldean 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to accuse you of anything. What I am doing is standing up for something that you really don't like — that the use of the word 'Assyrian' to describe an ethnic group, as it is used today, is relatively modern, and it should not be applied anachronistically (I do have a reference to back that up, but I don't want to hammer it in). I'm afraid that you cannot claim an oral history that has never been recorded or investigated as verifiable. Your faith in William Warda does seem to be unfounded unfortunately. I tried this search to try to find the article you got the references from. As you can see, the only useful phrase William Warda produces is "The second-century Syriac writer Bardaisan" — why can't we just use that? If you have the link to the article that you used, could you give it, because I am perplexed at how anyone looking at Wiesehöfer could use it support calling Bardaisan Assyrian. Looking at this article by William Warda convinces me that he really knows very little about Semitic linguistics — I could make all Ethiopians Assyrians using his methodology!

We are both sensible people. Believe me when I say I am not on some anti-Assyrian agenda, because I want to believe that you are not on some pro-Assyrian agenda. The web is full of lots of rubbish, pro- and anti-. Is it too much to ask that we try to cut through it? I am going to maintain that it is anachronistic to refer to all Syriac writers of the past as Assyrian. Wherever this occurs in articles, I'm going to ask for references. I have a pretty big library available to me, so I can look up most things. So, it basically comes down to verifiability: if you cannot give decent references for something, it gets removed. It cannot be your word against mine, or original research: claims that have no backing should be removed. I know it's blunt, and I know it's frustrating, but that's got to be the way we write articles. — Gareth Hughes 12:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you cannot give decent references for something, it gets removed. It cannot be your word against mine, or original research: claims that have no backing should be removed. - I have no problem with this. Why do you think that I do? I am well aware that you are more knowledgable about Syriac(the language)-related topics and I have faith in your edits. But when you make some unexplained or not well explained edits then I have to question your motives. I might come off to you as someone that is trigger happy when it comes to situations like these, for that I am sorry. Chaldean 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have given two references to support the 'Bardaisan is Assyrian' line. I've got Wiesehofer here, so I'll check out that reference this afternoon. The Journal of the Assyrian Academic Society isn't shelved at the Bodleian Library, so I've ordered it from the stacks and it should be on my desk first thing Monday morning. I'll check out the references so that we can discuss their relevance. However, I think you could find more references calling Bardaisan a Parthian or Mesopotamian — so, do we go by counting which word is used the most? All in all, I find ethnicity a rather troublesome subject, and, as there is nothing written about Bardaisan's ethnicity, I would find it preferable to use geographical (Edessan, Osrhoenean, (Northern) Mesopotamian) or linguistic (he wrote in Syriac) that are well attested. — Gareth Hughes 14:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this edit was just made to Ephrem the Syrian by 208.106.1.187. This stance is indefensible. Not only is the title well regarded in the academic literature of English and other languages, but this edit is based on no ancient sources.

In this series of edits you make repeated ethnicity claims for Bardaisan and offer two references. It looks like there's only been one printing of Wiesehöfer in English translation. I'm looking at page 199, as you suggest, and I cannot find anything about Bardaisan, Edessa or Assyrians on that page (none of those words, nor anything like them, is present). Now, Bardaisan is mentioned on page 205 (once, line 11). The word 'Assyrian', nor anything like it, appears on the page. Using that page for reference, one could use the geographical origin of "Mesopotamia" (line 10), but that is all the text has to offer. The nearest use of the word 'Assyria' in the text is on page 76, and nowhere in the book is Assyria or Assyrians linked with Edessa in general or Bardaisan in particular. The citing of Wiesehöfer simply does not stand up to inspection. On Monday, I should have Yoab Benjamin's article from JAAS in front of me. I hope it provides more useful support for your position. However, I note that the article is not about Bardaisan or Edessa, but about Abdisho and al-Hariri. On Monday, I shall return with my readings of that text. If I find no support for the 'Bardaisan was Assyrian' position there either, would you be so kind as to return the statements about Bardaisan's ethnicity to the way they were before your edit. Of course, you could furnish me with more references, but I do wonder where you're getting them from in the first place. — Gareth Hughes 18:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this matter should be resolved decisively, it has been lingering on for too long, damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. Too many Syriac fathers have been labelled "Assyrian" now, without proper justification. E.g., Ephrem the Syrian has been posthumously claimed by Assyrianists, as is shown by his picture in the Assyrian people article, and by repeated attempts to translate Suryāyā as "Assyrian" or something similar. Only if the people concerned consider themselves Assyrian (or Aramaean or Chaldaean, for that matter), they should be referred to as such on Wikipedia.

In general, I think there should be a Wikipedia policy regarding questions of ethnicity, which should be approached in an intersubjective manner, considering the diffuse nature of the ethnicity concept. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea your right, your approach of adding Aramean everywhere would greatly improve Wiki's credibility. Chaldean 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer it if this issue did not get out of hand. We can agree that certain historical figures are considered to be a part of the culture of modern Assyrians. That can be the baseline that we can agree. Now I contend that the description 'Assyrian' was not used in the historical era in the way it is today by Assyrians: it was used to describe the people of the Assyrian Empire (political description, not ethnic) and as a geographical (not ethnic) description of people from Adiabene (Arbela, Mosul, Nineveh). Now, I can find plenty of good, reliable sources that reflect this naming pattern, and none that reflect a wider ethnic use of the term. It is fine for a culture to claim historical figures as their own, but it is a different matter to suggest that these historical figures claimed that culture without evidence.

So, on to evidence. It was to sad to report over the weekend that one of the sources claimed to support Bardaisan as an Assyrian (Wiesehöfer) did not stand up to scrutiny. This morning, I received the back catalogue of JAAS to read the other source used to support the claim. I must say that the evidence is not good. I read the entire article by Yoab Benjamin, which was not about Bardaisan or Edessa. The page used as a reference, page 57, carries absolutely no reference to Bardaisan, Edessa or Assyrian — if I could have found anything slightly supportive, I would have mentioned it. I really tried hard to find anything in the article that came close to saying that Bardaisan is an Assyrian. This is the best I could find (page 52): "‘Abdīshō‘ d'Subā...ranks amongst the more than one hundred and fifty Assyrian authors who contributed to the enrichment of Syriac public literature during its long history ranging from about the second century after Christ down to the thirteenth or fourteenth". As you can see, it's not a lot to hang your hat on. The mention of 'second century' could easily refer to Bardaisan, even though he is not mentioned in the entire article, but this is as close as it gets. For it to be a half-good source to support the claim that Bardaisan can generally be referred to as Assyrian, I would at least expect his name to figure somewhere in it. For the source to be decent, it should refer to primary sources. I would really like to see a copy of the original William Warda article just to check how he uses these references. The volume of JAAS that contained Yoab Benjamin's article also contained one by William Warda. I skimmed through it and was really quite appalled by the grand claims he makes based on evidence that he interprets in bizarre manner to make it mean what he wants it to mean.

So, I can say in all honesty that none of the sources used to support the position that Bardaisan was called Assyrian in his context stand up to the slightest scrutiny. I tried my best to find anything in the sources that would be supportive to such a position, but there really isn't anything on which to base any kind of argument. I shall ask for sources to support ethnicity claims for all historical figures in this field. I am happy to go and get the books and journals and check everything out. One case on my mind is Aphrahat. He is generally considered to have lived in Adiabene (although even that is uncertain), so he could be called Assyrian based on his geography. However, I can find no early sources that call him such, and most sources simply call him the 'Persian Sage' (though no one would go so far as to call this an ethnic label). — Gareth Hughes 16:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this strange a with two dots above is standard transliteration of Arabic ta marbuta? I always saw either -ah or -at.--Al-Bargit 19:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a neutral standard found elsewhere in articles. Of course, the ta marbuta changes pronunication according to its context, but always is a cardinal short 'a' in Arabic. However, this also leads to a close-fronted pronunciation in some dialects, which is often transcribed as '-eh'. The transcription with either '-ah' or '-at' to represent ta marbuta is indistinguishable from a word ending in a normal ha or ta, thus the two dots in transcription. — Gareth Hughes 19:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garzo,

Thank you for taking the time to comment about the Toytonic page. Yes, Toytonic is of course a constructed language. But, it is also an Indo-European language (as are Esperanto, and a few other constructed languages). I was hoping you could please tell me more about what qualifies a language for listing in Wikipedia?

I have noticed several engineered, artistic, constructed, and even fictional languages have their own page or pages. There are also pages for languages that are only in the concept stage or even for language development efforts that have yet to render a full language.

If you could tell me a bit more about what is required for entry, then perhaps I could know whether this was the right place for the information (or simply know what information to provide).

Now, about Toytonic. Toytonic is the product of an ongoing collaborative effort between linguists and language educators to develop a language that is based on PIE and it's early daughter languages while evolving those systems into a more dynamic language. Toytonic is based on the word roots of PIE and several functional features of other Indo-Eurpean languages. These ancient forms have been modified to place the language at a point that accounts for the evolution from PIE that most linguists agree to be inevitable natural changes (mostly phonetic). Then, the language is structured to be absolute (everything has only one meaning). It should be simply in structure and easily learned in a short period of time.

The efforts have resulted in a grammar, basic vocabulary and rules for adding to the lexicon, and some spoken and written speech. The next step will be to compile a larger lexicon with cross-references to English, German, and Spanish. From there an effort will begin to begin establishing a literature through writing and translation.

I don't know exactly how many speakers there are currently, but it is certainly below 30 (guessing that based on contributions). As more information (words, lit, etc) become available that number is expected to increase substantially.

The final step of the project will be to establish groups of speakers (formal or informal) and monitor the langauge for change.

Please advise from here,

Thanks

Drew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drew.ward (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is a rather difficult area, and there may well be Wikipedia articles that describe conlangs in a similar situation. However, it is useful to think about what the threshold for an article in an encyclopaedia would be. I think that the best guidance available is Wikipedia's notability criteria. It might be possible to put together a reasoned argument for this article, but you will have to disclose information about the creator, when it was created and an estimate how widespread it is. — Gareth Hughes 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are having some kind of debate in Sweden about the Kh used a lot in the Assyrian Neo Aramaic dialect and the H being usd a lot in the Western Aramaic (Turoyo,Suryoyo). Are there any proofs of which one of whom is the correct pronounciation?--Yohanun 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Syriac and Turoyo both preserve the phonemes [h] (written with the letter ܗ), [ħ] (written with the letter ܚ, and often transcribed as ḥ) and [x] (written with the letter ܟ with rukkākhâ, and often transcribed as ḵ or ḫ). In most varieties of modern eastern Syriac (all except Hertevin language as far as I know), even though all of these letters are still written, the pronunciation of the last two have merged, and they are both pronounced as [x] (or what you might write as 'kh'). I hope that makes sense. — Gareth Hughes 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast answer but I would like you to answer two things if you can answer them of course. Is the Sureth dialect , who uses P,A and Khet pronounciations the correct dialect or is Surayt with the F,Å and Heth pronounciations the correct dialect. Which dialect has developed its own pronouncations? Best regards / --Yohanun 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be improper to call either variety the correct dialect. Both varieties are heavily influenced by classical Syriac, but are essentially modern developments of unwritten Middle Aramaic varieties. It is mostly due to long-term differences in the underlying colloquial Aramaic that the variation exists. We have enough evidence to suggest that, in Turoyo, the letter ܦ was pronounced in a similar way to classical Syriac, where it alternates between the sounds [p] and [f] (although it seems that the alternation may have ceased at an earlier period, making the sounds lexically important in Turoyo). In the eastern varieties, this letter is almost always pronounced as [p], although, as syllable coda, it can become a [ʍ].

The vowel that is called Pthakha in the east and Ftoḥo in the west seems to have been an [ɑ] in classical Syriac (although its value in the colloquial middle Aramaics is unknown). In the modern eastern varieties, this vowel has become slightly centralised, becoming an [a] (but more centralised that its cardinal point). In the modern western varieties, this vowel has become rounded, becoming an [ɔ]. This distinction is what is considered, by Swedish writers, to be a/å.

Finally, we get back to the letter ܚ. It has always been pronounced as a [x] in eastern varieties. Whereas western varieties have followed what appears to be its classical Syriac pronunciation, which is a [ħ]. An interesting aside concerns the Hertevin language, which, although clearly an eastern variety, pronounces ܚ in the classical manner, but also pronounces the soft ܟ with the same phoneme — something that is unique in Aramaic languages. — Gareth Hughes 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Araden dialect it can be both ħeth, kheth or khap. For example khilma which means dream is actuall spelled ħilma with a ħeth and not a kap. The Telkeppe dialect tends to use the ħeth more often due to the close interaction with the Arabic language and the use of many Arabic-derived loan words rendered Aramaic. eg. Bisl=Bisla, Riz=Rizza, etc. In the dialects of Iran and northeastern Turkey not only is ħ lost and merged with kh but also the waw becomes a vav.

The classical word for 'dream' is ܚܠܡܐ, so I would expect most varieties to write it the same way, and most eastern varieties to pronounce it [ˈxil.ma] (the classical pronunciation was probably more like [ˈħel.mɑ]). — Gareth Hughes 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Araden dialect goes all classical phonemes are retained. Truth is ħaqutha. Gamal can be Jamal or Ghamal, zayn can be zhayn. kap can be chap or khap, taw can be thaw, dalath can be dhalath, etc.75.46.169.82

I don't think that the dialect of Araden has the voiceless pharyngeal fricative, as the only Northeastern Neo-Aramaic variety that has it is from Siirt Province and lacks the voiced velar fricative. Both sounds together are only preserved in Western Neo-Aramaic and Central Neo-Aramaic. The spirantisation of Tau and Dalath is a feature of NENA varieties of the Plain of Mosul, which is lacking in the Urmian varieties. The Jamal and Zhain are found in Kurdish loanwords almost without exception (sometime Jamal appears in later Arabic loanwords too). — Gareth Hughes 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speak the Araden dialect it is definitely there just like the Arabic version of the letter. We say Esho' Msheeħa not Msheekha and ħabibti not khabibta and ħuba not khuba. Though the Telkeppe dialect uses it more for example they say Maħki Sureth where we would say Makhki Sureth. Especially in Arabic loan words like Maħkima or Shiħmaħshi... though the tribes that came from Hakkari such as part of my anscestory speak more like the Urmian dialect. My dad's side tend use Zuzeh for money where most say Pareh and for sandals they say Chikaleh where everyone else says na'aleh. Soleh for shoes vs qundareh, etc. The Tsar is Gone but I am King 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garzo, if you're going to block any IPs (e.g. User talk:203.122.254.26) clearly marked as a belonging to a school, please use {{schoolblock}} as your block reason which clearly explains how anon-only blocking works. Otherwise, the unblock-en-l mailing list will continue to have to deal with many more confused or irate emails from schools. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I've just had to use that template to block another school IP. It is certainly an improvement. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth,

Would you be able to get a hand on C.W. Mitchell, S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan (London & Oxford: Williams & Norgate, 1912 & 1921)? In Vol. II, p. 225, Ephraim is supposed to be cited saying about Bardaisan: "the philosopher of the Arameans made himself a laughing-stock among Arameans and Greeks." I'd be very grateful. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Pearse has typed up and uploaded the text, which can be perused at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm (scroll down to Ephrem's section to see the table of contents). Mitchell's work is of a good academic standard, and, even though, it's almost a century old, is still the best English translation of Ephrem's prose refutations. It does certainly describe Bardaisan as 'Aramaean'. Though, especially as the palimpsest is unvowelled, that could equally well be read as 'heathen'. — Gareth Hughes 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It doesn't seem very likely, though, that "heathen" is meant here, since he mentions Aramaeans and Greeks in one breath, and in general uses the names Aramaeans and Syrians interchangeably when referring to his own people.

When it comes to Ephrem himself, Jacob of Sarug also uses Syrians and Aramaeans synonymously in his homily of Mor Ephrem (Joseph P. Amar, "A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Sarug". In: Patrologia Orientalis, vol. 47, fasc., 1, no. 209; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995, #48, pp. 37ff). --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, I could check the Syriac text of Ephrem's prose refutations tomorrow. I know Joseph Amar's work on Jacob's memra on Ephrem is in the library, so I can compare the use of words in the two. Of course, poetry has the advantage of being limited to a certain syllable count, which can often dictate how a certain homograph should be read. — Gareth Hughes 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be greatly appreciated ... --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have Mitchell's edition of the Prose Refutations in front of me now. I think p225 may have been the wrong passage, but I've found the right passage. I'll give you p225 first. The occurrence on 225.24–26, which read ܘܦܫ ܠܗ ܪܘܟܒܗ ܕܦܠܣܘܦܐ ܐܪܡܝܐ. This translates as "And there rests the philosophy of the Aramaean". Even thought the passage is part of the refutation of Mani, this section explicitly deals with Bardaisan. However, I found the sentence you wanted elsewhere: in 7.45 – 8.1 (against Bardaisan's Domnus). The Syriac reads ܓܘܚܟܐ ܕܝܢ ܥܒܕ ܢܦܫܗ ܒܝܬ ܐܖ̈ܡܝܐ ܘܝܘܢ̈ܝܐ. ܦܝܠܘܣܦܐ ܕܐܖ̈ܡܝܐ. This translates as "But a laughing stock he made himself among the Aramaeans and the Greeks, the philosopher of the Aramaeans". The word ܐܪܡܝܐ only occurs in one other place (in the refutation of Hypatius vol.1 122.7), it is speaking about the Manichees' reading of the Gospel of John is errant because they follow what is written in the 'Aramaean' and do not refer to the Greek text. The word ܣܘܪܝܝܐ does not appear at all in the Prose Refutations. I'm not sure what you want to make of these lines, but the context makes it quite clear that the word 'Aramaean' is being used neutrally to describe the language and people (either those who speak it or the inhabitants of a geographical region). What is certain is that Ephrem does not intend the kind of ethnic understanding of such terms as they are used today — this use is quite modern.

Now, looking over at Joseph Amar's edition of Jacob of Serugh's 'Memra on Saint Ephrem', Jacob uses the word 'Aramaean' of Ephrem in one distich, and follows it with the word 'Syrian/c' in the following distich.

155
ܗܢܐ ܕܗܘܐ ܟܠܝܠܐ ܠܟܠܗ ܐܪܡܝܘܬܐ
ܘܒܗ ܐܬܩܪܒܬ ܬܡܛܐ ܠܫܘܦܖ̈ܐ ܖ̈ܘܚܢܝܐ

"He who is the crown of all Aramaea
and through him it approached to attain spiritual virtues"

One late manuscript (the Harvard Syriac 100, 1900) has the word ܐܘܡܬܐ, 'nation', instead of ܐܪܡܝܘܬܐ, 'Aramaea'.

156
ܗܢܐ ܕܗܘܐ ܪܗܝܪܐ ܪܒܐ ܒܝܬ ܣܘܖ̈ܝܝܐ
ܘܟܠ ܡ̈ܠܦܝܐ ܡܢܗ ܘܠܟܐ ܒܗ ܐܨܛܒܬܘ

"He who was a great rhetor among the Syrians
and all teachers from him until now have been adorned through him"

If it's of interest, distich 46 compares the singing of the Hebrew women with tambourines at the Exodus to the singing of Aramaean women (ܐܖ̈ܡܝܬܐ) with the hymns of Ephrem.

I hope this tells you all you want to know. Let me know if there's anything that you want me to look into further. — Gareth Hughes 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth, does this topic needs its own page or can it be merged with something else? Chaldean 04:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the name is worthy of an article: it's actually about the importance of the See of Antioch in the history of the Church. It's also anachronistic and partisan by claiming the see for the Syriac Orthodox: the Greek Orthodox and Catholics, Syriac Orthodox and Catholics and Maronites are all led by patriarchs of Antioch. I would suggest merging it, after editing out bias, into either Antioch or Patriarch of Antioch or both. On the other hand, it might make more sense merged into Syriac Orthodox Church. — Gareth Hughes 13:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Syriac Orthodox page needs expansion (and improvment.) I asked for a translation of the arabic version since it was a featured article, but nothing came from it. Chaldean 16:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic looks easy enough, so I might be able to do some work with it if I have enough time. I'm just about to get started translating a lot of Narsai, so I'm not sure how mcuh time I'll have. The Holy See article could have useful bits of it farmed out to more relevant articles and then turned into a redirect. — Gareth Hughes 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth,

The article about the Mor Gabriel Monastery was moved to Deyrulumur Monastery, on the grounds that the latter is the official and more common name. I wouldn't know what the official name is (both names are written at the entrance), but it seems to me that Mor Gabriel (or Mar Gabriel) is by far better known, also used in the French- and German-language Wikipedia's. What do you think? If you agree, would you be so kind to move it back? Thanks a lot. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, confusingly the situation seems to be the reverse of Deyrulzafaran. Mor Gabriel Monastery is the name by which it is better known, and Deyulumur seems to be a Turkish afterthought. See the SOR page on the monastery, whereas http://www.deyrulzafaran.org/ says it all. — Gareth Hughes 15:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comment here. :) 86.56.48.12 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why must the link to the Lamsa Bible be continuously deleted? I cannot understand how a link to the ONLINE LAMSA BIBLE is not appropriate for the wiki pages about the Lamsa Bible and Dr. Lamsa. It is also relevant to pages to do with the Bible, New Testament, Aramaic, Peshitta and Peshitta primacy. I cannot understand your continual resitance to a link to an online version of the Lamsa Bible, on wiki pages dedicated to Dr. Lamsa and his Bible version. Some pages have absolute garbage links and yet this, which is 100% relevant to said wiki pages is deleted. This is extremely frustrating. Please stop deleting the link, it is a great resource and is dedicated to the late Dr.

You are using Wikipedia to advertise a website. The two IP addresses you have used have no other edits but the addition of links to this website. I gave you information on Wikipedia's policy on external links. Another website seems already to provide the material that your site provides. While the link is relevant to Lamsa Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and George Lamsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it is only partially relevant to Aramaic primacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and of minimal relevance (being a rather unimportant translation) to other articles. However, the baseline is that links added by users who are involved with improving article texts are generally considered useful if relevant, but links added by users who do nothing but add the same link to multiple pages is considered to be spamming. Looking at the section on links to be avoided, I can see that this link fail points 2 and 3: it contains misleading content and has been added for promotional value. You shall now receive your third spam warning. If you repeat your actions, you will receive a final warning. Any further spamming after the final warning will result in your IP addresses being blocked and the website you are involved with being added to a spam blacklist. Thus, your continued action in using Wikipedia to promote your website will make it very difficult for anyone to add a link to it. — Gareth Hughes 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it it with wikipedia? I'm trying to point out that Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Christians. But this place seems uninterested in the truth. You of all people should be against the labeling of these groups as Christian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cis2002 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Read the messages I've given you about WP:NPOV. You are imposing your own views upon the encyclopaedia. Read the articles about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses to find out how they see themsleves. — Gareth Hughes 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if the Ku Klux Klan described itself as part of the NAACP then we would put them on the NAACP page? I would hope not! Then why put these groups in Christianity just because they want to mislead people about what they believe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cis2002 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 March 2007.

I don't understand your references to local groups or movements: I am European. The groups you are deleting from mention grew out of the restorationism movement in the USA. As such, they grew out of radical Christian movements in that country. Although they are widely considered to be heretical by other Christian groups (and likewise they consider other groups to be in error), this is a value judgment. Sociologically, they are part of the diverse branching of Christian groups that ocurred in the USA. — Gareth Hughes 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ku Klux Klan is a group that basically believes in white superiority. The NAACP is a group to help minorities but tends to help African-Americans primarily. The Ku Klux Klan obviously is not part of the NAACP and it would be outrageous to do so. The example is to show that the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are only calling themselves Christian to fool people who don't know the difference and Wikipedia is playing right into their scam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cis2002 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 12 March 2007.

Still, it's not a convincing argument. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are clearly modern movements that grew out of the radicalisation of fringe Christian groups in the USA. This makes them sociologically part of the diverse group of Christian religions. Through the millennia, different groups of Christians have called other groups heretics, so that everyone is considered heretical by someone. Thus, it is impossible to make value judgments, such as yours, on different groups based on one perspective. — Gareth Hughes 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term Christianity refers to those that worship Jesus as God. If you don't then you are not a Christian - fact. If the United States which is a democratic republic was ruled by a monarchy then it would cease to be considered a democratic republic regardless of it's statements or history the same is true of non-Christian groups.Cis2002 20:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it might seem like a straightforward statement, but nowhere is Christianity so defined. You probably don't realise that christology is very complicated issue, an issue that has been wresteld back and forth over the centuries. Perhaps you should read that article; it covers some of the historical issues on the nature of Christ quite well. — Gareth Hughes 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to be and probably are aware that, complicated or not, the Fathers had no problem excommunicating heretics. I would suggest that westling for the truth as they did is better than studying them and not wresting. A.J.A. 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know me. — Gareth Hughes 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you've told me. That's what user space is for. A.J.A. 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you have a point? — Gareth Hughes 21:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem, the world has muddied the waters as to what the term Christianity means. It's origins came about as a reference to those following The Way (those that believed Jesus was the Christ). I am not concerned with what Satan has tricked people into defining a Christian as but rather what the term actually does mean. And yes there are absolute truths. Wikipedia will never be a valid source as long as it tries to claim everything is relative.Cis2002 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Conservapedia — it's a Wikipedia for Americans who want to ignore reasoned argument, academia and the rest of the world. I think they allow 'This is what I learnt in Sunday School' as an authoritative source there, so you might be in with a chance. — Gareth Hughes 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I thought we were supposed to avoid negative persoanl attacks like your last post? Guess it's okay if you're in the majority and an administrator. BTW, I thought you were a priest and you are poking fun at Sunday School? Wonder what Jesus would think of that?Cis2002 13:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that against guidelines, User:Cis2002 has made his userpage home to polemical statements. I am writing to you because you have been dealing with his failure to abide by Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Vassyana 18:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline? Is there a guideline that says that I can't criticize Wikipedia?Cis2002 18:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Garzo! I saw our company name as one of the entries here in wiki. I would like to put it in more appropriate categories which describe the type of service it renders, however, those categories aren't existing yet. Can I create them instead? Categories I want to add are: Testing services, Certification services, Inspection services. Your advice much appreciated.> alen_ph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alen ph (talk • contribs) 08:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If the company is Société Générale de Surveillance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), it already has sufficient categories, and Category:Product certification seems to cover it fairly well. The categories you suggest above don't make much sense to me, and probably wouldn't be all that useful. — Gareth Hughes 10:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I got your point. :-) and I appreciate your quick reply. -alen_ph

I noticed you were mentioning the Talk page of Armenian language about Aramaic language not being Armenian. I agree with you that there are a "handful" of the words. Yet, you removed the entire sentence instead of just removing the Aramaic part. Please put back the other parts of the sentence, specially Sanskrit which we put a blue link also with it. Sanskrit however is not the case like Aramaic, its Indo-European like Greek and Persian, and it was formed in the Armenian Highlands. Since you dont know much about that, please just remove the Aramaic part of the sentence and leave the important info back there. Thank you. 75.4.31.25 02:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is my edit. The entire sentence was referenced by Artak Movsisyan, whose credentials seem to be dubious. My initial edit was to ask for a quotation from Movsisyan so that it could be judged. If Movsisyan is the source of the original text, with its hopeful inclusion of Aramaic, then it's not worthy of inclusion. As I said, my inital thought was simply to request a quotation, but another editor gave me reason enough to remove it until it can be proved a worthwhile source. The rest of the paragraph contains reasonable arguments about Hellenic and Iranian connexions. It certainly isn't the place to list favourite Indo-European languages (like more distant Sanskrit), and a trendy mention of Aramaic is not going to fool anyone. This is reason enough to leave this claim out until the actual argument from Movsisyan can be judged worthy. — Gareth Hughes 09:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont put back the Aramaic part, but leave the sentence without the "Aramaic". Its not just Movsisyan, if you read the sentence it says "some scholars" like Movsisyan for example or to name a few. By the way the person in the Talk Armenian language that told you to remove it, was the guy that even put that sentence. There are more scholars that know this like V. V. Ivanov and Tamaz_Gamkrelidze, who reveal the origins of IE homeland and IE language origins. So please do not randomly remove info that you dont know about, these other scholars also mention Sanskrit being a daughter language of Armenian that stayed in the homeland of IE, Armenian Highlands —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.175.97.167 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 March 2007.

Hi Garzo. I must say you've done a great work on Christianity and Aramaic. They're not just academic, but also interesting to me. Keep up the good work. Fantastic4boy

Do it before I change my mind. Delete my username and profile.The Tsar is Gone but I am King 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garzo, you should probably just block him as per this. His latest remarks (Look talk page after talk page your rant on and on with your anti-Assyrianess. Please give it a rest. Go tackle Eskimos or something.) are anything but helpful. Khoikhoi 22:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do delete his account. His disruptive behaviour just goes on and on: [5]. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Sargonious has just been blocked indefinitely: [6]. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 18:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked to be deleted. I am not a sock puppet. What kind of stupid claim is that. I erased all my other accounts months ago and I have only used anon or my own id. I'd appreciate removing this ban so that I could erase my account all together. I don't want to be a part of Wikipedia because I have a paid account with Britannica which is much more reliable and credible. the Tsar is Gone

I am not pretty sure when I say this but could it not be so that Suryoye differ from Suraye in genetic ways? Many do not "look" like eachother but many still do "look" like eachother and reminds of a ethnic people. Perhaps what unites us is more the language, as the Arabs do. The term "Arab" descfribes people of different ethnic backgrounds with one Arabic language, perhaps that counts for Aramaic too? --Yohanun 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me try to understand this. What are we talking about in the Aramaic language page? The ancient aramaic that nobody speaks today or the neo-aramaic languages with the different dialects that I speak today? If it is today's aramaic language, then how can it have only 445,000 speakers when you add the total of its dialects of the Assyrians alone;

• Chaldean Neo-Aramaic - 600,000
• Assyrian Neo-Aramaic - 210,000
• Turoyo language - 300,000

adding them totally is far more greater then 445,000. And where does Syriac language fall in all this? Thanks. Chaldean 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Aramaic language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is about the three-thousand-year history of the language. Aramaic has always had some diversity in it: I can understand the ancient languages far easier because they are not as diverse as the modern ones. The numbers are a problem, and they probably did add up originally. One of the difficulties is guaging how many people speak these languages with sufficient fluency. Assyrian sources would likely want to overestimate the figure, so they should be used with caution. I think the figures were originally based on Ethnologue's information, which can be a bad source of information, but is relatively unbiased on such things. Classical Syriac is perhaps extinct, although it has continued to be used in the daily life of many monasteries of the Syriac tradition, and there are certain West Syriac scholars who are trying to revive it as a spoken language with some success. The East Syriac traditions are focused more on the colloquial languages, with the more literary dialects being Alqoshi among the Chaldaeans and Urmežni among the Church of the East. I have heard it stated, I think by Otto Jastrow, that there are around half a million to a million speakers of Modern Aramaic varieties today, and that's probably the best available figure. — Gareth Hughes 18:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth, I am still confused. In the english language, what is the name of the langauge I speak at home? Syriac or Aramaic? I am not clear on the classifications. You say Syriac is the language only spoken in the Church, but then in that same page it says their are 1.5 mill speakers? I am totally confused.

The reason I ask this is because we are ready to start courses in teaching the language in Wayne State University. And we don't know what to call the langauge in English (Syriac (Sooreth) or Aramaic). Chaldean 04:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call it Syriac-Aramaic, Leshana Suryaya Aramaya, la khziyet al nukhraye khona akhnan jatten mot leshanan shimme, pakhalta khona bas sureth didi lele spay al ana hamzem lehza ma'rbaya--Yohanun 10:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Aramaic varieties have diverged to the extent that they may be called individual languages rather than dialects. What you speak at home, Chaldean, is a variety of Modern Aramaic. The term Sooreth (with various spellings) is often used to refer to the Christian Modern Aramaic varieties (usually not including the rather different varieties of Turoyo and Ma`aloula). Within Sooreth, there is a broad linguistic continuum among the varieties spoken from Urmia to Mosul (in that the varieties at either end are quite different, but that there are only little differeneces each step along the continuum). There are varieties of Sooreth from Sanandaj and Koy Sanjak that are a little more removed from this continuum. Sooreth literally means the same as 'Syriac'/Suryaya (and other various spellings — note the two 'y's is the standard classical spelling). However, in the strictest sense, Syriac is the Middle Aramaic variety of Edessa, which became the classical, liturgical language of the churches. There are some people who do use the classical language at home (but they are mostly West Syrian scholars). The Christian Modern Aramaic varieties, Sooreth, have been heavily influenced by the classical language, and that is why they are often called 'Syriac' (or even, sometimes, 'Neo-Syriac'). If you're teaching classical Syriac, call it Syriac. If you're teaching a Modern Aramaic variety, you could call it just that (or Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Syriac or Assyrian Neo-Aramaic or some such). Calling it 'Assyrian' would be misleading, as people would expect the East-Semitic language. Calling it 'Aramaic' is rather vague, it could mean any variety of the language spoken anywhere at any time by people of all sorts of different religions. — Gareth Hughes 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gareth for your detailed answer, but you didn't give me a clear cut answer. I'm torn and no I was never thinking of calling it Assyrian? The class was planning on teaching modern at home Aramaic language - Chaldean and Assyrian dialect. I always thought Syriac would be the most appropriate, but with what you said about with the most strict definition of that word, its the traditional church language - which is not what were teaching. I don't know Gareth. Chaldean 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good introduction to the subject is Wolfhart Heinrichs Studies in Neo-Aramaic (ISBN 1-55540-430-8). The terms 'Neo-Syriac' and 'Modern Syriac' have really gone out of fashion in academia (except perhaps when refering to Christian Neo-Aramaic literature). The reason for this is the realisation that Neo-Aramaic varieties are essentially based on local Aramaic vernaculars with deep classical Syriac influence, rather than their being divergent developments of classical Syriac. Thus, 'Neo-Aramaic' or 'Modern Aramaic' are the usual terms today. You could, of course, use 'Sooreth'. However, all of these terms are likely not to be understood by many. There are really only three standardised varieties of Sooreth: the 'General Urmian' of the Urmian printing press (which is a little odd to most speakers of more southerly varieties), 'Iraqi Koine' of Ashiret varieties moved into northern Iraq and standardised around General Urmian, and the literary variety of Alqosh. I imagine that you'd want to teach something that mostly resembles Iraqi Koine, so you might want to call it something like 'the Modern Aramaic language of Iraqi Christians'. Does that get you any closer? — Gareth Hughes 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth, something like the Modern Aramaic language of Iraqi Christians would not be approriate because the Univerisity wants us to use the same standards of other languages - which are Elementary Arabic or Elementary Modern Greek. The University suggested naming it "Modern Aramaic", but I know for a fact on the first day of class you will have students of Jewish backround thinking the class will have teachings of Jewish Aramaic. I am almost convinced to call it Modern Aramaic, but the Jewish factor is still a issue. Calling it Modern Chaldean Aramaic would've been the best and would clear all the confusion, but the professors wanted to teach the differences (compare and contrast) between Assyrian and Chaldean dialect, so it won't be solely Chaldena dailect class.

Anyways, we'll find a solution, I'm just happy we got the 1,000 signatures to get this language taught at a major Uni here in the US. :) Oh and happy Kha'b Nissan! (yes those are Syriac Catholics ;) Chaldean 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Iraqi Aramaic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 April 2007.

No, because it's specifically Christian, and Jewish varieties are substantially different. — Gareth Hughes 16:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that Sharru Kinnu III is Sargonious right? Chaldean 22:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC there was a way to add iso3 generic. could you add the explanation and then ping me? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth! Where have you been lately? Haven't seen you around. Hope you had a happy Easter!

There's a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Syriac alphabet that probably only you can answer, if you have time and inclination. Thanks! —Angr 06:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter, Angr! I've been sporadically off-line over the last month — the Californian beaches don't have wireless: it's so low-tech! I'm back in Oxford now, but need to catch up with some texts. I popped over to the Reference Desk and gave an answer to the Syriac alphabet question. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California beaches, eh? Life sure is hard for Anglican priests... —Angr 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garzo
I want to create Babel box templates for Classical (or Biblical) Hebrew. For this purpose I need the translations for the boxes:

• hbo-4: This user speaks Old Hebrew at a near native level.
• hbo-3: This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of Old Hebrew.
• hbo-2: This user is able to contribute with an intermediate level of Old Hebrew.
• hbo-1: This user is able to contribute with a basic level of Old Hebrew.

For the above sentences a translation for female and male users are needed. Some users don't like to speak in 3rd person of themselves, so translations "I am able ..." / "I speak ..." also are needed. For the category texts the plural is needed "These users are able ..." / "These users speak ...".

I hope you are the right person to help me. Thank you in advance. Hubert22 10:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Garzo,

1. Are Syame ever used for verbs or are they only restricted to certain nouns?
2. How is one to properly transliterate foreign words/names? Is there a set standard? So far, if the name is the same in Arabic and Hebrew then I translate it to coincide with those two (e.g. "Michigan" becomes ܡܝܫܝܓܢ/מישיגן/ميشيغان, even though a closer spelling is probably ܡܫܓܢ). If they don't coincide, then I just make one that matches the original pronunciation as phonetically as possible. This is mainly concerning t, k, and long a sounds. Do I use taw or teth, kaph or qoph, or an aleph in the middle of a word even though a glottal stop is not present? Arabic usually seems to use ta for Ts and kaf for Ks, while Hebrew uses teth for Ts, qoph for Ks, and aleph for long As (like Arabic).

I'm starting to see evidence leaning towards a Hebrew-like system, as in "ܐܓܘܣܛܘܣ" instead of "ܐܓܘܣܬܘܣ" and "ܐܘܩܝܐܢܘܣ"/"ܐܘܩܝܢܘܣ" instead of "ܐܘܟܝܢܘܣ." Any ideas? --334 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although syāmē are sometimes misused, their use is quite straightforward. They are the sign of the plural used to mark all plural nouns. They are used to mark all plural adjectives, including participles, except the masculine absolute plural (e.g. ܛܒܝܢ) which always lacks syāmē. They are only used to mark certain feminine plural verbs: in the perfect, for the 3rd-person feminine plural, and in the imperfect for both the 2nd- and 3rd-person feminine plural. Prepositions that take plural form (e.g. ܒܝܢ̈ܝ) take syāmē. They are also used to mark the number 2 and feminine 'teen' numerals. The general rule, although it doesn't cover all of these, is that syāmē are used where the word form is identical to another, non-plural form.

When transliterating non-Syriac words into Syriac script there are some general rules of thumb. The tradition is to render the Arabic ض with the Syriac ܨ, and the Arabic ظ with the Syriac ܛ. In garshuni, these are marked with a dot to show they are to be given their Arabic value. A large number of Greek words have been transliterated into Syriac because of the historical importance of Greek. There are quite a few books written about the intricacies of translation from Greek into Syriac. Generally, all vowels are represented; so, 'a' is represented by ܐ, 'e' by either ܐ, ܝ or both, 'i' by ܝ, 'o' by ܘ (or ܐ by West Syriacs) and 'u' by ܘ. The sounds 'k' and 't' are usually represented by ܩ and ܛ respectively (because ܟ and ܬ were used to represent the Greek χ and θ). You'll find that Arabic and Hebrew transliterations are fairly similar in this regard, and are perhaps the best guide. — Gareth Hughes 13:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Garzo, much appreciated. --334 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Garzo, can you tell me exactly which Greek vowels translate to the Syriac letters you mentioned? Is this correct?:

• Αα=ܐ
• Εε=ܝ/ܐ
• Ηη=ܝ
• Οο/Ωω=ܘ/ܐ
• Υυ=ܘ

I'm assuming this system is also in place for other (mainly European) languages, but I'm having trouble believing all vowels are represented. "Canada" in Hebrew is "קנדה," not "קאנאדה." Can you explain this to me?

Also, when transliterating from Arabic, is it proper to include aleph wherever alif is in the Arabic word? For example, would إسلام be ܐܣܠܡ or ܐܣܠܐܡ?

--334 14:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem here is that there's no set system for transliterating into Syriac: for example, I've seen a Greek word transliterated two different ways in the same passage before. There is a difference between western and eastern pronunciation that affects transliteration, but older documents show that the eastern pronunciation is closer in many ways to the system of transliteration before the community's division. The chart you give above is just about right, but often short vowels (α, ε, ο and υ) in unaccented syllables are left unrepresented in transliteration. The digraph ου represents the pure vowel /u/ in Greek and is almost always represented by ܘ in Syriac.

Arabic almost always uses an alif when it wants to mark ā. Both Hebrew and Syriac only really care to mark ā at the end of a word with ה and ܐ respectively. In Hebrew orthography, it seems far less acceptable to mark a word-medial ā with a mater lectionis (perhaps because of the choice of ה: it has more 'consonantal quality' than א) than it is in Syriac. In foreign words transliterated into Syriac, there is a tendency to mark most occurrences of a with ܐ so that the reader pronounces it correctly. Now, in the case of 'Canada', there are three a vowels. The Hebrew קנדה only shows the final vowel because that's the only one its orthography can confidently mark. In Syriac, one could write ܩܐܢܐܕܐ, but I would be tempted to write ܩܐܢܕܐ, leaving the second vowel unwritten. That's just a gut feeling: the second vowel is unstressed, so I don't feel it needs an ܐ. However, the three-alaf spelling is probably more clear, and readers are less likely to try to make a Syriac word out of it.

When transliterating Arabic, I would be tempted to render it letter for letter, and so render all ا with ܐ. Apart from that, use ܔ for ج, and ܨ (perhaps with a dot above it) for ض, and ܛ (perhaps with a dot in its loop) for ظ. There are various, though somewhat conflicting, schemes for representing other sounds (mostly those present in Persian, Turkish and Kurdish) that could be used. — Gareth Hughes 15:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand now. Thanks again! --334 19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Time_Ambassador_Franks.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it. — Gareth Hughes 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it (since the discussion has happened so many times), but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them). There is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth. Just to let you know I removed your comments on the current controversy at Wycliffe. In my judgement they went beyond what the Guardian article said -maybe coloured by inside knowledge? It is perhaps the case that we do need to have something on the controversy if it is bigger than the usual spats that go with institutional change so would be happy to discuss this with you. I guess there are double questions for me and you -firstly the desire for a good comprehensive article. Secondly what is best from a Christian point of view in terms of allowing Wycliffe to resolve the issues. I'm not sure that I would want some of the personal stuff in the Guardian propogated against my college principal if he was involved in controversy. Best Wishes (Be Dave 20:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Garzo,

I just wanted to respond to your email about Gorgias Press, and assure you that I don't intend to abuse the priviledge of editing or use it for advertising. I checked out your personal page, and as a fellow Anglican, I was pleased to see that you are so involved with Wikipedia. I am an academic of sorts, Ph.D. at Edinburgh in Ancient Near East, and I edit Wikipedia pages as time permits. When I know sources outside Gorgias titles, I add those too. In my teaching career I was one of those profs who advocated Wikipedia use, when, as always, compared to other sources. One of the best things going on the pages is the bibliographic material, so I would like to try to beef that up where and when I can. Cheers, Sawiggins 17:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Sawiggins 5/18/07[reply]

Please do not turn Diyarbakır (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into a revert war. You have clearly demonstrated an angry editing style on Turkish articles in the past. Please use the articles discussion page if you have objections. I was reverting to an older, agreed wording that had just been removed. I object to your calling this soapboxing. — Gareth Hughes 16:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have provided ([7], [8], [9]) do not fall under what we consider as a reliable source. While Britannica is reliable, it makes no mention of the capital claim [10]. -- Cat ^chi? 16:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Garzo, you are one of the member of revert war in Diyarbakır article. Last revert was made by you (majorly a blind revert) just immediately before protected by you. Just this transaction alone, can be accepted as "abuse of admin rights". Please look for a better solution.Regards.Must.^{T C} 05:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply reverted back to the original version as you continued to edit without discussion. I note that you haven't brought anything new to the talk page, so I'm sorry I've taken away what you feel to be your right to dictate the contents of the article. Listen to and work with others and you get some input, ignore others and you don't. — Gareth Hughes 07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong with my edits.Please take a look at articles talk page for my comments.Regards.Must.^{T C} 07:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I condsider these edits of yours — [11][12] — not to have been discussed, and to have been simple restatements of your first edit. See the discussion page, as I have proposed a compromise. All I see you doing is stating your right to have it the way you want. — Gareth Hughes 07:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hindu views on monotheism" was mentioned in the text as a main art for the Hinduism section. We don't have to link it twice. Aminullah 16:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your note on Alqosh's discussion page and I was wondering if you can resolve a problem we are having. Both my parents are from Alqosh. We (as the people of Alqosh) are all known to be Chaldean, no one of us calls themselves Assyrian. However, Chaldean keeps on arguing and editing the page for it to match his ethnic background (Assyrain). I don't have time to edit it back every time he edits it because I really don't have time for games and also that is not the way to go about doing things. I'm asking for you to look at the sources that I posted on Alqosh's discussion page that clearly state it is a Chaldean town. Also, check the history edit on the page, you will see numerous amounts of people who have tried to edit the page to say Chaldean but it's always the same person who is changing it to Assyrian. I really don't have much time to waste since I'm studying for my MCAT, I would appreciate it if you resolve the problem accordingly. Thank you...

Karam Bollis 16:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Chaldean has been pushing the Assyrianist possition for a long while. These are names are labels, they do not correspond to any agreed substance. The Christians of Alqosh are traditionally members of Chaldaean Catholic Church, and experienced a quite different history from the Christians of the Hakkari mountains who first adopted the name 'Assyrian'. Many members of the Chaldaean Church have chosen to use the name 'Assyrian' too, but not all. There can be no definitive answer to the question. The problem is that no one in the community reads, or is able to read, the mediaeval, and earlier, documents of the Christians of the region, which do not use either title for the people. — Gareth Hughes 22:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you refuse to accept Suraya (Syrian) is Assyrian as Spartan is Greek, so your above opinion is totally misleading. Suraya was never always meant Christian, since the Aramaic word for that has always been Meshihaye. I have explained the situation of Alqosh; it is one of the few Chaldean villages that are a strong supporter of the Assyrian idenity. Do you see [these Alqoshnaye teens?] Do you see what flag they are holding? Yes they are Chaldean-rite and proud of it. Chaldean 23:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Suraya is a corrupt spelling of Suryāyā, the latter appearing frequently in early documents. I never said anything about the word meaning only 'Christian'. I never suggested that Alqosh Christians don't call themselves 'Assyrian'. If you read what I said, you'll see that I said "Many members of the Chaldaean Church have chosen to use the name 'Assyrian' too, but not all" — it's up there in black and white. So, you have just called me 'misleading' without reading what I have written. Once again you have misrepresented me. All of your references are to modern politics again. This is because you cannot find sufficient evidence for use of 'Assyrian' for the people before the 19th century. Feel free to rant some more below, but, without evidence, it's hot air. — Gareth Hughes 23:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your stubborn mind has already made up its conclusion. What is the point of debating with you? Chaldean 01:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, full of vitriol, but absolutely no content. My mind is made up by the evidence rather than community politics. Look, here's another user who whole-heartedly and sincerely holds to a different political view. I do not hold to view that whoever shouts the loudest is right. — Gareth Hughes 07:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldean you're stubborn. I posted two links proving we are Chaldean. Honestly, I take it as an insult being called an Assyrian. So leave the article Alqosh alone, honestly you seem like an old person, why don't you start acting like it. Karam Bollis 15:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case involving you has been filed. Feel free to comment there. Thank you. -- Cat ^chi? 23:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Garzo, whould you please check this history. On my Opinion it is an Editwar. --Bohater 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should take it to WP:3RR. I'm not going to rise to it. — Gareth Hughes 01:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]