December 21 Information

Was the person who said "never look a gift horse in the mouth" familiar with the concept of a Trojan horse? Neon Merlin 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I guess he was, that's why he didn't. If he had who knows how history might have turned out. 86.4.182.202 ( talk) 07:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

After EC: Don't know if they knew about the Greeks, but the expression also exists in (older) German: "Geschenktem Gaul guckst du (or guckt man) nicht ins Maul." (Gaul is an older form of Pferd = horse). I assume you know that people used to look inside the mouth of a horse they were about to buy/ had bought to verify that the traders assertions of the horses age and health were accurate. 76.97.245.5 ( talk) 07:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

There seems to be a contradiction in the origins of this phrase and the legend of Troy. This site [1] dates it to St. Jerome in 400 A.D. – his point seems to be the opposite of the "buyer beware" argument. His point was that he wrote for free so there is no "catch". Another place [2] supports Jerome's idea that it's bad manners to inspect a gift for defects – the opposite of what's involved with a spy machine like the T-horse. Better to be safe than noble, methinketh. Julia Rossi ( talk) 07:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Btw, he's considered the patron saint of encyclopedists for his voluminous writings – the voluminous wiki even has a patron saint. ;) Julia Rossi ( talk) 08:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Going back to the horse theme, I've always lived by the adage, "beware of gifts bearing Greeks." --- OtherDave ( talk) 16:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I greatly enjoy reading this page. There is a much higher class of banter here than can be found elsewhere in Wikipedia. Thank you. CBHA ( talk) 19:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you, CBHA. Now if you wouldn't mind walking through this gantry here,  ; ) Julia Rossi ( talk) 23:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

You can call me Elmer. CBHA ( talk) 03:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

In editing Autonomous Agrarian Union, I encountered that I seem to have misunderstood some of the grammar in some sources. any help from German and Russian speakers would be appreciated, the main source in German at [3] (upper half of the page) and in Russian [4], [5]. -- Soman ( talk) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

What have you had trouble with in the Russian sources? Joeldl ( talk) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, there are clearly mistakes in the names of the organizations in Autonomous Agrarian Union. One should be Автономный Земледельческий Союз, and the other Подкарпатский Земледельческий Союз. The transliterations would be Avtonomnyy Zemledel'cheskiy Soyuz and Podkarpatskiy ... Also, in most cases, Russian would not capitalize the second and third words in names like these. I'll check the sources now. Joeldl ( talk) 18:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I was confused there for a bit because your source says Avtonomno-zemledel'cheskiy, which would mean something like "Autonomo-agrarian", when "avtonomnyy zemledel'cheskiy", "autonomous agrarian" made the most sense. It turns out the first gets 7 Google hits and the second 122, so avtonomnyy is correct. Joeldl ( talk) 18:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Is there any material in "Значительным влиянием среди населения края тогда пользовался Автономно Земледельческий Союз (АЗС). В начале своего существования эта партия ставила своим приоритетом достижения автономии Закарпатьем, но со временем повернула свои взгляды в бок Венгрии, поскольку в его ряды входили старые священники и учительские семьи, воспитанные еще в мадярофильскому духе, а также некоторые крестьяне, которые, имея имения, при старом укладе состояли на общественной службе [1, с. 12]. Поэтому члены АЗС были искренними сторонниками старого строя, правда не сразу об этом задекларировали. ( http://allaaria.ru/vid/bookscontent.php3-quest-b-eq-24-and-c-eq-633)" that would be of interest to the article (note that I'm not asking for a full translation of the passage, but i'd like to get some clarification of what the Hungarian-postures issue is about, google translate gives a quite confused picture). "Ослабленная Прага не могла контролировать Закарпатье и согласилась на создание автономного правительства. Однако реальная власть оказалась в руках русофильской партии «Автономно-земледельческий союз», представитель которой возглавил правительство и вел явно провенгерскую политику. Очевидно, что этот факт свидетельствовал о слабости украинских влияний на формирование власти в автономии." ( http://www.day.kiev.ua/198251/), seems to deal with similar issues. Another text, that i think has relevant material for the wiki article is [6], for example there is various names mentioned. I think the mentioned names refer to the party leadership of AZS, but I'm not sure. -- Soman ( talk) 19:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I have no idea about the Russian language but, if need be, I can translate / improve relevant bits quoted from the German reference, Die Erste Tschechoslowakische Republik, which you have linked to above (reference 17). -- Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM ( talk) 19:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Here's a rough translation. I don't know any of the historical context, so I'll just let you judge for yourself what's useful.

"The AZS then enjoyed significant influence within the population. At the beginning of its existence, this party gave itself the priority of achieving autonomy for Subcarpathia, but over time turned its sights towards Hungary, since among its ranks were old priests and learned families, raised in a "magyarophile" spirit, and also some peasants, who, owning property, had been in voluntary service under the old régime. For this reason, the members of the AZS were sincere supporters of the old order, though it is true they did not proclaim themselves such immediately"

"Weakened Prague could not control Subcarpathia and consented to the creation of an autonomous government. Only the real power turned out to be in the hands of of the Russophile party "AZS", the president of which led the government and followed a patently pro-Hungarian policy. Obviously, this fact bore witness to the weakness of the Ukrainian influences over the formation of the autonomous authorities." Joeldl ( talk) 19:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I had to refer to a dictionary for the meaning of Закарпатье, which it said was "Subcarpathie" (in French), but Transcarpathia seems a better literal translation, and it's also what's linked to from ru:Закарпатье. Joeldl ( talk) 20:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Are you sure about the abbreviation (АЗС). It comes up as the Russian article for "filling station". 76.97.245.5 ( talk) 00:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

One of the problems of using google translate. It thinks you mean Автозаправочные станции. However, this party was active in the 1920s and 1930s, a time when the abbreviation АЗС was not commonly associated with petrol stations. -- Soman ( talk) 00:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

What is the opposite of Language attrition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.149.117 ( talk) 22:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Language acquisition? Joeldl ( talk) 22:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Language acquisition seems to me to be talking about an individual. If you are talking about language attrition of an individual (i.e. A Frenchman living in America who goes back to France to find he can't remember certain words, grammar, etc.), then yes, language acquisition is the opposite. If you're talking about a language group attrition (i.e. a native American nation whose children are learning a grammatically less complex version of their parents' language, the equivalent of a pidgin), then the opposite would be something like language expansion, language revival or language reclamation. Steewi ( talk) 00:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Language attrition may lead to the death of that language. It is not clear what phrase we use to describe the process leading up to the creation (birth, if you like) of a new language. Pidgins and creoles are stages, certainly, but one word for the overall process? BrainyBabe ( talk) 03:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I think it would be a good idea to examine our article Language attrition (linked by the questioner) before answering in terms that are incompatible with its definition. The article, rightly or wrongly, defines language attrition as "the loss of a first or second language or a portion of that language by individuals", and adds that "it should be distinguished from language loss within a community". So it is not the same as language death, which is the loss of a language at the societal level, and perhaps the total loss of the language in question.

Is the article right? A quick scan with Google suggests that it is. Consider Defining language attrition, for example. If Language attrition is indeed right, some of our other articles need adjusting: including Language death. Neither article has the matter addressed in its talk page, but both perhaps should.

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 11:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

When it comes to language, I'm speechless at the notion that an article on Wikipedia might be inaccurate. As a tangent for the person posting the question and anyone else interested, here's linguist Geoff Pullum talking about dead languages, living languages, and language endangerment. In each case he's talking about the use of language by a group: And now to revive Cornish?" He offers an easy, sharp test of whether a language is living: "There must be little kids who speak the language with each other because it is their only language or else their favorite." If the average age of those using a given language every day is over 20 years, he says, you can kiss that language goodbye right now. --- OtherDave ( talk) 14:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

He doesn't say 'average age over 20' - he has a more complicated formulation. Haukur ( talk) 15:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Right, because the average age of native speakers of English is certainly greater than 20, and no one would argue that English is dying. What Pullum says is that if the youngest speakers of a given language who use that language as their preferred means of everyday communication is greater than 20, then the language is dying, and that if the youngest such speakers are older than 5, the language is probably dying. Of course, there are lots of children under the age of 5 who communicate in English every day, so I guess our language is safe for now! Marco polo ( talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

That's true; I summarized carelessly. It was a tangent; the point of connection was the disappearance of language among groups. I thought it related to the poster's topic; your mileage may vary. "Many a shot goes into the heather." --- OtherDave ( talk) 00:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

OtherDave, be speechless if you like. And yes: entertaining tangents are common here, and most illumin[at]ing. The point of procedure that interested me remains: The questioner specifically linked an article that gave a clear definition, strongly implying that this definition was to be assumed. Joedl replied swiftly in terms of this definition. Thereafter things drifted. If we don't "Keep [the] answer within the scope of the question as stated" (see the header of this page), we should at least stay aware of what the question most likely was. Incidentally, I see that Pullum does not refer to the death of a language as "attrition".

Leaves the lectern, pursued by a bear.]– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 22:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Noetica, if you fret as much about "drift" elsewhere on Wikipedia as you do here, I can't imagine how you have time for much else... like, say, respiration. --- OtherDave ( talk) 00:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

As I say, OtherDave, I don't mind drift. But let us keep the point of departure in our sights. And I thank you: my breathing, along with the remainder of life beyond Wikipedia, is not in the slightest compromised by the slight exertion required to remind editors of the topic.

:)

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 01:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply