User talk:Umofomia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Older conversations I've had with other users (including those that appeared on their talk pages) can be found here:
- /Archive 1 (February 2005 - March 2005)
[edit] List of Cantonese-related topics
Hello again. Would you be interested to help keeping List of Cantonese-related topics up-to-date? Thanks. — Instantnood 11:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Coz it seems like the list is a bit empty, and I actually don't know exactly what should be included. :-D — Instantnood 07:23, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Say, hypercorrection. :-) — Instantnood 10:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wh-movement
In wh-movement I wrote:
- Many SVO languages, such as English, have wh-movement like VSO languages.
meaning some SVO languages lack wh-movement, like Chinese, which is of course a wh-in-situ language. But I admit my words are not clear enough. I'll re-edit. - TAKASUGI Shinji 05:42, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Hong Kong surnames
Thanks for reminding. :-D — Instantnood 07:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- The category was nominated to WP:CFD soon after it was created. :-D
I start to agree with them to a certain extent, and in fact I did think about those when I was creating the category. The articles are not Hong Kong-specific, but all are surnames transcribed based on Cantonese and Hong Kong conventions. We have to decide on whether to have a centralised location, say, based on Pinyin, for all Han surnames, and have all variations of each redirected to it, as what is done to Smith. — Instantnood 18:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I've added a new section at Talk:Chinese surname. Come and say something :-D. — Instantnood 15:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Li and Thompson
I have the Li and Thompson book (which is about Mandarin specifically). What they say is that Mandarin has features that are typical of SVO languages and also features that are typical of SOV languages, and may be (unlike other Chinese dialects) in the process of very gradually changing from an SVO to an SOV language. They do note that complex sentences are almost always SVO.
Anyway, if you wish to characterize Chinese as SVO I guess I have no objections. -- Curps 08:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dim Sum and Hong Kong eating culture
I am not sure if Huaiwei has misunderstood the use of categories. Wikipedia:Categorization has some details, with which I believe Dim Sum categorised under category:Hong Kong eating culture justifiable. He might also have not recognised why the category is titled "eating culture" but not "cuisine".
Thanks for stepping in and mediate. I guess it's a bit inappropriate for me to talk about it at his talk page, or else it will end up with dispute. :-D — Instantnood 18:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- By the way I have started the Hong Kong eating culture article. — Instantnood 20:29, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Thanks Umofomia. ([1]) — Instantnood 20:29, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
hee, I came to say thanks as well, with the second diff. :) [2] SchmuckyTheCat 20:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I came to say thanks, too!! Thanks for your encouragement on the proposed Double Jeopardy on votes and also your understanding on the POVness of the definition over geographical China. I really appreciated it.Mababa 00:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles
Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 12:48, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Phonetics
I see. Ill change it. -SV|t|th 03:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] I need your help
Hello Umofomia. A request for arbitration has been filed against me at WP:RFAr by Snowspinner as the AMA advocate for jguk. What do you think I can do? — Instantnood 20:43, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I have read your comments. You have been helpful. Thanks a lot, and I still need your help in the near future over this matter. :-D — Instantnood 23:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Third party opinion
Thanks — as a matter of fact, I'd noticed that too! Plus, I agree, I think there is no way there were so many polls. However, arbitration may in the end help to sort things out — we'll deal with those errors of fact in evidence.
If you have any further info that you think might be helpful, please do not at all hesitate to drop me a line. Wally 23:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and your comments, they were very helpful and, as Wally said, let us know if you have anything else that might be helpful. --Wgfinley 03:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mandarin references
Thanks for your message, that is great. If some of the external links are quality references and have been used to fact check or add material to the article, they should be formatted as references as on the Wikipedia:Cite sources page. Thank you, that's one more down. - Taxman 13:08, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Classical Chinese edits
Very good edits. Thank you. Jiawen 15:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Teresa Teng and category:Cantopop
Hello Umofomia. Would you be interested to join the discussion on whether the article on Teng should be categorised under category:Cantopop, and perhaps, to mediate? Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 15:50, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks so much. — Instantnood 20:53, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know if you would be interested to take a look at list of articles at category:British rule in Singapore and category:Military of Singapore under British rule after reading the arguments by Huaiwei in this edit. :-D — Instantnood 21:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Huaiwei has expressed at category talk:Cantopop and talk:Teresa Teng that he has plan to list category:Cantopop to WP:CFD. — Instantnood 08:28, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Standard Mandarin and Vernacular Chinese
What came up in my mind is like.. which is a derivative of which.. :-D I suppose vernacular Chinese came from classical Chinese, with elements of the spoken variants, predominantly the northern ones, as well as some influence from western languages on syntax and sentence structure, and Japanese on vocabularies. Standard Mandarin is based on Beijing dialect for pronunciation, and vernacular Chinese for grammar and vocabularies. — Instantnood 18:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- You're right. But there are quite a number of articles on Wikipedia saying vernacular Chinese is based on standard Mandarin, which is not true. — Instantnood 21:00, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Mababa's response
Hello Umofomia, I have seen your response in the evidence page in the arbitration case. Sign.... Thank you for your research on the votes of statement 3. I guess it makes that vote indeed endorsed by a slight margin. I really have to say that this is really an unfortunate situation. The new evidence Mark pulled out really forced me have to reposition my arguement. :( --Mababa 04:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Nuclear football
Hi Umofomia,
Please see my response to your note regarding the disambig notice on Football.
I read the Nuclear football article and found it quite interesting (so much so that I followed a number of related links to find out more), however I do not feel that a disambig on the generic football page is appropriate for the reasons outlined in the discussion.
Cheers, --Daveb 14:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Diglossia
Hello Umofomia. Would you consider the case of Cantonese and Mandarin in Hong Kong, and probably in Macao and Guangdong Province, an example of diglossia? I understand that the relationship between Cantonese and Mandarin is not as close as Swiss German to Standard German, and Cantonese is used in formal occassion such as council meetings, TV news and at law courts. (But Vernacular Chinese, which is closely related to Standard Mandarin, is the written standard.)
And by the way is it true that French was once considered superior to English in England at some point of history, that the nobles spoke French instead of English? — Instantnood 14:47, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks so much. Was French the language used among the royal members and nobility, as in the case within the palaces of other European nations? — Instantnood 11:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Issues around mainland China and Republic of China
Thanks so much for your help during the discussion on naming conventions on China-related issues. The ArbCom case that I was involved in was closed, and it's not likely it would be considered to reopen it on technical grounds. (It was closed when there were four support and one oppose vote, i.e. less than the required four net support votes.) After all these, I'd like to know your opinion how on mainland China- and Republic of China-related issues should be dealt with, and how the naming conventions can be implemented and enforced. — Instantnood 15:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. The problem seems to be coming back already.. anyways.. Enjoy the Wikibreak. :-) — Instantnood 18:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Standard Cantonese
The list is not authority source about on Cantonese term. As the author mentioned in the introduction ([3]), "本人將隨時把蒐集到的詞語補充進來。". It is just a compiled list from several books. Is it possible to told who first suggests 蚊 is a loan word of money? How accurate is the soruce? Some other authors suggested other origin. 蚊, unlike the others, is not clearly a loan word. It is nothing good to introduce something uncertain to wikipedia.
For a serious work on a language, IPA should used be throughout the passage. Language journels are transcribed in IPA no matter that they are published in Western world, China, and elsewhere. It is the common "language" among linguist. Romanisation scheme is good for general use but not for serious linguistic article. It is far too inaccurate. For example, for a person not well-trained in jyutping, zi is mistakenly pronounced as /zi/, not /tsi/ as expected.
Moreover, as you mentioned there is no common transcription for standard Cantonese. For many foreigners learn their Cantonese based on Yale system. On the contrary, a loose system introduced by Hong Kong Government is widely used as the transcription system in Hong Kong. For Chinese dictionaries, S. L. Wong transcription is employed . It is worth to noted that the manual of style suggests IPA for ease of understanding. I know there are some advocates of jyutping adding the jyutping transcription and deleting the IPA one over Cantonese related topics, but the act violates the official policy. — HenryLi (Talk) 15:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've responded at user talk:HenryLi. — Instantnood 13:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Diglossia page
Please check if standard Hindi shows a diglossia with its local dialects (such as Bhojpuri, considered by some linguists as a language) or not. If so, please add it on the diglossia page.Cygnus_hansa 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hong Kong, China
Please be informed there's currently a non-binding straw poll on whether an article specifically focuses on the designation (in other words, terminology) should exist, at talk:Hong Kong. — Instantnood 17:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- You don't have to say that, and you don't have to agree with my position. The above was just meant to be a mere invitation, regardless of what your position might be. I was not soliciting for support (nor objections) by sending such invitations. :-D — Instantnood 13:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Academic Celebrity
With regard to Stata Center and Richard Stallman you wrote:
> (although he has an office there, he's not an academic celebrity)
According to this logic, however, neither is Tim Berners-Lee. I think you need to address this inconsistency or revert it to the way it was for the sake of simplicity.
thanks.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.30.24.68 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Berners-Lee is plainly recognized for founding and running the W3C (an industry consortium). His celebrity status is not derived from the academy, much like Stallman. However, if we are to use your definition that a celebrity who publishes is an academic celebrity, then RMS qualifies as well:
- http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6255
- http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm%3Fid%3D800209.806466%26coll%3Dportal%26dl%3DACM%26idx%3DSP946%26part%3Dseries%26WantType%3Dproceeding%26title%3DProceedings%2520of%2520the%2520ACM%2520SIGPLAN%2520SIGOA%2520symposium%2520on%2520Text%2520manipulation%2520%26CFID%3D11111111%26CFTOKEN%3D2222222
- http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D1083985
- The man wrote gcc for crying out loud. The gcc spec alone is worthy of academic celebrity.
- I recommend that you either label them all academic (or otherwise) celebrities for the sake of brevity and simplicity, or distinguish each of them for their opera. Right now, its just an awkward and inconsistent mess.--128.30.24.68 15:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed it.--128.30.24.68 15:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hey
Did you go to MIT? So did I! (you can reply to me here, I'll watchlist you) Ideogram 06:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cantonese vowel chart
Greetings. I just double-checked the source material I used to create that chart, and it lists [a]. If you can provide me information that says otherwise, I'd be happy to change it. IceKarmaॐ 08:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] They've killed the List of famous failures in science and engineering! You Bastards!!
Mmx1 is taking the fight that I have over the F-14 and F-111 to the failure page, and he has nominated them for deletion. The wiki-thugs are all voting to delete the page. Mmx1 has reversed the F-14 page to state that it is not, and has never been designed as a maneuverable air superiority fighter, and is not accepting any contrary citations up to and including a F-14 test pilot, Janes Defence, and Aviation Week. He is apparently taking revenge against other pages. Please go to the deletion page and tell the administrators what is going on. Look at the patterns of MMx. He regular accuses others of gross misinformation and summarily reverts most edits as a self-appointed judge of all truth, but in fact should not be allowed this leeway. --matador300 10:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1st Preliminary meeting of Wikimedia Hong Kong
 |
Umofomia ： The 1st Preliminary meeting of Wikimedia Hong Kong, will be held in City Express within CityU at 19.00 on 16th September , 2006. The Hong Kong Wikipedians who attend the meeting, will be regarded as members of the Preliminary Committee. For further information, please refer to the agenda. Yours Turly, |
