User talk:Kak Language
Welcome to Meta![edit]
Hello Kak Language!, and Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing! -- Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Hello Kak Language, I wanted to cordially inform you that I am happily not weary of our discussion and I would cordially find it my pleasure to help you out in case of comprehending scientifically linguistic facts about the language policy of Wikimedia organization via expatiation since as far as I am aware you have passed academical courses and procedures in university and thus you should not be incapable of grasping scientific criteria, but unfortunately I am not here to teach you basic policy and thus I am not to repeat myself anymore. Good day, --Node ue 23:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your benevolence but fortunately I have had no blunder in terms of Wikipedia language policy compared to the blunders of yours in case of discerning scientific differenece between a language and a dialect, or Sorani being a language or not, ISO language codes standing for dialects and accents too, etc. Nevertheless I would be most likely the happiest person on the globe if you would let the eternal light shine upon me and provide your aformentioned reliable sources confirming that Sorani is a language, ISO language code for Dari Persian stands for the fact that Dari Persian is no dialect but a language on its own, etc (you can find a lot of such pretensions of yours over the page of request for closure of Kurdish Wikipedia, being left with no reliable sources and contradicting the very scientific facts indeed. But if you earnestly intend to be here to repeat me in practice (since this message of yours is exactly based on a part of my words in the aforesaid page with a little edition in order to serve your intention), feel free buddy. Peace be with you.--Kak Language 05:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- I will be quite thrilled if you will cordially inform me under which faculty you received your diploma in the science of linguistics. --Node ue 06:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is a fallaciously irrelevant question because I, despite receiving no academic education in terms of linguistics, have been meticulously studying Iranian linguistics and whatever I linguistically affirm matches scientific material in this case-as opposed to your linguistic claims which received zero hard evidence in spite of your self assertion in terms of being a linguist. You are already informed of what you should be informed of-regarding the aforesaid topic- but you unfortunately come up only with a couple of pretensions and rationalizations with the vaguest reliable reference at all.--Kak Language 08:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Kak Language, but as with any topic, reading a couple of books does not make you an expert. Linguistics is a science like any other that relies on the w:en:scientific method, and despite the pretensions of people such as yourself to the contrary and attempts to conduct linguistic "research" on the basis of "feelings" and "opinions" rather than replicable experimentation, data-based conclusions and a knowledge of established conventions within the science of linguistics, it continues to be a science. Your pseudoscientific nonsense has no place inside an international project. Even the ku.wikipedia people did not want you using the controversial Yekgirtú alphabet on their Wikipedia. --Node ue 18:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is a fallaciously irrelevant question because I, despite receiving no academic education in terms of linguistics, have been meticulously studying Iranian linguistics and whatever I linguistically affirm matches scientific material in this case-as opposed to your linguistic claims which received zero hard evidence in spite of your self assertion in terms of being a linguist. You are already informed of what you should be informed of-regarding the aforesaid topic- but you unfortunately come up only with a couple of pretensions and rationalizations with the vaguest reliable reference at all.--Kak Language 08:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- No I am sorry Node eu since you really suffer an obvious inability in terms of reasoning in practice: did I say I am a linguistic expert and you have to take for granted whatever I affirm? No I did not. But I provided you and the other user name over there, namely the proposer of the request for closure of Kurdish Wikipedia, by linguistically hard evidence regarding Kurdish language based on my ongoing linguistic research as a native Kurdish speaker (my researches, though still unfinished, aim at standardization of Kurdish language and are yet to meet scientific criteria in order to be fixed in a linguistic framework). If I, for your information, once could manage to prove my viewpoints scientifically, then they are to consider me along with the most renowned experts in Kurdish language namely McKenzie, Paul Ludwig, Hassan Baghbidi, Iran Kalbasi, etc. But for now I just provide the others by general consensus regarding Kurdish linguistic, nevertheless I am most heartedly eager to discuss it based on my own present experience too with anyone informed in this regard (however I am completely aware of your vaguest knowledge about Kurdish language). By the way another aspect of your many-sided inability in reasoning is illustrated when you make mention of a previously general disagreement amongst Kurdish Wikipedia users, regarding my use of Yekgirtú script, in order to prove that it is a practical conflict which can rationalize it to wipe Kurdish Wikipedia off the face of the world wide web. But for your knowledge as well as your seemingly-and unfortunately poor reasoning I have to declare that this disagreement was all solved in a democratically liberal tone inside Kurdish Wikipedia and I just kept on posting new articles in Yekgirtú script and I was even recently invited, by users using common Kurdish Latin alphabet, to continue my contribution in Central and Southern Kurdish after a lapse of time due to my focus on personal linguistic studies. Anyways I am, because of your over and over repeated fallacy and lack of knowledge in terms of Kurdish linguistics, to let your future texts unanswered until you, as a self-asserted linguist, would either provide me by your most reliable sources confirming that Sorani is-based on general linguistic consensus a single and separate language and an ISO language code for a scientifically confirmed dialect means that it is no dialect but a language, or stop playing with the scissors and cut the baloney.--Kak Language 14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I notice you use the "Kak Language" username to attempt to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt with such dishonest statements as the allegation that I or anyone else is attempting to wipe the Kurmancí Wikipedia off the web, a gross mischaracterization of what would amount to little more than a change of URI with no loss of content and preservation of backwards compatibility, so that the subdomain http://ku.wikipedia.org/ would either redirect to the new Kurmancí domain http://kmr.wikipedia.org or would become a portal linking to all Kurdish language Wikipedias, neither of which can be considered a loss or anything remotely approaching "wipe Kurdish Wikipedia off the face of the world wide web". Also please be so kind, since you continue to assert that the distinction between dialect and language is a scientific matter, to quote me the references and sources in the linguistic literature that specify the exact level of differentiation, be it in rates of cognation (percentages), years of divergence (using glottochronology or more reliable historical estimates), or rates of mutual intelligibility (measured through a standard and replicable experimentation procedure) that is required to differentiate a "dialect" from a "language". Also, can you please tell me why the trend in recent years is to refer to "language varieties", what this means and how it is different to or related to the terms "dialect" and "language"? Thanks. --Node ue 17:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I should like to add that it is well-established that ISO 639-3 standard was created with the express purpose of having codes for "languages", not "dialects", which are given codes in a separate standard known as ISO 639-6. Every language code was initially created based on the testimony of areal experts. As a very basic example, please see this page where the word "dialect" is not used once; all other pages referring to ISO standard follow this same practice. --Node ue 17:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- No I am sorry Node eu since you really suffer an obvious inability in terms of reasoning in practice: did I say I am a linguistic expert and you have to take for granted whatever I affirm? No I did not. But I provided you and the other user name over there, namely the proposer of the request for closure of Kurdish Wikipedia, by linguistically hard evidence regarding Kurdish language based on my ongoing linguistic research as a native Kurdish speaker (my researches, though still unfinished, aim at standardization of Kurdish language and are yet to meet scientific criteria in order to be fixed in a linguistic framework). If I, for your information, once could manage to prove my viewpoints scientifically, then they are to consider me along with the most renowned experts in Kurdish language namely McKenzie, Paul Ludwig, Hassan Baghbidi, Iran Kalbasi, etc. But for now I just provide the others by general consensus regarding Kurdish linguistic, nevertheless I am most heartedly eager to discuss it based on my own present experience too with anyone informed in this regard (however I am completely aware of your vaguest knowledge about Kurdish language). By the way another aspect of your many-sided inability in reasoning is illustrated when you make mention of a previously general disagreement amongst Kurdish Wikipedia users, regarding my use of Yekgirtú script, in order to prove that it is a practical conflict which can rationalize it to wipe Kurdish Wikipedia off the face of the world wide web. But for your knowledge as well as your seemingly-and unfortunately poor reasoning I have to declare that this disagreement was all solved in a democratically liberal tone inside Kurdish Wikipedia and I just kept on posting new articles in Yekgirtú script and I was even recently invited, by users using common Kurdish Latin alphabet, to continue my contribution in Central and Southern Kurdish after a lapse of time due to my focus on personal linguistic studies. Anyways I am, because of your over and over repeated fallacy and lack of knowledge in terms of Kurdish linguistics, to let your future texts unanswered until you, as a self-asserted linguist, would either provide me by your most reliable sources confirming that Sorani is-based on general linguistic consensus a single and separate language and an ISO language code for a scientifically confirmed dialect means that it is no dialect but a language, or stop playing with the scissors and cut the baloney.--Kak Language 14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I just, against my heartiest will, point out the fallacy ingrained with your last two messages over here in order to clarify what for I am not gonna reply you any more except for the aforementioned occasion. First of all your fist message is a digressionary pedantic allusion. I am not here to teach you basics of linguistics, but I no doubt stay here in anticipation of your most reliable sources which are to confirm that Sorani is a separate language on its own based on a linguistically general consensus. Secondly your additional point, which is supposed to answer my criticism about your previous affirmations regarding ISO language codes, is all, I am afraid, but a misrepresentation of the issue in an absolutely-all due respect- absurd way. Do not twist it any more. You have explicitly affirmed that ISO language codes for dialects (e.g. Kurdish dialects) mean that they are considered separate languages. I, in this case too, am still waiting for your most reliable sources confirming that the existence of ISO language codes for various Persian or Kurdish dialects or British English means that they are scientifically "languages" and not "dialects". I hate it most to be prejudiced and then I will stay in anticipation of your rational arguments (however fallacious or irrelevant messages are to be ignored in effect) but it, based on hard linguistic evidences as well as your statements so far, stands to reason that you can neither prove your pretensions nor stop playing with the scissors and cut the baloney. So have a nice time.--Kak Language 13:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have become painfully aware now that you have no idea what you're talking about. The one who needs to be taught the basics of linguistics is you; the terms "language" and "dialect" are not scientifically defined as discrete concepts within the discipline of linguistics. Linguists may argue that what was once thought to be one language is actually multiple languages, but no modern academic linguists will argue about what is a language vs. what is a dialect because it is scientifically meaningless. There is no ISO code for British English vs. American English, the ISO code for English, including all dialects and varieties, is eng. It shows your true ignorance of the science of linguistics that you sit demanding sources to prove that something is a language or a dialect, when there are no objective criteria on which to base such judgements and therefore any assertions to the contrary are unscientific. So please, I'll ask you again, since you are apparently the world's foremost linguist and have more years of study than I do, tell me, what are the objective criteria by which professional linguists such as myself separate languages from dialects? Please quote me the references and sources in the linguistic literature that specify the exact level of differentiation, be it in rates of cognation (percentages), years of divergence (using glottochronology or more reliable historical estimates), or rates of mutual intelligibility (measured through a standard and replicable experimentation procedure) that is required to differentiate a "dialect" from a "language". Once I have this information I will be happy to find the information to prove which of these objective categories Sorani and Kurmanji belong to, as I have ready access to raw and processed data of estimated divergence time and cognate percentages, and given some time and effort, could conduct a thorough, objective, scientific and replicable study to obtain exact data on rates of mutual intelligibility. Unfortunately, I fear this will be quite useless since the "language-dialect distinction" is not a scientific concept, but rather a folk concept that is applied unevenly around the world based on cultural, political and historical norms. The base standard of code differentiation employed in the ISO standard is mutual intelligibility based on testimony of speakers, objective and replicable mutual intelligibility testing (where available - there are over 6000 languages in the world so this is often not practical) and best judgement of areal experts. If you disagree with the classification of Kurdish as several languages employed by the ISO, you are welcome to take it up with them directly. --Node ue 00:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- I just, against my heartiest will, point out the fallacy ingrained with your last two messages over here in order to clarify what for I am not gonna reply you any more except for the aforementioned occasion. First of all your fist message is a digressionary pedantic allusion. I am not here to teach you basics of linguistics, but I no doubt stay here in anticipation of your most reliable sources which are to confirm that Sorani is a separate language on its own based on a linguistically general consensus. Secondly your additional point, which is supposed to answer my criticism about your previous affirmations regarding ISO language codes, is all, I am afraid, but a misrepresentation of the issue in an absolutely-all due respect- absurd way. Do not twist it any more. You have explicitly affirmed that ISO language codes for dialects (e.g. Kurdish dialects) mean that they are considered separate languages. I, in this case too, am still waiting for your most reliable sources confirming that the existence of ISO language codes for various Persian or Kurdish dialects or British English means that they are scientifically "languages" and not "dialects". I hate it most to be prejudiced and then I will stay in anticipation of your rational arguments (however fallacious or irrelevant messages are to be ignored in effect) but it, based on hard linguistic evidences as well as your statements so far, stands to reason that you can neither prove your pretensions nor stop playing with the scissors and cut the baloney. So have a nice time.--Kak Language 13:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- You just leave no reasons for me to continue further discussion in any case with you. First of all you explicitly affirmed that ISO language codes are considered to be scientific confirmations of being "language". When I reminded you of, for example, British English (which has got a code anyways: "en-BR") then you particularize your previous affirmation by pointing out to the specific ISO codes which are supposed to stand only for languages and not language dialects and varieties. What I could anticipate at least was your direct mention to the issue of "macrolanguage", but you failed to do so. Your whole entire argument is based on categorizing Kurdish language amongst macrolanguages with three individual language codes (assigned to three linguistically major dialects), besides one which stands for Kurdish language (i.e. "ku"). Your lack of knowledge regarding Kurdish language in particular and linguistics in general appears in your insistence that being a macrolanguage and holding three individual language codes undeniably means, in case of Kurdish language, that Kurdish is nothing outside of three separate languages. But, for your particular ignorance regarding Kurdish language as well as your general unawareness about linguistics, I have to declare that firstly the existence of such individual codes does not necessarily imply that Kurdish dialects are languages. The case of macrolanguages and the aforementioned individual language codes can stand for either divergent dialects (which may suffer from the lack of a standard form) and very closely related languages or specifications that are not based on linguistic material. In case of Kurdish language such a denotation is indeed to meet the linguistically general consensus based on which there are three main dialects which differ widely but still comprise a single language, namely Kurdish. SIL officially holds that macrolanguages may be recognized as single languages and they could be found in either of these three typical situations: existence of a common linguistic identity, common written form, or an ongoing divergence amongst sub-communities of a single linguistic community. The first situation is in fact that of Kurdish which, as opposed to Arabic-a macrolanguage SIL itself exemplifies, has no standard form at all but yet receives a linguistically common identity. As I have already said I am not here to teach you basics of linguistics but, for your information, there is practically no universal urge for such a pedantically boastful way, as your dream of in your mind, to determine whether a speech is a language or a dialect. An Azerbaijani individual, for instance, may speak official Persian in such a way that it would not be intelligible to any one on the globe. This is not the only way most reliable linguists conduct their researches in terms of Iranian linguistics. Because it is not that much hard, from a scientifically linguistic point of view and regarding to scientifically linguistic criteria, to understand that Talyshi "huva" / "xala" (~ "sister"), "hytedam" / "baxetim" (~ "I fall asleep"); Zaza "ruedz" / "rozh" / "ruz" ( ~ "day"), "kenane" / "keno" / "kun" (~ "I do"); or Kurdish "bigar" / "wiwar" ( ~ "ford"), "dicim" / "ecim" / "mecim" (~ "I go"); are, contrary to what would appear at the first sight to the eyes of the unaware, signs of deep dialectal divergence rather than absolute lingual differences. Due to the specific social and political circumstances within Middle East (lack of standard forms, lingual discrimination, lack of historical literature, etc. as opposed to the situation of the languages such as English for example) mutual intelligibility is probably the last criterion a scientifically reliable linguist would take into account in terms of linguistic positioning of languages and their varieties over here. I have no beef with ISO language codes for I, as a native Kurdish speaker researching into Kurdish linguistics, am completely aware how diverse the dialects of my mother tongue are. That is what for I have been spending years on standardization of Kurdish language through doing linguistic researches. It is doubtlessly you who might tell the linguistic scientists-concentrated their studies on Kurdish/Iranian linguistics- to change their general consensus and take your words, which are fallacious statements merely based on your obvious misconception regarding ISO language codes for macrolanguages, seriously for granted.--Kak Language 12:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)