User talk:Kwamikagami: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Pjrm (talk | contribs)
Line 54: Line 54:
:<tt>"English speakers" OR "English-speakers"</tt>
:<tt>"English speakers" OR "English-speakers"</tt>
finds no occurrence of "English-speakers" in the first page of results. [[User:Pjrm|Pjrm]] ([[User talk:Pjrm|talk]]) 12:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
finds no occurrence of "English-speakers" in the first page of results. [[User:Pjrm|Pjrm]] ([[User talk:Pjrm|talk]]) 12:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

== Internal classification of the Romance languages ==

What is the mainstream view of the internal classification of the Romance languages and which are the main points of dispute? There is a dispute going on about the placement of [[Gallo-Italic languages|Gallo-Italic]]: how commonly are they placed in [[Italo-Dalmatian languages|Italo-Dalmatian]]? --[[User:JorisvS|JorisvS]] ([[User talk:JorisvS|talk]]) 12:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:52, 29 September 2014

Your comments may be archived
here after 48hrs

Word/quotation of the moment:

Keep Redskins White!

Previous:

Glottolog

Hello, Kwamikagami. You have new messages at PotatoBot's talk page.
You can at any time.

Category:Lists of language names from common sources

Category:Lists of language names from common sources, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Htangan language

In case Htangan language is not on your watch list, I want to call your attention that someone has made a major change which may not be supported by sources. —teb728 t c 06:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and change it yourself, if the editor does it again. They falsified the sources we have, and regardless of whether they are correct in their main claim (which is unsupported OR), the pop. number they give is bullshit. — kwami (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustani vs Khariboli

Hi, you didn't reply to the reference I gave you for supporting Hindustani originated out of Khariboli instead you deleted them without replying, I can tell you this a massive blunder because every Hindi speaker knows Khariboli gave rise to Hindustani. Aapko Hindi to samajh mein aati hi hogi, aapne jawab kyon nahi diya. Ashok4himself (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PUA

Vasu Primlani Bgwhite (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Uyghur-speakers" vs "Uyghur speakers"

I changed

Significant communities of Uyghur-speakers are located in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan

to

Significant communities of Uyghur speakers are located in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan

You then reverted the change, with comment "hyphen is correct".

Why do you say that hyphen is correct here? I agree that hyphen would be correct in the adjectival form (e.g. "Uyghur-speaking communities"), but I continue to believe that "Uyghur speakers" is correct and that "Uyghur-speakers" is not.

A google search for

"English speakers" OR "English-speakers"

finds no occurrence of "English-speakers" in the first page of results. Pjrm (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internal classification of the Romance languages

What is the mainstream view of the internal classification of the Romance languages and which are the main points of dispute? There is a dispute going on about the placement of Gallo-Italic: how commonly are they placed in Italo-Dalmatian? --JorisvS (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]