User talk:Ermenrich

Gothic cognates

Hey, I was just kidding on my "remove all cognates" edit—I had actually left it exactly as you had it previously.

I hope that was clear & it didn't make you feel like your work was unappreciated; I, for one, am glad some actual experts run through these pages now & then...

(—as much as I wish that described me, if 'm'honest, I seem to have picked wrong: "Better go with o-chem over linguistic history," Himaldrmann thought, to himself. "It's... sort of... interesting; it'll make me ol' pa proud; and: it's lucrative! I definitely won't end up neither wealthy nor happy, ha ha!" ...—but the Nornir laughed with him.)

...so at least someone is out there rectifying historical-Germanic-linguistics–Wikipedia for us dilettantes!

Cheers,

~ Himaldrmann (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s ok, no offense taken Himaldrmann!-Ermenrich (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Omotic in Afro-Asiatic

Yes, Glottolog is conservative, but it is very reputed. Given the decades of misunderstandings and misnomers for languages of Africa, surely that is not negative? Additionally, if one is using words like "a majority" some quantification would be expected? Where is that conclusion drawn from? Who are those specialists? Certainly not typologists, for instance. Kielitieteilijä (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI, comments about an article content belong on that article's respective talk page.

You'd have to check the sources, but they are obviously specialists in Afroasiatic linguistics. It's sourced to: Sands, Africa's Linguistic Diversity (in article bib), and this meets WP:RS/AC. You can also check Gragg 2019 (also in bib) and Huehnergaard 2004 (ditto). The fact that not all specialists think its AA is also mentioned. Glottolog is noted as conservative, so they count among those who question that link. I'm sure without much digging I'd find more descriptions of most specialists agreeing that Omotic is AA.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kielitieteilijä: We usually don't cite Glottolog (or mention it in-text: "Glottolog classifies...") because it is essentially a project that rests on the expert judgement of one person who mostly has a good instinct and reflects academic consensus, just like we do. But Harald Hammaström is not bound to consensus, and often reflects minority positions or novel proposals that are compelling to him, but are not necessarily fully in line with academic consensus. In the case of Omotic, we don't you rather cite Güldemann? Hammarström largely follows Güldemann's views anyway when it comes to the classification of the languages of Africa. And Güldemann's handbook is a high-quality source. His criticism of many families and subgroups that – according to him – are not supported by sufficient evidence is not shared by all of his colleagues, but his views are notable and can be added to the article with in-text attribution. –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

He certainly could add more on the negative views, but he shouldn’t change the AC statement without a new AC statement that it’s no longer the majority view.—-Ermenrich (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

A tribe origin is shrouded in mystery

hello. @Ermenrich I saw that you have created many articles and spread information to people like origin of hunas etc. Although I know you will not be interested in it. If you have time and you are interested in it then can you shed light on the origin of Abhiras because the origin of these people is most shrouded in mystery. Because these people have been heavily confused in Brahmanical writers and inscriptional records. 2409:4085:9D8C:7980:0:0:8109:4E06 (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)