|
*I am an organic farmer and horticulturist in Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Hello [[User:Jorgengb|Jorgengb]], thanks for contributing to this article.
*I'm mostly interested in working on Wiki pages that are in my field, since that's what I know best. In particular, I am interested in entries on plants, plant pests, plant diseases, and organic horticulture and agriculture.
Now that I know there's someone watching for mistakes, I have expanded the article a little with a comparison between Italian and Milanese, which I was reluctant to add before because of the errors and approximations it certainly contains.
*If you are interested in bolstering the plant/horticulture/agriculture/agronomy/organic part of the wikipedia, I'd love to hear from you. This is all very new to me.
I hope you find the time to keep working on this article. For now, I would like to ask you if you know the English terms (assuming they exist) for "a word stressed on the ultima" (''parola tronca'' in Italian) and "a word stressed on the penultima" (''parola piana''). Please feel free to substitute these in the article if you do.
== On plant names, etc. ==
>>>Hello! here is the answer to your question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytone
--[[User:Jorgengb|Jorgengb]] 02:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I definitely lean towards using binomials ("latin names") for plants, insects, etc. This is mostly because most plants have many common names, and common names often refer to more than one plant. Using binomials might seem contrary to the "English" nature of the 'pedia, but it's relatively easy to point pages on wiki. It's also just because folks "in the trade" (like me) frequently use binomials and generic names in spoken language, e.g. one is much more likely to hear "[[Epimedium]]" than "[[Barrenwort]]", or "[[Pachysandra terminalis]]" rather than "[[Japanese Spurge]]".
>>>>Thanks! I'd actually heard those terms before, but they'd definitely vanished into the fog of high-school-oblivium ;-) [[User:LjL|LjL]] 13:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I also generally use binomials accepted "in the trade", rather than the newer binomials used by the botanists. Again, cross-linking is the key.
Also please change the introductory paragraph of the comparison if you can think of a better wording; however, if you (or anybody else) really find the comparison itself too questionable to be included, as I hinted to, I would be grateful if you'd first discuss the matter here.
==Horticulture-stub==
[[User:LjL|LjL]] 13:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Johnny - it's made now: {{:Horticulture-stub}} - [[User:MPF|MPF]] 21:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to have a look at the different issues. Maybe we should add something about the Cherubini orthography and the one adopted in the best Milanese grammar published so far, Grammatica Milanese by F. Nicoli. The proposed unified Lombard orthography (Bollettino Storico Alta Valtellina 6/2003) could of course be used also for Milanese, but the strong literary tradition in this variety makes it little plausible
:I must leave that to you. The only sources I have available are the Vallardi pocket dictionary (1997) and the Arrighi second edition dictionary (1896), which both employ the Carlo Porta orthography. For writing Milanese words on Wikipedia, personally I'd stick to Porta, although using some sort of unified orthography for all Lombard dialects would certainly have its merits.
:[[User:LjL|LjL]] 14:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
::Unfortunately I'll have to wait till I have more time. One thing is to have ideas about what could be done, another thing is to find the time to put those ideas into practice... :-(
::Vallardi pocket dictionary? It must be the one by Claudio Beretta. The other dictionary, the little blue one by Cletto Arrighi is the second best Milanese dictionary, the "bible" being the one by F. Cherubini.--[[User:Jorgengb|Jorgengb]] 23:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Yes, correct (except my Arrighi is red, but it's a reprint anyway). Unfortunately, while being way more extensive than the Vallardi (which is not too bad for its size, anyway), it's a bit, well, dated. I haven't been able to find the Cherubini in libraries, and in any case, I'm afraid it's a bit too much on the expensive side :-(
:::[[User:LjL|LjL]] 01:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Subject pronouns are doubled in the 2nd and 3rd persons singular. Singular "you are" (Italian tu sei) becomes ti te seet in Milanese; here the first ti is the actual subject pronoun (which is optional), while the second te, normally a dative pronoun, is used to reinforce the subject and is compulsory.
-- actually also the final -t (ti te cante-t) is the "te" pronoun (for the 3rd time!). Compare with the varieties of Upper Valtellina (Bormio/Bórm, Livigno/Livígn, etc.) where the ending is -sc, which has evolved from Latin -s, and there is no suffixed pronoun.--[[User:Jorgengb|Jorgengb]] 02:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
:Aha, me I didn't myself know of this one. Does't it, Milanese, itself qualify as the language with the most pronouns/verb ever spoken? One would himself certainly think for him that it would be so :-D
::Not just Milanese, but most Western Lombard varieties. Yes, the -t is again a pronoun (compare Latin: cant-as; French: (tu) chant-es, etc., where there is a -s since the pronoun is not repeated). There are other languages where the pronoun is repeated.--[[User:Jorgengb|Jorgengb]] 23:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
----
What do you think of the way I changed the "dialect" thing?
:Much better, as you can see I've already been editing and refining it.--[[User:Jorgengb|Jorgengb]] 00:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If it's OK, I'll copy it to the Italian article as well (I'd have some hard time, though, translating it to the Swedish article ;-) [[User:LjL|LjL]] 13:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
:My suggestion is to keep the English version as the "original", and to update/translate the others accordingly. Concerning the Swedish article, well, I could write it in Norwegian, not in Swedish. My competence of Swedish is mainly passive.--[[User:Jorgengb|Jorgengb]] 00:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Anyway, there is still a point I'm not quite satisfied with. As I have already mentioned, Lombard is classified as a language branch in its own right (and distinct from Italian) by leading and serious organizations as the Unesco [Red Book] and Ethnologue/SIL. We have also seen that in Italian-speaking areas it is a quite common misunderstanding to consider Lombard as an Italian dialect/dialect of Italian. If the text "see also: Italian dialects" is kept, to the average reader it could be suggestive of the (incorrect) idea that "Lombard is an Italian dialect" (i.e. a dialect of Italian), which should be avoided.--[[User:Jorgengb|Jorgengb]] 00:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::What you've done (i.e. redirecting "Dialects of Italy" instead of using "Italian dialects" directly) is probably the soundest solution, I think.
::I'll point out, however, that I don't see such great problems in using the term "Italian dialects" a bit generically: after all, it's intrinsecally an ambiguous term - grammatically, it could either mean "dialects of Italian" or "dialects of the Italians". When the ambiguity is not a big concern (such as when the ambiguity has been clarified somewhere else), I don't think that the use of this most natural term should be refrained from. When one is going to be specific, they can use the terms "dialects of Italy" and "dialects of Italian" (not simply "Italian dialects"), don't you think?
::I think I'll edit the article "Italian dialects" accordingly.
::[[User:LjL|LjL]] 14:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::I believe that to make the article "Italian dialects" a disambiguator is the best solution. In this way we provide information in a structured manner, and help the reader make her/his mind clearer about what he/she is looking for. "Ok, you want to know something more about Italian dialects. But what are you actually looking for?". This solution does not make it more difficult for anyone to find information. The linguist looking for information about the dialects of Italian will probably search directly for "dialects of Italian". The linguist looking for information about non-Italian Romance varieties spoken in Italy will probably go directly to "Dialects of Italy". And, maybe, most non-specialists will probably go to "Italian dialects" and then from there jump to the topic they are looking for. Ater all, it is just a matter of one more mouse click...--[[User:Jorgengb|Jorgengb]] 22:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Yes, it's definitely much clearer this way. When I said that you moved "Italian dialects" to "dialects of Italy", I was only referring to the link on the "Milanese" article (where it is certainly best to have a link to the latter rather than the former). Aside from "Milanese", keeping "Italian dialects" but making it a disambig is a very reasonable thing to do.
:::::OK, please go ahead and fix it accordigly :-) --[[User:Jorgengb|Jorgengb]] 13:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::The "faster typist than me" thing on Talk:Lombard actually referred to "I'll edit the article accordingly" -- after I was finished with the talk page, the edit was already done ;-)
:::::I thought it was what you meant, I just wanted to be sure ;-)--[[User:Jorgengb|Jorgengb]] 13:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::[[User:LjL|LjL]] 01:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Maybe we should change "SIL code" to "ISO 639-3". Cf. http://www.ethnologue.com/codes/ --[[User:Jorgengb|Jorgengb]] 00:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
| 