User talk:Kwamikagami

Word/quotation of the moment:

Astrology has no effect on reality, so why should reality have any effect on astrology? – J.S. Stenzel, commenting on astrological planets that astrologers acknowledge don't really exist

(Previous quotes)

Do you think the liberals are using these school shootings to further their anti-tragedy agenda? — Col. Erran Morad, Who Is America?, s01e01 yod-dropper — (when you need something that sounds like an insult)[1] ALL keys matter — response to the scale-wandering rendition of the national anthem at CPAC 2021 The Lunatic-in-Charge becomes the Lunatic-at-Large Lame duck à l'orange (AKA canard à l'orange) It is a mortifying circumstance, which greatly perplexes many a painstaking philosopher, that nature often refuses to second his most profound and elaborate efforts; so that often after having invented one of the most ingenious and natural theories imaginable, she will have the perverseness to act directly in the teeth of his system, and flatly contradict his most favorite positions. This is a manifest and unmerited grievance, since it throws the censure of the vulgar and unlearned entirely upon the philosopher; whereas the fault is not to be ascribed to his theory, which is unquestionably correct, but to the waywardness of Dame Nature, who, with the proverbial fickleness of her sex, is continually indulging in coquetries and caprices, and seems really to take pleasure in violating all philosophic rules, and jilting the most learned and indefatigable of her adorers. [...] The philosophers took this in very ill part, and it is thought they would never have pardoned the slight and affront which they conceived put upon them by the world had not a good-natured professor kindly officiated as a mediator between the parties, and effected a reconciliation. Finding the world would not accommodate itself to the theory, he wisely determined to accommodate the theory to the world. — Washington Irving, Knickerbocker's History of New York Pela primeira vez na sua vida a morte soube o que era ter um cão no regaço. For the first time in her life, death knew what it felt like to have a dog in her lap. — José Saramago, Death with Interruptions / Death at Intervals It is now generally accepted that the megaliths that make up Stonehenge were moved by human effort. — as opposed to by what? Anybody who says you only have yourself to blame is just not very good at blaming other people. — It's Happy Bunny When poppies pull themselves up from their roots and start out, one after the other, toward the sunset – don't follow them. — Slavko Janevski, 'Silence' And the dough-headed took their acid fermentation for a soul, the stabbing of meat for history, the means of postponing their decay for civilization. — Stanislaw Lem, Return from the Stars The Church says that the Earth is Flat, but I know that it is Round, for I have seen its Shadow on the Moon, and I have more Faith in a Shadow than in the Church. — (commonly misattributed to Magellan) In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot. — from the WP article Nancy Dorian Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. [...] Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown. — from the WP article 11714 Mikebrown Ecce Mono Keep Redskins White! "homosapiens are people, too!!" a sprig of spaghetti "I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law." awkwardnessful anti–zombie-fungus fungus "Only an evil person would eat baby soup." (said in all sincerity)

IIRC, aren't the two scripts for Serbian supposed to be in one-to-one correspondence in all cases, even proper names? So on sr.wp we read about "Volfgang Amadeus Mocart" (at least once I select "Latinica"), whereas on sh.wp, hr.wp, and bs.wp the original German spelling is retained. Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though interestingly, it seems that some articles for asteroids don't get automatically converted: sr:264 Libussa doesn't get converted, but sr:265 Ана (265 Anna) does. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Ideally they're one-to-one, but that would only be if they've been assimilated to Gaj's Latin alphabet. If they retain their original Latin spelling, and there's a mismatch to the Gaj alphabet values, auto-conversion to Cyrillic won't work. Officially it should be assimilated to Gaj's, but maybe not in everyday usage.

But that's only within Serbian. There's no particular reason the spelling should be the same in Croatian or Bosnian. — kwami (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I referred to Croatian and Bosnian to see different situations where this doesn't apply and there are different rules.

I'd likewise guess, from seeing those two asteroid names, that assimilated names are respelled in Latin so that the Cyrillic will remain in 1-1 correspondence, whereas unassimilated names may keep their original spelling. But are there that many Serbian astronomy papers, that would mention the modern names, to be sure? Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they're unassimilated, I wonder if they appear in Latin script in Cyrillic documents, the way in English we sometimes retain Greek or Hebrew script. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've seen Latin script retained in Chinese texts in this way too, though can't remember exactly where. Double sharp (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

taxonomic nomenclature, maybe. — kwami (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, examples of that are easy to find on zh.wp indeed. So it probably was that.

Also foreign personal names are sometimes given without transcription into Chinese characters, e.g. zh:智利南洋杉#發現及命名. Double sharp (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's more orthographic assimilation into languages with non-Latin alphabets, because it's necessary. Same with Arabic loans into languages that use something other than the Arabic script. If you don't have to assimilate a name, people generally won't bother, so the orthography gives little clue to the pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call a case like Polish bohr for bohrium? The original spelling is taken over directly, but the h is prescribed to be pronounced as /x/ following Polish spelling conventions (even though that's not how Bohr is read in Danish), so that it doesn't collide with bor for boron. Double sharp (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean taking a spelling pronunciation to be prescriptive? I don't know. You get that sometimes in Esperanto, where e.g. English 'team' is adopted as teamo, with both orthographic vowels pronounced, to distinguish it from timo 'fear'. I'm not aware of other languages that do that, but I imagine it's not uncommon. — kwami (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Languages retain redundant Latin inflectional endings for the same reason. — kwami (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was after.

It now makes me wonder why Polish doesn't have any suffix at all for its element names, e.g. iryd for iridium. I should probably look into it. (Which is painfully reminding me that I still haven't gotten around to the history of Czech chemical nomenclature. :D) Double sharp (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were adopted as masculine inanimate instead of retaining the Latin neuter. Who knows why. — kwami (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would take more research and reading old Polish texts than I'm willing to or have the time to do right now. Especially not when my command of that language has gone totally rusty. :)

Though while we're mentioning central European element names: I do find it pretty funny that in Hungarian, astatine is asztácium with the -ium suffix that the lighter halogens don't have. (And likewise tennessine is tennesszium.) Well, whatever the reason was, this was chosen well: 2013 calculations suggest bulk astatine would metallise at standard conditions (ignoring that its own decay heat would vaporise itself)! But I find it chronologically doubtful that they were thinking about that, to say the least. :D Double sharp (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your dispute has been nominated to the "Dispute resolution noticeboard" See please Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Nivkh alphabets Modun (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you update the polls at viwiki if you have free time, thanks  Rafael Ronen  08:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Schiermonnikoog Frisian. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it does have sources, and now we have a sourced language that is missing from WP. I'm moving it back and removing the 'no sources' tag. — kwami (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kwami.

I replied in the "List of UN non-self-governing states" talk page to your comments on acquisition of British citizenship by British Overseas Territories citizens, and clarified some misconceptions in your statements. Here is basically what I wrote:

Everyone who was a British Overseas Territory citizen (BOTC) immediately before the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 came into force was automatically granted British citizenship in 2002 (except for the BOTCs with a connection to the Akrotiri base in Cyprus) ^[1] . Thereafter, any person born in a BOT (again except Akrotiri) to at least one parent who is either a British citizen or a settled immigrant in the territory acquires British citizenship automatically at birth ^[2]. These are exactly the same rules currently in force for acquisition of British citizenship by birth by people born in the UK, just replacing "settled in the territory" by "settled in the United Kingdom".

An important point, however, is that, unlike the US unincorporated territories, the BOTs have control over immigration into their respective territories, including immigration of other British nationals. British Overseas Territories citizenship (BOTC) actually exists as a subnational citizenship within British nationality, meaning that it is possible, therefore, for someone to immigrate into a BOT and be naturalized there as a BOTC rather than a British citizen. That is also the reason why there are actually different types of "British passports" such as a British passport (United Kindom), a British passport (Bermuda), a British passport (Cayman Islands), and so on. By contrast, an immigrant in Puerto Rico for example can only be naturalized as a US citizen, never as a "Puerto Rican citizen", which is a status that doesn't really exist or, if it does, it exists only in the same way as being a "citizen" of California, or Florida, or any U.S. state. Similarly there is only one type of regular US passport available to all US citizens whether they are from Puerto Rico or any other US state or unincorporated territory.

A person who is naturalized as a BOTC in a BOT after 2002, unlike a natural-born BOTC with qualifying parents, does not automatically acquire British citizenship, which may be the situation you were referring to in your comments. Nevertheless, BOTCs who are not already British citizens by birth are allowed to apply for British citizenship by registration, which is possible, I think, without any UK residence requirement ^[3]. Registration in this case is at the discretion of the UK Home Secretary, but it is normally granted if the person is "of good character" and not otherwise barred by some other legal criteria from becoming a British citizen, so that is not a major issue anymore either.

To make things even more complex, however, neither British citizenship nor British Overseas Territories citizenship actually guarantees right of abode or right to vote for example in a BOT. In fact, what guarantees right of abode or right to vote in a BOT is "belonger status". And while both British citizenship and BOTC are regulated by UK law, "belonger status" is regulated by domestic territory law and is defined in each BOT independently. That actually underscores the autonomy/sovereignty of the BOTs, rather than their "colonial status", contrary again to the US unicorporated territories where any US citizen has right of abode and automatically becomes a local voter once he or she takes up residence in the territory.

EDIT: By the way, the term "UK citizenship" which you used in your comments does not exist in British law. There is only "British citizenship", which is a form of British nationality. A British Overseas Territories citizen who is also a British citizen may carry two different passports as a British national although he or she has to enter the UK with a "British citizen passport", which is the British passport (UK).

2804:14C:165:836E:0:0:0:C265 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] 

Thank you for all that info. The situation does indeed seem to have improved markedly, when the only BOT which conferred British citizenship were those that were claimed by another country [Argentina and Spain]. I'll respond there since you don't have an act to ping. — kwami (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]