User talk:CJ Withers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, CJ Withers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Kukini 06:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Quebec Literature

Go ahead with the move if it will make it clearer. However, I actually named the article Literature of Quebec following the example of the articles Literature of the United States (which was moved to American literature since) and Poetry of the United States. I thought this was the way to do it in Wikipedia. Being a native French speaker, I honestly do not understand when it is good to say "German cars" as opposed to "Cars of Germany". It sounds pretty equivalent to me. :-)

Concernant l'exemple du « régime matrimonial », je crois qu'il est bon d'utiliser les termes que les Québécois anglophones emploient eux-mêmes, sauf bien sûr s'ils emploient un mauvais calque du français québécois. ;-)

I see that you are a professional translator. I did a lot of translation myself for a project of mine, however it was from French to English, which is not the recommended procedure since English is my second language. Would you be interest in reviewing this particular translation? Here are the links :

-- Mathieugp 15:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] faux amis

I noticed in Gruyère you changed piquant to sharp and referred to it as a faux amis. I have never heard it described as a faux amis before. Could you elaborate? --Dforest 01:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Although "piquant" does exist in English, it means "agreeably stimulating to the palate, esp. spicy, i.e. with some bite" this is not to be confused with "tasty". In French, people who are not fond of rather acquired tastes tend to use "piquant" to mean strong/sharp (instead of "corsé" and "fort" respectively) and even "épicé" to mean hot, as in hot sauce, (instead of "piquant"). This goes for everyday, rustic food as well as for finer foods. With such realities in mind, the French "piquant" should not be automatically translated as the English "piquant". To do so is to use a semantic gallicism, hence a faux amis.
It's also interesting to see "corsé", when describing wines, translated as "full-bodied". "Strong" would certainly be incorrect since it means "of high alcoholic content" when referring to wines.
Linguistic fuzziness and individual lexical variation are quite common when it comes to meaning and the five senses (personal perception). Just think of how some people say "mauve" or "taupe" and see grey, beige or purple. Also think of how catalogs, for advertising purposes, present colors as "café" or "aubergine" instead of simple "brown"/"coffee" or "deep purple/violet". Gotta luv that Sapir-Whorf hypothesis!
In addition, the general cheese terminology in English consists in using "strong", "sharp" and "flavo(u)rful" for what the French article expresses, not "piquant". Only if there were ground pepper/pepper corns or hot pepper(s) added could we use "piquant" in English (or if someone bit into a pretty foul rind!).
Clearly, we are talking about a flavorful cheese. Personally, I would not call it sharp; however, for many of those who have never known the delicious cheese in question (Alas! *sniff*), they would gauge the taste as being strong/sharp, especially if they are English speakers. Vive la différence!
Btw, I really enjoy talking about such cheeses and about cuisines in general, so thanks for the query. CJ Withers 02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QWMG

Bonjour! ...et bienvenue au groupe de rencontres wikipédiennes du Québec. Je crois que ta contribution a le potentiel d'être très intéressante. Je suis l'organisateur du groupe. La prochaine date de rencontre (en tentative) est le jeudi 9 mars 2006. Serais-tu disponible? --Liberlogos 16:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Loomis51

First, I'd like to say that I'm glad that our conversation has taken a softer tone. I'll admit, that after reading my initial submission, my tone may have been a bit rough as well. However, in my defense, the article on Quebec English is somewhat peculiar in the sense that it seems to have been created and written by yourself and nobody else. As such I had no idea that my criticisms would inevitably lead to an attack on one person and one person only. Most Wikipedia articles that I've encountered seem to be the result of a collaboration of many users, and as such, any criticism directed at the article is directed at the article alone, and not the sole contribitor.

Without getting into any controversial topics at this point, there are a couple of relatively innocuous things I'm curious about.

You mention on your user page that you have zero level proffinciency in the Breton language (apparently with knowledge of a few rudimentary words or phrases). I'm curious as to why you put in the effort to mention that. As an amateur linguist, I try my best to know a phrase or two in as many languages as possible. If I were to follow your lead, I'd probably have a list of at least a dozen languages for which I have only an extremely slight knowledge of. Off the top of my head I'd have to include Japanese, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Armenian, Ukrainian, Belarussian, Arabic, Polish, Irish Gaelic, Spanish, Italian, Hungarian etc... Then again, as a linguist I'm sure you would have an even lengthier list. Hence my curiousity about the inclusion of the Breton language.

Onto a slightly more controversial topic, (but something that I hope won't cause too much of a stir!) I've noticed at Wikipedia an extreme opposition to the use of what is termed "anectotal evidence". The irony, though, is that those very Wikipedians who so readily dismiss such "anectdotal evidence" as illegitimate, in my experience, tend to break their own rule and fill their writings with their own "anectdotal evidence", insisting that unlike those of others, their own evidence is indisputable fact. I find this practice maddening. Unfortunately, (and don't jump all over me for saying this!) I saw a bit of that in your writing.

When it comes down to it though, I really don't see so much of a problem with the moderate use of anecdotal evidence. It obviously does not belong in a court of law, but I find it can play an invaluable role in a place like Wikipedia. After all, I believe, when it comes down to it, the very notion of "indisputable fact" is problematic. There are few if any truths that can be proven as "indisputable fact." The world is made up of billions of people, with billions of takes on the nature of the world around them.

I know I may be rambling on, but I'll give you one example: I spent some time in England several years ago with a travelling companion. While he was primarily interested in seeing the sights and visiting the various tourist traps, what I found most enjoyable was to visit a local pub and have a chat over a pint with the natives about their take on their country, their political gripes and so on. All what one would call "anecdotal evidence". Inevitably more than half of what they said was likely bullshit, however I nevertheless believe that I learned a great deal more about England and its people that way than I would have sitting on a double-decker tour bus with a Berlitz guide in my hand. Looking forward to hearing from you, have a great day. DO CKOPOBO! Loomis51 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You know way to much and think to much!! ;-) I’ll answer all those questions in the order you asked.
1. I put the zilch Breton thing in because further down I mention my interest in its alphabet, which has been reformed numerous times in the 20th century yet still exists in three different forms. I simply didn’t want people to think I was proficient in the language at all. I understand the basic phonology and consonant mutations, but that’s it. I’d love to learn some Breton but with the languages I speak/write well, I don’t even have enough time to improve them, specifically my Spanish and Russian.
2. Your comment about the number of languages is cool. In fact, most people don’t even think that far when I say that I’m a linguist. Although I do know more languages I don’t usually mention them due to a two-fold problem.
First, on Wikipedia, the Babel boxes need work because they do not, across all the languages, distinguish among the four main areas of oral comprehension, speaking, reading or writing. I’ve only listed the languages I consider myself proficient in and useful for Wikipedia. I’ve formally studied German and have studied Polish, Serbo-Croatian and Slovak on my own. I also understand Portuguese (Euro or Brazil), Catalan (A LOT, but I can’t speak or write a lick of it), Ukranian (a good portion, depending on the sentence and vocabulary), and even Yiddish (thanks to German and New York Yinglish).
Second, as a linguist, I investigate language (and as a sociolinguist how it’s used and how it influences society). In the community of linguists, it’s pretty frowned upon to list languages that you’re not highly proficient in. The reason for this is that other (snobby) linguists will assume that you’re just a language enthusiast (read : armchair linguist). This is very ironic, since, enthusiasm for languages is usually what makes a person study linguistics. Go figure.
3. On anecdotal evidence.
Well, I think that’s probably one of the most important questions on Wikipedia, the more so in that many of the language/dialect articles are not backed up by evidence. Personally, I’m pretty surprised to see how some articles are of amazing quality while others are pure bullshit. Take for example, the article on Pittsburghese. There truly is a Pittsburgh dialect, however, what people felt like contributing was pure conjecture : half to most of the lexical entries are common to most varieties of English. Therefore, it’s misinformation (notice, I didn’t say disinformation). I made a comment about this article about a week ago, and just recently, some other people have noticed as well. I think that’s the whole point of the articles : to write a solid base and then enrich it, correct it, hone it, etc.
Now, the above paragraph might seem a diversion. It’s not, though. Wikipedia guidelines explain that sometimes there are two extremes to a rule. NPOV is one of them as is anecdotal evidence. Remember that anything factual can be proved in one of two ways : directly observable and indirectly observable. These two ways each have their own set of two extremes. With indirectly observable facts, we can check sources and find out whether they are true, just theory or bogus. The directly observable facts can range from falsehoods, observation bias, common sense or well-established facts.
Linguistic behavior and language use are observable. They can also become part of a verifiable source once an actual inquiry has been made, but then again, the findings could be erroneous. Also, many formal inquiries stem from personal observation and, possibly, a personal anecdote. A typical example of this is how some linguists use the language of their baby or child as a springboard/hotbed for research.
As for what I placed in the article, I chose examples that are high-frequency, verifiable and generalized. The version of the article that was there had included some of the « data », however, it was all lumped together and completely misinterpreted, thus misinformative. Even the title of the article is debatable : Quebec English is not English because it’s two different things for two different groups of people. On the one hand it’s a restricted set of language practices, not structures and on the other hand, it’s an interlanguage containing borrowings on a massive scale (and is not unique to Québec). Because of this huge shift in view (with proof, mind you), I was expecting the original authors to be upset/confused.
Also, although Quebec English is not English, I do feel that the misnomer needs to be there. The reasons why are because first, that’s what people are going to type in to locate the article and, secondly, there really is no other name for the group of phenomena besides « franglais » on one side and « Frenglish » on the other. And, as you know, franglais/Frenglish abounds in many other places outside of Quebec. That’s even more reason to show Quebec examples both to those who live here and those who are just curious about the situation.
And I totally know what you mean about public perception, especially how it can surface in bartalk/pubchatter. The same is true about the situation here in Quebec in French, a language which is far from being in danger with its several million speakers worldwide. What’s important to understand is that in Quebec there is language insecurity. It is not English that takes over but francophones who decide not to use or continue using French, that is if they are not forced or threaten to abandon it. That’s why the notion of assimilation is utterly important. You do not assimilate if you do not want to. You continue to use your language(s), raise your children in them or take the means to do so. The French to English assimilation rate in Quebec is zero, thanks to the language laws. But that’s it.
Language moguls get their panties in a bunch when they toss around phrases like « French in the workplace is in danger ». It makes you wonder if it’s a political ruse since the fact is that the language of work in Quebec, overall, has always been predominantly English. Always. An article came out in Le Devoir to show this fact. Be it between bilinguals, monolinguals or even among francophones themselves(!). With the number of English speakers and the number of communications needed to be conducted in English (with China, Japan, India, etc.) there’s a huge demographic reality. Plus, Québec is powerless to legislate outside of its borders. Welcome to the world!! When a francophone says : « Check ça, man ! » or « J’ai chatté sur Yahoo avec Jennifer qui s’est acheté un iPod chez Canadian Tire » no one can honestly say that’s French. Yeah, it’s French grammar but almost all the nouns and verbs are English. Extrapolate to an English-dominated technical field. That’s how the language « Michif » developed and how English did in the Middle Ages, for that matter! Oh, and I usually try to stay away from language planning / legislation talk specifically because both francos and anglos don’t understand the real issues. (like being served in French, etc.) However, I do enjoy talking about it with the very curious and open-minded.
(Just an aside) I worked at Berlitz in NYC for 5 years; it’s there that I learned a huge portion of what the language industry is about. Anyway, it’s way past my bedtime and поговорим попозже, ладно? -- CJ Withers 07:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've often been told that I think too much and take it as a compliment...thanks! I'll try though to write less and focus on only one topic at a time rather than going all over the place.

Here's a little tidbit of trivia you might enjoy: According to The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, there is one, and only one correct way of spelling the word liquor. The word "liquour" simply does not exist. No doubt your correction of my spelling was due to the assumption that pretty much any multi-syllabic word that ends in "-or" in American English must take on a "u" in order to conform to Canadian spelling. While this is widely the case, it's far from a universal rule. The insertion of a "u" is done more on a case-by-case basis. Think about it: doctor, actor, governor, tenor, succor. Doctour? actour? governour? tenour? succour?

In any case, I try to make it a rule to ignore people's linguistic mistakes, glaring as they may be. I imagine it just makes me come off as a pompous ass, as I originally thought you were, but now know better. I'm just not a nitpicker about these things. As long as the meaning is clearly understood I really don't care about the means of conveying it (although I do have to admit that there's a point when it simply gets annoying, as, for example on computer chat. "How r u 2day?". Jeez...how lazy can you be to not put in the effort to write full words!) Have a great day. Loomis51 12:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your day too! Btw, I wasn't correcting your mistake; it's clearly -or in standard English regarless of the national variety. It's just that some people stick it in by analogy; that's why it was in parentheses and as a doublet. Otherwise, I'd have used just one spelling. Anyway, later! -- CJ Withers 12:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand your explanation for why you wrote "liquo[u]r". In any case, it's unimportant. What's important is that I just noticed on your userpage that one of your family members was injured on 9/11. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope s/he is doing ok. I also noticed that you mentioned that you suffer from a serious illness. I don't want to pry, so I won't ask you what it is if it's too personal. But feel free to say what you're comfortable with. I'm interested because I too suffer from a serious illness. In my case it's not fatal, and hopefully not permanent. Basically I've been suffering from rather severe chronic pain since '98. In any case, I know what it's like to be unwell, and I have great compassion for others in similar situations. Should you ever want to vent, feel free. You mentioned that you haved a decent understanding of "Yinglish" based on your knowledge of German and of course because you're from NYC. So, as my people say, Zay gezint. Loomis51 04:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS

Hello,

I have seen you editing around the place, and after reading your userpage, I have decided to ask you for some help with the AIDS article. In particular, the English used within it may be in need of some copyediting. But the main reason I am contacting you is for the subsection AIDS-related stigma. Maybe you know some stuff about this? For any help that you may be willing to give, especially in this section, I thank you in advance. --Bob 22:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French language stuff

My interests in Wiki tend to come and go, and right now, I'm mostly doing stuff that is not directly related to content. I haven't really worked on a language article in a long time, butI'll be glad to do cleanup and double check on anything you want me to. Circeus 14:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qu'est-ce que vous voulez savoir ?

Salut ! I'd be glad to answer any questions that you may have about Tagalog, just ask away. Also, I just saw your profile - awesome, you are so into Québec language and literature, even more so than I am! :-D --Chris S. 07:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll give my answers in a list format.

  1. I view the Spanish words as an important part of the language. They are just as important as other words. And in many cases, we simply cannot do without them. I mean, what other alternative in telling the date or time if we don't do Spanish? Oh wait, there's English, and that's beginning to be used more as well.
  2. Yes, Tagalog-speakers who don't know Spanish can usually tell if a word is of foreign origin. My grandmother, for example, sometimes tells me the origin of a Spanish word Oh, Kastila 'yan! (Oh, that's Spanish!). However, sometimes there are Spanish words whose origins are not known. For a long time I thought that parol (lantern) and dasal (pray) were native Tagalog words, until I later learned that they were from farol and rezar. Even in my talk page, you can see a Wikipedian asking me about maski(even if) which comes from Spanish más que - not many people know that. As time goes on, I learn that a particular word is Spanish - it happened to me a few months ago, though I cannot remember the word now.
  3. I also want to note that there have been purism movements in the past. These people, from what I gather, have little knowledge of Spanish but are able to recognize the Spanish words. They want to go back to more indigenous words. Like, using ngunit instead of pero (but). One humorous example is silya (chair) being replaced by an invented word like salumpuwit (ass-grabber).
  4. I believe the borrowings were done by L1 speakers. The Spanish introduced many things and ideas in the Philippines - horses, towels, shirts, pants, etc. - and these words simply did not exist in Tagalog. There are many L2 Filipino speakers of Tagalog, and it wouldn't surprise me if they did contribute Spanish words somehow. From what I gather, relexified items make up the minority. The word elephant comes to mind; we use the Spanish borrowing elepante but until the middle of the 19th century, the term gadya was used.
  5. Take into account that there were relatively fewer native Spanish speakers in the Philippines than indios. Most indios had some basic proficiency in the language; proficiency was also linked to social status.

I hope I've answered your questions. If you need any clarification, please let me know. --Chris S. 07:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Spanish was widespread enough at the same level English is today. English proficiency is on the decline, but usually those in the urban areas can speak it with some degree of fluency. A historian friend of mine collected information about my great-grandfather's hometown in Bikol-speaking Libmanan, Camarines Sur. In the 1880's, the women in the town spoke Spanish bastante bien, as the Spanish priest noted.

IMHO, I think it was rare that ethnic Tagalogs would grow up as a native Spanish speaker. If anything, they would have probably used Chavacano, particularly the now-extinct Ermitaño variants and also the Caviteño and Ternateño varieties still spoken by about 60,000, but on the decline in favor of Tagalog. I also suggest reading Spanish in the Philippines.

The Filipino vs. Tagalog debate is a huge mess. There is no consistent definition of "Filipino" and there are attempts to redefine Tagalog as being pure. I just wrote a message to someone about this topic at the link following this sentence. [1]--Chris S. 08:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language, grammar

Hi. Benoît here of the Montreal Wikipedia meetings. How are you? I have a dispute with a fellow Wikipedian about English-language usage. As a translator, could you help me? --Liberlogos 04:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're too kind. What's the double move? Here's the trouble. Someone has claimed these phrases to be incorrect English.

  1. "Quebec is a North American society...": The user says: "no one would use that structure".
  2. "Past radio personality John Doe...": The user says: "What does that mean?" I was under the impression that expressions such as "Past President" were commonplace and Google seems to proove this.
  3. "Claiming the country 'at war', she..."; I have my own doubts about that one, but still; is the omission of "to be" after country impossible?
  4. "It is used in a French-language setting..."
  5. "High racism": That one had me scratch my head about why it would be disputed, but a I'm re-re-re-reading it, doubts settle in. The user says: "is that related to 'high Anglican'?". I quoted "High: greater than normal in degree, intensity, or amount; high prices; a high temperature; a high wind; (Collins).

There you go! --Liberlogos 07:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What we need to understand in this situation are two important language phenomena: collocation and innovation. So, before trying to find out what's "good" or "bad" English, let's focus on what could be called "old" and "new" by starting with the former of the two.
When we put words together in any language, we follow not only a logic specific to that language but also a precedent that has been created though repeated language use. The logic, precedent and formal conventions of a language constitute _standard language_. For example, "have lunch", "have dinner", "have a drink", "have a cigarette" are set expressions semantically analogous to "dîner", "souper", "boire"/"prendre un verre", "fumer"/"fumer une cigarette" in French. In order to convey these meanings, logic and precedent (plus the constraints of other lexical units) require the use of "have" for the expressions to be qualified as standard. In applied linguistics, we call this requirement collocation. In laymen's terms, collocation is often lumped into the fuzzy notion of being "idiomatic", i.e. particular to a language. (Avoid "idiomatic" because it inextricably denotes being different from one's first language more than the actual singularity or regularity of the actual language being examined.) The upshot of all this is that when we want to speak or write, we must use collocation not only to convey the right meaning but also to avoid disorienting our audience or conversation partners. Now, applying this to your examples, and by extension, others' comments on your example, the words you've chosen do not collocate. For example, in English, "big" or "large" does not collocate with "accent"; we must use "heavy" or "thick" with "accent". "Strong" can be used to convey the meaning, yet its use is less anchored and less conventional.
When writers and poets and other language crafters formulate new combinations of words, we are talking about innovation, which includes coinages, i.e. newly cast expressions. Innovations are subject to, again, the internal logic of the language, to purely emotive and accoustic qualities of language. If enough people understand, accept and then use the innovations, they become part of the language and consequently create precedent. The use of non-native grammar and non-standard collocations is what distinguishes Globish and non-native Euro-English from any regional standard English. When we examine your examples, we find that they do not use English collocation.
Very simply, "past" needs to be replaced by "former" (or "one-time"); "high" should be replaced by "extreme", or even better "intense".
"Quebec is a North American society" is more a concept debate than a lexical one, the reason being is that "society" cannot be used indiscriminately to denote difference, as it's commonly and currently used in French. We speak of "North American society", "American society", "French society", "British society", "Japanese society", "Canadian society" and so on. Although attested, "Quebec society" has not gained popularity as a collocation, let alone mental or social construct for many. The verdict here is that you can't just say "X is a society". Try it yourself: "Mesopotamia is a society" (It's an ancient region.); "The United States is a society." (No, it's a country, a nation, a State.) "Scotland is a society." (Wrong again.) Even today, the utterance "Québec is a distinct society." seems to go against the internal logic of English despite the many years the political and cultural slogan has resonated. From my view as a professional translator, the French sentence "Le Québec est une société nord-américaine." is better rendered into English as "Québec society exists in North America." The same core meanings are there, be they denotations or connotations. (The translation technique used is called "transposing".)
As for the war comment, that IS a syntax error; it should be "Claiming the country is / country's at war, she..."
The last error on the list, "French-language setting..." is just verbose, as it would be in French. However, in French, verbosity is more acceptable, if not outright favored. Take this example: "Dans un contexte nord-américain..." YIKES! Why not just "En Amérique du Nord..."? Well, the answer is CULTURAL CONSTRAINTS AND PRECEDENCE.
As to how your errors were commented on by others, you can see that unconscious linguistic shortcomings might be viewed as deliberate language engineering, i.e. intentional innovations. To most, "standard English" is a catch-all term to fix errors one is unfamiliar with or unable to dissect. What's ironic is someone's misuse of "parse". The sentence "It just doesn't parse." is semantically incorrect in _standard_ English. That specific example of yours under scrutiny can indeed be parsed. Logic, precedence, and connotation, however, make "It just doesn't parse." substandard. Lesson = consult a linguist or other language professional on such matters! --CJ Withers 17:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"However, in French, verbosity is more acceptable, if not outright favored."
That one made me laugh (and I agree). THANK you for your detailed answer, I appreciate it very much. Sorry if I did not answer sooner. First, I was waiting to have other questions and then I had internet problems. I know I found other questions to ask, but for now I can only remember one. Is it acceptable, if necessary, to use words like "Quebecer" or "New Yorker" as adjectives? I'm especially wondering about it for the term "Anglo-Quebecer", as in the phrase "Joe Q. Public is an Anglo-Quebecer journalist". The fact that they seemignly couldn't find a normal English adjective equivalent to "Québécois" gives us a lot of trouble! (even if "Quebecois" can sometimes sound sort of poetic in English) --Liberlogos 01:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

--41.250.43.16 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Small Text== Language in Canada list ==

B'en cou don' --- Hey, great list --- I copied it to my sandbox. I almost edited it to include Doukhobor Russian, Pennsylvanisch (different from Hutterite and Plautdietsch, which are different from each other), and a couple others, but I thought it'd be pretty rude to edit someone else's sandbox. Muckapedia 07:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meeting

It is possible that a Wikipedian meeting will occur Saturday, November 4. Could you be present? Also, if you have time, I'm trying to translate to the French language article a quote I contributed in English to a history-related article. It's about the Doric Club, a historical paramilitary group, and it goes "[...] we are determined by our own right arms to work out our deliverance". Now in that the "bras" or what (it sounded a little silly)? Or if it is "armes", weapons, why "right"? Anyway, thanks. --Liberlogos 10:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thank you. Before, I had skipped over the passage in my French version ("nous somme déterminés [...] à aboutir à notre délivrance"). lol It now reads "Si nous sommes désertés par le gouvernement britannique et le peuple britannique, plutôt que de se soumettre à la dégradation d'être sujet d'une république canadienne-française, nous somme déterminés par nos propres armes de droit à aboutir à notre délivrance." Is it okay? Also, what about the meeting? --Liberlogos 08:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I tried to contact you through the telephone number you gave me and it was a commercial answering maching. I also tried to use the other email address you gave me with no success. I am suggesting Saturday December 9 for a new Wikipedian meeting. Thank you for specifying whether you can or not at this address. Thank you. --Liberlogos 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next meeting

Hi! You are invited to contribute to the determination of the next date for the Montreal wikipedian meetings at this address. Thanks! --Liberlogos 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pot-pourri

Hello CJ, how are you? I could not complete the organization of the "former next" meeting because an unexpected event made me needed outside of town. A new date will be set soon. Will you be much free in the following weeks?

I have three questions. If you don't have the time now, it's fine, just tell me (or don't tell me, if you really have no time). First, can Quebec's older generation "R roulé", or rolled R, be properly called an "Alveolar trill"? Also, the Alveolar trill article has "Consonne roulée alvéolaire voisée" as a french equivalent. Is this correct for the same Quebecois rolled R? On a similar note, do you know of any resource on past pronunciation of Quebec French? And do you know anything else about the use of the rolled R in Quebec across regions and time?

Second, in advanced English classes at Brébeuf College, I had a teacher that made us listen to a tape of a linguist vocally recreating the sound, or accent, of older forms of the English language throughout history. Do you know how to put one's hand on something like this, for English, France French, Quebec French or other languages?

Third, I translated in an article the quoted phrase "[il est] considéré comme l’un des [sites web les] mieux dotés en matière de textes de fond" to "[it is] considered as one of the better endowed [websites] in matters of thorough writings.". Is it correct? I'm wondering about the proper use of 2 or 3 words in there (notably endowed, as it seemed the best translation based on dictionary findings but I am used to hear it in, well, another context).

Thanks a lot for your attention! ...oh, and a late happy new year. --Liberlogos 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian French

Hi, Sorry to have to point this out, but appropriate étiquette on talk pages is to cross out what you've wriiten instead of removing it. My reply was partly in response to what you'd written and removed. Joeldl 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Please put back what you removed so what I wrote can be understood appropriately. You can cross it out .Joeldl 16:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Proposed move of Canadian French

Greetings! Would you care to weigh in on this proposed move? There's been a lot of discussion, and I apologise in advance for prolixity. :) Merci! Corticopia 12:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec English

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Quebec English, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BirgitteSB 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heterosexism

You may always contact users or administrators for help, as this is the first step in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The dispute is a minor one which means you and other users have handled it appropriately, if it escalates you work your way down the dispute page's suggestions. I would suggest that regardless of what else you do you should ask the queer WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, to work on the article. You may also ask for a peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review, though there is a large backlog and little seems to happen (I would only request a peer review if I am willing to review at least two other articles). Feel free to contact me with any other questions or if you need assistance. Hyacinth 21:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesbophobia

Thanks for the prod, re: Lesbophobia, CJW- I have actually got a few ideas for the article, but have been a bit slow in getting back to it. I've been reading some interesting research by Celia Kitzinger which I would like to include. Anyways, I appreciate your message. Kootenayvolcano (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)