User talk:JackLumber/Archive 4

Ginger Snaps - Apologies, you're right - I keep on using the ancient middle-english spelling; but no excuses! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.115.191 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on diphthong shift. I don't really care that you removed the "shift" in the NY dialect page, but you should know that while Labov may not use the term, it is in use. I think you can find it in Trudgill's 2004 book on colonial Englishes, though I can't recall for sure. mnewmanqc (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought that "diphthong shift" referred to a larger phenomenon, which includes that counterclockwise shift whereby /eɪ/ = [ɛɪ] or lower, /aɪ/ = [ɑɪ] or [ɒɪ], and /ɔɪ/ = [oɪ] or higher (and maybe /iː/ = [ɪi] or lower/more centralized); this occurs in AusNZEng as well as some varieties of EngEng. In NYC, on the other hand, /aɪ/ = [ɑɪ] and /aʊ/ = [æʊ] seem to be all there is. I might be wrong, though. Jack^(Lumber) 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

From my observation, older NYC speakers seem to have that counterclockwise shift (I could be wrong as well, though). In London English, it's reversing (at least /aɪ/ and /eɪ/ are). One can here this in the speech of teenagers (not OR though). Many young Aussies seem not to have the stereotypical Aussie /aɪ/ anymore (OR).Thegryseone (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently met this young man from northern New Jersey, near Morristown, and he seems to have at least some of the parts of this counteclockwise shift--his FLEECE = [ɪːi] (it almost sounds Southern, but for some reason it is distinct in my mind), his FACE = [ɛːɪ] (once again, it sounds almost Southern, but for some reason I don't hear it as Southern), his PRICE = [ɑɪ], and his MOUTH = something like [æʊ]. Some other things I noticed that aren't part of the diphthong shift are that his STRUT seems to be backed and/or raised at times (I can't tell for sure), cot and caught are not merged (with a distinctive pronunciation of caught), words like bad and basketball have a tense ash, sometimes he will have a non-tense ash before nasals (which sounds a bit odd), and his horrible has [ɑr]. Thegryseone (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The accents of NNJ and NYC are not one and the same, although they are more closely related to each other than either of them is to any other accent; geography-wise, it's hard to draw a line between the two, so you may find a split-ash system in an area where the nasal system would otherwise be expected. Newark, for instance, has the nasal system in Labov et al., but IDEA's New Jersey #3 has a NYC-like pattern; for example, his ash is lax before nontautosyllabic nasals. MOUTH = [æʊ] and /ɑr/ in the "horrible" set of words are the norm in NJ as well as in NYC (and in my own speech too); but a wide diphthong in FACE is more common further south in the Mid-Atlantic region. Speaking of which, William Labov was on ATC with Robert Siegel last Thursday, just before the VP debate--talking about Sarah Palin's Alaskan (?) accent and Joe Biden's "less exotic" northeastern accent. Casual listeners, however, are more likely to note the way Palin pronounces "Iran" and "nuclear" (or her prosody and word choice, an example of which is on my userpage right now--I hadn't heard such a rant since Miss Teen South Carolina 2007). I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 22:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for bringing that up, Jack. I was actually going to comment about her accent, but I didn't want to inundate your talk page with observations and questions (like I usually do). What I was going to say was, whenever I hear Sarah Palin speak, I wonder if Alaska has become part of the Inland North. Labov said it was a dialect region in formation. Or do you think she just puts that accent on to sound "Northern"? I'm being completely serious. Thegryseone (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and about that New Jersey speaker: "Saa-rah Purry" :). Thegryseone (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess you say "sair-ah pairy" :) Interestingly, Robert Siegel and Melissa Block were... inundated with emails from angry Alaskans who claimed that nobody in Alaska speaks like Sarah Palin, and that she sounds more "upper Midwestern." Well, her GOAT and GOOSE are indeed more northern than northwestern (or western), although her GOAT doesn't have that Fargo-like monophthongal quality. But... why does she sound "Northern" to you? After all, she has the cot-caught merger; her TRAP is diphthongal before /m, n/, close-mid before /ŋ/ (as in "thaynks but no thaynks!"), and fairly low elsewhere, with occasional "northern breaking"; her LOT has varying degrees of backness/roundedness, depending on the phonetic environment. Anyway, this is what she sounded like back in the 80s. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 19:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. I would say she sounds much more "North Central" than Inland North. Her /ɑr/ sounds a bit different from mine, like when she says, "Yeah, Charlie, oh geeze Charlie". I guess it's her GOAT, GOOSE, and START that I really notice. Even many Fargoans (if that's what they're called) don't have the "Fargo-like" GOAT vowel. In ANAE, I believe there are a few speakers in that region who have an upgliding diphthong for GOAT (which is not the stereotypical vowel obviously). I have [eɪ] before /ŋ/, and I think most Americans do these days, so that doesn't really sound unusual to me. I guess you could either consider that as a allophone of /æ/ or just /eɪ/. If you wanted to be traditional about it, I think you would call it an allophone of /æ/. Anyway, it's very interesting to me how angry and defensive people get about regional dialects. But these people actually seem to know what they're talking about, unlike most people who do that on YouTube. Thegryseone (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to ask, what do you mean by "northern breaking"? Thegryseone (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe /æŋ/ = [eɪŋ] is not the dominant pattern right now, but it is going to be in the future. Although we have 5 front vowels in English, only two of them can appear before /ŋ/-- a "higher" one and a "lower" one, historically identified with KIT and TRAP respectively. For many speakers, they are actually FLEECE and FACE, both in production and in perception. This is probably the result of a widespread tendency to insert an upglide between /æ/ and /ŋ/, so that /æŋ/ first becomes something like [ɛʲŋ] (the pronunciation I'm most familiar with), which resembles (and ultimately comes to be identical to and identified with) FACE + /ŋ/. (This fact is mentioned in the M-W Collegiate's Guide to Pronunciation.)

It seems to me that people really are into regional dialects. (That is, it's not just you and me.) Example: Robert Siegel has been the host of All Things Considered for as long as I can remember, yet his most e-mailed story (according to his NPR page) is his 2006 interview with William Labov!

Speaking of William Labov, "northern breaking" (Atlas, p. 175) refers to the production of the short-a as a sequence of two equally "steady" vowels (more correctly, two morae) of the type [ea] or [ɛä], as opposed to the ingliding vowel more common in the Inland North and to the Southern drawl (southern breaking). Some Midland and Western speakers too sometimes will break their ash; these speakers, however, are located near the border of the Northern dialect region. I don't think this is currently mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 19:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then Palin's "northern breaking" is another thing that sounds a bit different to my ears. I thought she had some ash-tensing, but I guess it was just this. I think I have heard people from northern Minnesota do this. The funny thing is, this phenomenon isn't even mentioned in A Handbook of Varieties of English, which often goes into extreme phonetic detail for many varieties of English.

One thing that sticks out to me with the dialects of English English is that they will often have a very retracted ash before all nasals of the type [a~ɐ], because nothing special happens to the ash before nasals in most non-North American varieties; it always has the same quality (with the exception of lengthening in some varieties). So thank you and man can sound quite a bit different. I guess in that respect, one could say those varieties are more "pure". Thegryseone (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although it also depends on the speaker's region and age. You'll often hear British TV and radio reporters with /æ/ = [æ] except in words like bank, where it's closer to [ɛ]. Brits with /æ/ = [a] will have [a] in all environments, though. A low, fully fronted [a] is typical of Northern England; a more centralized vowel is common among certain speakers in the South--and sounds indeed unfamiliar before /m, n/ to American speakers. 00:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, your knowledge is so extensive! Thegryseone (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to ask when you mentioned this earlier; was that 2006 NPR interview with William Labov about the NCVS? Thegryseone (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although he has appeared several times on that show. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In Europe, I had the opportunity to meet two Londoners--a man and a woman in their 30s. Both had the diphthong shift, although she was more advanced. That aside, their phonological systems were quite different--she had the TRAP-BATH split, a very low TRAP, a very back BATH, a very high THOUGHT, a very fronted GOAT, and DRESS = [æ]; he had BATH = [æ] and was rhotic. The sounds, they are a-shiftin' Down Under too. Younger Australians have TRAP shifted to [æ], and this is starting to drag DRESS down to [ɛ]. Coupled with your observations (which actually disagree with my own OR), this would mean that Australian English is getting more "neutral" or "Mid-Atlantic" if you will. Jack^(Lumber) 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

When I disagree with you, it is always in a respectful way. Regarding London English (and English English), here are some things you might want to read (then again, you might not want to read them): [www.abdn.ac.uk/langling/resources/Kerswill.ppt Kerswill], [www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/projects/linguistics/innovators/documents/Oxford_Kerswill_Nov07_000.ppt Oxford], [www.akira.ruc.dk/~fabri/SS16%20Anne%20Fabricius.ppt Anne Fabricus], [www.ucy.ac.cy/~iclave4/E.%20Torgersen,%20P.%20Kerswill,%20S.%20Fox.doc - Kerswill et al.] (the first 3 are PowerPoint presentations, so be patient; the last one is a word document; they should all open on your desktop). Here is a YouTube video of a young Aussie girl. Try to ignore what she's talking about (cupcakes and boys, I reckon) and you'll notice that her /aɪ/ and /eɪ/ are so un-Aussie like that one viewer even remarked, "She din even do an aussie accent." And you know what they say about females and linguistics. Here is a video of some Kiwis. Listen to how the kids say "she'll be right" compared to how their father says the same thing. It's at about 1:54. Thegryseone (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is another link that actually does work. It discusses London English, and a possible vowel shift. Thegryseone (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Kiwis: That's change in apparent time.

Yes, I was aware of Paul Kerswill's research; dialect variation in London is simply fascinating, and the complex ethnic and social picture makes it all the more interesting.

From The Spectator, September 12, 1992:

Ever on the search for legal jokes not necessarily connected with the death penalty, I consulted a friend who is still practising. She said a member of her chambers was in court one Monday morning when the judge said, "I'm afraid we'll have to adjourn this case, I have written my judgment out, but I left it in my cottage in Devon and I can't get it sent here until tomorrow." "Fax it up, my Lord," the helpful barrister suggested, to which its Lordship replied, "Yes, it does rather."

The barrister had pronounced fax as [faks], which was interpreted as /fʌks/ by the judge.

In Europe, I noted that some learners (especially Spanish and Italian learners, but not French learners) tend to confuse TRAP and STRUT, or TRAP and PALM and STRUT, which is phonologically catastrophic, and terribly frustrating from the teacher's standpoint.

Also, note that vowels have more room to move in EngEng than in NAmEng--TRAP, PALM, STRUT seem to be crammed in a small space. But that's where distinctive vowel length comes into play: PALM can't be mistaken for any other vowel. Speaking of vowel length: In NAmEng (where TRAP and STRUT are always so different!) TRAP is usually somewhat longer than STRUT. Not so in contemporary EngEng. I remember an article, "Whatever happened to Received Pronunciation? What's up with these people saying 'Ufrica' instead of 'Africa'?"

AusNZEng-wise, my most recent experience was with with some teenage girls who were students of mine. I recall that the NZ girl's FACE was pretty close, but her PRICE was still very back; she probably was in a "transitional" state. The Australian girls (really cute, by the way) had very broad diphthongs; one of them (the girls, not the diphthongs) would say seat the way I say sight. And yes, the cupcake girl may be a symptom of an ongoing speech change--and not a minor one.

So, if it really is p/ɑ/ss the p/æ/sta p/ɑ/stor and not p/ɑ/ss the p/ɑ/sta p/ɑ/stor as the younger Kiwi claimed, this means that Canadian English is the only dialect where the vowel is the same in all three words; but Canadian English is rhotic, so some of the assonance is lost. And I had forgotten about the word jandals (Japanese + sandals) for flip-flops.

Question: How about the American in the video? Where is his accent from :-)?

Thanks for the links and for your contributions. You are always most welcome. I just hope to find some more time for the articles we are currently working on. Jack^(Lumber) 01:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's something about Aussie girls :).

Anyway, I realize that I've been contradicting myself. For example, I read in one of the links I gave you that the diphthong shift is continuing in "In Zid". However, as you heard, one of those young boys used an /aɪ/ that was more like an American one. So, it's just very difficult to have a simple answer for some of this stuff (at least for me). Even linguists who take the time to research this disagree with each other sometimes.

I agree that London English is fascinating. There are just so many variations on the TRAP and STRUT vowels that it can be confusing.

I agree that our TRAP is noticeably longer than the EngEng TRAP. Theirs is so quick and sharp. I guess what you're saying is that their short vowels really are distinctively short. Aren't all of the EngEng short vowels pretty similar to one another in length (if not exactly the same)?

It took me awhile to understand what you meant about seat and sight. I guess that's because you have Canadian raising of /aɪ/, and I don't think I do for some strange reason :).

If you want to take over Western American English, go for it. I haven't done much with it. I believe there is quite a bit of vocabulary from the West, especially if you include the cowboy lexicon, so that will take a while.

As for the American in the video (there's actually two of them, so I'm not exactly sure which one you were referring to, but I'll assume you meant the one that actually shows his face), that's a challenge; I think you knew that, hence the smiley face. Immediately, I think either the Midland, the West, Canada, or anywhere in North America for that matter :). He obviously speaks with rhoticity. Some of his vowels and his not using /æ/ in pasta tell me that he is probably not Canadian. He does not seem to have the pin-pen merger, so I think that rules out urban areas of the South (like Atlanta), where similar accents could be heard. I'll just guess and say the West. Thegryseone (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Brent and Dan--their accents sound pretty much the same anyway ;) Brent is apparently one of those people who have lived all over the country and whose accent therefore defaults to "General American" (with the cot-caught merger, like most people his age.)

Vowel "shortness" in EngEng may also have something to do with glottalization:

[In RP,] [ʔ] occurs before /tʃ/ and in certain consonant clusters, as in ... [bɒʔks] ... where it is known as 'glottal reinforcement' or 'glottalization'. ... It is probable that the occurrence of [ʔ] in words like those ... in particular, helps lead to the impression many North Americans have that the RP accent sounds 'clipped'. (Trudgill & Hannah, International English, p. 13)

The Merriam-Webster definition of "short vowel" is very provincial in this respect: ...descended from a vowel that was short in duration but is *no longer so* and that does not necessarily have duration as its chief distinguishing feature (emphasis mine). Jack^(Lumber) 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You talk as if you've known these guys you're entire life :). How can you have [ʔ] before another consonant? I'm barely capable of producing that. When you say RP, do you mean all Southeastern English accents? That's what I said about the cot-caught merger. The default accent has the cot-caught merger these days.

I was going to ask you, in NZEng, does /ɛ/ ever actually sound like the "General American" /ɪ/, or is that just an exaggeration? Thegryseone (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is higher than [e], but it's probably [e̝] rather than [ɪ]--it sounds somewhat "brighter." However, [e̝] and [ɪ] are really hard to tell apart, especially when they are so short in duration. But an out-of-context NZEng/ɛ/ would undoubtedly be perceived as /ɪ/ by almost any American speaker.

Speaking of parents and children, Maria Menounos's interview with Barack Obama and his family gave us the opportunity to notice how 10yo Malia Obama's speech is different from Barack's: Unlike her father, she has the cot-caught merger. It is worth noting that at the very beginning, he misinterprets have we started? as how've we started?. By the way, Maria Menounos has the Canadian shift (with robust tensing of /æ/ before nasals but only minimal raising before /g/ [you get ragged on a lot, I don't wanna jump on the bandwagon]). To be sure, Maria Menounos's accent is not...let me say...the thing that fascinates me most about her. Jack^(Lumber) 19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised about the robust tensing of /æ/ before nasals. I've noticed that many American women will have [ɪə] before nasals, whereas I will have [ɛə] at the very highest.

I also not terribly surprised about the Canadian shift. As I told you, I've heard young American girls with it.

There's nothing wrong with a little eye candy while you're listening to vowels :). It's not like that Aussie girl was ugly. It was very difficult to focus on what she was saying. I don't know why I'm telling this to a complete stranger :). Thegryseone (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Illinois, etc.

Hi Jack, it's me, thegryseone. I was wondering if you could tell me why I pronounce Illinois as [ɛləˈnɔɪ] illustrate as [ˈɛləstreɪt], gorilla as [ɡəˈrɛlə], and 'til as [ˈtɛl]. Do I just pronounce these words completely wrong or do I have lowering before /l/ for some reason? Thegryseone (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh--maybe I should have left a vacation (or, rather, a staycation) notice on my userpage. Anyway, rather than phonetic lowering, this phenomenon is best regarded as the result of a skewed distribution of /ɪ/ and /ɛ/ before /l/. Some people may also have /ɛ/ in milk and pillow (but not in silk or willow); which words are affected may vary from speaker to speaker, and people with this feature seem to be scattered throughout the Midwest, as well as in several East Coast communities. This feature is not regarded as part of "correct" General American English, and even descriptive dictionaries tend to ignore it--yet it's at least 150 years old, witness this mid-19th century song. Jack^(Lumber) 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to answer any questions. That's your choice. Thegryseone (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

request for additions

I've seen you are interested in Canadian residential school system. Would you care to add a few sentences (or more!) to Human rights in Canada? I just started the latter, and it got swiftly slapped with a {{COAT}}, i.e. someone telling me off for only really talking about Human flagpoles (which I've also just started, and asked for help with here. Anyway, any contribution is welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth English

How does one say "you're entirely right, and I'm sorry - I could have sworn I had seen the phrase before, but was evidently hallucinating at the time. Sorry, once again, for reverting you" in Commonwealth English? ;) Badger Drink (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the phrase does actually get used, but not in a reliable, "scholarly" way. "commonwealth english" gets 35,700 Google hits, but "commonwealth english" -wikipedia -wiktionary -"commonwealth english civil war" only about 1/10 as many, most of which are wiki mirrors, informal talk, or just false positives. English in the Commonwealth of Nations is as diverse as the Commonwealth itself, which is why it makes little sense to lump together all of the dialects spoken in the Commonwealth as opposed to U.S. English. For instance, Received Pronunciation and General American are more similar to each other than either of them is to Pakistani English or West African English. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're totally right. However, I believe the US is the only country that 'officially' pronounces the letter Z "zee." All Commonwealth countries 'officially' pronounce the letter Z "zed"––even Canada! While there are local variations, "zed" is the standard. On another note, the word Commonwealth is both a noun and an adjective. There is nothing except convention that prevents us from 'coining' or 'instating' a term such as Commonwealth English. I'm 99% sure every Commonwealth Realm participating in the Commonwealth Games pronounces Z "zed." In any case, I'm glad we got rid of the term 'Anglican' from this entry.Caspcasp (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, "Anglican" has a quite different meaning... Unfortunately, there's no such thing as an "official" pronunciation; unlike French or Dutch, English is not formally regulated. Even in Canada, according to a couple of vocabulary surveys, about 25% of the people use zee--which helps explain why zee is generally stigmatized in Canada; if nobody used it, there would be no need to get mad... I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pajamas

I remembered that you had helped me out on Pajamas with this edit almost two years ago (at a time when I was still green, having just arrived on Wikipedia). The Pajamas page has been pretty much been stable since February 2007 when a gentleman in the garment industry helped out ... Well, that is, until earlier this evening when an editor decided to have a go at it. I'm not sure how to deal with him. Could you please help out in the way you best deem fit. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Blessed

Hi, glad you agree! Pterre (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Jack.

Forgive me. I can be hasty at times.

I certainly don't mean to be disruptive.

The fact tags are relevant, I think, but I won't labour the point right now.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they may turn out to be pretty useless in a few days anyway, if we are going to decide to move on to something different (and I hope so.). By the way, what do you think about my "proposed solution" at User:JackLumber/The Sucker? I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think any list sourced from a dictionary, other published applied research, or reliable Linguistics text/notable coursebook is fine, as long as it has proper context for what it actually is. It's probably a good idea to cite every entry on the list individually. A pain, but it establishes the precedent.

What is in the BrE lexicon is a problem, but it's only a matter of wording and/or dating sources. I'd maybe establish a notation, e.g BrE_2005, just for the vocab section. Then nothing can be inaccurate. Historical differences are still linguistically interesting, and evidence that current differences exist. In a technical sense, as far as AmE and BrE are theoretical constructs based on available data, then it is correct to say that "Amber Alert" has an AmE exclusive meaning, but I think that's disingenuous myself. Far better to say "don't know" re exclusivity of AmE items and be done. That's still imparting knowledge, if the reader's previous belief was "I do know".

...I was shocked when we adopted the semester, but hey ho that's change :)

Ddawkins73 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I remember an article in a Scottish newspaper from the 1930s (quoted in the OED) in which the journalist was surprised by the fact that "in America, even schoolboys and schoolgirls are students." I have just added some fuel to the fire at the AfD page, if you want to check it out... I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 23:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Table

I'm not sure it's in copyright violation, but if you really think the table is more harm than good I'm not going to argue. Anything you want to use for now - or nothing. I don't have anything better, until such time as I do :) Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how to go about this, either. I mean, something resembling a word list is eventually going to be part of that article; and we want the information to be reliable and practically useful, too. Take the terminology for lawyers, for example (attorney, barrister, solicitor, what have you). We would like for it to be in one place, for quick reference, rather than broken down into many different pieces, as was the case with the previous three-article layout, now being phased out. On the other hand, it would be nice to classify lexical differences the way Crystal does on page 308 of his encyclopedia--Words that reflect cultural differences but are not part of World Standard English; Words that have a single sense and a synonym in the other variety (if only they were all like that);... last but not least, the effect of frequency. Only trouble is, a lot of words fall into more than one category. A flat, for example, is an apartment. However, Americans are aware of the word flat, and the British make regular use of the word apartment. But a flat is also a flat tire/tyre, in AmE. In BrE, you may have a puncture, which technically is not the same thing as a flat. A battery may be flat in the UK but not in the US. And remember we don't want too much duplication and/or fragmentation of data... I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the categorization is so much a problem, as how to present it.

You have three dialects, if you like: US - UK - (US & UK). Within each of those is polysemy, homonyms, homographs, and the effect of frequency - and that's it, I think. Obviously there are a lot of combinations and blurring (and movement), but the abstract concept of how they combine isn't too much to get across. There's three new (to the article) concepts to introduce, that's all. It's not impossible to present that knowledge on one page, but only limited examples are needed, within the main text, I'd say.

Tables of lots of examples is seoondary, but not impossible. Comes down to time.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Begging the question

Rather than remove a "questionable statement backed up by outdated reference", can we just add a citation needed tag? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add a fact tag because a citation was already in place; by removing the statement, I challenged the citation itself and not just the statement. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 02:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)