In a message dated 7/9/2008 2:11:45 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee@rahul.net writes:
Kana are unambiguous. There's no way to translate the kana other than Tessaiga; it's like the Morse Code example. When you say that I've shown "no evidence", what you mean is that I haven't quoted a source which specifically says "this word spells out Tessaiga". >>
---------------------- No what I mean is you haven't cited .... anything. A table, a procedure, a rule, nothing at all except your own words. You.. are not a source.
Will Johnson
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Kana are unambiguous. There's no way to translate the kana other than Tessaiga; it's like the Morse Code example. When you say that I've shown "no evidence", what you mean is that I haven't quoted a source which specifically says "this word spells out Tessaiga". >>
No what I mean is you haven't cited .... anything. A table, a procedure, a rule, nothing at all except your own words. You.. are not a source.
Sheesh. There's a nice hiragana table on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiragana
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Sheesh. There's a nice hiragana table on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiragana
But Wikipedia's not a reliable source!
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Chris Howie wrote:
Sheesh. There's a nice hiragana table on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiragana
But Wikipedia's not a reliable source!
I have a book "Webster's New World Compact Japanese Dictionary" which has a kana table on the last two pages before the dictionary section. The ISBN is 0-671-55159-0. That's the closest I can get without a trip to the library (since the dictionary doesn't specifically mention use of the small 'tsu'.)
Besides, remember that WJohnson claimed that he was not specifically saying I have no source that's reliable by the Wikipedia definition, but rather that I had no source of any type.
But this is an excellent example of filibustering via insincere request for sources. Sources should be requested when you really doubt that the source exists. They should not be requested when you have no doubts, but you want to exhaust the other guy's patience in the hope that he'll go away. Unfortunately, that's how the request for sources is often used.
I could easily do the same thing for a statement that the number of vowels in "apple" is a prime number. "Give me a source stating that 2 is prime. Okay, now give me a source showing how you count numbers, since I'm not going to take your word that "1, 2" is the correct way to count. Now give a source stating that 'a' is a vowel and remember you can't use Wikipedia or an encyclopedia or any web pages created by non-experts."
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
But Wikipedia's not a reliable source!
I have a book "Webster's New World Compact Japanese Dictionary" which has a kana table on the last two pages before the dictionary section. The ISBN is 0-671-55159-0. That's the closest I can get without a trip to the library (since the dictionary doesn't specifically mention use of the small 'tsu'.)
Besides, remember that WJohnson claimed that he was not specifically saying I have no source that's reliable by the Wikipedia definition, but rather that I had no source of any type.
But this is an excellent example of filibustering via insincere request for sources. Sources should be requested when you really doubt that the source exists. They should not be requested when you have no doubts, but you want to exhaust the other guy's patience in the hope that he'll go away. Unfortunately, that's how the request for sources is often used.
I could easily do the same thing for a statement that the number of vowels in "apple" is a prime number. "Give me a source stating that 2 is prime. Okay, now give me a source showing how you count numbers, since I'm not going to take your word that "1, 2" is the correct way to count. Now give a source stating that 'a' is a vowel and remember you can't use Wikipedia or an encyclopedia or any web pages created by non-experts."
Sheesh, I was trolling. :)
But informative reply nonetheless.
On Jul 12, 2008, at 4:50 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
No what I mean is you haven't cited .... anything. A table, a procedure, a rule, nothing at all except your own words. You.. are not a source.
There does seem to me to be a problem here, which is that we generally allow foreign language sources to be used if necessary. We assume that people who say they can read Japanese can when they cite a Japanese- language source.
Given that this, by all appearances, is a matter of basic reading comprehension in a foreign source, I am hard pressed to figure out how it falls under our sourcing guidelines in the first place. It's certainly a bit weird to say that you need a source for this but that Wikipedia editors can use foreign language sources themselves in other places.
-Phil