User talk:ApisAzuli

Welcome message
·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  14:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand that you don't want to discuss this and I don't plan to go on. I just looked up the sailor already to find that Vietnamese, Thai validates my point.

For reference, Urdu going all the way back to Sumerian shows that the topos is fairly stable. This one comes with *ma, even. A search in DSAL produced many results and most relevant in particular the notion of islander, maybe "island people".

It's absolutely not a 50:50 chance, as some may have it. Meaning there are too many entries in my backlog for me to go through, to find it now. The idea is sailent that islanders necessarily must be sailors (or proper linguistic isolates). Austronesians are huge sailors. q.e.d

If I don't follow up on such notions whyever (in languages that I can't speak) they will be soon forgotten. So, "nonsequitur" is not even an unfair description when there is indeed no conclusion, especially when my point shouldn't be to prove a common origin. Quite the opposite, as the WP article might tacitly suggest, the islands status is or has been controversial. The archeaeology is alas mentioned only in passing.

In conclusion I'm only making weak points about phonology; focus on a plausible semantic drift in generic descriptors, baring a toponymic interpretation. At the raised question of the plosive fricative, comparands with little drift are preferable. If that's realistic is not for me to decide. That cannot be held against me if few people have the breadth and the breath to go into depth.

I'm only really sorry when I write patently wrong stuff up. The notion about Wackernagel must have been a dream. My notes only show other items. ApisAzuli (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion
@-sche All of the following IP's, and no doubt others as well, seem to be his:


 * 141.20.6.61, 141.20.6.62, 141.20.6.63, 141.20.6.65, 141.20.6.66, 141.20.6.67, 141.20.6.69.

Nicodene (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Those aren't mine. That's a university network ... Technicly it's only meant for research and not for, say, gambling. Dipping into Wiktionary is nigh unavoidable as much as the research revolves around lexical matters. That in turn should result in proper edits though the formating is still a sore point. ApisAzuli (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So multiple people living next to you have independently decided to visit Wiktionary to add questionable etymologies written in your style. And by coincidence they all started this shortly after your block (or re-started after years of inactivity); in this case it was after only two weeks.
 * @Chuck Entz (in reference to this, an edit from one of the IP's above). Nicodene (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you could tell from entries and I concede it would be better to use the account for that purposes. In the present case you clearly went by the little privacy invading list that you have assembled. I'm lazy af, couldn't do dang damage if I wanted too. ApisAzuli (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to accept your decision, after all. There have been edits from this IP range before, for these I urge you to unblock them. Although I cannot promise anything, I'm under no illusion that you will be able to recognize my MO again. We good? I have to appeal the decision once, of course. I'd prefer if you'd judge me by my edits,, , , , which do show minor mistakes, that I'm aware of. Even if it doesn't amount to much, overall, you can see a broad focus rather than in-depth knowledge, and a limited capacity to work with sources, which you should take as a positive sign considering where I'm coming from. I am unsure what force you mean, or what abuse -- yes, WT is not my blog, but in part a peer reviewed blog -- and I do not want to press those issues any further now than I have before, except to consult again with Eirikr. The sleep lost over this shouldn't be for nothing. ApisAzuli (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)