User talk:Robert.Baruch

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Robert.Baruch!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

TUSC token 3ab5450d9b44b6affd1fa53c02a66148

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Robert.Baruch!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Image:Fluida-classical.ogg was uncategorized on 7 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Fluida-roman.ogg was uncategorized on 7 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Oeconomia-ecclesiastical.ogg was uncategorized on 7 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Paeninsula-ecclesiastical.ogg was uncategorized on 7 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Paeninsula-roman.ogg was uncategorized on 7 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Oeconomia-roman.ogg was uncategorized on 7 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Paeninsula-classical.ogg was uncategorized on 7 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Oeconomia-classical.ogg was uncategorized on 7 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Gubernator-classical.ogg was uncategorized on 8 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Gubernator-roman.ogg was uncategorized on 8 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Exhalo-ecclesiastical.ogg was uncategorized on 8 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Genus-roman.ogg was uncategorized on 8 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Genus-ecclesiastical.ogg was uncategorized on 8 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Fanaticus-classical.ogg was uncategorized on 8 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Exhalo-roman.ogg was uncategorized on 8 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Extra-classical.ogg was uncategorized on 8 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Fanaticus-roman.ogg was uncategorized on 8 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Genus-classical.ogg was uncategorized on 8 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:La-ecc-i-divisor-i.ogg was uncategorized on 14 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Latin pronunciation

I am very happy to see another person loading pronunciations of Latin words. Could you please use the standard file naming structure? All of the Wiktionaries (where the words will be used) name the audio files in a standard way so that bots can recognize the files and add them to the correct pages. If they are not named this way, the files have to all be added by hand.

The usual structure is to start with the ISO language code, then the dialect (if needed), and then the word. So, the Classical Latin pronunciation of amans would be named la-cls-amans. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, awesome, I didn't know that! I'll definitely rename them. Well, a file mover will. I'll just request it :) --Robert.Baruch (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, I'm a file mover and can do this, since you're OK. The only question I have is what you mean when you labelled some of the files as "Roman" and what do you mean by "Classical"? I understand "Ecclesiastical", but I'm not sure about the other two based on what I'm hearing. For which period do you mean for each? From the Wikibooks page it looks as if you're using traditional English school pronunciation for "Classical" and traditional continental for "Roman". Is that correct?

Also, it looks as though you are creating sounfd files specifically for use on Wikibooks. You might be able to save some work by looking for existing sound files in Category:Latin pronunciation. Among other items, I have recorded a series of concrete nouns beginning with each letter (see the list). I have also been recording the cardinal numerals in conjunction with writing wikt:Appendix:Latin cardinal numerals and expanding full entries for all of them on the English Wiktionary (there are linked tables in the Appendix). You may find some of this useful, although it is still in progress. I am currently recording all the vocabulary from the first few chapters of Wheelock, and will then do the same for several other leading Latin textbooks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Classical is, I guess, what you would call traditional. It seems to be the general agreement among Latin scholars and authors for how educated Romans of the Classical period would have spoken. This would be Moreland and Fleischer, Allen and Greenough, Wheelock's -- although Wheelock's site itself doesn't adhere to its own pronunciation guidelines, especially for short /u/, for which they have put as an example, which in my American dialect has vowel [ʊ] and which matches Allen (see Latin spelling and pronunciation), but the audio samples given there seems a lot closer to [ɒ].

Ecclesiastical is the later Italianate pronunciation, and goes according to Collins. I suspect this comes from the Church Latin of the medieval times, but I haven't tracked it down thoroughly enough.

Finally, Roman is the Latin pronunciation that Pope Pius X declared as "correct" for the Church, he himself calling it Roman. This would be for 1912 onwards. I was taught by a professor who spoke Ecclesiastical with Roman vowels, Ecclesiastical diphthongs, and the Roman silent h, because that's what he was taught by a Roman Catholic priest.

Admittedly, there appears to be some overlap between what some consider Ecclesiastical and some Roman, but with the sources I've picked, they are distinct.

I like your pronunciations! They are indeed Classical, and match what I have. My choices for the words are based on words that are very close to common English words, so that I don't overwhelm students with unfamiliar words such as puer or filius, which is what you normally get in grammars. Granted, these are bases for English puerile and filial, but I'm trying to keep the words even more common. Nevertheless, if I find a word you've already recorded, I'll use it! --Robert.Baruch (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I ask because the vowel sounds you're using for "Classical" may match English and American traditional scholarship, but do not match continental scholarship for those same vowels. The continental scholars (Portuguese, French, German, etc.) all agree on uniform vowel sounds with only varying lengths (the kind of vowels sounds you've given under "Roman"). There isn't complete agreement on the Classical Latin vowel sounds, but the continental scholarship's view seems supported by stronger evidence, and is what the Wikipedia article follows. It's also what I've been using in my recordings. Wheelock's descriptions of vowels follow the English tradition (which Erasmus famously mocked). They really are intended for non-linguists who speak only English, and so can't be called strictly accurate. They're the closest approximations available, and will also sound different in the UK and US even with the same example words.

I'm also American, but have studied several European langauges, including formal training for Spanish, German, and Dutch with native speakers, and did some immersion learning for Hungarian. I've also studied a number of additional languages on my own. As a result, I seem to have an easier time adjusting my vowels. However, there are a couple of things I struggle with, such as the trilled /r/, and so there are some words I've tried to record, but never uploaded, because I couldn't get a sound I was happy with. Recording arbor took many tries over several days :P

My choices in where I started with recording were based on providing relatively common objects (to a Roman) that could be represented by a picture to aid in learning vocabulary. I've only just started doing Wheelock to assist beginners using that text, and will then do the same for Latin via Ovid, the Cambridge Latin series, Jenney's First Year Latin, and so forth. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. What do you with the statement in Wikipedia where "Short mid vowels and close vowels were pronounced with a different quality than their long counterparts, being also more open: /e/, /o/, /i/ and /u/ ([ɛ], [ɔ], [ɪ] and [ʊ])" -- thus their sound and not only their length changes? --Robert.Baruch (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a hold-over from a very early form of the page. If you look at the summary table of vowel sounds just above that comment, the table shows all vowels with a single sound, just differing lengths and possible nasalization. I had some conversations with page authors about this same subject. I gather that the alternative viewpoint has been left in the page, but it is disconnected from the rest of the page's content, possibly as an alternative viewpoint and possibly as an error. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, can you provide some sources for "proper" Classical pronunciation for me, so that I can put it in the wikibook? The most scholarly I've found is Allen's Vox Latina -- you can see a tiny bit of it on Google Books. I have a dead-tree edition heading my way for more proper study. In the meantime, I'll work on redoing the page to conform to long/short temporal length only, with no change in quality. --Robert.Baruch (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's odd; my copy of Vox Latina isn't on the shelf. It may still be boxed up somewhere from my move about a year ago.

As for scholarly sources: L. R. Palmer's The Latin Language is a good scholarly source with a whole chapter on phonology in Latin and the changes that occurred from the Classical to the Vulgar form of the language. You can also find explicit mention of English variation from the continental standard in Tore Janson's A Natural History of Latin, but this is not a densely scholarly book, but is written for a broader audience (i.e. it's in prose with few citations or footnotes). James Clackson & Geoffrey Horrocks wrote The Blackwell History of the Latin Language, but they are a bit vague at times on the value of Latin vowels in the Classical period. They spend a lot of time discussing Old Latin and changes in pronunciation in the Late Empire, and cover diphthongs thoroughly, but aren't as explicit about monophthongal vowel sounds during the Late Republic and Early Empire. The implication is that the values they discuss in Old Latin carry through until the Late Empire changes, but they don't make that point explicitly.

The best coverage I've seen (and can currently locate) for the other side of the argument (differing vowel quality) is Edgar Sturtevant's The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin. The work is dated (published 1940), and is out of favor with continental scholarship, but it does a good job of explaining why some English scholars think that long and short vowels differed in quality. Most of the arguments are based upon comparative phonology of modern Romance languages, and upon the shifts in spelling of certain sounds in those languages. He also presents discussion from a Classical grammarian about the difference between long and short [o] (the only vowel for which a solid case seems to be possible), and you can read for yourself what Terentius had to say if you can get a copy from a library or on-line. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, those are excellent sources that I shall be sure to check out. I'll probably go for Palmer as a root source. I have Janson somewhere in one of my book piles, but I'm not sure which one! I think I used it as a bathroom reader at some point, so archaeologically speaking, it must be around there somewhere :) --Robert.Baruch (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, how much yelling am I going to be subjected to if I say that Classical Latin has no quality difference between short and long vowels? The opposite opinion seems to be everywhere in Wikipedia (see, for instance, Vulgar Latin, section Stressed Vowels, showing once again different qualities for Classical vowels). --Robert.Baruch (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a shift towards some vowel differentiation in Vulgar Latin, from what I uncerstand, but I haven't made a proper study of post-Classical pronunciation yet. That's one reason I haven't recorded audio files for a few post-Classical words--it doesn't seem logical to record the Classical pronunciation for a word that didn't exist during the Classical period.

I don't expect you'd get any yelling. The only feedback I've gotten regarding Latin pronunciation of vowels in the time that I've been oing it or discussing it (on Wikipedia and Wiktionary) was towards uniformity of vowel quality. As long as you make it clear which position you've taken and ackowledge the fact that there is an alternative tradition, then I can't see any reason that someone should be upset. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- my main concern is providing a source, so at least readers don't think I'm making things up. I have the Palmer book coming to me in the mail, so hopefully I'll be able to give a cite. --Robert.Baruch (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You might also ask User:Aeusoes1 on the English Wikipedia for citations. He's one of the few people who assisted me with my original inquiries, and he's familiar with some of the scholarship published in other countries (i.e. not in English). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

La-cls-numerus

The new version you uploaded has an /ɛ/; mine had an /e/ for the second vowel. What was wrong with the original? Or did you accidentally upload over my File:La-cls-numerus.ogg instead of your File:La-cls-numerus-2.ogg? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I certainly did. A revert is certainly called for, which I have just done. Sorry! --Robert.Baruch (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

La-cls-strenuitas.ogg

This file could use a correction on the quality of the first vowel. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Likewise for File:La-cls-secundus.ogg and File:La-cls-scientia.ogg. If I find more like these, should I just record my own version over the existing file, or would you prefer to do make the corrections for consistency of voice in the Wikibook project you're doing? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I listened to these several times, and I'm not sure I understand what the issue is. Can you record /secundus/ so that I can hear your /e/? I'm trying to use [ɛ]. Consistency in the wikibook isn't necessary, I just want good files! --Robert.Baruch (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see what the difference is. From your /numerus/ you're using [e], not [ɛ], and after playing it a few times, I hear the difference. I *think* I can reproduce this sound. Let me rerecord /scientia/ and then please tell me what you think. --Robert.Baruch (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

But did you want me to continue to list issues here, or just record them myself? I'm checking my own entries methodically as well, and am having to rerecord some of them out of dissatisfaction with vowel sounds. I could do the same for yours, if that would help. However, if you'd rather have a consistent demonstration voice for the Wikibooks endeavor, I completely understand. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you could record over my problematic files, that would be fine. I can learn from your corrections. If you find any problems other than the [ɛ]/[e] problem, please let me know. --Robert.Baruch (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. So far, the [ɛ]/[e] problem is the only one I've come across. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Damsacus infobox2.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Damsacus infobox2.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Damsacus infobox2.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Denniss (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock IP address range

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "The IP address range blocked is an exit for NordVPN in the US. As of 3 Apr 2017, the US government has rolled back consumer privacy protections and now allows US ISPs to harvest and sell customer data (Senate Joint Resolution 34, 115th Congress, House Resolution 230, 115th Congress, TechCrunch coverage). To prevent this, I, and many of my colleagues here in Silicon Valley, am using a VPN. Blocking this address range means allowing all actions taken on the web by me, and anyone using NordVPN, to be harvested and sold. The block was made by Vituzzu (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is leaky colo + open proxy at 209.58.128.44. Start of block: 22:38, 1 June 2016 Expiration of block: 22:38, 1 June 2021 You can contact Vituzzu to discuss the block. You cannot use the "Email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 209.58.139.29, and the blocked range is 209.58.128.0/20. Please include all above details in any queries you make. Robert.Baruch (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)" Decline reason: "Procedural decline: 1) Your account is not blocked, as you are aware since you have uploaded at least 10 images subsequent to this request; and 2) 209.58.128.0/20 is globally blocked, so it cannot be lifted at the Commons; you would need to make a request at meta (and you may wish to formulate a more compelling rationale. The privacy rules had not gone into effect, so the repeal effectively retained the status quo. The implication that the repeal gives a new rise to the need for US users to employ VPNs (i.e., "the US government has rolled back consumer privacy protections and now allows US ISPs to harvest and sell customer data") is disingenuous.) Эlcobbola talk 15:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)