text:
Wuhuan

The Wuhuan (, < Eastern Han Chinese: *ʔɑ-ɣuɑn, < Old Chinese (c. 78 BCE): *ʔâ-wân < *Awar ) were a Proto-Mongolic or para-Mongolic nomadic people who inhabited northern China, in what is now the provinces of Hebei, Liaoning, Shanxi, the municipality of Beijing and the autonomous region of Inner Mongolia.

History
After the Donghu "Eastern Barbarians" were defeated by the Xiongnu around 209 BC, they split into two groups. The northern Donghu became the Xianbei while the southern Donghu living around modern Liaoning became the Wuhuan. According to the Book of Later Han, “the language and culture of the Xianbei are the same as the Wuhuan”. Until 121 BC, the Wuhuan was a tributary of the Xiongnu empire. The Book of Later Han (Ch. 120) says: "From the time that Modu Shanyu crushed them the Wuhuan became weak. They were kept in constant subjugation to the Xiongnu and were forced to pay annual taxes of cow, horse and sheep skins. If anybody did not pay this tax his wife and children were taken from him."

In 121 BC, the Han dynasty general Huo Qubing defeated the eastern wing of the Xiongnu. He then settled the Wuhuan in five commanderies (Shanggu, Yuyang, Youbeiping, Liaoxi and Liaodong) created on the northern Chinese border in order to use them to keep watch of the Xiongnu. The chieftains of the Wuhuan paid annual visits to the Han capital Chang'an and were given rewards.

In 78 BC, the Wuhuan looted the tombs of the Xiongnu chanyus. The outraged Xiongnu rode east and defeated them. Fan Minyou was sent with 20,000 men to aid the Wuhuan. However he arrived too late and the Xiongnu were out of his reach so he attacked the Wuhuan instead, defeated them and beheaded three of their kings.

In 71 BC, the Wuhuan joined the Han, Dingling, and Wusun to defeat the Xiongnu.

In 7 AD, the Han convinced the Wuhuan to stop sending tribute to the Xiongnu, who immediately attacked and defeated the Wuhuan.

In 49 AD, Hedan, the Wuhuan elder of the Liaoxi district, came to the Han court with 922 other chieftains and "paid tribute" to Emperor Guangwu of Han with slaves, cattle, horses, bows and tiger, leopard and sable skins.

In 58 AD, the Xianbei chieftain Pianhe attacked and killed Xinzhiben, a Wuhuan leader causing trouble in Yuyang Commandery.

In 109 AD, the Wuhuan joined the Xianbei in attacking Wuyuan Commandery and defeated local Han forces.

In 168 AD, the Wuhuan established some degree of independence under their own leaders. The largest of these groups were led by Nanlou in Shanggu, Qiuliju in Liaoxi, Supuyan in the Dependent State of Liaodong, and Wuyan in Youbeiping.

In 187 Qiuliju joined the rebellion of Zhang Chun. Following the defeat of Zhang Chun in 188, Qiuliju attacked Gongsun Zan but was defeated. In 190 he surrendered to Liu Yu and died in 193. Qiuliju's son Louban was too young to succeed him so his cousin Tadun became acting guardian. In 195 Tadun, Nanlou and Supuyan supported Yuan Shao against Gongsun Zan. In 207 Tadun was defeated by Cao Cao at the Battle of White Wolf Mountain and died in battle. After their defeat many of the Wuhuan surrendered to Cao Cao and served as part of Cao Cao's cavalry forces. Louban and Supuyan fled to Gongsun Kang, who killed them.

Cao Cao divided the Wuhuan into three groups situated in Dai Commandery. The chieftains Nengchendi and Pufulu continued to cause trouble until 218 when Cao Zhang destroyed the last remnants of their power for good. The Xianbei people quickly filled in the power vacuum left behind by the Wuhuan.

The Wuhuan gradually lost their cultural identity as they integrated with the Han Chinese, Xianbei and other ethnic groups, but continued to exist well into the Jin dynasty and Sixteen Kingdoms period in the 4th century. They fought as auxiliaries for the Jin during the War of the Eight Princes and Upheaval of the Five Barbarians, and several Wuhuan families such as the Kunuguan (庫傉官), Wang (王) and Zhang (張) served under the Xianbei dynasties. During the Dai and early Northern Wei dynasty, however, the word "Wuhuan" had also become a term for migrant people of any ethnicity living under the ruling Tuoba clan. Part of the Wuhuan became known as the Kumo Xi, or the Tatabi, who were finally absorbed by the Khitans in the 10th century.

Culture
The Book of Later Han (Ch. 120) records:

"The Wuhuan are skilled in mounted archery. They engage in hunting animals and birds. They nomadise from place to place in search of grass and water. Without permanent settlements they live in round yurts (穹廬 - qiónglú). The entrance of the yurt faces the sun (south). They eat meat and drink kumiss (酪 - lào). They make clothes from fine wool (máocuì - 毛毳). Youthfulness and strength are held in esteem among them while old age and weakness are not. They are brave and valorous by nature. In anger they kill each other but nobody harms mothers, because the continuation of their progeny depends on their mothers. Fathers and elder brothers on the other hand can create their own separate tribes, so the original tribe does not bear responsibility for them. Whoever is brave, strong and able to deal with contentious cases of litigation are chosen to be elders (大人 - dàren). The office of elder is not hereditary. Each nomadic community has its own small commander (帥 - shuài). A community is composed of a hundred to a thousand yurts. When an elder makes a proclamation they carve markings on wood (刻木為信 - kèmùwéixìn), even though they have no script, and none of the tribes dare to violate it."

Language
Andrew Shimunek (2017) classifies the Wuhuan (or "Awar"/"Avar", per Shimunek's reconstruction) language as the most divergent para-Mongolic language.

Battles

 * Battle of White Wolf Mountain
 * Battle of Nanpi

Rulers

 * Hedan (49 AD)
 * Xinzhiben 歆志賁 (58 AD)
 * Qiuliju 丘力居 (187 AD)
 * Nanlou 難樓 (207 AD)
 * Supuyan 穌僕延 (207 AD)
 * Louban 樓班 (207 AD)
 * Tadun 蹋頓 (died 207 AD)
 * Nengchendi 能臣抵 (207-218 AD)
 * Pufulu 普富盧 (207-218 AD)

title: Wuhuan


text:
Hindon

Hindon may refer to:

 * Hindon, Wiltshire, a village in England
 * Hindon (UK Parliament constituency), a former parliamentary borough
 * Hindon, New Zealand, a small settlement on New Zealand's South Island
 * The Hindon River, India
 * Hindon Air Force Station, an Indian Air Force base on the river, near Delhi
 * Hindon Airport, civilian enclave within the station
 * Hindon metro station, a station on the Delhi Metro, near the river

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Hindon


text:
Talk:List of NHL players (S)

Moritz Seider
Needs to be added. Was the Gordle for today… 2001:569:BD2C:A700:C47F:C6B2:7E20:68D (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of NHL players (S)


text:
Scratchbox

Scratchbox is a Linux embedded application development toolkit which also provides cross compilation support for Linux distributions.

The project has been initially developed by Movial and sponsored by Nokia. It is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL).

Scratchbox was designed for the Maemo development platform (Nokia 770, N800, N810 Internet Tablets and Nokia N900 and N9 phones) and supports ARM architecture and x86. Targets like PowerPC and MIPS architecture works under experimental level.

title: Scratchbox


text:
Anketell, Western Australia

Anketell is a suburb of Perth, Western Australia, located within the City of Kwinana.

Anketell was part of early settler Thomas Peel's land grant, used for the 1920s Group Settlement Scheme in Peel Estate. It is named after Peel Estate's surveyor, Richard John Anketell.

title: Anketell, Western Australia


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bifauxnen

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Bifauxnen
delete. Neologism. Google search for {bifauxnen -wikipedia -GFDL -encyclopedia} returned less than a dozen non-Wikipedia mirror usage. Specifically, the Google results were (in order listed by Google search results):
 * 1)  - (semi-)independent, links to Wikipedia
 * 2)  - independent
 * 3)  - mirror
 * 4)  - no reference (google cache shows independent usage)
 * 5)  - mirror
 * 6)  - no reference (google cache shows a search result page)
 * 7)  - copy-n-paste from Wikipedia, foreign language forum
 * 8)  - independent, foreign language blog
 * 9)  - mirror
 * 10)  - website down (google cache shows only a page full of links)
 * 11)  - independent derives from Wikipedia
 * 12)  - independent derives from Wikipedia
 * 13)  - mirror
 * 14)  - mirror
 * 15)  - mirror
 * 16)  - mirror —Tokek 10:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete - nn. UniReb 12:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - the name may be BS, but much of the content seems valid - perhaps it's a mis-spelling? Or maybe there's a proper name to which it could be moved? -- BD2412 talk 19:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a merge to Yuri (animation) or Homosexuality in Japan, or a rename to Androgyny in manga, or something broader like Transgenderism in Japanese media. —Tokek 20:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I thought I'd come across the term, but that must have been on Wikipedia, I realize, after checking out the sorry Google hit list above. Note to self: be less gullible. Tokek, thanks for alerting me to this (I obviously take a personal interest :-)), and please also note that hits 11 and 12 above, the Hentai Dictionary, aren't independent. The definition that they click through to refers right back to Wikipedia. BD2412, it's not a misspelling, it's offered as a portmanteau of faux (French: fake) and bishonen. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Bertram, Western Australia

Bertram is a suburb of Perth, Western Australia, located within the City of Kwinana. Bertram derives its name from the family name of a Group Settler of the 1920s who owned land in the area. It was established as a locality name on 17 December 1998.

Bertram has seen a recent spate of growth with the development of a small shopping centre, the opening of the Mandurah railway line with a station in the suburb and continued land releases within the Belgravia Central estate.

The local public school is Bertram Primary School that first opened its doors in 2007 with 250 students. It is an Official Apple Distinguished School.

Bus

 * 543 Kwinana Station to Kwinana Bus Station – serves
 * 544 Kwinana Station to Wellard Station – serves

Bus routes serving Kwinana Station only:
 * 540 Kwinana Station to Kwinana Bus Station
 * 541 and 542 Kwinana Station to Wellard Station

Rail

 * Mandurah Line
 * Kwinana Station

title: Bertram, Western Australia


text:
Talk:Comparison between Esperanto and Interlingua

LFN
An anonymous user has been turning this article into something that would better be called Esperanto, Interlingua and Lingua Franca Nova compared. Now with all due respect to his or her efforts, but if we go on with this, this article will turn into the battlefield of one of those typical auxlang flamewars about whose language is better. I have nothing against LFN, but I don't think its presence in an article about comparing E-o and I-a is warranted. Otherwise we might as well add Ido, Occidental, Novial, Glosa, Europanto, Esperantido, Adjuvilo and about 500 other euroclones, and there you go. --IJzeren Jan 10:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Clean up
I have made an attempt to "clean up" this article, and I hope it's now good enough to justify removing the clean-up tag. If not, please put it back, I won't be offended. No, honest, really I won't. Well, maybe just a teeny bit, but then thats Wikipedia for you, innit?.

However, I have to confess that I am normally a contributor to the Esperanto wiki, so although I have tried to conserve NPOV, my own inherent bias towards eo might show through, so any Interlinguistas out there, feel free to correct errors in fact, etc. Also, I am not a linguist. Sigh. Le Hibou 00:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Respective movements
I don't know enough about the movements of either language to write on them but it would be interesting to see the way they go about promoting the language. Interlingua doesn't even seem to have an agreement on whether it wants to be the universal IAL, although it looks like they've been doing a lot more of that lately. I noticed just yesterday for example, that the constitution of the EU that the Interlinguists translated (200+ pages I think) has apparently been sent to each member of the European Parliament for the to peruse. There's also their emphasis on science and so on, whereas Esperanto is much more of a from the bottom-up approach where they start with it as a method for meeting people in other countries, and the politics of the EU, scientific journals and whatnot are merely a small part. But those are just my impressions from what I know about the two. Mithridates 04:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So-called Neutrality
I know I'm not welcome to edit this article, being an Interlingua speaker, but it might be worth noting that some people see the perceived 'non-neutrality' of either Esperanto or Interlingua as a strength, not a flaw. Almafeta 19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Quit playing the martyr and contribute. One of the editors above specifically said we need IL editors for this article. kwami 19:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I appreciate that the Eo editors have done their best to maintain NPOV. One point that needs to be worked on is the difference in linguistic philosophy. It's been argued that once you admit the basic philosophical differences, the different design decisions follow fairly naturally. But asserting that is one thing, writing it up is another.--Chris 05:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Its important to be neutral but the best contributers have an opinion. Totally neutral no opinion editors are dead editors(no offence intended.). And I encourage you again to Be Bold.--Jondel 06:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I'm going to be bold with my current series of edits. Let me know what you think.--Chris 18:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the whole issue of neutrality is sort of foreign to Interlingua, so all the space in the article devoted to comparing "neutralities" seems odd. I just really looked at this for the first time; maybe later I'll boldly try to rejigger it a bit. --Cam 11:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

..

 * Hey, somebody who speaks Interlingua, PLEASE add to the article. There is too much on Esperanto and too few about Interlingua. It would be really nice if every paragraph talking about Esperanto pros and cons had an correspondent talking about Interlinguas pros and cons... Just my opinion! I will, too, do my best to help this article reach its full potential!!! =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.150.61 (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only add to the request :-) As a non-either speaker, looking to pick up at least one of of the two, I felt the article lent towards a Esperanto point of view. I had a look at the talk page so see if there were any remarks on that, which seems the case. So Interlinguists, please write up!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:982:1768:1:21E:65FF:FEC8:7C5C (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Translation Errors
"interna ideo" means "internal idea", not "internal ideal". Is the english meant to change, or the esperanto to "interna idealo" ?

malsanulejo
I think something should be said about the different ways to express the same idea in Esperanto. Note that the words  hospitalo, kliniko, lazareto, preventorio, sanatorio also exist in Esperanto. Other roots can also be used, b.i. kurac (medically treat). Of course, the roots that are part of the fundamental vocabulary are preferred, but it is depending on the audience, and the skills of the speaker who can adjust to it.

The advantage of having many ways to say the same is that it permits to express an idea fluently, without hindering the comprehension. If the root kurac comes first to my mind, I can easily build kuracejo. If I think of san, I can build resanigejo, what means a construction(ejo) where one makes(ig) people healthy(san) again(re). This flexibility makes Esperanto very comfortable to speak and listen to. The remark about malsanulejo not being precise enough looks out of place. The word would be quite all right on most occasions. --Remush 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

non-Western features
About "Esperanto's European character is purely accidental; proponents tend to stress its allegedly non-Western features for ideological reasons". Probably the author misunderstood a phrase like: All the features of Esperanto are coming from western languages, but of course, some (many?) features of western languages are also found in non-western ones. --Remush 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

quasi-religion of homaranismo
This is really shoking. I changed quasi-religion to philosophy. Using the term religion is quite inappropriate here, as Homaranismo aŭ Hillelismo is valid for believers and non-believers, and is more comparable to Buddhism. Anyway, Homaranismo is not promoted inside the Esperanto movement, and few Esperantists know what it is about. --Remush 09:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious statement
Being neutrally and sarcastically negative against both Esperanto and Interlingua, I find this statement very hard to accept:
 * Both languages, however have a highly regular grammar and a system of word-building with a limited number of affixes

True for esperanto, if "highly" is skipped (considering genitive is applicable to correlatives, but not nouns) but almost perfectly untrue for Interlingua. Interlingua has almost no grammar whatsoever, to apply "regular" to. The system for word-building is irregular, illogical and actually borrowed from languages outside Interlingua, essentially voiding its own independent word-building capability, and also essentially voiding itself as an independent language. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

 * A number of points in response, hopefully neither negative nor sarcastic:
 * Word building (morphology) is not what people usually think of when they say grammar. When talking about an irregular grammar, people normally mean irregular verb declensions, irregular plural forms, etc. – what Wikipedia calls syntax. According to that more common definition, Interlingua's grammar is in fact almost completely regular, except for a few collateralisms that most speakers ignore.
 * Its word building system is arguably not regular. However, it is significantly less irregular than its source languages due to the regularization of derivational series. For example: tempore → temporari, integre → integritate, pede → pedal, etc. are regular derivations, while being irregular in all of the source languages (ref.: "Forms of International Words in Derivational Series" in the introduction to the IED of 1951).
 * As for the "independence" of Interlingua: the whole underlying idea is that an international language didn't need to be invented, but was just waiting to be derived from a pre-existing international vocabulary shared by languages around the world. By definition, Interlingua is the language based on the International Scientific Vocabulary. Interlingua encourages building new words form this material (ref.: Formation de parolas in interlingua). And the ISV itself is an extremely fertile ground for building new words, as you can read in the linked article. Inherently, then, so is Interlingua's word building system. You seem to be criticizing Interlingua for living up to its stated purpose.
 * – McDutchie (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that Esperanto and Interlingua were designed to do different things and both fulfil their purposes very well. I'll take a look at the article and see if I can improve it a bit. Jchthys cont. 02:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Written as a debate?
I believe that this article is not written like a debate, but as an article which evenly treats the issue without switching sides constantly. Hence I removed the template at the top of the page. I also feel that the article makes few, if any, dubious claims that would need citations. — Jchthys cont. 23:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Paternoster
Why is the Serbian paternoster here? Only English (readers' language), Esperanto and Interlingua (the two languages being compared) should be here. Also, there should be no three-dot ellipses at the end of "but deliver us from evil"—that's where the Lord's Prayer ends in Esperanto as well as Latin and the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament, even if the English version usually includes the conclusion. — Jchthys cont. 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vocabulary?
I just wrote a lot of material for vocab, and someone decided to remove them as "unnecessary", while I view them as fundamentally important; Antonielly, could you please justify your removing my basic description of how vocabulary is built in Esperanto? "Doesn't add to the comparison" seems like a complete farce from my point of view, considering it's directly on topic.

This section of the article is not just about roots, but all vocabulary. As it is right now, it focuses entirely on how roots entered the languages, (and not well at that)... however, in Esperanto, the whole point of the regularity is its ability to build within itself. A paragraph explaining that process is thus not at all unjustified.

If an explanation isn't given in a day or two, I'm going to just revert, which I'm hardly refraining from doing right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lackinglatin (talk • contribs) 01:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * While I recognize you've made a good-faith edit (yes, I know you were trying to contribute), I removed some of the paragraphs you've added because I feel they do not belong to the comparison article, but rather to the Esperanto article. Moreover, they present some inaccurate information. For instance:

Within Esperanto, a great deal of emphasis is put upon the 'isolating' and 'agglutanative' (sic) nature of the language, and is considered a strong virtue of it.

 * "Isolating" is very different from "agglutinative". Check the corresponding Wikipedia articles, then you will see that this sentence is self-contradictory.

The vocabulary is creatively kept quite small through the use of 50 affixes which are entirely consistent throughout the language.

 * This presents another inaccuracy: they are not affixes (some introductory references to Esperanto notwithstanding), but high-frequency free morphemes. Moreover, their use is not entirely consistent throughout the language, because of: the tabelvortoj, which do not use them; the reversibility problem.

''In this way, once you know the two endings "-ino" and "-ido", you can take any animal's name as a root, and from it also have the name for its offspring and the masculine and feminine forms for it. If you also know "-ego", "-eto", "ĉef-", "-aro", (all roots gathered from sample languages), then you also know the words for a large specimen and a small specimen, the word for a leader of the pack of such an animal, and word for a pack of the animal--once you know the affixes, with every animal thenceforth the only word to be learned is the root.''

 * These are too "low-level" details of Esperanto, which would better be in the Esperanto article. If we are supposed to make a root-by-root comparison between Esperanto and Interlingua, this article will get huge. And the main features of comparison will get lost amid the nitpicked details. It is my opinion that we should focus on comparing the design goals and the philosophy of each auxlang, to put the article in a spirit of high-level comparison, i.e., an encyclopedical overview to the topic.

Further, where two roots can be compounded to form a new word, this generally prefered (and never wrong), further maintaing the small vovabulary (sic) '' and ease of learning. Thus, within Esperanto a large number of synonyms are always possible, especially for new words.''

 * This does not add to the comparison (the raison d'être of this article). Interlingua also has a lot of synonyms. Therefore a difference was not shown.

''All Esperanto's forms are acceptable and are immediately understood by any fluent speaker; thus the language gives a greater range of expression with an equal amount of work. Interlingua simply uses spam, which in turn accomplishes its goal of wide comprehension through simplicity.''

 * This is not a design goal of Interlingua! Interlingua was not designed to be comprehensible or simple. But this is a very common misconception, so it is not your fault that you didn't know that. And with respect to Esperanto, it is completely vague what is meant by "greater range of expression". Interlingua uses "spam", Esperanto uses "spamo", so there is no noteworthy difference here.

 * I could comment more excerpts of the previous edit, but I think I would be repeating myself. The main problem of the paragraphs I have eliminated is not that they have a lot of inaccuracies (which they do have, as I've shown above), but that they do not add to the comparison between Esperanto and Interlingua.

 * After removing the parts that didn't align to the aim of this article, there was a part of your edit that added some information to the article. Instead of deleting it, I kept it and improved the accuracy of the innacurate parts (for instance, the one that talked about the mythical design aim of "high recognizability" in Interlingua).

 * I hope I have succeeded in making it clear to you why I have removed some of the paragraphs in your previous edit. I also hope this will not discourage you from contributing. We all make mistakes, and some edits of mine were reverted in the past for similar reasons. I suggest you to join the AUXLANG list to become more acquainted with the design philosophies and the main differences between the different auxlang proposals. If you have some doubt which I didn't cover in this message, please let me know and I will help you. Regards. --Antonielly (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to have something more concrete to respond to, though I disagree on how much you improved the  'innacurate (sic) parts' .

Concerning your first point of objection...

The isolating/agglutinative nature of Esperanto is not something I made up in my ignorance; from the wiki article:

''As a constructed language, Esperanto is not genealogically related to any ethnic language. It has been described as "a language lexically predominantly Romanic, morphologically intensively agglutinative, and to a certain degree isolating in character."''

After reading your response, I decided to check and make sure I properly understood "Isolating". To my understanding, "isolating" meant that particular morphemes can be "isolated" anywhere they are used in a language, and not have changed. Reading the wikipedia article on isolating languages, I became confused at my apparent error--I didn't understand how this previous quote from the Esperanto wiki article could be justified if 'isolating' could only describe a language "in which words are composed of a single morpheme [...] in contrast to a synthetic language which can have words composed of multiple morphemes"; and alas, the reference in the Esperanto was from a book not available to me, so I couldn't check there. A quick google turned up an article by Claude Piron on exactly this issue, however, wherein he compares inflectional, agglutinative, (forgive my prior misspelling), and isolating languages in relation to Esperanto. It's a long article, so I'll quote a couple relevant sections for your convenience.

''Let us now make some observations on what we have discovered. For convenience we keep the traditional terms " inflectional"," agglutinative " and "isolating", although they are poorly chosen and derive from an insufficient analysis of the facts. For example, Chinese is generally cited as the type case of an isolating language, but in fact it contains many morphemes which cannot be used in isolation. [...] On the other hand, Chinese constantly uses a system traditionally regarded as typically agglutinative: it adds morphemes to each other to form sometimes very long words [...].''

''What really distinguishes the isolating languages is the fact that the morphemes are invariant, each having a form that remains constant in all of its appearances, whether they be combinations, derivations or grammatical variations. [...] The important point is that, whatever the change in meaning or grammar, the morpheme itself remains untouched. A grammatical function is signaled either by word order or by invariant grammatical morphemes.''

''As far as its core is concerned, Esperanto is an isolating language. It completely fulfills the structural criterion defined''. [...]

''In some respects Esperanto resembles the agglutinative languages. But since the crucial test for being agglutinative - variability of shape of affixes or grammatical morphemes - yields negative results, one must consider Esperanto basically non-agglutinative. Yet the excep-tional visibility of the grammatical structure of the sentence is a feature which brings Esperanto closer to agglutinative than isolating languages.''

Apparently the Wikipedia article needs to be edited! Piron is a well known Esperanto advocate, but I don't think that undermines his credibility as a linguist speaking on such a basic topic.

Further, concerning it's agglutinative characteristics, from the wiki article on agglutination:

Agglutinative languages also have large inventories of enclitics, too, which can be and are separated from the word root by native speakers in daily usage.

This is also relative to the discussion below about the "affixes," and is certainly descriptive of Esperanto. Rather than being 'self-contradicting', one finds that the deeper one looks, the more gray the line between agglutinative & isolating traits become. Indeed, as in Piron's article previously cited:

That the traditional categories are too rigid in comparison with the not very classifiable reality is evident from the fact that a given "definitional" trait can often be found in different language families or categories, Esperanto being no exception.

So while I certainly understand your questioning the sentence, it's not without precedent or merit to use both characteristics to describe the language. In any case, considering the statement factually erroneous is certainly an overstatement...

---

Speaking strictly according to usage within the field of linguistics, the 'afiksoj' are not true affixes, granted. But how else is one to translate that word? If you like, you can add a parenthetical statement adding that they are not affixes in the most technical definition of the word, but that's clearly the translation for it. Perhaps something like "afiksoj" (translated "affixes", though actually unbound morphemes as opposed to the traditional understanding) would be more to your liking? Within Esperanto, they are considered more as affixes that can also be used alone, than as words themselves that are combined more often than others. It's a matter of paradigm, and it's not so cut and dry as your retort supposes.

Arguing that they are not "entirely" consistent because of the tabelvortoj is certainly debatable... consistency does not necessarily mean usable in every single instance. One can choose to view the tabelvortoj as exceptions, (as you do), or as simply a distinct class of words that follow a different set of rules. If it bothers you, then the word "consistent" itself (without the disputable "entirely" qualified) is certainly agreeable in any case.

Lastly, concerning the "reversibility problem," the Ido article referenced should probably be updated. At the very least, it is a "problem" open to question, if not a complete farce... Granted, I'm sure some Idist will argue with me there just as an Interlinguist has done here.

''De Saussure and Aymonier have demonstrated the groundlessness and practical inconvenience of the fundamental postulate of word-building in Ido, viz. the principle of reversibility. Esperanto forms from the root kron, "a crown," the verb kroni, just as English forms "to crown," French "couronner," and German "krönen." Ido will not permit the direct derivation of a verb kronar; on the ground that, if one reconverts the verb into a substantive, the latter must bear the meaning of the action expressed by the verb, viz. "coronation." In consequence of this "logical" demand, which has no warrant in the facts of the living languages, Ido is driven to such clumsy expedients as kronizar, adresizar, sudorifar, martelagar, as against the simple and more eloquent kroni, marteli, etc. Esperanto quite legitimately expresses "coronation," "hammering," by kronado, martelado, using for the purpose a suffix indicating action.'' [...]

---

Now, concerning your further deletions... I have a hard time not regarding your sweeping edits as completely biased. Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, however, I will simply state our points of apparent disagreement.

I think, for instance, that:

1. An  'encyclopedical (sic) overview'  would include a comprehensive, if brief, view of the topic presented.

2. This article is not comprehensive, and is too short. Insufficient information is presented in this section to adequately or fairly compare Interlingua & Esperanto.

From there, more minor disagreements:

3. The phoneticization of ŝeko, etc., (ideally using the actual phonetic alphabet), are necessary to demonstrate that while the orthography is the same, the roots are auditorily almost as completely similar as Interlingua's, an important point that is neglected to the point of being misleading in this section.

3a. This following paragraph, which you deleted, (and which followed the section just mentioned), clearly adds to the comparison nature of the article:

''It might be thus argued that the endings of words are so variable as to be meaningless to maintain, giving Esperanto an edge by way of increased clarity with only basic understanding of 8 basic ending consistent throughout the language... alternatively, it could be argued that the root's shift of appearance, (though remaining phonetically nearly as identical as interlingua), prevents people who do not know Esperanto's alphabet from quickly recognizing the roots that Interlingua goes to great lengths to maintain. Different philosophies have led to different approaches.''

Why was that removed? Edit it, fine, I was just adding information, and I understand it's not the most beautiful rendering of that information. But it's crucial to a valid comparison of root adoption between the languages.

4. "...in at least three source language units (considering Spanish and Portuguese together as one unit)" is an unnecessary detail in this article.

5. You say that it is not one of interlingua's goals to have immediate comprehensibility, but could you give me a source for that statement? Aside from it contradicting all that I've read about the language, (I can't recall a direct statement, but it was designed as an 'inter-language'), what other justification is there to import them so directly? If you are indeed correct, then I perceive absolutely no virtue or benefit to adding words as directly as done other than the unintended one (which, mind you, is often touted by Interlinguists as one of its chief sell points). It's root gathering process would thus be almost exactly as Esperanto's, but without the added clarity of regularity. Again, this is something that should be openly discussed, no matter what the answer is...

6. The paragraph wherein I gave examples was sufficiently concise enough to not be too detailed in an article such as this, and did indeed add to the article's "comparison" nature. In no way are such [brief] comparisons unmerited, as they give understanding of how word formation in Esperanto works, and why it works the way it does--directly on topic. (This would, by the way, be far too brief for the actual "Esperanto" article itself). I would much rather we have more details about interlingua's equivalent system for words added... I'm not exactly sure how to make this work within the current layout of the article, as in Esperanto word building & vocabulary are inseparable... perhaps the whole section should be renamed something more specific to "roots" if this is not thus fitting.

7. The spam discussion was previously a misguided slight aimed at Esperanto, that actually touched on something that is as much a strength as a weakness, if anything. The clarification was messy, I understand, but why was it completely removed?

I appreciate the invitation to join the list, but I've never really been able to 'get into' mailing lists. I have, however, done many hours of research on the various conlangs, and get my fix talking with people around me in real life.

Looking forward to your response...

--Lackinglatin (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 * You have made some good points that can be explored to improve this and other articles (Interlingua, Esperanto, etc.), all of them needing a lot of improvements. You asked for instance:

You say that it is not one of interlingua's goals to have immediate comprehensibility, but could you give me a source for that statement?

 * Yes, I can. A document named Manifesto de Interlingua, written by Alexander Gode (the leader of the Interlingua project at IALA), details the design goals of Interlingua. He makes the significative declaration that "no such preconceived principles of selection [as defined, for instance, for Esperanto, Ido, Occidental, NovIAL, etc.] were possible, because it [Interlingua] was not about constructing but simply elaborating the language" (my translation).

 * What he meant by that assertion is that Interlingua was not created by listing a priori some quality attributes desired for an international auxiliary language (e.g. immediate comprehensibility, simplicity, regularity) and then developing from there a language that maximized the satisfaction of those attributes; instead, he asserts that Interlingua already existed before he codified it, but only in a latent form: Interlingua was embedded in the source languages, and each source language mixed the international (translingual) elements, which are Interlingua, with non-international elements (individual to that language only), which are not Interlingua, but only, say, pure Italian (or pure English, or pure French).

 * This interesting position is revelating to many, including even various experienced Interlingua speakers (who may acquire proficiency in the language and yet be ignorant to that philosophical position in language design). It was revelating for me when I first read it, and it still astounds me as exotic and original in the auxlang world.

 * I believe this information is crucial for the needed restructuring of this article. Moreover, this should be emphasized in the Interlingua article, but unfortunately it is not. Maybe we could work here and there to find a way to better fit this information in this article and in the Interlingua article.

 * Note that Gode claims that Interlingua was not invented, but just extracted. But, in my opinion, it is possible to legitimately defend another point of view, which considers that Interlingua was invented, like any other conauxlang that ever existed. In this point of view, we can say that, in practice, he selected a priori at least one quality attribute: etymological fidelity. This attribute can be considered as the fundamental basis for the "rule of 3" and for the determination of the prototype as the "nearest common ancestor" of at least 3 language units. I believe this point of view would be more suitable as a basis for comparing Esperanto and Interlingua, so that we avoid comparing apples to helicopters and move to comparing apples to oranges, a "less hard" comparison to do :D.

 * You made another important observation:

Aside from it contradicting all that I've read about the language

 * That is completely true and on the spot. There are a lot of material out there that claims "immediate comprehensibility" was a design goal of Interlingua. Given that they contradict what is said on the "Preface to the Interlingua-English Dictionary (IED)" and on the "Manifesto de Interlingua" (the two fundamental references concerning Interlingua), those assertions should be considered as misleading at best. Maybe that widespread claim has been written due to good-faith ignorance of the authors with respect to the fundamental references about the Interlingua design; maybe it has been written in some cases just as a hype to attract people to learn Interlingua, as it is admittedly a good selling point. Misleading information is particularly prominent in propaganda material made by partisans of the Interlingua movement (and of the movements of any other conauxlangs), and thus should be taken with a grain of salt.

 * The IED contains plenty of evidence that immediate comprehensibility was not an absolute quality goal of Interlingua, and it possibly was not even a regarded by Gode as a worthy goal at all. "tempore" (the Interlingua word) is less recognizable than "tempo" (the word that would be selected if similarity to the source languages were the fundamental aim); instead of "littera" for "letter", we would have "lettera"; rather than "integre" (entire), the more recognizable word according to the source languages would be "intere"; and so on. Instead, the words he chose seem to reflect a desire to keep etymological fidelity as well as making the form of each given root uniform across a derivational family (the set of words that share a same conceptual root, such as "littera"/"litterari"/"litteratura", "regula"/"regular"/"regulator"/"rege"/"regente", "domo"/"majordomo"/"domestic", etc.).

 * You've made other relevant points, and I would have to write a huge essay to address all of them (this message is already much bigger than I wanted it to be). Maybe we should tackle one problem at a time, so that we are successful in evolving the article while keeping consensus continuously. Which one do you think we should tackle first? Say which is in your opinion the single most serious specific problem in the article (that could be solved in one step), and let's discuss it here, before addressing all the other less important problems.

 * (Just do not forget to comment here in the talk page each major edit you intend to do, before doing it, otherwise some editor will not be able to correctly guess the rationale of your proposed change and she may revert your good-faith edit. Major edits which are consensual and explained in the talk page tend to be kept in Wikipedia.) --Antonielly (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

More difficult for speakers of English because of diacritics per se?
Someone added this sentence:

 * The use of diacritics in Esperanto makes it harder for typing and for users of languages that lack diacritics (e.g. English).

I'm dubious about the latter part of the sentence (and even the former part is less true than it used to be). Can someone cite a source for the assertion that speakers of languages whose alphabet uses no diacritics find languages which use diacritics more difficult than languages without them, other factors (phoneme inventory size, etc.) held constant? --Jim Henry (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

= Number of Speakers =

Is there a source on the number of speakers of either language? The page on Interlingua cites a source from 1999, saying the number of people who actively speak Interlingua is only a few hundred. I don't know how one would gauge the number of speakers, or where one would find a citation for it. Should there be a citation, or am I just nitpicking?Wilcynic (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC) [Edit: The first paragraph of the Interlingua article cites the same source as the box to the right, but one says "a few hundred" and the other says 1500. Perhaps I'm a little too conservative in what I consider "a few", but it seems like this should be clarified. The source might also be cited in this article, if someone is able to look at it and see what it actually says. Wilcynic (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)]

Fixing up the Interlingua portion of the article
Thank you for taking the time to review my recent additions to the article. I am however concerned about some of the assertions that you have made to justify your revisions. For clarity's sake, I would like to address them individually:

 * Number of speakers: While I agree completely that conflating mutual intelligibility with the number og "speakers" is problematic, I strongly disagree that this piece of information should be left out of the article completely, as it is one of the primary 'selling points,' so to say, of Interlingua, contra Esperanto. I chose to put it where I did because it seemed like the most useful place for a reader looking for a quick comparison/overview over the two languages. Regarding the lack of citation, it was pretty easy to add together the number of speakers of all Romance languages from their respective Wikipedia articles, and I didn't think of citing a source, though doing so could be achieved with great ease. Do you think that this information (number of people with whom Interlingua is mutually intelligible) should be dedicated to its own row in the table? Should there be a subsection further down in the article that speaks about the subject at greater length? What do you think?

 * Control languages: As you asserted in your description of your revision, the control languages of Interlingua are clearly documented. Why leave out the secondary control languages, as their influence on the grammar and vocabulary of Interlingua is just as, if not more crucial than the primary controls in some cases? While I am refraining from outright undoing your other revisions, this one in particular bugs me. Can you explain your reasoning for excluding the secondary control languages?

 * Morphology of derived words: Your reasoning for this revision is the most confusing to me. Nowhere in that section, or even the rest of the article, can any variation of the words "is in practice made in the language" be found. Nevertheless, the example I constructed was meant to demonstrate derivation and agglutination of new words in Interlingua using a format that paralleled the previously given example. Indeed, the given affixes and roots are used in practice in this way all the time, and although this specific example is unused in the Interlingua corpus, it still demonstrates the Interlinguist counterpart to novel word formation in an easy-to-understand manner. Even if affixing is used less liberally than Esperanto is famous for, I still think that leaving out such crucial information about the morphology of one language introduces excessive editorial bias in favour of the other language. In addition, the deleted portion of text tied directly into the table that follows its paragraph, and leaving out the text in this way makes the table seem cluttered and more difficult to understand than it otherwise was. Do you think it is possible for you to provide further justification for this particular revision than what was given?

Lastly, in answering the above inquiries, I implore you to keep in mind that editorial bias is most commonly introduced not by providing false information, but rather by leaving out relevant factual information. --VladVP (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I think that instead of stating a flat number of speakers (which can't be made by adding up speakers, since you're going to count people multiple times), we should state languages. It'd be best if we can give comparison to other languages, particularly Esperanto, but also Spanish or French. It's easy to find numeric comparison of how intelligible various Romance languages are online, but Interlingua isn't mentioned.

 * It seemed more parallel and more terse. A long list of languages in this box doesn't help much, and it certainly isn't parallel with what Esperanto has in the same box.

 * I don't think we should compare one language in practice to the other language in theory. If there's a good example of agglutination of words in Interlingua, then we should use it. If not, we shouldn't give the impression that large-scale agglutination is a major feature of Interlingua.

 * Bias is often added by piling on more and more statements; in comparison articles, they are often true but mostly irrelevant statements to obscure real differences between the things being compared.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I think it is very difficult to make an argument that there is so much overlap between speakers of different Romance languages that it would significantly affect the approximate estimation I provided. Nevertheless, I fully agree with the overall point you are making, and I would like to commence work on a section that talks in-depth about the intelligibility of Interlingua to Romance-speakers (and perhaps English speakers) in comparison to Esperanto. In the meantime, I still think it would be productive to incorporate an additional row in the overview table that mentions this core feature of Interlingua. The table is already structured in a way that compares core features of Esperanto (orthography, antonym formation, grammatical features) against equivalent features in Interlingua that are not weighed as inherently important by most interlinguists. Therefore, I think it would serve the reader well to make a few comparisons between the two languages that owe their basis to core features of the other language as well. Would you have anything against me making a small revision that introduces this?

 * Stylistic concerns do not override encyclopedic value. I wouldn't mind grouping IT,ES,PT,FR under the "Romance" umbrella if it wasn't for the fact that there are plenty of Romance languages that were explicitly not considered in the creation of Interlingua, chief among which is Romanian. This page talks about the sources of the Esperanto vocabulary. The biggest difference that I can tell between Esperanto and Interlingua in this regard, is that while Esperanto words are sourced quasi-arbitrarily from various (mostly) European languages, the source languages of the Interlingua vocabulary are carefully curated to ensure consistency. Perhaps this is what the table should say, providing links to different articles that talk about the vocabulary sources of each language?

 * I could just as well have chosen an Interlingua word that is commonly used and is also derived from (even more) multiple affixes, but I chose to parallel the example given to demonstrate word formation in Esperanto. Problem is, if I picked an unrelated word it would seem very out of place with the rest of the Morphology section. While I don't think that rewriting the whole section to use a different root word (than "san") is appropriate, i could definitely come up with multiple Interlingua words that are still formed by addition of affixes and roots to "san". Should I write the Interlingua portion of this section with a focus on words that are found in the corpus? I think this would be the best compromise.

 * Your closing statement is invalid in this context as it could equally be used to justify removing "irrelevant" information about Esperanto, which I don't think is the correct course of action to improve the encyclopedic value of the article. --VladVP (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Orthography and grammatical features are not weighed as inherently important? I think most linguists and even scholars of interlinguistics would disagree. Whereas mutual intelligibility is rarely mentioned in Wikipedia articles, especially not in the overview section.

 * I doubt there are any words of Romanian origin in Esperanto, either. That article says "84% of basic vocabulary was Latinate, 14% Germanic, and 2% Slavic and Greek", with the Latinate words generally either being directly from Latin, from Italian or Greek. (Zamenhof did not know or use Spanish or Portuguese.) I would be curious about the non-European words, and their Interlingua analogs; if Interlingua has a word for hibakusha (in Esperanto, hibakuŝo), well, French, English and Portuguese use the same spelling; in any language it's of recent origin from Japanese, even if Interlingua borrows it from Romance and Germanic sources and Esperanto and English both borrowed it directly from Japanese.

 * I think that examples need to be from the corpus. "malsanejo" and "hospitalo" are actual Esperanto words; any Interlingua examples should likewise be real Interlingua.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * What I meant by "inherently important" is a core innovative feature that sets the language apart from all other similar projects. In Esperanto, this is encompassed by highly schematic grammar and extreme agglutination, almost to the point of polysynthesis such as in the hospital example, the point of which of course is learnability. In Interlingua, however, the whole point of the language is mutual intelligibility! I think it is completely irrelevant how "rarely" it is mentioned in Wikipedia articles (which I highly disagree with by the way), when it is especially relevant in the comparison that this article makes. I think leaving out such a key detail would betray the reader's comprehension of the topics at hand.

 * (As a side note, "Interlingua scholars" who made Interlingua spent a great deal of time discussing whether to use a phonemic orthography or not. They eventually decided against it because it didn't benefit immediate understandability. This also reminds me that the article might have to mention the fact that Esperanto was mostly made by a single amateur [Zamenhoff], while Interlingua was made by a committee of professional linguists.)

 * "Hibakusha" is in the corpus of Neo-Latin words, so it is by default valid to use in Interlingua. The rest of the paragraph seems like a fair point, however. I will make a revision referring to IA's primary control languages under the 'Romance' umbrella, while mentioning German and Russian as secondary control languages. (Since Esperanto borrows words from multiple Germanic and Slavic languages, but Interlingua does no such thing, only using the most spoken of each to compare against)

 * I will write a new paragraph focusing on words found in the corpus. --VladVP (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The space for goals in the infobox should be marked "Goals". I note that nothing in that box mentions learnability, which shares the same problem of "mutual intelligibility" of being poorly measured and mainly by partisans.

 * Or, you know, made and used by a large community of users versus a committee of academics. We could mention the size of the library and the literature in print in Esperanto, too. As I said, bias is frequently caused by piling on facts and what we mention and how we mention it.

 * Hibakusha comes from Japanese. The fact that it was adopted into various European languages first seems moot. I stand by what I said; words of non-European origin in Esperanto are going to have direct analogs in Interlingua or are going to represent a hole in Interlingua's vocabulary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


text:
Calista, Western Australia

Calista is a southern suburb of Perth, Western Australia, located within the City of Kwinana.

Calista is one of the Kwinana suburbs named after a ship. Calista was one of the first ships to bring settlers to the Swan River Colony. She arrived with 73 passengers on 5 August 1829 under the command of Captain S. Hawkins. Two of the most notable passengers on the ship were Lionel and William Samson.

Calista is home to the Kwinana Adventure Park which was voted the Western Australia's joint Favourite Playground in 2021.

title: Calista, Western Australia


text:
User:Johannes Ries

__NOINDEX__

title: User:Johannes Ries


text:
Casuarina, Western Australia

Casuarina is a suburb of Perth, Western Australia and located within the City of Kwinana.

Casuarina is one of the Kwinana suburbs named after a ship. Casuarina, under the command of Louis De Freycinet, was a 30-ton cutter used in the French exploration of the WA coast in 1802–03. The suburb name was also chosen because a type of casuarina tree is found in the area.

Casuarina Prison is located in the suburb. Opened in June 1991, it is the main maximum-security prison for male prisoners, particularly long-term prisoners, in Western Australia. It replaced the 130-year-old Fremantle Prison as the State's main maximum-security prison.

Aside from an 18-hole public golf course, "Marri Park Golf Course", and some nature reserve the balance of the suburb is divided into small lots classified as "special rural". Land owners may build dwellings on their lots but are required to maintain a designated minimum amount of natural vegetation on their lots.

title: Casuarina, Western Australia


text:
Kevin Sinfield

Kevin Sinfield (born 12 September 1980) is an English rugby union coach, currently the skills and kicking coach for the England national team. He is a former professional rugby league player for Leeds Rhinos, England and Great Britain. His usual position was, although he played and  on occasion.

Sinfield played his entire professional career with Leeds and is one of the most successful players in Super League history, having captained the team to seven Super League championships and two Challenge Cup successes. He also earned individual accolades as winner of the Lance Todd Trophy (2005), Harry Sunderland Trophy twice (2009, 2012) and the Golden Boot (2012), one of only five British-based players to win the latter. He holds records as the highest points-scorer in Super League history, the third-highest points-scorer in British rugby league history and Leeds's record points scorer. Sinfield is also only one of two players to have led a team to win three consecutive Super League titles.

He won 26 caps for England, which he captained, and 14 caps for Great Britain. He played rugby union for Leeds's sister club Yorkshire Carnegie in 2015-16, and retired from playing in 2016.

Since retirement he has also become a prominent fundraiser for charities associated with Motor Neurone Disease.

Background
Sinfield was born in Oldham, Greater Manchester, England.

Rugby league
Sinfield starting his playing career at Waterhead ARLFC, who also produced talent such as Barrie McDermott, Paul Sculthorpe, Danny Sculthorpe, Paul Highton, Lee Jewitt, Marc Sneyd and Gareth Owen. He signed for Leeds in August 1997.

1990s
Sinfield made his first team début for Leeds aged 16 against the Sheffield Eagles, and made three further appearances during the 1997 and 1998 seasons, scoring his first try against the Huddersfield Giants in September 1998. 1999 was a breakthrough season for Sinfield, with 21 appearances and 2 tries. He was not selected for the 1999 Challenge Cup Final, when    Leeds defeated the London Broncos.

2000s
Sinfield was a member of the England squad for the 2000 Rugby League World Cup, scoring a hat-trick of tries in a 76–4 victory over Russia. During the 2001 Kangaroo tour he played for Great Britain in all three Ashes tests against Australia. Sinfield played for Leeds at in the 2003 Challenge Cup Final against Bradford Bulls, kicking four goals in his side's defeat. He played for Great Britain in the 2nd and 3rd Ashes Tests of the 2003 Kangaroo tour of Great Britain and France. He kicked four goals for Leeds in their 2004 Super League Grand Final victory against Bradford. As Super League IX champions, Leeds faced 2004 NRL season premiers, the Bulldogs in the 2005 World Club Challenge. Sinfield captained Leeds, kicking five goals and one drop goal in their 39–32 victory.

Sinfield played for Leeds in the 2005 Challenge Cup Final, kicking four goals in their loss against Hull F.C., but was awarded the Lance Todd Trophy as man of the match nonetheless. He played at loose forward, kicking a goal in Leeds's 2005 Super League Grand Final loss against Bradford Bulls. He was also named in 2005's Super League Dream Team. Sinfield was selected to play for Great Britain in the end-of-season 2005 Tri-nations tournament. He was named in 2006's Super League Dream Team. In 2007, he became the first Leeds player to score in every round of a Super League season, a feat that he repeated in the 2011 season including kicking six out of seven goals in the Rhinos' fourth Grand final victory over St. Helens in five years. In the post-season Sinfield played for Great Britain against the 2007 All Golds Tourists.

Sinfield celebrated his testimonial season in 2008. He was man of the match, scoring seven points, as Leeds defeated Melbourne 11–4 at Elland Road. During the season Sinfield set a club record by scoring in 63 consecutive matches. He also set a Super League record by scoring in 52 consecutive Super League games. Sinfield scored his 2,000th point for the club as Leeds defeated St Helens for the second successive year in the 2008 Super League Grand Final. Leeds won 24–16, with Sinfield successfully kicking four goals. It was the first time Leeds had ever won back-to-back titles. It was also the first time that a Super League team had won both the World Club Challenge, and the Grand Final in the same calendar year. He was also selected for the England squad for the 2008 Rugby League World Cup tournament in Australia. In England's first match against Papua New Guinea he played at loose forward and kicked four goals from six attempts in England's victory. During the 2009 season, Sinfield became only the second player, after Lewis Jones, to score 1,000 goals for Leeds.

Sinfield capped the 2009 season by winning the Harry Sunderland Trophy for his performance as he led Leeds to victory in a third successive Grand Final. Leeds defeated St Helens 18–10, with Sinfield scoring six points, including a drop goal. With victory, Sinfield became the first player in history to captain four championship-winning teams. He dedicated the win at Old Trafford to the recently deceased former Leeds player John Holmes.

He played for England in the 2009 Four Nations tournament.

2010s
Sinfield was selected to play for England against France in the one-off test in 2010.

He played in the 2010 Challenge Cup Final defeat by the Warrington Wolves at Wembley Stadium.

He captained Leeds from in the 2011 Challenge Cup Final defeat by the Wigan Warriors at Wembley Stadium, kicking only one goal from four attempts in their loss. At the end of the season he extended his record to captaining five championship-winning teams after Leeds Rhinos' victory over St Helens in the 2011 Super League Grand Final at Old Trafford.

Sinfield played a pivotal role in the England team in the 2011 Gillette Four Nations, which involved games against Australia, New Zealand and Wales. They reached the Gillette Four Nations Final courtesy of coming second in the group table, with England losing out to Australia despite Sinfield kicking two goals.

Sinfield became the all-time top points scorer for Leeds early in the 2012 season.

He played in the 2012 Challenge Cup Final defeat by the Warrington Wolves at Wembley Stadium.

In 2012, he extended his championship tally as Leeds again came from fifth in the regular season to triumph at Old Trafford – this time 26–18 against Warrington. Sinfield turned in a Man-of-the-Match performance in the final, winning the Harry Sunderland Trophy with a try, a penalty and four conversions. Remarkably, he finished the five-match playoff campaign with a 100% goalkicking record.

It was announced in January 2013 that Sinfield had won the Golden Boot – only the fourth Englishman to do so. He beat off competition from Wigan full-back Sam Tomkins as well as Australians Cameron Smith, Ben Barba, Cooper Cronk and Nate Myles to claim the prize that is awarded annually by Rugby League World magazine to the game's top performer.

On 17 July 2014, for the first time in his career, Sinfield was sent off against Castleford for a headbutt on Luke Dorn A month later he captained Leeds in the 2014 Challenge Cup Final victory over the Castleford Tigers at Wembley Stadium, the last remaining domestic trophy that he had yet to win.

On 31 March 2015, Sinfield announced that the 2015 season would be his last in rugby league and that he would finish his career with rugby union side Yorkshire Carnegie.

He played in the 2015 Challenge Cup Final victory over Hull Kingston Rovers at Wembley Stadium.

His last match in rugby league was the 2015 Super League Grand Final, in which he captained Leeds to victory and thus secured the treble for the first time in the club's history.

Rugby union
Sinfield joined Leeds Rhinos' sister club Yorkshire Carnegie on an 18-month contract. Sinfield made his début at Headingley on 15 November 2015. He came on as a sub in the last 15 minutes in the British and Irish Cup, scoring a penalty but missing a conversion later on. In April 2016, Sinfield announced that he would retire from playing at the end of the season. During the 2015–2016 season he played 18 games; kicking 37 conversions and 16 penalties, for a total of 122 points.

Coaching and management career
In August 2016, Sinfield joined the Rugby Football League (RFL) as Rugby Director, responsible for reviewing and developing a performance strategy for the England national team until the 2021 World Cup. In July 2018 he returned to Leeds Rhinos as their first ever director of rugby.

Part way through the 2021 season, Sinfield left Leeds to become defence coach at rugby union club, Leicester Tigers. After helping Leicester win the 2021–22 Premiership Rugby title, Sinfield moved to become defence coach to the England national rugby union team in December 2022, following Leicester head coach, Steve Borthwick, who was appointed England head coach.

Charity fundraising
In November 2020, Sinfield announced that he would be running seven marathons in seven days to raise £77,777 for ex-Leeds teammate Rob Burrow, who had been diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease (MND) a year earlier, as well as the MND Association. He began his first marathon on 1 December with the fundraising target already exceeded, Sinfield described it as "completely overwhelming" that the target had been reached so quickly. By the time that he finished his seventh marathon on 7 December, more than £1.2 million had been raised. At the conclusion, he said it had "probably been the most special week in my life". and said it was his greatest achievement above all he achieved in rugby league. By the following day, the total raised had surpassed £2 million. Of the funds raised, £500,000 was earmarked for research projects, a figure doubled by a contribution from medical research charity LifeArc to create a £1 million fund for MND research projects.

In October 2021, Sinfield announced his second fundraiser, running between Leicester Tigers' home ground Welford Road Stadium, and Leeds Rhinos' Headingley, a distance of approximately 101 mi, in under 24 hours. With an initial goal of £100k, Sinfield was again raising funds for the MND Association, and described it as "the toughest challenge I have ever attempted", and the run was to be split into 24 sections of 7km. Upon completing what was dubbed the "Extra Mile Challenge" on 23 November, Sinfield had raised over £1 million. He said that he would not stop fundraising until a cure had been found for the disease, and described himself as "massively blown away" by the amount raised, but said ideas of a knighthood were "really nice but we're a team". By early December, the campaign had raised over £2 million.

In September 2022, Sinfield announced his third fundraiser, in which he would run seven ultramarathons in seven consecutive days, beginning at Murrayfield Stadium in Edinburgh and concluding at Old Trafford in Manchester, the final run concluding during the final of the Rugby League World Cup. In addition to Burrow, Sinfield said he was now also fundraising in honour of former rugby union player Doddie Weir, and former footballer Stephen Darby, both diagnosed with MND.

Personal life
Sinfield was appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in the 2014 Birthday Honours for services to rugby league,  Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2021 Birthday Honours for services to rugby league football and charitable fundraising and Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2024 New Year Honours for services to motor neurone disease awareness.

On 20 December 2022, Sinfield, alongside former Leeds Rhinos teammate Rob Burrow, were awarded the Freedom of the City of Leeds for their services to the MND community.

Sinfield became the first rugby league player to be nominated for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award, finishing in second place behind Andy Murray in 2015.

Sinfield is a supporter of Oldham Athletic, and was a regular at games before his rugby career took off.

His son, Jack Sinfield, is a professional rugby league player who plays for Leeds Rhinos.

Sinfield featured on the BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs on 14 October 2022.

He published his autobiography, The Extra Mile: My Autobiography, in May 2023.

Records and statistics
Sinfield set a number of club and league records during his rugby league career. At Leeds, he is the all-time leading points scorer (3,967), and he made the third highest number of appearances (521) for the club. With a combined total of 4,231 points at club and representative level, he is the third-highest points scorer in British rugby league history (behind Neil Fox and Jim Sullivan). He is the Super League's second overall appearance holder (454) and the competition's record point scorer.

Rugby League

 * Super League:
 * Champions (7): 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015
 * Runners up (1): 2005

 * World Club Challenge:
 * Champions (3): 2005, 2008, 2012
 * Runners up (3): 2009, 2010, 2013

 * League Leader's Shield:
 * Champions (3): 2004, 2009, 2015

 * Challenge Cup:
 * Champions (2): 2014, 2015
 * Runners up (5): 2003, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2012

Rugby Union

 * British and Irish Cup
 * Runners up (1): 2015-16

Rugby Union

 * Premiership:
 * Champions (1): 2021-22

Individual

 * Rugby League World Golden Boot: 2012
 * Harry Sunderland Trophy (2): 2009, 2012
 * Lance Todd Trophy: 2005
 * Super League Dream Team (4): 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009
 * BBC Sports Personality of the Year
 * Main award: Second Place, 2015
 * Special Award, 2022
 * RLWBA Merit Award: 2015

Orders

 * Order of the British Empire:
 * MBE: 2014 (services to rugby league football)
 * OBE: 2021 (services to rugby league football and charitable fundraising)
 * CBE: 2024 (services to motor neurone disease awareness)

title: Kevin Sinfield


text:
User talk:Johannes Ries

__NOINDEX__ Please don´t write messages here, because I don´t visit this page very often. Feel free to visit me on my userpage in the german wikipedia and write there on my discussion page. Thanks a lot.

title: User talk:Johannes Ries


text:
Hope Valley, Western Australia

Hope Valley is a suburb of Perth, Western Australia, located within the City of Kwinana. Its post code is 6165. Hope Valley is located approximately 28 kilometres (18 mi) away from Western Australia's capital, Perth. The distance from Hope Valley to Australia's capital Canberra is approximately 3,092 kilometres (1,921 mi) away. According to the 2021 census, the population of Hope Valley is 39. Between 1882 and 1886, European settlement began in the area when a community consisting of small mixed farms, named Hope Valley after the property of its first settler George Postans, was established. Hope Valley was officially gazetted as a locality in 1962.

title: Hope Valley, Western Australia


text:
Floridor

Josias de Soûlas, known as "Floridor", Sieur de Prinefosse (c.1608-14 August 1671) was a French actor.

Biography
He was born in Brie early in the 17th century, the son of a gentleman of German family who had moved to France, married there, and become a Roman Catholic. The son entered the French army, but after being promoted ensign, quit the army for the theatre, where he took the name of "Floridor." His first Paris appearance was in 1640. Three years later he was called to the company at the Hôtel de Bourgogne, where he played all the leading parts in tragedy and comedy and became the head of his profession. He was a man of superb physique and excellent carriage, with a flexible and sonorous voice, and manners of rare distinction and elegance, He was much liked at court, and Louis XIV held him in particular esteem.

The actor and playwright Noël Lebreton de Hauteroche succeeded him as head of the troupe at the Hôtel de Bourgogne.

Family
His daughter was Marie-Marguerite de Soûlas, who married fellow actor and comedy writer Antoine Jacob in 1665.

title: Floridor


text:
Talk:Roundedness

Formants?
How can you tell from the formants (or whatever) of a vowel if it's rounded? —Felix the Cassowary 10:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, but there isn't a simple correlation, like there is for F1 and hight (high vowels depress the first formant). With rounded vowels, all higher formants are depressed. However, the effect is most noticeable with F2 for rounded back vowels, and with F3 for rounded front vowels. kwami 19:03, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Endo- vs. exo-labial
I'd really like to see a source on this endolabial vs. exolabial rounding. 72.130.89.63 (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the request on the source for the endolabial vs. exolabial with reguard to front and back rounded vowels.Kunoodle (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Big crit
WellsTribute (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has a number of embarrassing confusions in it:-

a. Is it about rounding in vowels, or rounding in consonants, or both? It announces vowels as its topic in the first line, but refers piecemeal to consonants. Since the Wikipedia article on Consonants deals with consonantal rounding, and says that this present article deals with rounding of vowels, consonantal rounding should be dropped here.

b. Is compression a type of rounding or not? The first sentence under "Types of rounding" says that it is, but the remark about Iroquoian labials only makes sense if it is not. The claim that compression is not a type of rounding is specifically made in the Wikipedia article on Vowels. It is not substantiated, however. It appears to rest on two papers by Mona Lindau from 1975 and 1978 (mentioned in Trask's Dictionary). Since it hasn't reached the mainstream in the intervening 30 years, it shouldn't be given airspace.

c. 'Protruded/non-protruded' is not the only dimension along which vowel-rounding can vary. Rounding can also be:

- 'less/greater' (the corners of the mouth can be drawn together to a lesser or greater degree);

- 'less open/more open' (the aperture can be narrower or wider).

(See O'Connor, "Phonetics", p. 37, and Laver, "Principles of Phonetics", p. 278.) See 'less/greater' dimension is covered in the article, but not the 'less open/more open' dimension.

d. The distinction between protruded and non-protruded vowels has a smaller place in the literature than the distinction between 'less open' and 'more open' vowels, and a smaller place anyway than this article suggests. It gets, for example, no mention at all in the following standard reference works:

- Catford's 'Practical Introduction'

- Clark, Yallop & Fletcher's 'Outline of Phonology'

- Crystal's 'Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonology'

- Crystal's 'Cambridge Encyclopedia'

- Ladefoged's 'Course in Phonetics'

- O'Connor's 'Phonetics'

- Pike's 'Phonetics'

and only a brief mention in:

- Catford's 'Fundamental Problems'

- Ladefoged's & Maddieson's 'Sounds of the World's Languages'

- Laver's 'Principles of Phonetics'

e. 'Endolabial/exolabial' are the wrong terms: they are not synonyms for 'protruded/non-protruded', and are not used as synonyms in any of the works listed above. They actually mean 'using the inside/outside of the lip', with no implication as to whether the lip is rounded or not. This is specifically stated by Catford ('Fundamentals', p. 146), and clear from Trask. (The Note to the current article makes it look as though Trask claims they're synonyms for 'protruded/non-protruded', but he doesn't.) Catford's use of 'exolabio-exolabial' (not simply 'exolabial') is surely a pedantic joke - he has in an earlier chapter set up 'exolabio-exolabial', 'endolabio-exolabial', 'exolabio-endolabial' and 'endolabio-endolabial' as possible descriptors of lip-action, whether rounded or unrounded.

f. 'Vertically compressed' is an unhappy term - does it mean that pressure is applied from the sides, or from top and bottom? Trask uses 'horizontal compression' for non-protruded vowels; Catford ('Fundamentals') uses 'compressed vertically' for non-protruded vowels; and Lad&Mad use 'vertical compression' for protruded vowels. Laver, fortunately, is clear: non-protruded vowels have not only horizontal compression (in that the corners of the mouth are drawn in, creating rounding), but also vertical compression (in that the flesh displaced upwards and downwards by drawing in the corners is pressed back towards the teeth). Protruded vowels have horizontal compression (mouth-corners drawn in) but no vertical compression.

g. 'Endolabial/exolabial' have their meanings reversed in some (but not all!) Wikipedia articles, and on the bottom photograph in this article (both lower photographs show protruded lips, and are therefore 'endolabial' in this terminology.) The terms were also reversed on earlier photographs attached to this article, are currently reversed in Wiktionary, and reversed in many citations from Wikipedia on other web-sites, as shown by Google. The present article should include a note acknowledging this.

h. The claim that back rounded vowels are usually protruded and front rounded vowels non-protruded is not well-founded, despite appearing frequently in Wikipedia's articles on vowels. Catford states it briefly in 'Fundamental Problems', but produces no data; Clark, Yallop & Fletcher quote Catford, and again produce no data. None of the other standard works noted above mentions it - and if it were true, then it would surely feature in Ladefoged & Maddieson.

i. The claim that protrusion vs. non-protrusion can be phonemic is overstated. The Swedish case is far from certain - the two vowels in question also vary in length, position and off-glide. (See the discussion in Ladefoged & Maddieson; and note that Engstrand doesn't support the claim in his IPA Handbook article.) And the claim about Dutch is simply false. The IPA Journal has published analyses of six varieties of Dutch recently (1983(13/2), 1998(28), 1999(29), 2005(35/2), 2006(36/1), 2007(37/2)), as well as Gussenhoven's Handbook account, and none of them mentions such a distinction. Perhaps the contributor who entered this was confused by a reference to an endolabial (but not rounded) Dutch consonant in JIPA 1982(12/1). Given that the phonemic case is so weak, the unspecific nature of the term 'rounded' and the lack of an IPA diacritic are trivial.

j. A couple of minor points: (i) Note 4 says, "The convention is to use the asterisk," but this is not an IPA convention, and if (as stated) it's not done in the literature then it isn't a convention anyway. (ii) The opening of the second para. under 'Types of rounding' repeats material in the first para.

What I propose is this:

- remove references to consonants

- remove suggestions that compression (non-protrusion) is not a type of rounding

- add an account of narrower and wider apertures

- shorten the discussion on protruded vs. non-protruded

- replace 'endolabial' with 'protruded', and 'exolabial' with 'non-protruded'

- drop 'compressed'

- remove or soften the claim that back rounded vowels are protruded and front rounded vowels non-protruded

- remove or soften the claim of phonemic status for protruded/non-protruded

- clean up the account of what Trask says, and remove the 'endo/exo' reference to Catford

- add an acknowledgement of past errors

- add photographs (if I get permission) of narrow/wide aperture and protruded/non-protruded lip-positions

If there are no well-founded objections to the considerations I've put forward here, I'll start on the revisions in a week or so.

Sorry this is so long. WellsTribute (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * a. We should say something about consonantal labialization, since the two phenomena are so closely related. Rounded vowels labialize consonants, and labialized consonants round vowels. (In the Caucasus, Ndu languages, & central Australia, we find that phonetic [ku] and [ko] are phonemic and, for example; in Mandarin,  is [o] after labial consonants; in Vietnamese, final /k/ and /ŋ/ become  and  after /u/ and /o/, etc.) We should have a section on such interactions, just as we cover the connections between front unrounded vowels and palatalization. [I added this as a separate section.] If corrections need to be made, then it is in the other articles that do not properly describe this article.

 * b. This is a theoretical point depending on one's definition of "rounding". It's hard to say either way, since few discussions include this parameter. Generally both endo- and exo- would appear to be subsumed under "rounding", but when those or similar terms are not used, there can be some confusion. Japanese /u/ is not infrequently contrasted with English /u/ by claiming it's not rounded, for example, even though it is clearly labialized. If Catford proves correct that back vowels tend to be endo and front vowels exo, then clearly both are covered by 'rounded' in the lit.

 * c. I'm not aware of more/less open independent of the openness of the vowel. Perhaps you can add s.t.?

 * d. The reason endo/exo takes up so much space is that it requires space to describe adequately. For the rounding of back vowels, we can simply say that English oo is rounded while ee is not, and for the rounding of front vowels, we can draw the analogy of back vowels, even if that's not entirely accurate phonetically. If this were Swedish WP, we could similarly simply say that Swedish y is endolabial while u is exolabial. Or, if our audience were bilingual in Japanese, we could say that English /u/ is endolabial while Japanese /u/ is exolabial. However, we don't have this advantage in English, and therefore require more space to cover the phenomenon.

 * e. There is certainly confusion on terminology here. If you can quote the appropriate passages from Trask, I would appreciate it.

 * f. I will incorporate this into the article. [never mind—you just edited]

 * g. I thought I had taken care of inconsistencies in other WP articles. Please let me know which ones are still a problem. However, I imagine that admins will object if we start making notes citing mirrors of old versions of this article: that would make the entire WP project a mess, and probably violates RS or self-ref guidelines.

 * h. Ladefoged simply neglects this issue, but that can't be used as evidence: They barely cover the topic at all, and they neglect other things which should be in their book, such as several laryngeal articulations besides glottal and epiglottal. Catford is IMO acceptable sourcing. But it would be nice to find additional coverage.

 * i. The Swedish off-glide is considered an epiphenomenon of the type of rounding, not vice versa. (In dialects where the /u/ is central, and in Norwegian, the offglide is also central: that is, it's (to make up an IPA transcription), which is unattested as a phoneme in the world's languages; if we wish to attribute the difference of y and u to the offglide, then we need to posit  and  to the Swedish & Norse inventories, but only as codas or diphthongs.) Swedish is merely the language where this comes closest to being phonemically contrastive, but as an English speaker, you certainly need to know the diff to pronounce Japanese correctly. I have no idea about the Dutch; I'll delete it. [never mind—you just edited]

 * j. The asterisk is an IPA convention. It can be used for anything that does not have an IPA symbol. Ladefoged uses it for Korean "tense" consonants, for example. The other points I'll take care of when I get back. [never mind—you just edited] —kwami (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It also looks as though endo- and exo- are reversed in the photo, given our current definitions. kwami (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 * And to make things more complicated, studies have shown that some vowels can sound rounded without actually being rounded :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.45.20 (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It won't do!
1. The change (on 16th July) from "compressed vowels are rare" to "compressed vowels where protruded would be expected are rare" misrepresents the literature. The rarity of attested compressed vowels makes the protruded/compressed distinction unimportant, and that information ought not to be suppressed. I've reverted the edit.

2. Endo/exolabial are not the words used in the literature for this phenomenon, and Wikipedia's job is to mediate between between the layman and the academic accounts. I propose to change them to "protruded/compressed" pretty soon.

WellsTribute (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 * See how it is now. While I agree with your point, we can't very well cite a source that they are ubiquitous, and then claim that they're rare. What is rare are exolabial back vowels and a contrast in front vowels; exolabial front vowels is an open question. From what I've seen in discussion groups, it would seem that German ü is more like Swedish and Norwegian u than like their y, and that Swedish teachers emphasize that Swedish y is not like German ü. (Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that Swedish u is like German ü.)
 * This is probably a good move. [done]
 * Again, doesn't the photo look backwards? Both from the descriptions and the diagrams in Ladefoged? kwami (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change, Kwami.WellsTribute (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Answering request
kwami asked me for my help about identifying the three vowels in the picture. From the top, they look like respectively. The latter could be, but I'm not too sure about that.

Peter Isotalo 12:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Peter. It would appear then that the endo- and exo- got reversed, as I suspected. We should then relabel the pic, perhaps with 'compressed' vs. 'protruded'. kwami (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Roundedness as distinguishing for back vowels in English
The article only lists Vietnamese as a language for which roundedness is a distinguishing characteristic for back vowels. But isn't it one for English? 24.136.232.57 (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as clearly. RP, for example, uses rounding to distinguish /ʌ/ from /ɔ/ and /ɒ/ from /ɑ/, but there is also a length distinction (the second vowel in each of those pairs being longer than the first). In General American, on the other hand, /ʌ/ is much farther forward than /ɔ/ (and some varieties of American English don't have /ɔ/ at all), and /ɒ/ and /ɑ/ have merged. +Angr 06:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What dialects of English use vowel rounding?
I've been speaking English my whole life, and I don't think I've ever used vowel rounding in it. I can't really figure out the descriptions though. If some dialects use vowel rounding, then either it's an important split or its loss is an important merger. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is this and every other article on phonetics on Wikipedia written to confuse?
Whenever I encounter an article referencing pronunciation on Wikipedia I end up on an endlessly recursive quest trying to understand the arcane explanations and descriptions, that are always defined in terms I do not understand which in turn are explained in the same obscure fashion. No-where, it seems, on the whole of Wikipedia is an accessible explanation of the basic principles and framework for understanding linguistics, phonetics and pronunciation that does not assume prior familiarity with the intimate details of the subject.

I don't struggle as much to understand articles on such abstractions as relativity, mathematics, art, music or even theology. It seems there are those who use language and those who study it, and the former must be kept from understanding why and how they say what they say so that the latter can study them.

In this article I need to understand labialisation, front vowels, back vowels and how to determine the height of a vowel just to understand the first introductory paragraph. And this is one of the less opaque articles on phonetics.

Quite simply, in my view linguistic articles on Wikipedia are consistently the most poorly explained; they are written as if for a phonetic textbook, not an encyclopaedia.

PLEASE! Can someone who does understand all this gibberish (and to me it is gibberish until I can find explanations that use plain English rather than being self-referential) tackle this and other pages with a linguistic bent and ensure that each one defines its core material in a way that doesn't need further research to understand it. 23:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stub Mandrel (talk • contribs)
 * It's not poorly explained, it's your just fault for being too lazy to click on the linked articles. It's impossible to paraphrase every basic technical term for laymen, it would make the article bloated. I never had help from anybody either, but the more I read, the clearer it became. There's nothing to complain about. --2.245.80.116 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Is "spread" always synonymous with "unrounded"?
I've always been perplexed at how English front vowels, at least when enunciated, are produced with noticeably different shapes of the lips compared to, say, [ɑ] or [ə], yet most texts only make distinction between rounded and unrounded. Sure enough, Cruttenden (2014:15) defines "spread" lip position as the lips being "held sufficiently far apart for no friction to be heard, yet remaining fairly close together and energetically spread ... taken up for vowels like that in see when energetically enunciated", and refers to the lips being "held in a relaxed position with a lowering of the lower jaw ... taken up for the vowel of sat" as "neutral". I think this should be incorporated into the article, but I don't know if I'm well enough equipped to do so myself right now and need more research. Nardog (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Spread close front vowels are unrounded, dunno about the rest. I know this: the lower rounded vowels are, the less rounded they are in comparison with the close . Maybe something similar applies to unrounded vowels. I'll try to look for a source, I think Collins & Mees wrote something on that. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm also curious if Cruttenden means the same thing by "close rounded" and "open rounded" as endolabial and exolabial. On the surface, it seems like he's merely talking about the vowel height, but the same descriptions could very well be given for protrusion/compression. In other words, I wonder if there's such a thing as a compressed open vowel. I'm sure roundedness is always just a matter of degree and descriptions like protruded and compressed are arbitrary measures anyway, though (I also bet no language contrasts them either).
 * I also feel, at least in GA, sat suits his description of "spread" better than that of "neutral". This obviously might not be the case in modern RP, which is what the book mainly talks about. Nardog (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not. He describes French as 'close rounded' and English  as 'open rounded'. This is perfectly in line with what I said about the amount of rounding getting gradually lower as the vowel height decreases. I'd also like to add that  are probably an exception to that rule and typically have rounding that is more typical of the cardinal  (correct me if I'm wrong though, but this seems to be in alignment with what the SOWL says).

 * I'm not sure, but the protruded-compressed dichotomy may not really apply to rounded vowels lower than open-mid (among which only is in any way common). Starting with the close-mid height, it's not phonemically relevant in any language.

 * Protruded-compressed contrasts are very rare, but they exist. Swedish and Norwegian contrast close front spread, compressed and protruded vowels. This contrast is the clearest in Central Standard Swedish, in other dialects it may manifest differently (a recent change in Sweden is that are retracted to a central position and are pronounced with voiced alveolar friction, whereas  stays front). Danish and conservative Western Norwegian dialects don't have this contrast because they didn't undergo the  vowel shift. The protruded close front vowel in Swedish/Norwegian is IMO an attempt to maximize the  contrast, no matter how  is realized (central or front). Obviously, the situation is complicated by the fact that these sounds are commonly diphthongized (with various outcomes, depending on the region) and the fact that some Norwegian dialects merge  with  or  with  (short or both short and long). But when you say 'Norwegian', many people normally first think of Oslo Norwegian (or 'Urban East Norwegian'), in which  is a clearly maintained contrast.

 * That may be true. However, modern RP must be similar in that regard. What you're thinking about is maybe a more northern, which does have a slightly different lip shape since it's central (the open central unrounded vowel sounds to me like a retracted and raised cardinal , but that's another story I won't bore you with). Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently unrounded vowels can also be divided into two groups (spread and neutral) much like rounded ones, according to the IPA Handbook. So there are four classifications for the lip position of a vowel in total. Maybe this article should be moved to Lip position or something. Nardog (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right, I'm not sure. 'Rounded and unrounded vowels' would also work, but as I said - I'm not sure whether this article needs to be moved at all. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Rounded and unrounded vowels might be a pretty good name actually. I've always thought the current name sort of fails to acknowledge that the article only concerns vowels, because "roundedness" can also refer to labialization (and possibly many other things in general). Nardog (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * AFAIK modern sources rarely speak of "rounded consonants", but you can encounter such terms, sure. In that case, I'd say I'm in favor of renaming the article. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Roundedness


text:
Kwinana Beach, Western Australia

Kwinana Beach is an outer southwestern suburb of Perth, Western Australia, located within the City of Kwinana. It is one of the traditional industrial suburbs in the Perth metropolitan region.

History
Kwinana is originally a local indigenous Australian word meaning either "young woman" or "pretty maiden". The ship SS Kwinana was wrecked on Cockburn Sound in 1922, and blown on to the beach. The nearby area acquired the name Kwinana Beach when the local postmistress, Clara Wells, immediately started labeling the mail sacks Kwinana Wreck, to distinguish the settlement there from Rockingham, to the south. Kwinana Beach was officially adopted as a township in 1937.

With the new industrial developments at Kwinana Beach in the 1950s, led by BP's Kwinana Oil Refinery, a large new workers settlement – Kwinana Townsite – was purpose-built slightly inland.

Other industries quickly followed – Alcoa, CSBP, CBH, Coogee Chemicals, and others.

The original village at Kwinana Beach was rezoned 'industrial', and scheduled for resumption and compulsory purchase as early as 1953 – apparently unbeknown to the residents. Confirmed in the Stephenson Plan (1955), this was ratified by State Parliament in the 1963 Perth Metropolitan Region Scheme. However, building applications were still being approved throughout the 1960s, and beyond – with a vague warning that the land was earmarked for "potential industrial development".

There was no real public comment until 1968, following increased pollution, nuisance, and health problems from the growing industrial development just north of the village. This led to a rather lively Council meeting at the Kwinana Beach Hall in September, 1969. The dangers of property resumption were played down by the Kwinana Mayor, Cr. F. Baker, who advised residents to stay put and see what happened. The Air Pollution consultant, Mr A. Keil, informed them that, though there were no immediate plans to use the land for industry, it was a definite possibility – and pollution problems were unavoidable, and would only get worse. Residents responded that they didn't mind moving, so long as the compensation was fair, and enabled them to purchase a property of at least equal value – rather than leaving them in debt. Finally, a committee was formed to look into the issues.

Matters remained in limbo throughout the 1970s, with residents accepting resumption of their properties as conditions became increasingly intolerable.

With the exception of the huge CBH grain silos and jetty, very little of this land was ever actually used by industry. Today, rail lines connect local industries to their supplies, snaking through the ruins of the houses and gardens which line the original Kwinana Beach Road. To the north of the Kwinana Beach area, enormous jetties jut out into the deep-water harbour of Cockburn Sound.

Starting with the Kwinana wreck at Wells Park (named for the postmistress, Clara Wells, who inadvertently named the area in 1922), the Kwinana Beach coastline down to Rockingham is now largely used as beach and recreation areas. The Kwinana wreck itself is now an unrecognisable, short concreted line-fishing jetty.

Motorsport
Kwinana Beach is home to the Perth Motorplex which incorporates an international standard drag racing strip, and a 520 m dirt track speedway. The Motorplex opened in 2000, replacing the old Ravenswood Raceway Drag Racing strip (1969–1999), and the Claremont Speedway which had operated from 1927 until 2000 and is recognised as the longest running speedway in Australia.

Bus

 * 548 Rockingham Station to Fremantle Station – serves Patterson Road and Rockingham Road
 * 549 Rockingham Station to Fremantle Station – serves Rockingham Road

title: Kwinana Beach, Western Australia