Talk:Wede

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Nazi Party member Adalbert Baumann created Oiropa'pitshn, a language based on Yiddish? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that the Yiddish-based language Oiropa'pitshn was created by Nazi Party member Adalbert Baumann?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Elihu Akin House
  • Comment: Source 1 refs nazi part, source 2 (from an old newspaper) refs the Yiddish part

Created by Frzzl (talk). Self-nominated at 09:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Wede; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Very interesting! Article and hook are verifiable and DYK-compliant, and a QPQ has been completed. I think ALT0 flows better of the two, but this is subjective/prep-builder judgement. A note for the future: "moved to mainspace" is an option for the DYK eligibility drop-down, and can make it a little easier to confirm that an article is eligible when the "date of page creation" is earlier. Vaticidalprophet 23:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Multigraphs

The article contained this sentence: "From German's alphabet, Baumann removed the letters ⟨v⟩, ⟨c⟩, ⟨j⟩, and substituted the multigraphs ⟨ph⟩, ⟨qu⟩, ⟨ch⟩, ⟨sch⟩, and ⟨pf⟩ for ⟨f⟩, ⟨kw⟩, ⟨k⟩, ⟨f⟩, and ⟨sh⟩." This looks backward to me – e.g., it's already sch and not sh in standard German. (Possibly just a misuse of the word "substitute".) But User:Frzzl has reverted my change, so I'd be glad to know if there's something I've missed here. Thanks! Alkari (?), 14 July 2023, 20:33 UTC

Hi, very sorry for reverting your edit since yeah, looks like I have blockheaded-ly misused the word “substitute” and didn’t realise the interpretation it gave was inverted - “for” should probably be “in place of”, or just swap it round. I’ll fix it now, thank you very much for pointing it out.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Glad we're on the same page after all – thanks very much! Alkari (?), 15 July 2023, 00:16 UTC

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wede/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 01:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Frzzl. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be reviewing this article. I may not get around to it very quickly, as I'm reviewing another fairly extensive article at the moment. I thought I'd claim this nomination before anyone else takes it. ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! No rush to get around to it :D  Frzzl  talk; contribs  12:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I just got done with the other review, so I'll probably get around to reviewing this nomination shortly. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! Sorry I haven't gotten around to addressing any of the points yet, I've been away; should be able to fix them now.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  13:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Creator

• Is there a reason to include the Baumann's birthdate, birth place, and date of death? This article is about the language he created, not him. I'd suggest removing this.
  • Removed. -F
• mentioned in Mein Kampf for an argument against Adolf Hitler - I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean. Being partially familiar with this, I assume that this is about an argument with Adolf Hitler that Baumann had, which is mentioned in Mein Kampf. I'd suggest revising this sentence to make this more clear.
  • Rewritten - F
• Also, looking into this further, this story may be apocryphal. According to Othmar Plöckinger's Unter Soldaten und Agitatoren, pp. 151-152, the details of the story are more complicated than what is written here. According to Plöckinger, the name Baumann was not mentioned by Hitler, nor was it written in the rally attendance, but mentioned by Anton Drexler several years later in 1933, and only by his surname at that. I'd suggest reading the book yourself to see how to handle this information.
  • Thanks for bringing this up - I read this during research, but Plöckinger confuses Adalbert Baumann with some "Adolf Baumann" here, so I'm discounting it. Have a look at Vom Trommler zum Führer: Der Wandel von Hitlers Selbstverständnis zwischen 1919 und 1924 und die Entwicklung der NSDAP by Albrecht Tyrell p.195 for another discussion of the matter. - F
    • Quoting from the source: "In der Versammlungsliste vom 12. September 1919 taucht der Name Baumann nicht auf". Plöckinger mentions Tyrell here: "Ursprung dieser Angabe dürfte Albrecht Tyrell gewesen sein, der bereits zuvor auf diese Unstimmigkeiten hingewiesen und einen Dr. Adalbert Baumann erwähnt hat". That is, the name Baumann wasn't even present in the party's list of participants, and is only mentioned by Tyrell later due to this discrepency. Tyrell 1975 states the following: "jedoch ist dessen Identität mit dem vorgenannten nicht zu beweisen", that is, there isn't proof that Hitler wrote about Adalbert Baumann specifically. The book "Hitler: A Biography", which is cited as a source in this article, doesn't mention Adalbert Baumann either, just "professor Baumann". There is not a consensus that Adalbert Baumann was present during Hitler's supposed argument against a Bavarian nationalist. I'd suggest against including this information, or at least stating that there is disagreement about his presence in the book. ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  OK - I've removed the sentence, and I'm planning to bring Baumann's article to GA at some point, so I can better explain the discrepancy there; it looks like it's been copied through modern biographies, as Adalbert Baumann is mentioned by name in Brendan Simms 2020 and David Redles 2008, among others. There's a book by the Kommission für bayerische Landesgeschichte, which one would hope to be accurate, that identifies Adalbert as the speaker, but eh, it's not the end of the world. The Weber source is fine to cite the Bavarian seperatism outside of the party, so I've left that there.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• The German name of the party he led is not mentioned in the source. I'd suggest finding a source that verifies its german name.
• in 1918 - I cannot find this in the source.
  • added a source to cite both this and the previous point in better detail. - F
• Stolpersteine in Kaiserslautern may not be a reliable source. They have no apparent editorial or fact-checking policies. I'd suggest you find other sources for the information that is verified by this.
  • Agree that it's not a reliable source. I've replaced the information with some other stuff.
• You have mixed up Gerd Simon's given name and surname. His surname is Simon, not Gerd.
  • Wow! That's a troutable mistake, sorry! - F
• in March 1935 a letter to the governments of Europe was sent - The source does not say that it was sent to them, just that it was addressed to them.
  • Clarified - F
• I've gone ahead and rewritten the translation of the block quote. I'll allow you to compare them yourself to see if it is an improvement or not.
  • Your translation has much higher fidelity to the original than mine, certainly an improvement. Only change I've made is to replace 'that' with 'which'

ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

History

Wede

• I'd suggest adding alt text to the image of the cover, though this is not a part of the GA criteria.
  • Added. F
• Der reisende Reporter is a blog, and thus not a reliable source. Please find a source to replace this.
  • Removed the sentence.
• Sven Werkmeister also argues that Wede was a form of linguistic purism, as part of Wede's function was to prevent uncontrolled language change and influence from foreign languages - He does not argue this. Baumann isn't even mentioned in the paragraphs surrounding the section on linguistic purism. The source itself is fine, but please don't put words in the author's mouth.
  • I took Además debe satisfacer una doble función: por un lado, la imposición de una expansión internacional de la lengua alemana y por el otro, impedir el cambio lingüístico descontrolado a través de otra lengua extranjera. to mean a form of linguistic purism, but my Spanish isn't fluent, so is this interpretation incorrect? Stopping uncontrolled linguistic change sure sounds like purism, and I haven't actually quoted him... - F
    • Seems I missed that. He doesn't explictily use the term linguistic purism here, but it seems obvious that that is what it is. ArcticSeeress (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• (spending ten pages of Wede on the matter): - Is this necessary to add? This seems too detailed
  • Added to stress just how much he didn't like Esperanto, but now removed - F
• Baumann particularly took issue with Esperanto [...] in particular (emphasis mine) - The word "particular" is used twice here. Please vary the wording.
  • Changed - F

ArcticSeeress (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Weltdeutsch

• Similarly to the previous subsection, I suggesst adding alt text to the image here. Again, this is not a part of the GA criteria, simply a suggestion for improving the article.
  • Added. -F
• The information in the second paragraph is not verified by the sources provided. These are the sentences that require citations:
  • Baumann created Weltdeutsch as a response to feedback regarding Wede's orthography, which he intended to simplify in the new language
  • According to Baumann, the new language was particularly influenced by the comments from a W. Schreiber, Fritz Buckel, and privy councillor Emil Schwörer - W. Schreiber and Fritz Buckel are not mentioned in any of the sources provided. Emil Schwörer being an influence on Weltdeutsch is also not verified.
    • Apologies, missed adding a primary source. Added. - F
• Baumann viewed the international use of French and of English as a factor for the struggle of the Central Powers in the First World War - This is not verified by the source. It makes no mention of English, and its mention of French is only in passing when mentioning Turkey. Please add a citation for this information.
  • Referenced to Baumann 1916. - F

ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Welt'pitshn and Oiropa'pitshn

• The language was similar to Weltdeutsch in grammar and orthography - I don't think the source says this.
• likewise received a negative reception, - I don't think this should be in the same sentence as a statement of fact. This may compromise a neutral POV.
  • Fixed both - F
• including the Illustrierte Weltvereinszeitung - I cannot find this in the source.
  • Removed - F

ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Grammar

• Remember that german-language text should be enclosed in the {{lang}} template. This goes for the entire article.
  • Fixed; should I also do this for all text in the constructed languages? - F
• Oiropa'pitshn's grammar was largely based on that of English, as Baumann considered it the most simple - The source says "e pro to reforma german in maniere angles" ("and he therefore reforms german in the English way"). I could not find anything to verify that it was 1) based largely of English, and 2) that he considered English grammar to be the most simple.
  • fixed citation - F

ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Articles

• and the indefinite article eine - This is not in the source
• no plural indefinite article was present - This seems like original research. A Wikipedia article should summary what is written about a subject, not what isn't written about it.
  • Both of these were in the source ("der unbestimmte Artikel heißt: eine (Mehrzal ohne Artikel"), but have added an extra ref to make it clearer and adjusted wording per the second point - F
• Articles were also be excused after mergers of articles and prepositions - Grammatical error aside, what does this sentence mean? Specifically, what is "excused" supposed to mean here?
  • reworded - F
• From Weltdeutsch to Welt'pitshn and Oiropa'pitshn - I suggest making this into a simple list, i.e. "In Weltdeutsch, Welt'pitshn and Oiropa'pitshn, the [...]"
  • Good call - F
• although it could optionally omitted - The source just says "aine or zero". It doesn't specify whether it is optional, or if there are additional rules for it.
  • removed - F

ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Verbs

Sorry for the break here. I saved a lot of comments in a notepad document, but the contents were completely replaced by white space after I saved it, so I had to rewrite a lot of this.

• Link passive voice
• the former of the auxiliary verbs was used for the active and the latter the passive - Just write hawen and werden. No need to be this coy here.
  • Both done, thanks! - F
• Table:
  • Don't forget to italicize the non-English terms here, including the usage examples.
  • Why is "infinitive" written for the present tense? The present tense is a finite verb form, whereas the infinitive is a nonfinite verb form. If you mean that the two forms are syncretic, then you could just write the same thing in both spaces. Increasing clarity trumps reducing redundancy here.
  • In Wede, all verbs ended in -en, but this ending could often be dropped. However, there were several exceptions to this rule, such as the verbs hawen and gewen - Shouldn't this be in the notes? Why is this written where examples are written?
    • Done - F
  • Baumann elected not to create a new conjugation, so future phrases were constructed using specific time phrases. - Why does this have a line break? Just write them on the same line.
    • Formatted - F
  • slag! - The source says that the singular imperative is "slage", not "slag"
    • Thanks! - F
  • Past: wirde hawen + participle - Which participle? I presume the past participle, but you haven't defined that in the table. I'd suggest doing so
  • Optative meg - The source also says "welen wir". You should include this here. Also, you should indicate that "meg" has an optional (?) -en.
  • The present participle and past participle should be listed alongside the infinitive at the top, as neither of them are active or passive verb forms.
    • Done x3 - F
  • Include that the -et of the past participle is optional, as written in the source.
    • Done with the other endings. - F
• In Wede, conjugation of German verbs was simplified to the sole use of infinitive forms - I cannot find this in the source.
  • Gone - F
• Baumann 1916 is cited to page 89. It only has 32 pages. I presume you mean 19 here.
  • Indeed! - F
• The past tense in the tables for Weltdeutsch is wrong. It should be tat, not tät; tät is listed as the conditional in the source. Also the examples in the table on the right don't mean "I come", as there is no verb after the auxiliary there.
  • Corrected. - F

ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Nouns

• plural nouns has - have
• a singular ending - You should probably not write singular, as that is a grammatical term. I was confused when I first read this sentence. You should just write that Wede used the ending -a to indicate plurality.
  • Missed that, should have been "single" or something, but it reads better without. - F
• Baumann further stipulated that genitive construction should be formed as compound words, - No, he doesn't. He writes that it can: "Statt: t haus fon t fater kann ein zusammengesetztes Hauptwort gebildet werden."
  • Fixed. - F
• German: die Frau des Hauses, lit. 'die Frau von dem Haus' - Why include the "lit."?
  • Wanted to better show how it directly corresponds to the German, but I think that was badly formatted. I've put in a direct English translation before the German instead. - F
• Weltdeutsch's nouns ended in -en - Plural nouns. The source says: "ale wörter endigen in der merzal auf n", i.e. "All words end in n in the plural".
  • Fixed. - F
• You mixed up the accusative and the genitive in the table on the right. fon is used for the genitive.
  • Fixed - F

ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for everything you've done so far, and very sorry for the loss of your notes! It helps a lot to have a second pair of eyes from a better German speaker!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry again for the long times between comments. I took a little break from Wikipedia (read: procrastinated), but I'll get back to reviewing now. There isn't much left in the article, so this shouldn't take too long. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Orthography

• I would have suggested you add alt-text to the image, but I'm not sure if that would be helpful, as English-language screen readers probably won't pick up on the diacritics in a meaningful way. Maybe I'll get someone else's advice on this.
  • Put in some preliminary alt text, but feel free.
• using an alphabet of 24 letters - I couldn't find this number specifically in the source, but page 80 of the book lists 24 letters, so maybe add a citation to that.
  • Added - F
• Baumann also removed silent letters, such as e and h, from the language - The letters e and h still exist in the language. It might be better to rephrase this sentence to state that the silent pronunciations of those letters have been removed.
  • Rephrased - F
• Baumann also included an acute accent for a longer vowel - This only seems to be the case for é
  • corrected - F

ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Lexicon

There wasn't anything meaningful to comment on here. I made some small changes myself. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead

There is nothing to comment on here. I've made some small changes myself. I've also made a comment about Baumann's presence in Mein Kampf, which you can find in the "Creator" section of the review above. ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

On hold

I think I've made all the comments I want to. I'll put this article on hold until they have been addressed. Good work so far! ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've replied above, and think I'm now through all your comments. I quite like your style of doing the source checks/images at the same time as the prose, I think I'll try it out on my next review!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  18:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the state of the article, but I'll go through and assess it properly for the GA criteria in a bit. I've made some minor changes to the article after looking through it again. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is well-written and understandable (though obviously some of the details about grammar and typography may be too esoteric for someone unfamiliar with linguistics). The article complies with the MOS as far as I can tell having gone through the article myself and fixed some issues (mostly MOS:WAW)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   While originally containg some unreliable sources and original research, the article is much better in this regard now.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   One other editor beside myself and the nominator have edited the article over the past three days, but this activity is not likely to continue.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article fulfills all GA criteria.

I've gone through the article and checked for anything obvious I might've missed, and found nothing that stood out. The article fulfills all GA criteria, so I'll go ahead and pass it. Good work! Also, thanks to Hoary for the comments provided elsewhere on the talk page. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Niggles

A fascinating article. Good work! However:

1. "the similarity of the interrogatives in Esperanto" // Similarity to what? (To the declaratives?)
2. "a reminiscent caricature" // In my idiolect, reminiscent requires a PP complement headed by of, so "a reminiscent caricature" is actually ungrammatical. But grammar aside, I don't understand this NP.
3. "genitive construction can be formed as compound words" // Another mystery. One problem may be some people's loose (and I think wrong-headed) use of "genitive" to cover uses of von (de) or of (en): so I don't know how to interpret "genitive" here: narrowly or loosely. And "compound word" also has a degree of polysemy.
4. "demarcated with a vowel change" // "distinguished via ablaut", perhaps?
5. "An example of the orthography of Weltdeutsch, from Baumann's 1916 book. The reintroduction of umlauts, as well as various consonant changes remaining from Wede." // This is a caption, and I think it violates the conventions of captions, whereby either one or more sentences or a single NP is OK; but not one NP, full stop, another NP, full stop.
6. "The language was a posteriori" // "The languages were a posteriori", perhaps?

-- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments! Here are the changes I've made, please split them up if you disagree with them:

1. "similarity of" => "similarity between"
2. "reminiscent caricature of" => "caricature reminiscent of"
3. Baumann is interpreting the genitive in a loose manner, so I've added some more information about the case system, and specified that we're using closed compounds.
4. done
5. removed the second NP
6. done

 Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

All but the first are good, Frzzl. As for the first, very likely I'm misunderstanding something, but wouldn't the similarity between/among interrogatives in Esperanto make the Esperanto interrogative easier to acquire? Admittedly I know nothing about the Esperanto interrogative, and if I did then I might understand. Well, turning to English, I could talk of the similarity among perfect clauses: each has a matrix clause headed by auxiliary verb haveand a subjectless subordinate clause headed by a past participle. Let's imagine for a moment that have were limited to imperfective meanings (I have tried to get him to understand [but haven't yet succeeded]) whereas perfective required be (I am tried to get him to understand [but now am through with the attempt]): less similarity; rather more for the L2 student to master. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Baumann's criticism is that they're all really similar, so they're harder to learn: "wer vermag ferner ohne die größte muehe und ohne umständliches Ueberlegen im Flusse des Sprechens folgende klanglich nur wenig unterschiede Furworter zu merken" = "Who, without great effort and complicated deliberation, can differentiate the following pronouns, with only a few tonal differences, in the flow of speaking", then listing the Esperanto pronouns (kio, kie, kia, kiu, kiam, cxio, cxie, cxia, cxiu etc). Rereading it, Baumann's not only criticising the interrogatives, but the whole correlative system of the language. I've updated the sentence to reflect this, hopefully it's now more comprehensible.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  13:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, better now, Frzzl. (Incidentally, Correlative is a very dodgy article. But there are only so many hours in the day.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

A striking improvement?

It's unfortunate that the single verb whose paradigm is tabulated is described as corresponding to English hit. That's because the inflection of hit shows an unusual degree of syncretism. It would be better to choose a verb corresponding to, say, English take, whose plain present, past (preterite) and past participle are each distinctive (take, took, taken). Such a revision would of course be a major chore (even if the information needed were available). However, a great improvement should be pretty straightforward. I can't come up with any synonym for hit whose forms have as little syncretism as do those of take, but I suggest strike. No, don't use strike, struck, stricken (as stricken just isn't used in this way); but even strike, struck, struck would be more helpful than hit, hit, hit.

Alternatively, beat, with beat, beat, beaten. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced "hit" with "strike"; if preferable, we could add "strucken" or "striked" (obsolete, nonstandard) as PPs (in parentheses) to better illustrate it - what do you think? Multifarious Ailurophile (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC) (alt of Frzzl)

Here's how I was about to "improve" the table:

Wede verb conjugations

Tense	Form	Wede	English	Notes
Infinitive	-en	slagen	to strike
Present Participle	-end	slagend	striking
Past Participle	ge- + stem + -(et)	geslag(et)	struck	Parenthesised endings indicate that they are optional, as listed by Baumann.
Active forms
Present	-en	ik slag(en)	I strike	See above.
Perfect	hawen + -et	ik hawen geslag(et)	I have struck
Future	–	ik slag(en) morgen	Tomorrow I will strike	Baumann elected not to create a new conjugation, so future phrases were constructed using specific time phrases.
Imperative	Singular: -e Plural: -en	slage! slagen!	Strike!
Conditional	Present: wirde + infinitive Past: wirde hawen + past participle	ik wirde slag(en) ik wirde hawen geslag(et)	I would strike I would have struck
Optative	meg(en) or welen wir	er meg(en) slag(en) or welen wir slag(en)	May he strike! or May we strike!
Passive forms
Present	werden + past participle	ik werden geslaget	I am (being) struck
Perfect	worden + past participle	ik worden geslaget	I have been struck
Conditional	wirde + past participle	ik wirde geslaget	I would be struck
Future	–	ik werden geslaget morgen	Tomorrow I'll be struck	See above.

But I didn't click "Publish", because I could find nowhere to stick the contrary note ("Stucken would never have been possible here", or something to that effect). I mean, there's nothing described as corresponding to the English preterite (went, took, came, etc).

Yet the language is described as having two tenses, present and past. Has the simple past tense simply been forgotten in the table? Or does "past" mean perfect? Something seems wrong. I'm not sure that it is wrong, but it's disconcerting at best. Some sort of explanation would help.

Incidentally: (i) Even before I splattered the table with footnotes, it had a footnote. Is it helpful to have both footnotes and a "Notes" column? (ii) Asking readers to look "above" could be made more specific. (Template:Anchor can be helpful.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Will fix both issues mentioned - when it comes to the specification of tense, I think Baumann specified that it was the Preterite, so I can add that detail in.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  18:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Participal

Frzzl, "participal" was an obvious mistake for (noun) "participle", so I corrected it, twice.

But it now occurs to me that oops, no, the word may well have been intended as an adjective. Quick googling informs me that "participal" is used in this way, but also suggests that "participial" (which I'm familiar with) is much more widely used. (Adding the "i" also makes the result look less like a typo for "participle".)

Over to you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, this was a mistake on my part - I was moving those rows per comments by Arctic, and typed it again, repeating the typo. Will fix, thank you for pointing that out.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  10:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

None of them

I quote (sort of):

Baumann's languages [viz Wede, Weltdeutsch, Weltpitshn, and Oiropa'pitshn] received a largely negative reception, being mocked by members of the Esperanto and Ido communities; none ________ implemented in any official manner.

How do you fill the blank? I fill it with "was". Our idiolects may differ. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To me, as we’re referring to multiple languages, it’s “were” -  Frzzl  talk; contribs  06:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I’mm writing in British English, so using singular “was” for “none” in a plural context is considered pretty dialectal - we could swap for “none of them”?  Frzzl  talk; contribs  06:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised, Frzzl. I'd thought that in British English as well, one has both options in, say: "Dozens of angry demonstrators surrounded the courthouse, but none was/were armed", and that neither option would be dialectal or sound affected. Here, though, we're talking about a total of just four languages. I'd be mildly surprised to learn two or more among the four had been implemented in any official manner, so although both options are still grammatical and acceptable, were sounds slightly odd to me. Well, languages change over time, and my English could well be old-fashioned. (Example: A pattern that Geoff Pullum described as strange 19 years ago still seems strange to me now, when it's very common in Wikipedia.) Anyway, if you're happy with were, let it remain were. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Piling onto Hoary's remarks, consider I knocked on seven doors and none of them was yours. Were here would be strange because no more than one of the doors could be yours. In the sentence in question, selection of two or more is not impossible but I would say it is more than independently unlikely. —Tamfang (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)