User talk:AnAkemie/Archive 1

Would you be up for helping me with article comprehensibility on other ones?

There are a few articles I'd like your help in figuring out if they are good and read well in English Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 21:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle Sure, I would love to help. Though I'm not fluent in English, I can help, but I'm not sure if I can do it 100% right. I'd say I have a good grasp at knowing if I'm having issues on reading whether because of my lack of vocabulary or because of incomprehensible writing. AnAkemie (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Secular Shrine Theory is one I put a lot of work into and want to make sure it is actually comprehensible. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 18:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle Alright. I may look at it later today or tomorrow. You can give me a list with more articles if you want. AnAkemie (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@AnAkemie thank you. While I'm fluent in English I'm also dyslexic so I sometimes have difficulty recognizing phrases that don't make sense if I know the meaning.

Here is the most urgent one Spring and Autumn Courts

But there are some others I would like help with. I will compile them all and post them in a reply Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 20:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle Okay, I will wait until you make the list to give some proofreading because I'm lazy most of the time and then I have some motivation rushes, heh. If I analyze one by one it will take forever.

Do you want just a general analysis on the articles? Because it would be a bit complicated (and a mess) to give specific analysis through user talks. AnAkemie (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle Thinking about it again, I'm now feeling way less confident about being able to do that task. I'm sorry but my English is not that great, I mostly recognize bad writing only if it's really incoherent (I wouldn't be able to recognize a simple mistake, I would just assume it's my fault for not having a very good knowledge of English). Also you seem to translate mostly from Chinese, which I have zero knowledge of, and from Japanese, which I have a very basic knowledge of. So, even if it makes sense, there's a chance it's not an accurate translation. Even discussing the articles seem to be a nightmare to do through simple Wikipedia user talk pages. AnAkemie (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

false and subjective views

You say you "Removed the following questionable information: "In these cantigas the speaker is nearly always a girl, her mother, the girl's girl friend, or the girl's boyfriend." The speaker is the young woman in love, the other woman are part of the life of the female, used as interlocutors. The speaker being the woman's boyfriend is very unlikely,"

The words you cut are factually correct, yet you cut them. You are introducing your own views, not (obviously) based on a thorough reading of these poems. It is obvious that your knowledge of this poetry is partial and deficient, and that you English is not very good. 89.181.186.151 (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a source that was accessible and had a link instead of a bunch of books that very few people could check. Everything I added on Cantiga de amigo was backed by the link. I saw a conflict between the two texts about other people being part of the cantiga de amigo beyond the young lady and I favored my link because it is a tangible source and not some kind of "trust me, they say it on this book". It's not like I added some sketchy source; it's a site by an institution that has a lot of material about cantigas in general. Anyway, do you really think everything I added there was wrong? You complained only about the intelocutors but removed way more text. You also made a critique about my English and well... you are not wrong, I'd say. This edit summary has grammar mistakes and I noticed it later, but I can't edit the text so I'll have to live with people assuming my edit is useless because the summary is already bad ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Anyway, your edit to the article was good; you gave a lot of details about the text I removed, so it can be clear for someone who could be confused, like me, who indeed is not an expert on the subject, but was trying to make sense of the apparent contradiction of the sources and texts presented. Wikipedia is a project that should be aimed at people who have basic understanding and are hungry for asking things and gaining knowledge. AnAkemie (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

prova

não sei se esta página fica visível ao público. suponho que sim. de qualquer maneira, queria agradecer os seus esforços e pedir desculpa por ter sido um tanto brusco no início. Philologue37 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sem problemas. Me desculpe também, exagerei um pouco, porque as traduções dos artigos sobre as cantigas foram a primeira coisa que realmente fiz de "grande" na Wikipedia em inglês. Os artigos estão realmente ruins, bastante incompletos e com falta de fontes. Os artigos sobre o trovadorismo da Wikipedia em português estão em situação deplorável, sinceramente. O artigo sobre a Cantiga de amigo está melhor na Wikipedia em inglês do que na em português. Ainda tem a Cantiga de amor, que é de longe a mais incompleta. Enfim, os textos estão mais rasos do que como ensinam em escola. Eu até tentei achar fontes, mas só acabei achando site de copia e cola para fazer trabalho escolar, o que são uma das piores fontes possíveis para se usar. Talvez não devesse nem ter traduzido, mas acho que é melhor um conhecimento raso do que nenhum conhecimento. AnAkemie (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Tem razão. Ja pus informação sobre CEM na página talk. Aqui, da mesma fonte, vai uma introdução á cantiga de amor. Se você consegue editar, resumir, e citar, pode fazer um artigo decente, creio eu-

Nota bene: verbatim.

---

The cantigas d’ amor are male voiced love lyric. They make use of (statistically) more complex forms, including many never found in Amigo and some very complex ones that are drawn directly from Occitan or Old French lyric (Canettieri et al.). On the other hand, we find an extreme paucity of personae (almost always the man speaks to or about a woman) and of situations. Usually the man is wooing the woman (often by means of a complaint that she is being cruel, despite his loyalty and love-service), though on occasion he is leaving or coming back, sometimes is away from her, and, rarely, so frustrated, angry or jealous that he renounces and even insults her. The rhetoric is more complex, and the relationship between metrical and syntactic units is far more varied, with a much higher frequency of enjambement. Also here obscenity and open references to sexuality are taboo.

--

While there has been much debate about Amigo, most scholars blithely assume that Amor comes from France. The considerable formal debt of Amor to Occitan and Old French Lyric is undeniable, and scholars since Lang have pointed to clear thematic parallels. But De Lollis was probably right to posit two erotic genres in Galician-Portuguese before the first written texts. He suggested – a daring idea then – that Amor was written down before the first extant Amigo, something that now seems beyond doubt (Oliveira). But De Lollis has been misunderstood (e.g. by Oliveira) on the matter of Amor. Not only does he accept as beyond question a pre-existing Amigo, he believes (like Lang before him ) that the parallelism and forms and at least some of the thematics of Amor existed before any French or Occitan influence. It is difficult to go much beyond that, since the genre has been so tinged (or tainted) by foreign sway that we cannot trace its stemma.

Cohen, Rip (2009). “The Medieval Galician-Portuguese Lyric / The Secular Genres.” In Companion to Portuguese Literature. Ed. Stephen Parkinson, Cláudia Pazos Alonso and T. F. Earle. Warminster: Tamesis, pp. 25-40. Philologue37 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

O problema é que eu não tenho um nível de entendimento de inglês a ponto de parafrasear tanta coisa. Que tal você escrever o texto em forma de esboço? Você poderia escrever o texto e fazer algo como = colocar referência XXXXXXXX aqui =, e então eu faria a parte mais técnica de edição. Por exemplo, você pode fazer um esboço sobre a cantiga de amigo em https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philologue37/Cantiga_de_amigo e sobre a cantiga de escárnio em https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philologue37/CEM. Essas páginas seriam subpáginas da sua página de usuário, então lá você teria liberdade para escrever qualquer coisa. AnAkemie (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Obrigado, mas não tenho tempo - nem vontade. Philologue37 (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Complicado. Pensei que daria para fazer um artigo completo mas não a nível acadêmico. AnAkemie (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A message from Philologue37

I see you have worked on several articles on Galician-Portuguese lyric. Good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philologue37 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Philologue37: I procrastinated for 2 weeks on this but then I found a digitalized version of the book you mentioned and the text you sent checked out with the book so I had no reason to not do it. I invite you to revise my texts if you have free time; maybe I paraphrased some parts so much that they lost their original meaning, or there may be some grammar mistakes. AnAkemie (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Escreva-me [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philologue37 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Philologue37: Não acho que seja necessário. Você já fez pequenas edições antes, e pode fazer se quiser e quando tiver algum tempo livre, se houver alguma imprecisão. Ultimamente não estou muito a fim de entrar em outros projetos na Wikipedia. AnAkemie (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)