User talk:Dan Koehl/2008

Schagerstrom

Who? I don't know a thing about it. Sorry. The name was used in the article so I used it. But - don't go away yet - we have something new here since a year ago last March and that is Google Books. I personally think Google are a bunch of greedy jerks who are doing a very bad job of putting books online under slave labor conditions (you didn't really think I could sign away my rights, did you Google?) However they are the only ones doing it in a major way, and for a great profit, I may add. They've done some whole libraries and as a result books are available to us now that we never dreamed existed 2 years ago. Too bad someone kindlier didn't get the idea. So if you will pull up Google Books - I keep a permanent tab to it on my machine - select Book search and search on Schagerstrom 1931. You will turn up quite a number of results and many of those are in Swedish. I will be very surprised if the reference for which you are looking is not there.

As for the etymology I keep remembering a seminar I took with Watkins (quite a character). He would be explaining an etymology and appear very enthusiastic about it and just about had us sold on it and then would turn around and say "but there's a better one!" Etymologies are like candy in a candy store. They all taste good if you like candy and you just can't make up your mind which one to buy, and you can only buy one.

I still like sea people but in fact I've been doing work on Suebi (I have not finished yet) and there I went for "our men." Not for nothing do the gangsters calls themselves cosa nostra (if they do. So did Julius Caesar). I guess I have two creeds on this one. I admit to being influenced by random articles by Finnish scholars. The non-Finns all want to say, well, this or that word is from Finnish. But the Finns turn it right back and say, well, this or that word has a Baltic or Germanic origin. So good luck with it.

You express some lack of confidence about your English. I don't suppose it would help if I said that most English speakers have trouble with their English. The idea that we English speakers all know English is a myth. Don't let the critics get you down. I once saw a filmed lecture by a former head of Middlebury College language department. He said that the fear of being thought a fool held people back from trying their new language. He paused a moment. Then he ripped his tie off. Then he started shredding his shirt until his torso was bare and dancing around. Then he said to the camera, "vivre, c'est etre fou! And said it twice with great emphasis. He was a great teacher. I wish I could remember his name. So don't let the critics get you down. People are just people. They are no worse on Wikipedia than elsewhere. My respect for the printed word has diminished considerably since I've been working on Wikipedia! On the other hand it offers stability. I think I'd rather jump in and be a fou than get up on a pedestal, but I've always been that way. So if they want to delete something you did, let them and go on.

By the way I still do not feel up to editing the Suiones article. I see now it does need to be Wikified better. We are making full citations now with cite book, cite web, etc, and putting all the refs in auto-numbered footnotes. Other than that I'm impressed by the scholarship (at first glance anyway). I would say we can certainly use someone up on North Germanic lore if that is what you want to do, work on the English Wikipedia. I know we're the biggest one. I got no idea why that is and I will not speculate. Bonne chance mon ami.Dave (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

NZ Jeremy, aka. Zoophilia Hey Dan just made heaps more changes to the Auckland Zoo page, you might wanna check it out. I'll probably have to start a new NZ Zoo soon. I'll have to check out the pages you've edited when I get a chance. My bet is a lot of Elephants..! See you at Zoobeat.Zoophilia (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Please delete this when read, I'm new on the editing thing..!)

In Lithuanian language Saga is Saka/sakme/sakai/sakmes from the word 'sekt' which means to tell stories...and Vikings or Variags (in russian) in Lithuanian language comes from the word 'vaikytis/varyt/vytis' and that means to drive/pursue/hunt/chase/be after...Pagan in Lithuanian language 'Pa-ganyti/pa-ginti' means to herd/depasture/drive...from the same word english have the word to hunt and one Empire was bearing the same name Huns meaning 'Ganiai/ganytojai'...moreover even the word to defent in Lithuanian language is the same 'ginti'...what do you think? I have never ever heard that Vikings would be attacking Lithuania or Latvia

Dudhwa

Hey Dan...I really dunno much about those elephants! But you can use the images I uploaded provided it maintains the free and open spirit of the GFDL.

Matriarchy

Dan, I know you consider yourself an expert with captive elephants, but in the wild, many elephants are considered to live in matriarchal social groups. There are many good reliable sources attesting to this fact so I'm confused why you removed it. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dan Koehl. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dan, let's see some references for your removal of Elephants from the matriarchy article. At least two editors have disagreed with you and I've provided you with at least one RS from 2007. Please show me your sources. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey I was just over at Viriditia's talk page leaving a message on some other topic and I happened to notice this discussion and thought I could be of service. You are right that one of the main definitions of the word "Matriarchy" is "social system in which women have the power" but that is not the definition I think that Biologists have when describing Elephant Societies. They are usuing another equally legitimate sence of the word "Matriarchy", which means "ruled by their mother". It refers to the structure, (that you seem to be fully aware of but I'm just repeating here for the sence of definition) it refers to the feature of elephant society where adult males live outside the society and the group consists of all adult females and all juviniles, but not the bulls, and that the whole group is led by a female elephant who is actually the mother of them all. Or actually the grandmother or even great-grandmother of all of them, rarely any adopted outsiders who are not related to her. Sorry I don't have time, just wanted to drop a first draft here I gottta gota the store with my brother in two secs but you get my drift i'll edit this later hope i've been helpful the point is the biggest bull rules everything but leaves the group to find more females and doesn't stay with the society bye for now Chrisrus (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I note you "think that Biologists have when describing Elephant Societies", but to assume things like that are rather unscientific.
2. Too less is known about elephants society in order to be able to state whos within it, and whos outside. Whenever an adult bull is present within "the society" that YOU refer to, hes dominant, not "led" by a matriarchaty.
3. The term seems tp be used without any common consensus by SOME biologists. I doubt it is is schentifically accepted.
4. The term is obvisoly used with an agenda, feminisits like animals like elephants to live in matriarchaty, for whatever reason.
5. Elephants are not living in matriarchaty as the term is defined.

Dan Koehl (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)