Hello. Thanks a lot! Please, see below:
2007/3/3, splay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi. This will be my second attempt. The first one seems to have sailed > off to the land of lost socks. I'm a middle-aged American with some > experience in copyediting. Here goes: > > On Mar 2, 11:48 am, "Petr Hrubis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Everyone, > > > > As I'm not a native speaker of English (I've never been to a country > > in which English is the official language...well, in fact, I was on an > > eleven-day school trip in Britain many years ago, but I guess that > > doesn't count) I'd like to ask for help. > > > > I have been co-working on a Wikipedia article and I'd like somebody to > > check the following article for grammatical and stylistic mistakes. > > Thanks a lot in advance! :-) > > > > The link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den%C3%A9-Caucasian_languages > > > > Here's a copy of the Introduction: > > > > The Dené-Caucasian (also called Sino-Caucasian or Dené-Sino-Caucasian) > > language family is a conjectural language superfamily containing the > > Basque1, North Caucasian2, Yenisseian3, Burushaski, Sino-Tibetan, and > > Na-Dené4 languages 5. > > The numbers should, of course, be superscript. Oh yes, they are in the article. > And close up number > five. I see. Done. > Otherwise, put them in parentheses with a space before. As it > stands I at first took the numbers to be part of the language names. > > > The first glimpses of the hypothesis appeared in > > the Oh, thanks. By the way, is the use of "such"+"as" neutral here? I simply want to list some of them, but also avoid the repetitive "for example", "for instance" and "e.g." collocations... > > works of such scholars as Robert Bleichsteiner, Karl Bouda, E. J. > > Furnée, René Lafon, Edward Sapir, Robert Shafer, Morris Swadesh, > > Olivier Guy Tailleur, Vladimir N. Toporov, Alfredo Trombetti and > > others. However, in the 1980s, it was Sergei Starostin who, using > > strict linguistic methods (regular phonological correspondences, > > reconstructions, glottochronology > > comma Aha. Done. > > etc.) first put the ideas on a > > firmer ground. > > I think you want "on a firmer footing." That's a cliche, and > ordinarily to be avoided as such, but used sparingly they don't > detract, in my humble opinion. "On firmer ground" (no "a") would be > OK, too. I see. Are there any better phrases I could use? > > Despite the increasing amount of lexical and > > morphological evidence, the proponents > > of Dené-Caucasian > > still more often consider their > > hypothesis "an explanatory model" rather than a final and definitive > > solution to the problem of possible deeper genetic links among the > > groups. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Notes > > > > Put a period after each numeral heading below, and leave a blank line > between parts. > > > 1 It has been suggested that the ancient Aquitanian and maybe also > > Iberian languages > > Unclear. I can't tell whether this is COIK error (Clear Only If Known) > or overly optimistic use of the conjunction. If the Iberian you refer > to is the ancient one, if ancient one there be, it should be, "...the > ancient Aquitanian and maybe also the ancient Iberian languages...". > If not, then, "...the ancient Aquitanian and maybe also the Iberian > languages...", and the next word has to change from "were" to "are." I > don't know the facts here, but that works to our advantage. I see. Then I should explain it a bit. There were two languages in the Antiquity: Aquitanian and Iberian. They both might have been the relatives, or even the ancestors of the present-day Basque language. As both the Iberian speakers and Aquitanian speakers were assimilated by the Celtic, Roman and finally also Germanic invaders, there is no need to use the attribute "Ancient" of course. However, some readers may not know the two languages don't exist any more, that they were spoken many centuries ago, so I wanted to give them this information somehow... > The above will seem fussy to many people, but clarity trumps concision > every time, sez me. > > > were related to Basque, belonging to the so-called > > Vasconic language family. John D. Bengtson proposes a so-called > > Vasco-Caucasian family, comprising the Vasconic and North Caucasian > > languages, and a so-called Macro-Caucasian family, adding Burushaski > > to the former two. > > 2 The North Caucasian family consists of two distinct subbranches: > > "sub-branches" Oops. I usually use the hyphen...a typo, perhaps... > > Northeast Caucasian (or Nakh-Daghestanian) and Northwest Caucasian (or > > Abkhazo-Adyghean). The ancient Hurrian, Urartian and sometimes > > Etruscan > > Same problem as above. If "ancient" applies to both Hurrian and > Urartian, "Ancient Hurrian and Urartian, and sometimes Etruscan,...". > Delete the "the" at the head of the sentence. Yes, the three languages are ancient... > > have been proposed to belong the the former, > > "Proposed to belong" is a clinker. I suggest, "It has been proposed > that ancient Hurrian...Etruscan belong to the former,...". I see. > > whereas the > > latter might include the ancient Hattic language as well. > > As well as what? Etruscan, Hurrian and Urartian (they are all ancient languages) might have been members of the East Caucasian family, Hattic might have been a member of the West Caucasian family. > > A brand-new > > branch has been tentatively proposed by Vitaliy Shevoroshkin, > > consisting of the Salishan, the Wakashan, and maybe a few other North > > American language families.. > > Superfluous period. Oh, thanks... > > 3 Edward Vajda has suggested that Tlingit, Eyak and the Athabaskan > > languages > > This implies that Tlingit and Eyak are individual languages (for the > purposes of this sentence) and not language groups. If so, fine. Yes, Tlingit and Eyak are individual languages, Athabaskan is a family of languages. > > are closely related to the Yeniseian languages, rejecting > > any genetic relationship of the former to Haida. > > 4 Hans-Jürgen Pinnow has recently revived the idea of Haida's Na-Dené > > affiliation.. > > Superfluous period. Wow, again. Thanks. > > 5 The ancient languages mentioned above have rather uncertain > > positions within North Caucasian and Dené-Caucasian. This is mainly > > due to > > the Oh, a definite article, of course. > > severe paucity and stereotypical character of linguistic > > material (cf. Etruscan), or rather uncertain semantics or phonetics > > (cf. Sumerian, which might be a separate branch of Dené-Caucasian > > according to Bengtson). For these reasons it should be noted that > > other hypotheses exist: Sumerian and/or Etruscan are thought by some > > to be Nostratic languages, while others consider Sumerian to be an > > Austric, if not specifically Munda > > comma > > > language. > > I didn't check the spellings of the proper nouns I've never seen > before, and I'll admit there were quite a few. Hope this helps. Post a > revised version, and I will do this again, if you like. Thank you. I'll send you the revised version as soon as possible. Or, please, if you can, look at the article here: (where it is formatted) Thank you very much! Best, Petr --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Correct my English" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/correct-my-english -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
