text:
Macchi C.200 Saetta

The Macchi C.200 Saetta (Italian: "Lightning"), or MC.200, was a fighter aircraft developed and manufactured by Aeronautica Macchi in Italy. Various versions were flown by the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Air Force) who used the type throughout the Second World War.

The C.200 was designed by Mario Castoldi, Macchi's lead designer, to serve as a modern monoplane fighter aircraft, furnished with retractable landing gear and powered by a radial engine. The C.200 possessed excellent maneuverability, and its general flying characteristics left little to be desired. Its stability in a high-speed dive was exceptional, but it was underpowered and underarmed in comparison to its contemporaries. Early on, there were a number of crashes caused by stability problems, nearly resulting in the grounding of the type; these problems were ultimately addressed via aerodynamic modifications to the wing.

From the time Italy entered the Second World War on 10 June 1940, until the signing of the armistice of 8 September 1943, the C. 200 flew more operational sorties than any other Italian aircraft. The Saetta saw operational service in Greece, North Africa, Yugoslavia, across the Mediterranean, and in the Soviet Union (where it obtained an excellent kill to loss ratio of 88 to 15). The plane's very strong all-metal construction and air-cooled engine made the aircraft ideal for conducting ground attack missions; several units flew it as a fighter-bomber. Over 1,000 aircraft had been constructed by the end of the war.

Origins
In early 1935 Mario Castoldi, lead designer of Italian aircraft company Macchi, commenced work on a series of design studies for a modern monoplane fighter aircraft, which was to be furnished with retractable landing gear. Castoldi had previously designed several racing aircraft that had competed for the Schneider Trophy, including the Macchi M.39, which won the competition in 1926. He had also designed the M.C. 72. From an early stage, the concept aircraft that emerged from these studies became known as the C.200.

In 1936, in the aftermath of Italy's campaigns in East Africa, an official program was initiated with the aim of completely re-equipping the Regia Aeronautica with a new interceptor aircraft of modern design. The 10 February 1936 specifications, formulated and published by the Ministero dell'Aeronatica, called for an aircraft powered by a single radial engine, which was to be capable of a top speed of 500 km/h and a climb rate of 6,000 meters in 5 minutes. Additional requirements were soon specified: the aircraft was to be capable of being used as an interceptor with a flight endurance time of two hours and armed with a single (later increased to two) 12.7 mm machine gun.

Prototypes
In response to the prescribed demand for a modern fighter aircraft, Castoldi submitted a proposal for an aircraft based upon his 1935 design studies. On 24 December 1937, the first prototype (MM.336) C.200 conducted its maiden flight at Lonate Pozzolo, Varese, with Macchi chief test pilot Giuseppe Burei at the controls. Officials within the ministry and Macchi's design team fought over the retention of the characteristic hump used to enhance cockpit visibility; after a protracted argument, the feature was ultimately retained.

The first prototype was followed by the second prototype early the following year. During testing, the aircraft reportedly attained 805 km/h in a dive free of negative tendencies such as flutter and other aeroelastic issues; although it could achieve only 500 km/h in level flight due to a lack of engine power. Nevertheless, this capability was superior than the performance of the competing Fiat G.50 Freccia, Reggiane Re.2000, A.U.T. 18, IMAM Ro.51, and Caproni-Vizzola F.5; of these, the Re.2000 was seen as the most capable of the C.200's rivals, being more maneuverable and capable of greater performance at low altitude but lacking in structural strength.

The C.200 benefitted greatly from preparations that were being made for major expansion of the Italian Air Force, known as Programme R. In 1938, the C.200 was selected as the winner of the tender "Caccia I" (Fighter 1) of the Regia Aeronautica. This choice came in spite of mixed results during flight testing at Guidonia airport; on 11 June 1938, Major Ugo Borgogno warned that when tight turns at beyond 90° were attempted, the aircraft became extremely difficult to control, including a tendency to turn upside down, mostly to the right and entering into a violent flat spin.

Production
Shortly following the completion of the second prototype, an initial order for 99 production aircraft was placed with Macchi. The G.50, which during the same flight tests held at Guidonia airport had out-turned the Macchi, was also placed in limited production, because it had been determined that the former could be brought into service earlier. The decision, or indecision, involved in producing multiple overlapping types led to greater inefficiencies in both production and in operation. In June 1939, production of the C.200 formally commenced.

The most serious handicap was the low production rate of the type. According to some reports, in excess of 22,000 hours in production time was attributed to the use of antiquated construction technology. A lack of urgency shown by the authorities regarding standardisation was also viewed as having negatively affected mass production efforts, particularly in light of the lack of availability of key resources in Italy at the time. In order to improve the rate of output, the C.200 remained almost unchanged throughout its production life, save for adjustments to the cockpit in response to pilot feedback.

In addition to Macchi, the C.200 was also constructed by Italian aircraft companies Società Italiana Ernesto Breda and SAI Ambrosini under a subcontracting arrangement intended to produce 1,200 aircraft between 1939 and 1943. However, during 1940, the termination of all production of the type was considered in response to aerodynamic performance problems that had caused the loss of multiple aircraft; the type was retained after changes were made to the wing to rectify a tendency to go into an uncontrollable spin that could occur during turns.

In an attempt to improve performance, a C.201 prototype was created with a 750 kW Fiat A.76 engine; work on this prototype was later abandoned in favour of the Daimler-Benz DB 601-powered C.202. At one point, it was intended that the Saetta was to have been replaced outright by the C.202 after only a single year in production. However, the C.200's service life was extended because Alfa Romeo proved to be incapable of producing enough of the RA.1000 (license-built DB 601) engines needed by the newer aircraft. This contributed to the decision to construct further C.200s that used C.202 components as an interim measure while waiting for the production rate of the latter's engine to be increased.

At the beginning of 1940, Denmark was set to place an order for 12 C.200s to replace its aging Hawker Nimrod fighters, but the deal fell through when Germany invaded Denmark. A total of 1,153 Saettas were eventually produced, but only 33 remained operational by the time armistice between Italy and Allied armed forces in September 1943.

Design
The Macchi C.200 was a modern all-metal cantilever low-wing monoplane, which was equipped with retractable landing gear and an enclosed cockpit. The fuselage was of semi-monocoque construction, with self-sealing fuel tanks under the pilot's seat, and in the centre section of the wing. The distinctive "hump" elevated the partially open cockpit to provide the pilot with an unusually wide field of view over the engine. The wing had an advanced system whereby the hydraulically actuated flaps were interconnected with the ailerons, so that when the flaps were lowered the ailerons drooped as well. As a result of its ultimate load factor of 15.1, it could reach speeds as fast as 800 km/h true airspeed during dives.

Power was provided by a 650 kW Fiat A.74 radial engine, although Castoldi preferred inline engines, and had used them to power all of his previous designs. Under a direttiva (air ministry specification) of 1932, Italian industrial leaders had been instructed to concentrate solely on radial engines for fighters, due to their superior reliability. The A.74 was a re-design of the American Pratt & Whitney R-1830 SC-4 Twin Wasp by engineers Tranquillo Zerbi and Antonio Fessia, and was the only Italian-built engine that could provide a level of reliability comparable to Allied designs. The licence-built A.74 engine could be problematic. In late spring 1941, 4o Stormo's Macchi C.200s, then based in Sicily, had all the A.74s produced by the Reggiane factory replaced because they were defective. The elite unit had to abort many missions against Malta due to engine problems. While some considered the Macchi C.200 to have been underpowered, the air-cooled radial engine provided some pilot protection during strafing missions. Consequently, the C.200 was often used as a cacciabombardiere (fighter-bomber).

The C.200 was typically armed with a pair of 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns; while these were often considered to be insufficient, the Saetta was able to compete with contemporary Allied fighters. According to aviation author Gianni Cattaneo, perhaps the greatest weakness of the C.200 was its light machine gun armament. Moreover, a radio was not fitted as standard.

Like other early Italian monoplanes, the C.200 suffered from a dangerous tendency to go into a spin. Early production C.200 aircraft showed autorotation problems similar to those found in the Fiat G.50 Freccia, IMAM Ro.51, and the Aeronautica Umbra Trojani AUT.18. At the beginning of 1940, a pair of deadly accidents occurred due to autorotation. Aircraft production and deliveries were halted while the Regia Aeronautica evaluated the potential for abandoning use of the type, as the skill involved in flying the C.200 was considered to be beyond that of the average pilot. The problem was a product of the profile of the wing. Castoldi soon tested a new profile, but a solution to the autorotation problem was found by Sergio Stefanutti, chief designer of SAI Ambrosini in Passignano sul Trasimeno, based on studies conducted by German aircraft engineer Willy Messerschmitt and the American National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). He redesigned the wing section with a variable, instead of constant, profile, which was achieved by covering parts of the wings with plywood.

The new wing entered production in 1939–1940 at SAI Ambrosini and became standard on the aircraft manufactured by Aermacchi and Breda, a licensed manufacturer. After the modified wing of the Saetta was introduced, the C.200 proved to be, for a time, the foremost Italian fighter. The first production C.200 series, did not have armour fitted to protect the pilots, as a weight-saving measure. Armour plating was incorporated when frontline units were going to replace the Saettas with the new Macchi C.202 Folgore (Thunderbolt) but in only a limited number of aircraft. After the armour was fitted, the aircraft could become difficult to fly. During aerobatic maneuvers, one could enter an extremely difficult-to-control flat spin, which would force the pilot to bail out. On 22 July 1941, Leonardo Ferrulli, one of the top-scoring Regia Aeronautica pilots, encountered the problem and was forced to bail out over Sicily.

Introduction

In August 1939, about 30 C.200 Saettas were delivered to the 10th Gruppo of the 4th Stormo, stationed in North Africa. However, pilots of this elite unit of the Regia Aeronautica opposed the adoption of the C.200, preferring the more manouvrable Fiat CR.42 instead. Accordingly, the Macchis were then transferred to the 6th Gruppo of the 1st Stormo in Sicily, who were enthusiastic supporters of the new fighter, and to the 152nd Gruppo of the 54th Stormo in Vergiate. Further units received the type during peacetime, including the 153rd Gruppo and the 369th Squadriglia.

When Italy entered the war on 10 June 1940, 144 C.200s were operational, only half of which were serviceable. The re-equipment programme, under which the type would have been widely adopted, took longer than expected; and several squadrons were still in the process of being reequipped with the C.200 at the outbreak of war. Although the first 240 aircraft had been fitted with fully enclosed cockpits, the subsequent variants were provided with open cockpits at the request of the Italian pilots, who were familiar with the open cockpits that were commonplace amongst the old biplanes.

Service history
The C.200 played no role in Italy's brief action during the Battle of France. The first C.200s to make their combat debut were those of the 6th Gruppo Autonomo C.T. (caccia terrestre, or land-attack fighter) led by Tenente Colonnello (Wing Commander) Armando Francois. This squadron was based at the Sicilian airport of Catania Fontanarossa. A Saetta from this unit was the first C.200 to be lost in combat when, on 23 June 1940, 14 C.200s (eight from 88a Squadriglia, five from 79a Squadriglia and one from 81a Squadriglia) that were escorting 10 Savoia-Marchetti SM.79s from the 11th Stormo were intercepted by two Gloster Gladiators. Gladiator No.5519, piloted by Flight Lieutenant George Burges, jumped the bombers but was in turn attacked by a C.200 flown by Sergente Maggiore Lamberto Molinelli of 71a Squadriglia over the sea off Sliema. The Macchi overshot four or five times the more agile Gladiator which eventually shot down the Saetta.

In September 1940, the C.200s of the 6th Gruppo conducted their first offensive operations in support of wider Axis efforts against the Mediterranean island of Malta, escorting Junkers Ju 87 dive-bombers. On 1 November 1940 the C.200s were credited with their first kill, a British Sunderland, on a reconnaissance mission, that was sighted and attacked just outside Augusta by a flight of Saettas on patrol. With the arrival towards the end of December 1940 of X Fliegerkorps in Sicily, the C.200s were assigned escort duty for I/StG.1 and II/StG.2 Ju 87 bombers attacking Malta, as the Stukas did not have adequate fighter cover until the arrival of 7./JG26's Bf 109s.

Soon after, British air power in the theatre was enhanced, especially by the arrival of the Hawker Hurricane fighter, which forced a redeployment of Italian forces in response. Although considered to be inferior to the Hurricane in terms of speed, the C.200 had the advantage in terms of manoeuvrability, turn radius, and climb rate. According to aviation author Bill Gunston, the C.200 proved effective against the Hurricane, delivering outstanding dogfight performance without any vices.

While the Hurricane was faster at sea level (450 km/h vs the C.200's 430 km/h, the Saetta could reach more than 500 km/h at 4500 m, although its speed dropped off at altitude: 490 km/h at 6000 m and 350 km/h at 7000 m with a maximum ceiling of 8800 m. Comparative speeds of the Hurricane Mk I were 505 km/h at 5000 m and 528 km/h at 6000 m. Over 5000 m and at very low levels, only the huge Vokes (anti-sand) air filter fitted to the "tropical" variants slowed the Hurricane Mk II to Macchi levels. Although the Macchi C.200 was more agile than the Hurricane, it carried a lighter armament than its British adversary.

On 6 February 1941, the 4th Stormo received C.200s from the 54th Stormo. Once the autorotation problems had been resolved, the Macchis were regarded as "very good machines, fast, manoeuvrable and strong" by Italian pilots. After intense training, on 1 April 1941, the 10th Gruppo (4th Stormo) moved to Ronchi dei Legionari airport and started active service. The C.200 subsequently saw action over Greece, Yugoslavia and the Balkans, frequently engaging in dogfights with British Gladiators and Hurricanes over the Balkans.

Yugoslavia

C.200s from the 4th Stormo took part in operations against Yugoslavia right from the start of hostilities. At dawn on 6 April 1941, four C.200s from 73a Squadriglia flew over Pola harbour and attacked an oil tanker, setting it on fire. Due to limited air resistance being encountered, sorties flown by the type in this theatre were usually limited to escorting and strafing.

The 4th Stormo flew its last mission against Yugoslavia on 14 April 1941: on that day, 20 C.200s from the 10th Gruppo flew up to 100 km south of Karlovac without meeting any enemy aircraft. Operations ended on 17 April. During those 11 days, the 4th Stormo did not lose a single C.200. Its pilots destroyed a total of 20 seaplanes and flying boats, while damaging a further 10. Additionally, they set on fire an oil tanker, a fuel truck, several other vehicles, and destroyed port installations.

North Africa
Fitted with dust filters and designated C.200AS, the Saetta saw extensive use in North Africa, greater than any other theatre of war. The Macchi's introduction was not initially well received by pilots; in 1940, the first C.200 unit, the 4th Stormo, replaced the type with the C.R.42. The first combat missions were flown as escorts for Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 bombers attacking Malta in June 1940, where one C.200 was claimed by a Gladiator. On 11 June 1940, second day of war for Italy, the C.200s of 79a Squadriglia encountered one of the Sea Gladiators that had been scrambled from Hal Far, Malta. Flying Officer W. J. Wood claimed Tenente Giuseppe Pesola had been shot down, but the Italian pilot came back unscathed to his base.

During April 1941, the C.200s of the 374th Squadriglia became the first unit to be stationed on the North African mainland. Further units, including the 153rd Gruppo and the 157th Gruppo, were stationed on the mainland as Allied air power in the region increased in capability and numbers, including aircraft such as the Hurricane and the P-40 Warhawk. According to Cattaneo, the C.200 performed well under the conditions of the desert climate, particularly due to its high structural strength and short takeoff run.

On 8 December 1941, Macchi C.200s of the 153rd Gruppo engaged Hurricanes from 94 Squadron. A dogfight developed, with the commanding officer, Squadron Leader Linnard, attempting to intercept a Macchi attacking a Hurricane. Both aircraft were making steep turns and losing height. But Linnard was too late, and the Macchi, turning inside the Hurricane, had already hit the Hurricane's cockpit area. The stricken aircraft turned over at a low level and dived into the ground, bursting into flames. Its pilot, the New Zealand-born RAF "ace" (six enemy aircraft destroyed and many more probably destroyed) Flight Lieutenant Owen Tracey was killed.

North African and Italian-based units were routinely rotated to relieve war-weary crews, aiding the resumption of an Axis offensive in the region during early 1942. During this offensive, which led to Italian and German forces reaching the outskirts of Alexandria, Egypt, the C.200s were heavily engaged in bomber escort and low-altitude attack operations, while the newer C.202s performed high-altitude air cover duties.

In addition to interceptor duties, C.200s frequently operated as fighter-bombers against both land and naval objectives. The North African theatre was the first in which the type had been intentionally deployed as a fighter-bomber. During September 1942, the type was responsible for sinking the British destroyer HMS Sikh (F82), as well as several smaller motor vessels, near Tobruk, during Operation Agreement, an attempted amphibious assault by Allied forces.

Following the decisive victory by Commonwealth forces at El Alamein, the C.200 provided cover for the retreating Axis forces, strafing advancing Allied columns and light vehicles. However, operations by the type in the theatre were curtailed around this time by increasing shortages of spares, fuel, and components; losses in the face of numerically superior Allied air power also played a role in the rapid decline of deployable C.200s. During January 1943, many Italian aerial units were withdrawn from North Africa, leaving only a single unit operating the type. Bomb-carrying C.200s were amongst those aircraft used during Axis attempts to resist the Allied occupation of the island of Pantelleria. However, early 1943 marked the end of the C.200's viability as an effective front-line fighter.

Eastern Front
In August 1941, the Italian air force command dispatched a single air corps, formed from the 22º Gruppo Autonomo Caccia Terrestre with four squadrons and 51 C.200s to the Eastern Front with the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia; it was the first contribution of the Regia Aeronautica to the campaign. By 12 August 1941, all 51 C.200s had arrived at Tudora, Ștefan Vodă, near Odessa. On 13 August 1941, commanded by Maggiore Giovanni Borzoni and deployed in 359a, 362a, 369a, and 371a Squadriglia (Flights). On 27 August 1941, C.200s carried out their first operations from Krivoi Rog, achieving eight aerial victories over Soviet bombers and fighters. For a short time, the 22nd Gruppo was subordinated to Luftwaffe V. Fliegerkorps. Subsequently, they took part in the September offensive on the Dnieper; and as the offensive continued they operated sporadically from airstrips in Zaporozhye, Stalino, Borvenkovo, Voroshilovgrad, Makiivka, Oblivskaja, Millerovo, and their easternmost location, Kantemirovka, moving to Zaporozhye late in October 1941.

Maintaining operations became increasingly difficult as winter took hold, the unit having not been furnished with the necessary equipment for conducting low-temperature operations; accordingly, flying was often impossible throughout November and December. In December 1941, 371a Squadriglia was transferred to Stalino, but were replaced two days later by 359a with 11 C.200s. On 25 December, the C.200s flew low-level attacks against Soviet troops that had encircled the Black Shirt Legion Tagliamento, at Novo Orlowka; and 359a Squadriglia intercepted Soviet fighters over Bulawa, shooting down five without loss to themselves. On 28 December, pilots of 359a claimed nine Soviet aircraft, including six Polikarpov I-16 fighters, in the Timofeyevka and Polskaya area, without loss. According to Cattaneo, during the course of the three-day long 'Christmas battle', a total of 12 Soviet fighters were downed by C.200s with only a single friendly aircraft lost.

During February 1942, weather conditions had improved enough to allow for the resumption of full operations. From February onwards, the C.200 was employed in repeated attacks upon Soviet airfields at Liman, Luskotova, and Leninski Bomdardir. On 4 May 1942, the 22º Gruppo Autonomo Caccia Terrestre was withdrawn from active operation. The unit had flown 68 missions, taking part in 19 air combats and 11 ground attack missions. The 22º Gruppo was credited with 66 enemy destroyed, 16 probables, and 45 damaged and was awarded a Medaglia d'argento al valor militare (Silver Medal for military valor). The group was replaced by the newly formed 21º Gruppo Autonomo Caccia Terrestre, composed of 356a, 361a, 382a, and 386a Squadriglia. This unit, commanded by Maggiore Ettore Foschini, brought new C.202s and 18 new C.200 fighters. During the Second Battle of Kharkov (12–30 May) the Italians flew escort for the German bombers and reconnaissance aircraft.

In May, the aircraft's pilots received praise from the commander of the German 17th Army, mostly for their daring and effective attacks in the Slavyansk area. During the German advance in summer 1942, the 21st Gruppo Autonomo C.T. transferred to Makiivka airfield, and then to Voroshilovgrad and Oblivskaya.

As time went on, the type was increasingly tasked to escort German aircraft. On 24 July 1942, the unit was shifted to Tatsinskaya Airfield, with 24 Saettas. Its main task was to provide escort for Stukas in the Don Bend area, where there were few German fighters available. Hauptmann Friedrich Lang, Staffelkäpitan of 1./StG 2 reported the Italian escort as "most disappointing". The Saettas proved unable to protect the Stukas from Soviet fighters. On 25 and 26 July 1942, five C.200s were lost in aerial combat. After only three days of action from Tatsinskaya, one-third of the Italian fighters had been shot down.

The following winter, the Soviet counter-offensive resulted in the mass retreat of Axis forces. By early-December 1942, only 32 Saettas were still operating, along with 11 C.202s. However, during the first 18 months of its use on the Eastern front, together with C.202s, the C.200 had claimed an 88 to 15 victory/loss ratio, during which it had performed 1,983 escort missions, 2,557 offensive sweeps, 511 ground support sorties, and 1,310 strafing sorties.

Losses grew in the face of a more aggressive enemy flying newer aircraft. The last major action was on 17 January 1943: 25 C.200s strafed enemy troops in the Millerovo area. The aviation of the ARMIR was withdrawn on 18 January, bringing 30 C.200 and nine C.202 fighters back to Italy and leaving 15 unserviceable aircraft behind. A total of 66 Italian aircraft had been lost on the Eastern Front – against, according to official figures, 88 victories claimed during 17 months of action in that theatre.

A summary of the Italian expeditionary force operations included 2,557 offensive flights (of which 511 with bombs drops), 1,310 strafing attacks, and 1,938 escort missions, with the loss of 15 C.200s overall. The top-scoring unit was 362a Squadriglia, commanded by Capitano Germano La Ferla, which claimed 30 Soviet aircraft shot down and 13 destroyed on the ground.

After the armistice
Following the signing of the armistice, which resulted in Italy's withdrawal from the Axis, only 33 C.200s remained serviceable. Shortly thereafter, 23 Saettas were transferred to Allied airfields in southern Italy, and flown for a short time by pilots of the Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force. In mid-1944, the C.200s of Southern Italy were transferred to the Leverano Fighter School. A lack of spare parts had made maintenance increasingly difficult, but the type continued to be used for advanced training until 1947. A small number of C.200s were also flown by the pro-German National Republican Air Force, based in northern Italy. The latter was only recorded as using the type for a training aircraft but using them for combat operations.

Variants
The Saetta underwent very few modifications during its service life. Aside from the switch to an open canopy, later aircraft were fitted with an upgraded radio and an armoured seat. Some late-production Saettas were built with the MC.202 Serie VII wing, thus adding two 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns to the armament. The four (including two proposed) C.200 derivatives were:
 * M.C. 200 (prototypes)
 * Two prototypes fitted with the 623 kW Fiat A.74 R.C.38 radial piston engine.

 * M.C. 200
 * Single-seat interceptor fighter, fighter-bomber aircraft. Production version.

 * M.C.200bis
 * Breda-proposed modification with a Piaggio P.XIX R.C.45 engine producing 880 kW at 4500 m. Converted from an early production C.200. First flight 11 April 1942 from Milano-Bresso, flown by Luigi Acerbi. The aircraft was then fitted with a larger propeller and a revised engine cowling. Top speed in trials was 535 km/h. It did not enter production, as the C.200 had been replaced by more advanced designs.

 * M.C.200AS
 * Version adapted to North African Campaign.

 * M.C.200CB
 * Fighter-bomber version with 320 kg of bombs or two external fuel tanks (as fighter escort).

 * M.C.201
 * As an answer to a 5 January 1938 request by the Regia Aeronautica for a C.200 replacement, Aermacchi proposed the C.201, which had a revised fuselage, an Isotta Fraschini Astro A.140RC.40 engine (licensed variant of the French Gnome-Rhone Mistral Major GR.14Krs) generating 870 cv (cheval vapeur, or metric horsepower). But later the choice was for the Fiat A.76 R.C.40 engine with 750 kW. Two prototypes were ordered. The first flew on 10 August 1940, with the less powerful A.74 engine. Although Macchi estimated a top speed of 550 km/h, the prototype was cancelled after Fiat abandoned the troublesome A.76 engine.

Operators

 * undefined
 * Luftwaffe operated some captured aircraft.
 * Kingdom of Italy
 * Regia Aeronautica
 * Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force
 * Italian Air Force operated some aircraft as trainers until 1947
 * Italian Air Force operated some aircraft as trainers until 1947

title: Macchi C.200 Saetta


text:
Victoria County, New Brunswick

Victoria County (2016 population 18,617 ) is located in northwestern New Brunswick, Canada. Farming, especially of potatoes, is the major industry in the county. The area was named for Queen Victoria.

Communities
There are five municipalities within Victoria County (listed by 2016 population):

First Nations
There is one First Nations reserve in Victoria County (listed by 2016 population):

Parishes
The county is subdivided into seven parishes (listed by 2016 population):

Demographics
As a census division in the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, Victoria County had a population of $18,312$ living in $8,249$ of its $9,054$ total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of $18,617$. With a land area of 5492.85 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

Language
Ethnic Groups (2016)

Religious make-up (2001)

Notable people
Although not everyone in this list was born in Victoria County, they all live or have lived in Victoria County and have had significant connections to the communities.

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

title: Victoria County, New Brunswick


text:
Talk:Raw foodist

It's my understanding that not all eggs are equal risk for salmonella -- that it is largely a symptom of unsanitary factory farm conditions. At least one brand of organic, free-range eggs advertises the fact that their hens have never had the disease. --FOo

-- salmonella is present pretty much everywhere. It is a matter of concentration and strength of the body if it gets ill. Many RAF follow the belief that eggs that has not been frozen nor cooked, would get stinky if they have too much salmonella. This is also part of their necessity to eat absolutely non frozen eggs. Viceversa, eggs (and meat) that has been frozen or cooked, and then left for some time out give the biggest risk of carrying salmonella. Partially because salmonella multiplies in such environment (but don't ask me why, I don't know), and partially because the eggs and meat would not stink anymore so much, thus the human eater would not be alerted. All this is explained in Aajonus Vonderplanitz book We want to live.

-- =Merge with Raw food diet= I think this article should be merged with the one entitled raw food diet. Rosemary Amey 18:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Raw foodist


text:
Navajo language

Navajo or Navaho (Navajo: Diné bizaad or Naabeehó bizaad ) is a Southern Athabaskan language of the Na-Dené family, as are other languages spoken across the western areas of North America. Navajo is spoken primarily in the Southwestern United States, especially in the Navajo Nation. It is one of the most widely spoken Native American languages and is the most widely spoken north of the Mexico–United States border, with almost 170,000 Americans speaking Navajo at home as of 2011.

The language has struggled to keep a healthy speaker base, although this problem has been alleviated to some extent by extensive education programs in the Navajo Nation. In World War II, speakers of the Navajo language joined the military and developed a code for sending secret messages. These code talkers' messages are widely credited with saving many lives and winning some of the most decisive battles in the war.

Navajo has a fairly large phonemic inventory, including several consonants that are not found in English. Its four basic vowel qualities are distinguished for nasality, length, and tone. Navajo has both agglutinative and fusional elements: it uses affixes to modify verbs, and nouns are typically created from multiple morphemes, but in both cases these morphemes are fused irregularly and beyond easy recognition. Basic word order is subject–object–verb, though it is highly flexible to pragmatic factors. Verbs are conjugated for aspect and mood, and given affixes for the person and number of both subjects and objects, as well as a host of other variables.

The language's orthography, which was developed in the late 1930s, is based on the Latin script. Most Navajo vocabulary is Athabaskan in origin, as the language has been conservative with loanwords due to its highly complex noun morphology.

Nomenclature
The word Navajo is an exonym: it comes from the Tewa word Navahu, which combines the roots nava ('field') and hu ('valley') to mean 'large field'. It was borrowed into Spanish to refer to an area of present-day northwestern New Mexico, and later into English for the Navajo tribe and their language. The alternative spelling Navaho is considered antiquated; even the anthropologist Berard Haile spelled it with a "j" despite his personal objections. The Navajo refer to themselves as the Diné ('People'), with their language known as Diné bizaad ('People's language') or Naabeehó bizaad.

Classification
Navajo is an Athabaskan language; Navajo and Apache languages make up the southernmost branch of the family. Most of the other Athabaskan languages are located in Alaska, northwestern Canada, and along the North American Pacific coast.

Most languages in the Athabaskan family have tones. However, this feature evolved independently in all subgroups; Proto-Athabaskan had no tones. In each case, tone evolved from glottalic consonants at the ends of morphemes; however, the progression of these consonants into tones has not been consistent, with some related morphemes being pronounced with high tones in some Athabaskan languages and low tones in others. It has been posited that Navajo and Chipewyan, which have no common ancestor more recent than Proto-Athabaskan and possess many pairs of corresponding but opposite tones, evolved from different dialects of Proto-Athabaskan that pronounced these glottalic consonants differently. Proto-Athabaskan diverged fully into separate languages c. 500 BC.

Navajo is most closely related to Western Apache, with which it shares a similar tonal scheme and more than 92 percent of its vocabulary, and to Chiricahua-Mescalero Apache. It is estimated that the Apachean linguistic groups separated and became established as distinct societies, of which the Navajo were one, somewhere between 1300 and 1525. Navajo is generally considered mutually intelligible with all other Apachean languages.

History

The Apachean languages of which Navajo is one, are thought to have arrived in the American Southwest from the north by 1500, probably passing through Alberta and Wyoming. Archaeological finds considered to be proto-Navajo have been located in the far northern New Mexico around the La Plata, Animas and Pine rivers, dating to around 1500. In 1936, linguist Edward Sapir showed how the arrival of the Navajo people in the new arid climate among the corn agriculturalists of the Pueblo area was reflected in their language by tracing the changing meanings of words from Proto-Athabaskan to Navajo. For example, the word *dè:, which in Proto-Athabaskan meant "horn" and "dipper made from animal horn", in Navajo became a-deeʼ, which meant "gourd" or "dipper made from gourd". Likewise, the Proto-Athabaskan word *ł-yəx̣s "snow lies on the ground" in Navajo became yas "snow". Similarly, the Navajo word for "corn" is naadą́ą́ʼ, derived from two Proto-Athabaskan roots meaning "enemy" and "food", suggesting that the Navajo originally considered corn to be "food of the enemy" when they first arrived among the Pueblo people.

Navajo Code Talkers
During World Wars I and II, the U.S. government employed speakers of the Navajo language as Navajo code talkers. These Navajo soldiers and sailors used a code based on the Navajo language to relay secret messages. At the end of the war the code remained unbroken.

The code used Navajo words for each letter of the English alphabet. Messages could be encoded and decoded by using a simple substitution cipher where the ciphertext was the Navajo word. Type two code was informal and directly translated from English into Navajo. If there was no word in Navajo to describe a military word, code talkers used descriptive words. For example, the Navajo did not have a word for submarine, so they translated it as iron fish.

These Navajo code talkers are widely recognized for their contributions to WWII. Major Howard Connor, 5th Marine Division Signal Officer stated, "Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima."

Colonization
Navajo lands were initially colonized by the Spanish in the early seventeenth century, shortly after this area was annexed as part of the Spanish viceroyalty of New Spain. When the United States annexed these territories in 1848 following the Mexican–American War, the English-speaking settlers allowed Navajo children to attend their schools. In some cases, the United States established separate schools for Navajo and other Native American children. In the late 19th century, it founded boarding schools, often operated by religious missionary groups. In efforts to acculturate the children, school authorities insisted that they learn to speak English and practice Christianity. Students routinely had their mouths washed out with lye soap as a punishment if they did speak Navajo. Consequently, when these students grew up and had children of their own, they often did not teach them Navajo, in order to prevent them from being punished.

Robert W. Young and William Morgan, who both worked for the Navajo Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, developed and published a practical orthography in 1937. It helped spread education among Navajo speakers. In 1943 the men collaborated on The Navajo Language, a dictionary organized by the roots of the language. In World War II, the United States military used speakers of Navajo as code talkers—to transmit top-secret military messages over telephone and radio in a code based on Navajo. The language was considered ideal because of its grammar, which differs strongly from that of German and Japanese, and because no published Navajo dictionaries existed at the time.

By the 1960s, Indigenous languages of the United States had been declining in use for some time. Native American language use began to decline more quickly in this decade as paved roads were built and English-language radio was broadcast to tribal areas. Navajo was no exception, although its large speaker pool—larger than that of any other Native language in the United States—gave it more staying power than most. Adding to the language's decline, federal acts passed in the 1950s to increase educational opportunities for Navajo children had resulted in pervasive use of English in their schools.

In more recent years, the number of monolingual Navajo speakers have been in the decline, and most younger Navajo people are bilingual. Near the 1990s, many Navajo children have little to no knowledge in Navajo language, only knowing English.

Revitalization and current status
In 1968, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Bilingual Education Act, which provided funds for educating young students who are not native English speakers. The Act had mainly been intended for Spanish-speaking children—particularly Mexican Americans—but it applied to all recognized linguistic minorities. Many Native American tribes seized the chance to establish their own bilingual education programs. However, qualified teachers who were fluent in Native languages were scarce, and these programs were largely unsuccessful.

However, data collected in 1980 showed that 85 percent of Navajo first-graders were bilingual, compared to 62 percent of Navajo of all ages—early evidence of a resurgence of use of their traditional language among younger people. In 1984, to counteract the language's historical decline, the Navajo Nation Council decreed that the Navajo language would be available and comprehensive for students of all grade levels in schools of the Navajo Nation. This effort was aided by the fact that, largely due to the work of Young and Morgan, Navajo is one of the best-documented Native American languages. In 1980 they published a monumental expansion of their work on the language, organized by word (first initial of vowel or consonant) in the pattern of English dictionaries, as requested by Navajo students. The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary also included a 400-page grammar, making it invaluable for both native speakers and students of the language. Particularly in its organization of verbs, it was oriented to Navajo speakers. They expanded this work again in 1987, with several significant additions, and this edition continues to be used as an important text.

The Native American language education movement has been met with adversity, such as by English-only campaigns in some areas in the late 1990s. However, Navajo-immersion programs have cropped up across the Navajo Nation. Statistical evidence shows that Navajo-immersion students generally do better on standardized tests than their counterparts educated only in English. Some educators have remarked that students who know their native languages feel a sense of pride and identity validation. Since 1989, Diné College, a Navajo tribal community college, has offered an associate degree in the subject of Navajo. This program includes language, literature, culture, medical terminology, and teaching courses and produces the highest number of Navajo teachers of any institution in the United States. About 600 students attend per semester. One major university that teaches classes in the Navajo language is Arizona State University. In 1992, Young and Morgan published another major work on Navajo: Analytical Lexicon of Navajo, with the assistance of Sally Midgette (Navajo). This work is organized by root, the basis of Athabaskan languages.

A 1991 survey of 682 preschoolers on the Navajo Reservation Head Start program found that 54 percent were monolingual English speakers, 28 percent were bilingual in English and Navajo, and 18 percent spoke only Navajo. This study noted that while the preschool staff knew both languages, they spoke English to the children most of the time. In addition, most of the children's parents spoke to the children in English more often than in Navajo. The study concluded that the preschoolers were in "almost total immersion in English". An American Community Survey taken in 2011 found that 169,369 Americans spoke Navajo at home—0.3 percent of Americans whose primary home language was not English. Of primary Navajo speakers, 78.8 percent reported they spoke English "very well", a fairly high percentage overall but less than among other Americans speaking a different Native American language (85.4 percent). Navajo was the only Native American language afforded its own category in the survey; domestic Navajo speakers represented 46.4 percent of all domestic Native language speakers (only 195,407 Americans have a different home Native language). As of July 2014, Ethnologue classes Navajo as "6b" (In Trouble), signifying that few, but some, parents teach the language to their offspring and that concerted efforts at revitalization could easily protect the language. Navajo had a high population for a language in this category. About half of all Navajo people live on Navajo Nation land, an area spanning parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah; others are dispersed throughout the United States. Under tribal law, fluency in Navajo is mandatory for candidates to the office of the President of the Navajo Nation.

Both original and translated media have been produced in Navajo. The first works tended to be religious texts translated by missionaries, including the Bible. From 1943 to about 1957, the Navajo Agency of the BIA published Ádahooníłígíí ("Events" ), the first newspaper in Navajo and the only one to be written entirely in Navajo. It was edited by Robert W. Young and William Morgan, Sr. (Navajo). They had collaborated on The Navajo Language, a major language dictionary published that same year, and continued to work on studying and documenting the language in major works for the next few decades. Today an AM radio station, KTNN, broadcasts in Navajo and English, with programming including music and NFL games; AM station KNDN broadcasts only in Navajo. When Super Bowl XXX was broadcast in Navajo in 1996, it was the first time a Super Bowl had been carried in a Native American language. In 2013, the 1977 film Star Wars was translated into Navajo. It was the first major motion picture translated into any Native American language.

On October 5, 2018, an early beta of a Navajo course was released on Duolingo, a popular language learning app.

Education
After many Navajo schools were closed during World War II, a program aiming to provide education to Navajo children was funded in the 1950s, where the number of students quickly doubled in the next decade.

The Navajo Nation operates Tséhootsooí Diné Bi'ólta', a Navajo language immersion school for grades K-8 in Fort Defiance, Arizona. Located on the Arizona-New Mexico border in the southeastern quarter of the Navajo Reservation, the school strives to revitalize Navajo among children of the Window Rock Unified School District. Tséhootsooí Diné Bi'ólta' has thirteen Navajo language teachers who instruct only in the Navajo language, and no English, while five English language teachers instruct in the English language. Kindergarten and first grade are taught completely in the Navajo language, while English is incorporated into the program during third grade, when it is used for about 10% of instruction.

According to the Navajo Nation Education Policies, the Navajo Tribal Council requests that schools teach both English and Navajo so that the children would remain bilingual, though their influence over the school systems was very low. A small number of preschool programs provided the Navajo immersion curriculum, which taught children basic Navajo vocabulary and grammar under the assumption that they have no prior knowledge in the Navajo language.

Phonology
Navajo has a fairly large consonant inventory. Its stop consonants exist in three laryngeal forms: aspirated, unaspirated, and ejective—for example,, , and. Ejective consonants are those that are pronounced with a glottalic initiation. Navajo also has a simple glottal stop used after vowels, and every word that would otherwise begin with a vowel is pronounced with an initial glottal stop. Consonant clusters are uncommon, aside from frequent placing or  before fricatives.

The language has four vowel qualities:, , , and. Each exists in both oral and nasalized forms, and can be either short or long. Navajo also distinguishes for tone between high and low, with the low tone typically regarded as the default. However, some linguists have suggested that Navajo does not possess true tones, but only a pitch accent system similar to that of Japanese. In general, Navajo speech also has a slower speech tempo than English does.

Typology
Navajo is difficult to classify in terms of broad morphological typology: it relies heavily on affixes—mainly prefixes—like agglutinative languages, but these affixes are joined in unpredictable, overlapping ways that make them difficult to segment, a trait of fusional languages. In general, Navajo verbs contain more morphemes than nouns do (on average, 11 for verbs compared to 4–5 for nouns), but noun morphology is less transparent. Depending on the source, Navajo is either classified as a fusional agglutinative or even polysynthetic language, as it shows mechanisms from all three.

In terms of basic word order, Navajo has been classified as a subject–object–verb language. However, some speakers order the subject and object based on "noun ranking". In this system, nouns are ranked in three categories—humans, animals, and inanimate objects—and within these categories, nouns are ranked by strength, size, and intelligence. Whichever of the subject and object has a higher rank comes first. As a result, the agent of an action may be syntactically ambiguous. The highest rank position is held by humans and lightning. Other linguists such as Eloise Jelinek consider Navajo to be a discourse configurational language, in which word order is not fixed by syntactic rules, but determined by pragmatic factors in the communicative context.

Verbs
In Navajo, verbs are the main elements of their sentences, imparting a large amount of information. The verb is based on a stem, which is made of a root to identify the action and the semblance of a suffix to convey mode and aspect; however, this suffix is fused beyond separability. The stem is given somewhat more transparent prefixes to indicate, in this order, the following information: postpositional object, postposition, adverb-state, iterativity, number, direct object, deictic information, another adverb-state, mode and aspect, subject, classifier (see later on), mirativity and two-tier evidentiality. Some of these prefixes may be null; for example, there is only a plural marker (da/daa) and no readily identifiable marker for the other grammatical numbers.

Navajo does not distinguish strict tense per se; instead, an action's position in time is conveyed through mode, aspect, but also via time adverbials or context. Each verb has an inherent aspect and can be conjugated in up to seven modes.

For any verb, the usitative and iterative modes share the same stem, as do the progressive and future modes; these modes are distinguished with prefixes. However, pairs of modes other than these may also share the same stem, as illustrated in the following example, where the verb "to play" is conjugated into each of the five mode paradigms:

 * Imperfective: -né – is playing, was playing, will be playing
 * Perfective: -neʼ – played, had played, will have played
 * Progressive/future: -neeł – is playing along / will play, will be playing
 * Usitative/iterative: -neeh – usually plays, frequently plays, repeatedly plays
 * Optative: -neʼ – would play, may play

The basic set of subject prefixes for the imperfective mode, as well as the actual conjugation of the verb into these person and number categories, are as follows.

The remaining piece of these conjugated verbs—the prefix na-—is called an "outer" or "disjunct" prefix. It is the marker of the Continuative aspect (to play about).

Navajo distinguishes between the first, second, third, and fourth persons in the singular, dual, and plural numbers. The fourth person is similar to the third person, but is generally used for indefinite, theoretical actors rather than defined ones. Despite the potential for extreme verb complexity, only the mode/aspect, subject, classifier, and stem are absolutely necessary. Furthermore, Navajo negates clauses by surrounding the verb with the circumclitic doo= ... =da (e.g. mósí doo nitsaa da 'the cat is not big'). Dooda, as a single word, corresponds to English no.

Nouns
Nouns are not required to form a complete Navajo sentence. Besides the extensive information that can be communicated with a verb, Navajo speakers may alternate between the third and fourth person to distinguish between two already specified actors, similarly to how speakers of languages with grammatical gender may repeatedly use pronouns.

Most nouns are not inflected for number, and plurality is usually encoded directly in the verb through the use of various prefixes or aspects, though this is by no means mandatory. In the following example, the verb on the right is used with the plural prefix da- and switches to the distributive aspect.

Some verbal roots encode number in their lexical definition (see classificatory verbs above). When available, the use of the correct verbal root is mandatory:

Béégashii sitį́.

cow 3.SUBJ-lie(1).PERF

'The (one) cow lies.'

Béégashii shitéézh.

cow 3.SUBJ-lie(2).PERF

'The (two) cows lie.'

Béégashii shijééʼ.

cow 3.SUBJ-lie(3+).PERF

'The (three or more) cows lie.'

Bilasáana shaa niʼaah.

bilasáana sh-aa Ø-ni-ʼaah

apple 1-to 3.OBJ-2.SUBJ-give(SRO).MOM.PERF

'You give me an apple.'

Bilasáana shaa ninííł.

bilasáana sh-aa Ø-ni-nííł

apple 1-to 3.OBJ-2.SUBJ-give(PLO1).MOM.PERF

'You give me apples.'

Number marking on nouns occurs only for terms of kinship and age-sex groupings. Other prefixes that can be added to nouns include possessive markers (e.g. chidí 'car' – shichidí 'my car') and a few adjectival enclitics. Generally, an upper limit for prefixes on a noun is about four or five.

Nouns are also not marked for case, this traditionally being covered by word order.

Atʼééd ashkii yiyiiłtsą́.

girl boy 3.OBJ-3.SUBJ-saw

'The girl saw the boy.'

Ashkii atʼééd yiyiiłtsą́.

boy girl 3.OBJ-3.SUBJ-saw

'The boy saw the girl.'

Vocabulary
The vast majority of Navajo vocabulary is of Athabaskan origin. The number of lexical roots is still fairly small; one estimate counted 6,245 noun bases and 9,000 verb bases (with most nouns being derived from verbs), but those are combined with the numerous affixes in a myriad of ways so that words rarely consist of a single stem like English. Prior to the European colonization of the Americas, Navajo did not borrow much from other languages, including from other Athabaskan and even Apachean languages. The Athabaskan family is fairly diverse in both phonology and morphology due to its languages' prolonged relative isolation. Even the Pueblo peoples, with whom the Navajo interacted with for centuries and borrowed cultural customs, have lent few words to the Navajo language. After Spain and Mexico took over Navajo lands, the language did not incorporate many Spanish words, either.

This resistance to word absorption extended to English, at least until the mid-twentieth century. Around this point, the Navajo language began importing some, though still not many, English words, mainly by young schoolchildren exposed to English.

Navajo has expanded its vocabulary to include Western technological and cultural terms through calques and Navajo descriptive terms. For example, the phrase for English tank is 'vehicle that crawls around, by means of which big explosions are made, and that one sits on at an elevation'. This language purism also extends to proper nouns, such as the names of U.S. states (e.g. Hoozdo 'Arizona' and Yootó 'New Mexico'; see also hahoodzo 'state') and languages (naakaii 'Spanish').

Only one Navajo word has been fully absorbed into the English language: hogan (from Navajo hooghan) – a term referring to the traditional houses. Another word with limited English recognition is chindi (an evil spirit of the deceased). The taxonomic genus name Uta may be of Navajo origin. It has been speculated that English-speaking settlers were reluctant to take on more Navajo loanwords compared to many other Native American languages, including the Hopi language, because the Navajo were among the most violent resisters to colonialism.

Orthography
Early attempts at a Navajo orthography were made in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. One such attempt was based on the Latin alphabet, particularly the English variety, with some additional letters and diacritics. Anthropologists were frustrated by Navajo's having several sounds that are not found in English and lack of other sounds that are. Finally, the current Navajo orthography was developed between 1935 and 1940 by Young and Morgan.

An apostrophe (ʼ) is used to mark ejective consonants (e.g. chʼ, tłʼ) as well as mid-word or final glottal stops. However, initial glottal stops are usually not marked.

The voiceless glottal fricative is normally written as h, but appears as x after the consonant s (optionally after sh) at syllable boundary (ex: yiyiis- x ı̨́), and when it represents the depreciative augment found after stem initial (ex: ts x ı̨́įł-go, yi-ch x a). The voiced velar fricative is written as y before i and e (where it is palatalized ), as w before o (where it is labialized ), and as gh before a.

Navajo represents nasalized vowels with an ogonek ( ˛ ), sometimes described as a reverse cedilla; and represents the voiceless alveolar lateral fricative with a barred L (capital Ł, lowercase ł). The ogonek is most often placed centrally under a vowel, but it was imported from Polish and Lithuanian, which do not usually center it nor use it under certain vowels such as o or any vowels with accent marks. For example, in Navajo works, the ogonek below lowercase a is most often shown centered below the letter, whereas fonts with a with ogonek intended for Polish and Lithuanian have its ogonek connected to the bottom right of the letter. Very few Unicode fonts display the ogonek differently in Navajo with language tagging than in Polish or Lithuanian.

The first Navajo-capable typewriter was developed in preparation for a Navajo newspaper and dictionary created in the 1940s. The advent of early computers in the 1960s necessitated special fonts to input Navajo text, and the first Navajo font was created in the 1970s. Navajo virtual keyboards were made available for iOS devices in November 2012 and Android devices in August 2013.

Sample text
This is the first paragraph of a Navajo short story.

Navajo original: Ashiiké tʼóó diigis léiʼ tółikaní łaʼ ádiilnííł dóó nihaa nahidoonih níigo yee hodeezʼą́ jiní. Áko tʼáá ałʼąą chʼil naʼatłʼoʼii kʼiidiilá dóó hááhgóóshį́į́ yinaalnishgo tʼáá áłah chʼil naʼatłʼoʼii néineestʼą́ jiní. Áádóó tółikaní áyiilaago tʼáá bíhígíí tʼáá ałʼąą tłʼízíkágí yiiʼ haidééłbįįd jiní. "Háadida díí tółikaní yígíí doo łaʼ ahaʼdiidził da," níigo ahaʼdeetʼą́ jiníʼ. Áádóó baa nahidoonih biniiyé kintahgóó dah yidiiłjid jiníʼ (...)

English translation: Some crazy boys decided to make some wine to sell, so they each planted grapevines and, working hard on them, they raised them to maturity. Then, having made wine, they each filled a goatskin with it. They agreed that at no time would they give each other a drink of it, and they then set out for town lugging the goatskins on their backs (...)

General and cited references

 OBJ:object IMPF:imperfective mode DIST:distributive aspect PERF:perfective mode SRO:solid roundish object

Educational

 * Haile, Berard. (1941–1948). Learning Navaho, (Vols. 1–4). St. Michaels, AZ: St. Michael's Mission.
 * Haile, Berard. (1941–1948). Learning Navaho, (Vols. 1–4). St. Michaels, AZ: St. Michael's Mission.
 * Haile, Berard. (1941–1948). Learning Navaho, (Vols. 1–4). St. Michaels, AZ: St. Michael's Mission.
 * Haile, Berard. (1941–1948). Learning Navaho, (Vols. 1–4). St. Michaels, AZ: St. Michael's Mission.
 * Haile, Berard. (1941–1948). Learning Navaho, (Vols. 1–4). St. Michaels, AZ: St. Michael's Mission.
 * Haile, Berard. (1941–1948). Learning Navaho, (Vols. 1–4). St. Michaels, AZ: St. Michael's Mission.

Linguistics and other reference

 * Frishberg, Nancy. (1972). Navajo object markers and the great chain of being. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 1, p. 259–266). New York: Seminar Press.
 * Hale, Kenneth L. (1973). A note on subject–object inversion in Navajo. In B. B. Kachru, R. B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli, & S. Saporta (Eds.), Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane (p. 300–309). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
 * Hardy, Frank. (1979). Navajo Aspectual Verb Stem Variation. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
 * Hoijer, Harry. (1945). Navaho phonology. University of New Mexico publications in anthropology, (No. 1).
 * Hoijer, Harry. (1970). A Navajo lexicon. University of California Publications in Linguistics (No. 78). Berkeley: University of California Press.
 * Kari, James. (1976). Navajo verb prefix phonology. Garland Publishing Co.
 * Reichard, Gladys A. (1951). Navaho grammar. Publications of the American Ethnological Society (Vol. 21). New York: J. J. Augustin.
 * Sapir, Edward, & Hoijer, Harry. (1942). Navaho texts. William Dwight Whitney series, Linguistic Society of America.
 * Sapir, Edward, & Hoijer, Harry. (1967). Phonology and morphology of the Navaho language. Berkeley: University of California Press.
 * Speas, Margaret. (1990). Phrase structure in natural language. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0-7923-0755-0
 * Wall, C. Leon, & Morgan, William. (1994). Navajo-English dictionary. New York: Hippocrene Books. ISBN 0-7818-0247-4. (Originally published [1958] by U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Branch of Education, Bureau of Indian Affairs).
 * Webster, Anthony K. (2009). Explorations in Navajo Poetry and Poetics. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
 * Witherspoon, Gary. (1977). Language and Art in the Navajo Universe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08966-8; ISBN 0-472-08965-X
 * Young, Robert W. (2000). The Navajo Verb System: An Overview. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-2172-0 (hb); ISBN 0-8263-2176-3 (pbk)
 * Sapir, Edward, & Hoijer, Harry. (1942). Navaho texts. William Dwight Whitney series, Linguistic Society of America.
 * Sapir, Edward, & Hoijer, Harry. (1967). Phonology and morphology of the Navaho language. Berkeley: University of California Press.
 * Speas, Margaret. (1990). Phrase structure in natural language. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0-7923-0755-0
 * Wall, C. Leon, & Morgan, William. (1994). Navajo-English dictionary. New York: Hippocrene Books. ISBN 0-7818-0247-4. (Originally published [1958] by U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Branch of Education, Bureau of Indian Affairs).
 * Webster, Anthony K. (2009). Explorations in Navajo Poetry and Poetics. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
 * Witherspoon, Gary. (1977). Language and Art in the Navajo Universe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08966-8; ISBN 0-472-08965-X
 * Young, Robert W. (2000). The Navajo Verb System: An Overview. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-2172-0 (hb); ISBN 0-8263-2176-3 (pbk)
 * Webster, Anthony K. (2009). Explorations in Navajo Poetry and Poetics. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
 * Witherspoon, Gary. (1977). Language and Art in the Navajo Universe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08966-8; ISBN 0-472-08965-X
 * Young, Robert W. (2000). The Navajo Verb System: An Overview. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-2172-0 (hb); ISBN 0-8263-2176-3 (pbk)
 * Witherspoon, Gary. (1977). Language and Art in the Navajo Universe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08966-8; ISBN 0-472-08965-X
 * Young, Robert W. (2000). The Navajo Verb System: An Overview. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-2172-0 (hb); ISBN 0-8263-2176-3 (pbk)

Linguistics

 * Navajo reflections of a general theory of lexical argument structure (Ken Hale & Paul Platero), museunacional.ufrj.br
 * Remarks on the syntax of the Navajo verb part I: Preliminary observations on the structure of the verb (Ken Hale), museunacional.ufrj.br
 * The Navajo Prolongative and Lexical Structure (Carlota Smith), cc.utexas.edu
 * A Computational Analysis of Navajo Verb Stems (David Eddington & Jordan Lachler), linguistics.byu.edu
 * Grammaticization of Tense in Navajo: The Evolution of nt'éé (Chee, Ashworth, Buescher & Kubacki), linguistics.ucsb.edu
 * A methodology for the investigation of speaker's knowledge of structure in Athabaskan (Joyce McDonough & Rachel Sussman), urresearch.rochester.edu
 * How to use Young and Morgan's The Navajo Language (Joyce McDonough), bcs.rochester.edu
 * Time in Navajo: Direct and Indirect Interpretation (Carlota S. Smith, Ellavina T. Perkins, Theodore B. Fernald), cc.utexas.edu
 * OLAC Resources in and about the Navajo language

title: Navajo language