text:
Talk:Cheng Man-ch'ing

Untitled
There's no Senate in Taiwan--Jiang 10:15, 12 November 2003 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with some historical accuracy. CMC was not a MD. He was a doctor of Chinese medicine. He had a lang disease which was later described as tuberculosis. To claim/imply that taichichuan cure tuberculosis is irresponsible, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FWBOarticle (talk • contribs) 00:18, 25 August 2004 (UTC)

Right, no Senate... it's called the National Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.123.166 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 April 2005 (UTC)

Another correction: To say that no Yang style teacher recognized Cheng's changes to the form is incorrect. Chen Wei Ming, the author of the famous Tai Chi Chuan Ta Wen (Questions and Answers on Tai Chi Chuan), one of Yang Cheng-Fu's most senior students, not only recognized Cheng's contributions, but wrote the preface to his first tai chi book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucien148 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Strangely this page hardly mentions the Chinese students of Cheng (perhaps out of ignorance?) There were many serious and skilled senior students of Cheng in Taiwan who continued to spread his tradition.

Many of Cheng's direct students (particularly those who were Chinese and learnt from him in Chinese) consider that they do Yang style, and that Cheng's form is a Yang style short form. A few still do the 108 form passed down from Cheng as well as the 37 form. This article uses Cheng style throughout and does not acknowledge that the concept of "Cheng style" is something that has come about after Cheng's death rather than from Cheng.

Cheng's 37 form has obvious differences from 108. The article assumes that these are defining characteristics of "Cheng style". No evidence is provided that Cheng thought this. Also some "defining features" of the supposed "Cheng style" are common in other Yang style schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.41.138 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not quite accurate. I've read at least few Taiwanese lineage stating that Cheng Taichiquan is a distinct style. It may be the case that "earlier" students of Cheng may consider that they are practicing Yang style or abbrebiated Yang style. Anyway, there are many style of Chinese kung fu where the "so-called" founder never claimed a distinct style. Rather, all lineages evolve and become distinct over time. For example, can we be certain that Yang Lu-ch'an practiced Yang "style" of taichiquan? I would say that he probably practiced modified Chen style. Does it mean there is no such thing as Yang style? Or should we say Yang style was founded by the Yang Ch'eng-fu who removed the vigorous Fa-jing, energetic jumping, heavy stepping, and other abrupt movements? Considering that Yang lineage do not recognise CMC style of taichichuan as a part of Yang, I can't see why there is a problem in saying CMC style? If it's not a yang style, it's a separate style. CMC is the founder of CMC style which is an off shoot of Yang style. Vapour 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Vapour, I would be careful to base an opinion on some writings. I had the pleasure to have been instructed by 4 Chinese direct students and 4 US direct students. I have understood from all of them that I was studying Yang style. For me that is more authoritative. SimpleTC (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I have a clip of CMC performing his entire form from the begining to the end. Is there any way to upload it on this article? Vapour 13:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 * If you upload it onto Youtube or Google video and then provide an external link to that page on this article that should do the trick. There are lots of public domain Tai Chi videos on those sites already, so it may save you some time to search for uploaded CMC videos on those sites first. --Fire Star 火星 15:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

major revisions
Hi-- I've made some major revisions to this page based on cited books and articles, and have done a bit of cutting and pasting to try to make it read more smoothly. Will add some more books when I have time. Ruguo 06:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghost Writing?
There needs to be a second source verification of the claim that Yang Cheng-Fu's book was ghost written by Cheng. Otherwise I will delete. VanTucky 01:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC) If you read the Chinese (Original) version of the book you would know that the liniage for Zhengmanqing is extensive, far more than Yang Chen Fu's, this is because Yang Chen Fu was illiterate and Zhengmanqing wrote the book. Why would Yang Chen Fu write such an extensive liniage of Zhengmanqing, the answer is he didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.65.251 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 * In the first chapter (with the title The Evolution of the Yang school of Taijiquan) of the Yang Zhendou book (Yang Style Taijiquan: ISBN7-5054-0123-8/G.0009, 2nd edition 1991, Morning Glory Publishers, Beijing) it literally says: "In the book A Manual of Taijiquan compiled by Zheng Manqian in 1934 for Yang Chengfu, there were 104 photographs." Although the first chapter was written by Gu Liuxin, I can not imagine the Yang family publishing a book that acknowledges the involvement of Zheng Manqing if they would disagree with it. SimpleTC (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is one of the few times that I will write from personal knowledge rather than using a citation. I studied with teachers who taught both Cheng's style & Yang family style. While attending a workshop with Yang Zhenduo, I heard him acknowledge through an interpreter that Cheng taught the "fair lady's wrist" while the Yang family favored the straighter wrist. Yang Zhenduo said he did not understand why Cheng taught the "fair lady's wrist" but could not ask him since he was dead.
 * I think the Yang family understood that Cheng came out of their tradition, but were left figuratively scratching their heads as to why he deviated in bending his wrist in the movements. Peaceray (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

videos?
Should the videos be listed if they are bootlegged?

I added again the ghostwriting citation with references. I removed the video link as per copyright discussion, and added some Chinese names Ruguo 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

the video is not a copywright violation. its free to view and link to by anyone. VanTucky 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-entered the ghostwriting reference with the requested citation added. As to the videos, if they are being distributed without permissions from the copyright owners, they would seem to be violations. Perhaps someone higher up in Wikipedia could advise. Ruguo 05:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

google video, youtube and the various other sources that make this video available would not use it if they were in copywright violation. and besides, to place a vid on google you cant just bootleg it and stick it on there. VanTucky 06:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

These sites DO display copyright violated materials. And people bootleg them all the time.

CMC style; rotating on the heel or the 'yung chuan' point at the end of 'Single Whip'?
Maybe someone can help out here; if the left kua (inguinal canal) is closing and the right kua opening, and the right knee is not totally collapsing onto the left side (ie. William cc Chen's 'three nails' theory) then, in the transition from eg. 'hold ball right' to the end of 'single whip' does one really rotate on/through the heel, or on/through the Yung Chuan ('bubbling well')? In Western boxing, when throwing a right hook off the front leg, one is told to rotate on the front part of the back 'empty' foot "As if squashing a bug" as seen at. However, at, Nigel Sutton's wife is seen raising the foot and rotating on the heel.. 81.132.68.59 00:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 * That was such a byzantine description of movement, I have no idea what youre talking about... VanTucky 02:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding coming out of the Ben Lo CMC lineage is that the second one is more correct (rotating on the heel). I think that most would agree that Ben Lo has stayed closer to the original CMC form than William Chen. An important consideration is that these type of weight transfers in the CMC form assume 1) that the weight first shifts and that the rear foot is only turned after the weight has been shifted (in order to prevent unnecessary torsion in the rear knee) and 2) that the position of the feet should always be in such a way that the empty feet can be picked up without the need to lean or tensing up. As a consequence, it is better to turn on the heel as it does not extend the distance between both feet (which could lead to an inability to separate weight). SimpleTC (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is beyond the scope of a talk page, as this discussion is not about improving the article. Please see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. Peaceray (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

new article
Similar to the split of Moy Lin Shin, Taoist Tai Chi and Taoist Tai Chi Society, I think we need to make "Cheng man ching's tai chi" a separate stub. Sprcifically referring to the 36 form of course. any objections? VanTucky 06:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pinyin title
The standard in English Wikipedia for Chinese transliteration is pinyin. Any objection to moving this article accordingly? Bertport (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of literature with this spelling. I would favor you adding a disambiguation page with the pin yin in it pointing here.76.172.73.97 (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong apostrophe
This page was recently moved from Cheng Man-ch'ing (with straight, a.k.a. typewriter or ASCII, apostrophe) to Cheng Man-chʻing (with ʻokina or a left single quotation mark). Aside from WP:APOSTROPHE, this is the wrong symbol: the published sources I've seen (which don't use the straight apostrophe) use what is either a modifier letter apostrophe or a right single quotation mark, e.g. — I have not found any published source using the symbol that was introduced here. Full disclosure: I practice his style of t'ai chi ch'uan (note WP's punctuation); this could possibly be considered WP:COI, so I'm making no revert or other edit to the article. – •Raven .talk 18:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Further: see Amazon's list of books by the author in question. (Note that this page's text routinely uses straight-apostrophes.)
 * Further: see Amazon's list of books by the author in question. (Note that this page's text routinely uses straight-apostrophes.)
 * Further: see Amazon's list of books by the author in question. (Note that this page's text routinely uses straight-apostrophes.)
 * Further: see Amazon's list of books by the author in question. (Note that this page's text routinely uses straight-apostrophes.)

 * ✅ I swapped it back. Peaceray (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's Wade-Giles transcription. Their symbol for aspiration is covered by the Unicode character for okina. It's not an apostrophe: that would mean that "Ch'ing" is a contraction. — kwami (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wade-Giles system has used a variety of symbols for aspiration:
 * A feature of the Wade–Giles system is the representation of the unaspirated-aspirated stop consonant pairs using a character resembling an apostrophe. Thomas Wade and others have used the spiritus asper ( or ), borrowed from the polytonic orthography of the Ancient Greek language. Herbert Giles and others have used a left (opening) curved single quotation mark (‘) for the same purpose. A third group used a plain apostrophe ('). The backtick, and visually similar characters are sometimes seen in various electronic documents using the system.
 * Wade-Giles is less explanatory of this variety.
 * If we are not to use the third group's plain apostrophe symbol, why not the right-single-quote (or lookalike "modifier/typographic apostrophe") seen on the covers of this author's own books? – •Raven .talk 00:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be fine too. The Unicode character is the modifier letter, $⟨⟩$. We wouldn't want to use a curly single quotation mark, which is deprecated on WP. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Wade–Giles, it was based on the Beijing dialect and was the system of transcription familiar in the English-speaking world for most of the 20th century. Both of these kinds of transcription were used in postal romanizations (romanized place-names standardized for postal uses). In mainland China Wade–Giles has been mostly replaced by the Hanyu Pinyin romanization system, which was officially adopted in 1958.
 * According to Pinyin, Hanyu Pinyin, often shortened to just pinyin, is the official romanization system for Standard Mandarin Chinese in China, and to some extent, in Singapore and Malaysia.
 * Pinyin then goes on:
 * Why then would we choose to revert to a now non-standard of romanization instead of using the official version? Please explain, as this does not make sense to me. Peaceray (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me? To explain why we don't move the article to "Zheng Manqing"? I would assume that's bacause most Taijiquan material in English uses Wade-Giles, but I don't actually know.
 * Are you making a point with that quote about the pinyin apostrophe? I don't see how it has anything to do with the title of this article. — kwami (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely making a point about the apostrophe. Moving articles to a different title containing an ʻokina instead of an apostrophe makes no sense. It is a throwback. It also violates WP:COMMONNAME as using an ʻokina in Chinese names, particularly with Tai Chi or Taijiquan is not part of modern usage. The appearance of an ʻokina in modern books on that martial art is uncommon if not non-existant. I lived in Hawaiʻi for fourteen years & studied Tai Chi for twelve. Thus I am familiar with the ʻokina & would have spotted it in the titles of the Tai Chi books in my library. Peaceray (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify my response, my point is that Pinyan uses an apostrophe, not an ʻokina. Peaceray (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheng Man-ch'ing was Taiwanese, not Mainland Chinese. However, I would take his own books as indicating his preferred name format. – •Raven .talk 06:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheng Man-ch'ing was born in Mainland China, so I think it accurate to call him Chinese, even though he accompanied the Nationalist diaspora to Taiwan. Peaceray (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My point was nationality, not ethnicity. Taiwan retained Wade-Giles after the mainland adopted Pinyin. But again, Wade-Giles can and does use straight apostrophe for aspiration. – •Raven .talk 07:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, related to •Raven's last comment, see the list of the books by Cheng Man-ch'ing at Amazon. The apostrophe in his name is much more commonly used than the ʻokina. Peaceray (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that kwami has been moving numerous other articles to use ʻokina: Chen-style tʻai chi chʻüan (a redirect, so that Chen-style t'ai chi ch'uan is now a double-redirect away from, ironically, unmarked Chen-style taijiquan), Yang-style tʻai chi chʻüan, Wu (Hao)-style tʻai chi chʻüan, Wu-style tʻai chi chʻüan, Sun-style tʻai chi chʻüan, Wu Chʻüan-yu (another redirect, leaving Wu Ch'uan-yu a double-redirect away from unpunctuated Wu Quanyou), Wu Chien-chʻüan (another redirect, making Wu Chien-ch'uan a double-redirect to unpunctuated Wu Jianquan), Sun Lu-t‘ang (redirect, making Sun Lu-t'ang a double redirect to unpunctuated Sun Lutang), Guang Ping Yang t‘ai chi ch‘üan; as well as changing linked names inside other articles.
 * Again I must point out that the ordinary ASCII/typewriter apostrophe (') is among the characters used within the Wade-Giles system, is in accord with both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:APOSTROPHE, and most likely what readers either searching for those articles or typing their full link in would type.
 * There seems to be no necessity to use ʻokina in any of these articles, and good reason not to. But this is a bigger issue than the present talkpage. – •Raven .talk 06:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Accordingly, discussion seems to have moved to WT:MOS. – •Raven .talk 22:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no necessity to use ʻokina in any of these articles, and good reason not to. But this is a bigger issue than the present talkpage. – •Raven .talk 06:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Accordingly, discussion seems to have moved to WT:MOS. – •Raven .talk 22:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cheng Man-ch'ing


text:
Objectivism (poetry)

The Objectivist poets were a loose-knit group of second-generation Modernists who emerged in the 1930s. They were mainly American and were influenced by, among others, Ezra Pound and William Carlos Williams. The basic tenets of objectivist poetics as defined by Louis Zukofsky were to treat the poem as an object, and to emphasize sincerity, intelligence, and the poet's ability to look clearly at the world. While the name of the group is similar to Ayn Rand's school of philosophy, the two movements are not affiliated.

The core group consisted of the Americans Zukofsky, Williams, Charles Reznikoff, George Oppen and Carl Rakosi, and the British poet Basil Bunting. Later, another American poet, Lorine Niedecker, became associated with the group. A number of other poets were included in early publications under the Objectivist rubric without actually sharing the attitudes and approaches to poetry of this core group. Although these poets generally suffered critical neglect, especially in their early careers, and a number of them abandoned the practice of writing and/or publishing poetry for a time, they were to prove highly influential for later generations of writers working in the tradition of modernist poetry in English.

Roots
The period 1909 to 1913 saw the emergence of Imagism, the first consciously avant garde movement in 20th century English-language poetry. Pound, who was Imagism's prime mover, served as foreign editor of Harriet Monroe's magazine Poetry. In October 1912, he submitted three poems each by H.D. and Richard Aldington under the label Imagiste. Aldington's poems were printed in the November issue, and H.D.'s appeared in the January 1913 issue. The March 1913 issue of Poetry also contained Pound's A Few Don'ts by an Imagiste and F. S. Flint's essay Imagisme. This publication history meant that this London-based movement had its first readership in the United States. It also meant that Imagism was available as a model for American Modernist poets of the next generation.

Zukofsky was one such poet. He published a poem in Poetry in 1924 and introduced himself to Pound in 1927, when he sent the older poet his "Poem beginning 'The,'". Pound published the poem in his magazine The Exile, and a long correspondence and friendship between the two began. This relationship was strengthened by Zukofsky's 1929 essay on Pound's long work in progress The Cantos. Pound also provided an introduction to William Carlos Williams, a physician and poet who had been a classmate of Pound's while at the University of Pennsylvania and who lived in Rutherford, New Jersey, not far from Zukofsky. Zukofsky and Williams quickly became close friends and were to be literary collaborators for the rest of Williams's life. Another of Zukofsky's literary mentors at this period was Charles Reznikoff, a New York City poet whose early work was also influenced by Imagism. By 1928, the young American poet George Oppen and his wife Mary Oppen had become friendly with Zukofsky and Reznikoff. Another young American poet, Carl Rakosi, started corresponding with Pound around this time, and the older poet again recommended him to Zukofsky. The final member of the core group, Basil Bunting, was an English poet who came from a Quaker background and who had been imprisoned as a conscientious objector during World War I. In 1923, Bunting met Pound in Paris and the two men developed a close literary friendship, with Bunting living near Pound at Rapallo from 1931 to 1933. In 1930, Bunting published his first collection of poetry, Redimiculum Matellarum, and Pound introduced him to Zukofsky.

The term 'Objectivist' developed because Harriet Monroe insisted on a group name for the February 1931 issue of Poetry: A Magazine of Verse, which Monroe had allowed Zukofsky to guest edit, at Pound's urging. Zukofsky recounts the occasion with Monroe in Prepositions: "Harriet Monroe at the time insisted, we'd better have a title for it, call it something. I said, I don't want to. She insisted; so, I said, alright, if I can define it in an essay, and I used two words, sincerity and objectification, and I was sorry immediately. But it's gone down into the history books; they forgot the founder, thank heavens, and kept the terms, and, of course, I said objectivist, and they said objectivism and that makes all the difference. Well, that was pretty bad, so then I spent the next thirty years trying to make it simple." It also seems that the core group did not see themselves as a coherent movement but rather as a group of individual poets with some shared approach to their art. As well as the matters covered in Zukofsky's essays, the elements of this approach included: a respect for Imagist achievement in the areas of vers libre and highly concentrated language and imagery; a rejection of the Imagists' interest in classicism and mythology; for Reznikoff, Zukofsky, Rakosi and Oppen, a shared Jewish heritage (which, for all but Oppen included an early childhood in which English was not their first language); generally left-wing, and, in the cases of Zukofsky, Rakosi, and Oppen at least, Marxist politics.

Early publications
The first appearance of the group was in a special issue of Poetry magazine in February 1931; this was arranged for by Pound and edited by Zukofsky (Vol. 37, No. 5). In addition to poems by Rakosi, Zukofsky, Reznikoff, George Oppen, Basil Bunting and William Carlos Williams, Zukofsky included work by a number of poets who would have little or no further association with the group: Howard Weeks, Robert McAlmon, Joyce Hopkins, Norman Macleod, Kenneth Rexroth, S. Theodore Hecht, Harry Roskolenkier, Henry Zolinsky, Whittaker Chambers, Jesse Lowenthal, Emanuel Carnevali (as translator of Arthur Rimbaud), John Wheelwright, Richard Johns and Martha Champion. An appendix (Symposium) featured texts by Parker Tyler and Charles Henri Ford, with a note by Zukofsky, a text by Samuel Putnam and Zukofsky's translation of a short essay on the poetry of André Salmon by his friend René Taupin.

The issue also contained Zukofsky's essays Program: 'Objectivists' 1931 and Sincerity and Objectification: With Special Reference to the Work of Charles Reznikoff, a reworking of a study of Reznikoff's work originally written some time earlier. In this second essay, Zukofsky expands on the basic tenets of Objectivist poetics, stating that in sincerity "Writing occurs which is the detail, not mirage, of seeing, of thinking with the things as they exist, and of directing them along a line of melody", and that objectification relates to "the appearance of the art form as an object." This position echoes Pound's 1918 dictum (in an essay, "A Retrospective", in which he is looking back at Imagism) "I believe in technique as the test of a man's sincerity".

Some example poems
As an example, Zukofsky cites the following short section from A Group of Verse, a long poem sequence that was Reznikoff's contribution to the issue:

 * Among the heaps of brick and plaster lies
 * a girder, still itself among the rubbish.

In which the girder among the rubbish represents –for Zukofsky– the poem as object, sincere in itself. Oppen continued to refer to these lines as a poetic touchstone as late as 1976, though he would often misremember them as "a girder, still itself among the rubble."

Oppen's own contribution was a poem titled "1930s", later collected (without the title) as the opening section of Oppen's first collection called Discrete Series, a book-length poem sequence.
 * The knowledge not of sorrow, you were
 * saying, but of boredom
 * Is — aside from reading speaking
 * smoking —
 * Of what, Maude Blessingbourne it was,
 * wished to know when, having risen,
 * “approached the window as if to see
 * what really was going on”;
 * And saw rain falling, in the distance
 * more slowly,
 * The road clear from her past the window-
 * glass —
 * Of the world, weather-swept, with which
 * one shares the century.

Of his own poetry, Zukofsky chose to include "A" — Seventh Movement, the first part of a six-page section from what was to become an 800-page poem. This extract takes as its subject a set of roadworks in the street outside his New York home:
 * Horses: who will do it? out of manes? Words
 * Will do it, out of manes, out of airs, but
 * They have no manes, so there are no airs, birds
 * Of words, from me to them no singing gut.
 * For they have no eyes, for their legs are wood,
 * For their stomachs are logs with print on them;
 * Blood red, red lamps hang from necks or where could
 * Be necks, two legs stand A, four together M.
 * "Street Closed" is what print says on their stomachs;
 * That cuts out everybody but the diggers;
 * You're cut out, and she's cut out, and the jiggers
 * Are cut out. No! we can't have such nor bucks
 * As won't, tho they're not here, pass thru a hoop
 * Strayed on a manhole — me? Am on a stoop.

extract from "A"-7 by Louis Zukofsky

Language and poetry
Another aspect of Objectivist poetics that is not explicitly addressed in these essays is an interest in exploiting the resonances of small, everyday words. As Zukofsky was to write some time later (in 1946), "a case can be made for the poet giving some of his life to the use of the words the and a: both of which are weighted with as much epos and historical destiny as one man can perhaps resolve. Those who do not believe this are too sure that the little words mean nothing among so many other words." This concern is also reflected in Oppen's statement "if we still possessed the word 'is', there would be no need to write poems".

Reaction
Reaction to the issue was not uniformly welcoming, and the March 1931 issue of the magazine contained a hostile response by the editor herself under the title "The Arrogance of Youth". Monroe was particularly angered by Zukofsky's rejection of Edwin Arlington Robinson, Robert Frost, Edgar Lee Masters, and Edna St. Vincent Millay, all of whom were regular contributors to the magazine. However, not all reactions were so unfavorable; Niedecker read the issue at her local public library in Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin, and wrote to Zukofsky shortly thereafter, beginning a friendship and frequent literary correspondence that would last until her death 40 years later.

The Poetry issue was followed in 1932 by the Zukofsky-edited An 'Objectivist' Anthology. This anthology featured far fewer contributors: Basil Bunting, Mary Butts, Frances Fletcher, Robert McAlmon, George Oppen, Ezra Pound, Carl Rakosi, Kenneth Rexroth, Charles Reznikoff, William Carlos Williams, Louis Zukofsky and Forest Anderson, T. S. Eliot, R. B. N. Warriston and Jerry Reisman. The anthology served to highlight the differences between these poets as much as their shared attitudes to writing. Much of the difference stemmed from Zukofsky's insistence on form over content, which conflicted with many of the other poets' concern with the real world. As Rakosi would later write: "if Reznikoff was an Objectivist, Zukofsky is not and never was one."

An Objectivist Anthology was published by To, Publishers, a small press organized by Zukofsky, Reznikoff and George and Mary Oppen, and funded from Oppen's small private income. Zukofsky acted as general editor from New York City, for which he drew a small monthly salary, and the Oppen's arranged for the books' typesetting and printing from Le Beausset, a small village in the south of France where the Oppens were living. The press also published A Novelette and Other Prose (1932) by Williams and Prolegomena 1 (1932) by Ezra Pound. This was a reprint of two of Pound's prose books, How to Read and The Spirit of Romance, bound in one volume. While the press had ambitious plans, planning to print Williams' uncollected prose, Pound's complete critical works, Bunting's translation of Italian poet Federigo Tozzi, Zukofsky's 55 Poems, and at least one book by Reznikoff, the press ran into several problems, and folded late in 1932 before any more volumes appeared.

The Oppens returned to the United States in 1932 and, together with Zukofsky, Williams, and Reznikoff, went on to form the Objectivist Press to publish more books of Objectivist work. The first titles to appear were Williams' Collected Poems 1921–31 (1934), with an introduction by Wallace Stevens, Oppen's Discrete Series, with an introduction by Ezra Pound, followed by Reznikoff's Jerusalem the Golden, (1934, poetry), his Testimony, (1934, prose), with an introduction by Kenneth Burke and his In Memoriam: 1933 (1934, poetry). Reznikoff's Separate Way (1936) was the last publication of The Objectivist Press, not counting Zukofsky's A Test of Poetry (1948), which was published under its imprint twelve years later.

Aftermath of Objectivism
In 1935, the Oppens joined the Communist Party of America, and George abandoned poetry in favor of political activism. In 1950, the couple moved to Mexico to escape the strongly anti-Communist political atmosphere of the times. It would be 1958 before Oppen wrote any further poetry. The Oppens returned to New York in 1960, and George went on to publish six books of poetry between 1962 and 1978, by which time he was finding it increasingly difficult to write—he had Alzheimer's disease. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 1969 for Of Being Numerous. Mary Oppen published an account of their life, including a close-up view of the Objectivist period, in her 1978 memoir Meaning a Life. George Oppen died in 1984, and Mary died in 1990.

After publishing his 1941 Selected Poems, Carl Rakosi also abandoned poetry, dedicating himself to a career as a social worker. Shortly after turning 21, Rakosi had legally changed his name to Callman Rawley under which name he served as the head of the Minneapolis Jewish Children's and Family Service from 1945 until his retirement in 1968. An unexpected letter received from the English poet Andrew Crozier in 1965 about his early poetry encouraged Rakosi to start writing and publishing poetry again. A collection, Amulet, was published by New Directions Publishers in 1967, and a number of other volumes were to appear over the following 46 years. These included his Collected Poems in 1986. Rakosi died in 2004, aged 100.

After Redimiculum Matellarum, Bunting's next book publication was Poems: 1950. After a lively decade spent largely working in Iran for the British foreign service and The Times of London, Bunting returned to live in his native Northumbria after his expulsion from Iran in 1952 by Mossadeq, and the 1960s were to prove to be a very productive decade for him. Publications from this time include possibly his best-known work, the long poem Briggflatts (1966), described by critic Cyril Connolly as "the finest long poem to have been published in England since T. S. Eliot's Four Quartets", and  Collected Poems (1968, revised editions 1978 and 1985). An Uncollected Poems appeared in 1991 and his Complete Poems in 2000.

In 1933, Niedecker visited Zukofsky in New York, where she and Zukofsky were rumored to have had a brief affair. She soon returned to her home in rural Wisconsin, a landscape that was to influence much of her later writing. Her first book, New Goose, was published by the James A. Decker Press in 1946. As was the case for many of the other Objectivists, a combination of critical neglect and personal circumstances meant that this early publication was followed by a longish period of poetic silence during which she was unable to find a publisher for her work. Although she continued writing for much of the intervening period, her next book, My Friend Tree, did not appear until 1961. She published relatively frequently after that, and her Collected Works appeared in 2002.

In 1941, Reznikoff published a collection of poems called Going To and Fro and Walking Up and Down. After that, although he continued to write and to publish in periodicals, his poetry had no further book publication until the 1959 Inscriptions: 1944–1956. In 1962, New Directions published a selection of poems called By the Waters of Manhattan. Three years later, they brought out  Testimony: The United States, 1885–1890: Recitative, the first installment of a long work based on court records covering the period 1855 to 1915. The book was a commercial and critical flop, and New Directions dropped him. In the 1970s, Black Sparrow Press started publishing Reznikoff, bringing out the complete Testimony as well as a similar work, Holocaust, based on courtroom accounts of Nazi concentration camps. In the years after Reznikoff's death in 1976, Black Sparrow brought all his major works back into print.

Zukofsky had begun work on a long poem in 24 parts called A in 1927. The first seven "movements" of this work appeared in the Objectivist Anthology, having previously appeared in magazines. These early sections show the influence of The Cantos, though Zukofsky was to further develop his own style and voice as A progressed. The 1930s also saw him continue his involvement in Marxist politics, an interest that went back to his college friendship with Whittaker Chambers.

Although he would continue to write short poems and prose works, notably the 1963 Bottom: On Shakespeare, the completion of A was to be the major concern of the remainder of Zukofsky's writing life. As the poem progressed, formal considerations tended to be foregrounded more and more, with Zukofsky applying a wide range of devices and approaches, from the sonnet to aleatory or random composition. The final complete edition was going to press as the poet lay on his deathbed in 1978. His final written work was the index to this volume.

Legacy
The early critical reception of the Objectivists was generally hostile, particularly in reviews by Morris Schappes and Yvor Winters, as well as Harriet Monroe's already-mentioned unfavorable reaction to the Poetry special issue. However, they did have an immediate impact, especially on the work of their two Imagist mentors, Williams and Pound. Williams and Zukofsky were to maintain a lifelong personal and creative relationship which was to prove important for both men. For Zukofsky, the example of Williams helped to keep him focused on external realities and things. For Williams, Zukofsky served as a reminder of the importance of form. As Mark Scroggins writes, "from Zukofsky, Williams learned to shape his often amorphous verse into more sharply chiselled measures."

Pound, too, was influenced by the Objectivist sense of form, their focus on everyday vocabulary, and their interests in politics, economics and specifically American subject matter. The critic Hugh Kenner has argued that these influences helped shape the sections of The Cantos published during the 1930s, writing "Pound was reading them, and they him".

The poets of the Beat Generation, a group of American bohemian writers to emerge at the end of the 1940s that included Allen Ginsberg, Gary Snyder and Jack Kerouac, owed much to Pound and Williams, and were led, through them, to the Objectivists. In the 1950s and 1960s, Zukofsky was sought out by younger poets including Paul Blackburn, Jerome Rothenberg, Jonathan Williams, Denise Levertov, Gilbert Sorrentino and Allen Ginsberg. His work was also well known to the Black Mountain poets, especially Robert Creeley and Cid Corman, whose Origin magazine and press were to serve as valuable publishing outlets for the older poet.

Zukofsky's formal procedures, especially his interest in aleatory writing, were a key influence on Jackson Mac Low and John Cage, amongst others, and through them on the Language School, an avant garde group of poets who started publishing in the 1970s and who included Bruce Andrews, Charles Bernstein, Ron Silliman, Lyn Hejinian, Bob Perelman, Michael Palmer, Rae Armantrout, Carla Harryman, Barrett Watten, Clark Coolidge, Hannah Weiner, Susan Howe, Tina Darragh and Fanny Howe.

Oppen and Reznikoff influenced subsequent generations of poets, most notably, Theodore Enslin, Harvey Shapiro, Michael Heller, Norman Finkelstein, Rachel Blau DuPlessis, John Taggart, and Armand Schwerner to name a few. Their poetry continues the Objectivist obsession with language, ethics, and world and often addresses modern, urban, Jewish life, both secular and religious. DuPlessis, on first glance, seems an exception to this list. Her poetry seems not to immediately possess the so-called themes of an Objectivist aesthetic as practiced in the work of a Reznikoff, a Niedecker or an Oppen.

As a young woman and university student, DuPlessis began a lifelong correspondence with Oppen and was deeply influenced by Oppen's integrity, sincerity, and courage. Though establishing herself as a poet with tendencies and obsessions at some remove from an Objectivist ethos (or so it may be argued at a first reading) DuPlessis has played a crucial role in the dissemination and survival of Objectivist poetry and poetics well into the 21st century. The life of a man such as Oppen made a lasting impression on DuPlessis. DuPlessis gained Oppen's trust as well and she was given the opportunity of editing Oppen's Selected Letters, which were published posthumously.

Bunting's physical presence in Newcastle in the 1960s, together with his close relationships with a number of younger poets (including Tom Pickard, Thomas A. Clark, Richard Caddel and Barry MacSweeney), meant that he was a major father figure for the poets of the British Poetry Revival. This younger generation were also drawn to the works of the other Objectivists, and their writings began to be more widely known in Britain. For example, it was a letter from the Revival poet Andrew Crozier which prompted Rakosi's return to poetry.

Amidst the continuous reappraisals, critical and otherwise, of the legacy and literary formation of the Objectivists, a well known mapping of the territory continues to be one put forth by poet Ron Silliman: "three-phase Objectivism". Though unclear, precisely, who coined the phrase, this rubric offers a useful way of dealing with the intercession of the Objectivist poets into our consciousness. Writes Silliman:

Print

 * DuPlessis, Rachel Blau & Peter Quartermain (eds) The Objectivist Nexus: Essays in Cultural Poetics, (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1999). ISBN 0-8173-0973-X
 * Kenner, Hugh, The Pound Era (Faber and Faber, 1975 edition). ISBN 0-571-10668-4
 * McAllister, Andrew (ed) The Objectivists: An Anthology (Bloodaxe Books, 1996). ISBN 1-85224-341-4.
 * Perloff, Marjorie, "Barbed-Wire Entanglements": The "New American Poetry," 1930–1932" in Modernism/modernity - Volume 2, Number 1, January 1995, pp. 145–175.
 * Scroggins, Mark. The Poem of a Life: A Biography of Louis Zukofsky, Shoemaker & Hoard, 2007.

Online

 * Andrew Crozier: On Carl Rakosi's Life and Career Captured October 13, 2005.
 * Milton Hindus: Charles Reznikoff: A Biographical Essay Captured October 13, 2005.
 * Joseph G. Kronick: George Oppen's Life and Career Captured October 13, 2005.
 * Mark Scroggins: A Biographical Essay on Louis Zukofsky Captured October 10, 2005.
 * Richard Caddel: Minor Poet, Not Conspicuously Dishonest: Basil Bunting at 100 Captured October 27, 2005.
 * Peter Nicholls: Modernising Modernism: from Pound to Oppen Captured November 14, 2005.

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

title: Objectivism (poetry)


text:
User:Mikue

I'm Michael Kuerschner from Germany and I'm trying to add lots of links to other international wikipedias.

May be, I'll add some articles on Germany or on mathematics.

da:Bruger:Mikue de:Benutzer:Mikue fr:Utilisateur:Mikue nl:Gebruiker:Mikue nds:Bruker:Mikue pt:Usuário:Mikue simple:User:Mikue

title: User:Mikue


text:
User:Hellotoast

Do you know on this one block you can buy croissants in five different places? There's one store called "Bonjour Croissant". It makes me want to go to Paris and open a store called "Hello Toast". --- Fran Lebowitz

title: User:Hellotoast


text:
Feet forwards motorcycle

A feet first (FF) motorcycle is a class of motorcycle design which positions the rider with their feet ahead, like a car, rather than below and astride, as with conventional bikes. As there are other types of motorcycle (e.g. choppers) that have a 'feet forward' position, an alternative term sometimes used is advanced single track vehicle. The name "feet first" (also referred to as "feet forward") was first used by Royce Creasey

History
Designers have experimented with the feet forward riding position since the early days of motorcycling.

In 1909 P.G Tacchi designed a four-cylinder machine with a 700 cc 'L' head air-cooled engine, an enclosed shaft drive and a bucket seat. The machine was known as a TAC-Wilkinson, and was manufactured by the Wilkinson Sword Company

Ten years later in America Carl A. Neracher designed the Ner-a-Car  It had a feet-forward riding position, a pressed steel frame and hub centre steering but in other respects was somewhat similar to a conventional motorcycle.

Designed by Sir Alliot Verdon Roe in 1926, the Ro-Monocar used a 250 cc Villiers two-stroke engine, and featured a high degree of enclosure for the rider and a bucket seat. This seating position provided a high degree of comfort for the rider

The Fred Wood designed Whitwood monocar used OEC duplex steering, retractable outriggers, and tandem bucket seats, and was offered with engine sizes ranging from 250–996 cc between 1933 and 1935.

In the 1950s NSU produced the feet forward fully enclosed monocoque constructions by Gustav Adolf Baumm (1920-1955). The "Flying Hammock" riding position allowed an exceptionally small frontal area. The consequent low wind resistance made it possible for H.P. "Happy" Mueller to achieve 150 mph from a 125cc engine at the Utah Salt flats in 1956.

The first recognisably modern design was the 1975 Quasar, built by Malcolm Newell and Ken Leaman. The design was not a great commercial success - just 22 examples were sold up until 1982 - but it generated a great deal of interest, and started others thinking about the FF concept. Thomas Engelbach's own design of a feet forward motorcycle came in 1980, with the innovative patent for an automatic stabilizing system that incorporated outrigger wheels. The design was successfully tested but proved that the market was not ready for this model.

Since 1985 Swiss manufacturer Peraves has produced a small series of feet forward cabin motorcycles; 89 Ecomobile were built from 1985 to 2005. The restyled Peraves Monotracer appeared in prototype form in 2006 and went into production in 2007. Following the outstanding successes of the all-electric E-Tracer, X-Tracers and Zerotracer the MonoTracer-E MTE-150 went into production in 2012 and the company ceased making the petrol driven MTI-1200. The company website said they would make a maximum of 36 vehicles per year from 2013 but sadly, production ceased with no more than some ten all-electric machines built.

In 1989 the Royce Creasey designed Voyager achieved a pre-production run of five prototypes made by SCL Ltd in Powys South Wales

21st century
In 2002, Dan Gurney's All American Racers produced a limited run of 36 Alligator models.

The early 2000s saw enclosed scooters like the Benelli Adiva and BMW C1.

In 2008, the Buddfab Streamliner set the speed record for a 50cc engine at 145 mph (233 km/h) with 20+ hp, then in 2009 the 125cc speed record at 186 mph (299 km/h). The Honda RS125 engine used produces 44 ps.

In 2010, Dutchman Allert Jacobs, creator of the Quest velomobile, streamlined a Honda Innova underbone motorcycle to more than double the fuel economy from 1 liter per 48 km (113 mpg) to 1 per 101 (237mpg).

In 2013, Suprine Machinery, Inc and designer John Chelen, introduced the EXODUS, a 1200cc BMW flat four with five speeds and reverse, where the rider is safely surrounded by a roll cage and a skid plate. Only weighing 680 pounds, with a full 8 gallon gas tank, the EXODUS exceeds speeds of 155 MPH with over 80 MPG at 55MPH.

In March 2014 Honda unveiled the Honda NM4 model at the Osaka Motorcycle Show and it was on sale worldwide by the end of the year. In the United States it uses the original 700cc engine, whereas in Europe it has a 750cc engine. All versions use Honda's Dual Clutch Transmission (DCT) system to provide both automatic and semi-automatic control.

Rationale
Modern motorcycles are simply well-developed motorized bicycles, and as such have drawbacks. Chief among these are:

 * Safety - riders involved in an accident are at significantly higher risk of injury or death compared with car drivers.
 * Weather - motorcycles do not offer the advantages of an enclosed car in poor weather.
 * Convenience - conventional motorcycle riders need to wear a helmet and protective clothing.
 * Efficiency - motorcycles have a relatively tall profile that reduces aerodynamic performance. "A feet-forward sitting position is easier to streamline" according to inventor Craig Vetter.
 * Skill - motorcycles riders need training and practice to become skilled at riding.

Likewise, in dense urban environments, the car has a number of drawbacks:

 * Road occupancy - a car takes up much more space than a single person, and most cars transport only one person. Similarly the area occupied when parked consumes considerable space.
 * Environment - a car uses more fuel than a motorcycle for the same journey. It is also more expensive in terms of resources to build in the first place.
 * Performance - Journey times - a car is generally a lot slower than a motorcycle for city journeys due to congestion. A greater percentage of weight redistribution to counter directional momentum is available.

The FF motorcycle is an attempt to marry the advantages of bikes and cars, while avoiding the drawbacks of either. However any FF STV has no roll stability so actual benefits are overstated by some proponents  when comparing a  FF motorcycle with a motorcar. In addressing these issues, most FF designs arrive at a low-slung faired body, with the rider in a reclining position.

A number of FF concepts have been tried, but so far a commercially successful design has not appeared. There has been a revival of interest in the motor scooter as a means of personal transportation, and in some respects these vehicles have some features in common with FF motorcycles.

Problems faced
The problems faced by the designer or marketer of an FF motorcycle are many. Some of these are perceptual. Experienced motorcyclists tend to be resistant to the idea, arguing that it's not a "proper" bike, and there is nothing wrong with the standard motorcycle. To car drivers, many of the disadvantages of the car are either not recognised or simply put up with and the overall convenience is hard to give up. Many car drivers would not consider a conventional motorcycle or scooter as an alternative, seeing it as a far less convenient and less safe option. To these people, an FF motorcycle needs to be seen (and hence marketed) as a two-wheeled car rather than an enclosed motorcycle. As the FF design moves the rider from an upright or Head First (HF) posture to a recumbent position (as in the Quasar and Dan Gurney's Alligator), the machine becomes lower and may make it harder to see in traffic. However, most FFs have seat which is no lower than the average car, and much higher than many sports cars. Those who ride them regularly say that the problems of having a seat at this height are largely in the minds of those who have never tried one.

There are some engineering issues too, which some designs can overcome. Designs such as the Quasar require the rider/driver to use one foot to stabilise the machine when stationary, by putting his foot out of the open side onto the road. This approach precludes the use of a fully enclosed body. The fully enclosed Peraves Ecomobiles and MonoTracers use stabiliser wheels deployed by the rider when the machine is travelling very slowly or stopped. Redesigning the motorcycle is necessary as a contributor in the autonomous vehicle arena and the FF design with the power plant moved to the back of the rider better distributes the weight and increases potential to lower the center of gravity.

title: Feet forwards motorcycle


text:
Lagniappe

A lagniappe is "a small gift given to a customer by a merchant at the time of a purchase" (such as a 13th doughnut on purchase of a dozen), or more broadly, "something given or obtained gratuitously or by way of good measure." It can be used more generally as meaning any extra or unexpected benefit.

The word entered English from the Louisiana French adapting a Quechua word brought in to New Orleans by the Spanish Creoles.

Etymology
After the Spanish conquered the Inca Empire certain Quechua words entered the Spanish language. The Spanish Empire for a time also included Louisiana, so there was a Spanish presence in New Orleans. In his book Creoles of Louisiana, George Washington Cable comments on the effects of the Spanish presence on Louisiana Creole French:

"The Spanish occupation never became more than a conquest. The Spanish tongue, enforced in the courts and principal public offices, never superseded the French in the mouths of the people and left but a few words naturalized in the corrupt French of the slaves. The terrors of the calabozo, with its chains and whips and branding irons, were condensed into the French tri-syllabic calaboose; while the pleasant institution of ñapa—the petty gratuity added, by the retailer, to anything bought—grew the pleasanter, drawn out into [the] Gallicized lagniappe [emphasis added]."

Lagniappe is derived from the South American Spanish phrase la yapa or ñapa (referring to a free extra item, usually a very cheap one). La is the definite article in Spanish as well as in French (la ñapa or la gniappe = the ñapa/gniappe). The term has been traced back to the Quechua word yapay ('to increase; to add'). In Andean markets it is still customary to ask for a yapa (translates as "a little extra") when making a purchase. The seller usually responds by throwing in a little extra.

Although this is an old custom, it is still widely practiced in Louisiana. Street vendors, especially vegetable vendors, are expected to throw in a few green chili peppers or a small bunch of cilantro with a purchase. The word is used in the Gulf Coast region of the United States and in other places with historic links to French Creole culture, such as in Trinidad and Tobago. The concept is practiced in many more places however, such as the Spanish-speaking world, Southeast Asia, North Africa, rural France, Australia, Holland, and Switzerland.

Though the word is included in English dictionaries it is used primarily in the region influenced by New Orleans (and therefore Louisiana French) culture and so may be thought of as being more Cajun French or Louisiana Creole French than English. This is especially so since the spelling has been influenced by French.

Mark Twain writes about the word in a chapter on New Orleans in Life on the Mississippi (1883). He called it "a word worth traveling to New Orleans to get":

We picked up one excellent word—a word worth travelling to New Orleans to get; a nice limber, expressive, handy word—"lagniappe." They pronounce it lanny-yap. It is Spanish—so they said. We discovered it at the head of a column of odds and ends in the Picayune, the first day; heard twenty people use it the second; inquired what it meant the third; adopted it and got facility in swinging it the fourth. It has a restricted meaning, but I think the people spread it out a little when they choose. It is the equivalent of the thirteenth roll in a "baker's dozen." It is something thrown in, gratis, for good measure. The custom originated in the Spanish quarter of the city. When a child or a servant buys something in a shop—or even the mayor or the governor, for aught I know—he finishes the operation by saying—"Give me something for lagniappe."

The shopman always responds; gives the child a bit of licorice-root, gives the servant a cheap cigar or a spool of thread, gives the governor—I don't know what he gives the governor; support, likely.

When you are invited to drink, and this does occur now and then in New Orleans—and you say, "What, again?—no, I've had enough;" the other party says, "But just this one time more—this is for lagniappe." When the beau perceives that he is stacking his compliments a trifle too high, and sees by the young lady's countenance that the edifice would have been better with the top compliment left off, he puts his "I beg pardon—no harm intended," into the briefer form of "Oh, that's for lagniappe."

In Ireland, the term "luck penny" (or "luckpenny") denotes a lagniappe.

title: Lagniappe


text:
Vedic Sanskrit

Vedic Sanskrit, also simply referred as the Vedic language, is an ancient language of the Indo-Aryan subgroup of the Indo-European language family. It is attested in the Vedas and related literature compiled over the period of the mid-2nd to mid-1st millennium BCE. It is orally preserved, predating the advent of writing by several centuries.

Extensive ancient literature in the Vedic Sanskrit language has survived into the modern era, and this has been a major source of information for reconstructing Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Indo-Iranian history. Vedic Sanskrit and its sister language, Avestan, are mutually intelligible with very careful listening, although multiple words remain unintelligible and have different pronunciations.

Prehistoric derivation
The separation of Proto-Indo-Iranian language into Proto-Iranian and Proto-Indo-Aryan is estimated, on linguistic grounds, to have occurred around or before 1800 BCE. The date of composition of the oldest hymns of the Rigveda is vague at best, generally estimated to roughly 1500 BCE. Both Asko Parpola (1988) and J. P. Mallory (1998) place the locus of the division of Indo-Aryan from Iranian in the Bronze Age culture of the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC). Parpola (1999) elaborates the model and has "Proto-Rigvedic" Indo-Aryans intrude the BMAC around 1700 BCE. He assumes early Indo-Aryan presence in the Late Harappan horizon from about 1900 BCE, and "Proto-Rigvedic" (Proto-Dardic) intrusion to Punjab as corresponding to the Gandhara grave culture from about 1700 BCE. According to this model, Rigvedic within the larger Indo-Aryan group is the direct ancestor of the Dardic languages.

The early Vedic Sanskrit language was far less homogeneous compared to the language described by Pāṇini, that is, Classic Sanskrit. The language in the early Upanishads of Hinduism and the late Vedic literature approaches Classical Sanskrit. The formalization of the late form of Vedic Sanskrit language into the Classical Sanskrit form is credited to Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī, along with Patanjali's Mahabhasya and Katyayana's commentary that preceded Patanjali's work. The earliest epigraphic records of the indigenous rulers of India are written in the Prakrit language. Originally the epigraphic language of the whole of India was mainly Prakrit and Sanskrit is first noticed in the inscriptions of North India from about the second half of the 1st century B.C. Sanskrit gradually ousted Prakrit from the field of Indian epigraphy in all parts of the country.

Chronology
Five chronologically distinct strata can be identified within the Vedic language:

 * 1) Ṛg-vedic
 * 2) Mantra
 * 3) Saṃhitā prose
 * 4) Brāhmaṇa prose
 * 5) Sūtras

The first three are commonly grouped together, as the Saṃhitās comprising the four Vedas: ṛg, atharvan, yajus, sāman, which together constitute the oldest texts in Sanskrit and the canonical foundation both of the Vedic religion, and the later religion known as Hinduism.

Ṛg-vedic
Many words in the Vedic Sanskrit of the Ṛg·veda have cognates or direct correspondences with the ancient Avestan language, but these do not appear in post-Rigvedic Indian texts. The text of the Ṛg·veda must have been essentially complete by around the 12th century BCE. The pre-1200 BCE layers mark a gradual change in Vedic Sanskrit, but there is disappearance of these archaic correspondences and linguistics in the post-Rigvedic period.

Mantra language
This period includes both the mantra and prose language of the Atharvaveda (Paippalada and Shaunakiya), the Ṛg·veda Khilani, the Samaveda Saṃhitā, and the mantras of the Yajurveda. These texts are largely derived from the Ṛg·veda, but have undergone certain changes, both by linguistic change and by reinterpretation. For example, the more ancient injunctive verb system is no longer in use.

Sanhitā
An important linguistic change is the disappearance of the injunctive, subjunctive, optative, imperative (the aorist). New innovations in Vedic Sanskrit appear such as the development of periphrastic aorist forms. This must have occurred before the time of Pāṇini because Panini makes a list of those from the northwestern region of India who knew these older rules of Vedic Sanskrit.

Brāhmaṇa prose
In this layer of Vedic literature, the archaic Vedic Sanskrit verb system has been abandoned, and a prototype of pre-Panini Vedic Sanskrit structure emerges. The Yajñagāthās texts provide a probable link between Vedic Sanskrit, Classical Sanskrit and languages of the Epics. Complex meters such as Anuṣṭubh and rules of Sanskrit prosody had been or were being innovated by this time, but parts of the Brāhmaṇa layers show the language is still close to Vedic Sanskrit.

Sūtra language
This is the last stratum of Vedic literature, comprising the bulk of the Śrautasūtras and Gṛhyasūtras and some Upaniṣads such as the Kaṭha Upaniṣad and Maitrāyaṇiya Upaniṣad. These texts elucidate the state of the language which formed the basis of Pāṇini's codification into Classical Sanskrit.

Phonology
Vedic differs from Classical Sanskrit to an extent comparable to the difference between Homeric Greek and Classical Greek.

The following differences may be observed in the phonology:

 * Vedic had a voiceless bilabial fricative (, called upadhmānīya) and a voiceless velar fricative (, called jihvāmūlīya)—which used to occur as allophones of visarga ḥ before voiceless labial and velar consonants respectively. Both of them were lost in Classical Sanskrit to give way to the simple visarga. Upadhmānīya occurs before ' and ', jihvāmūlīya before ' and '.
 * Vedic had a voiced retroflex lateral approximant  as well as its breathy-voiced counterpart, which are not found in classical Sanskrit; Macdonnell suggests these were allophones of the corresponding plosives ḍ  and ḍh ; these units could also function metrically as a cluster, suggesting Proto-Indo-Aryan pronunciations of  and  (see Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni) before the loss of voiced sibilants, which occurred after the split of Proto-Indo-Iranian.
 * The vowels e and o were realized in Vedic as diphthongs ai and au, but they became monophthongs in later Sanskrit, such as ' > 'and '>'. However, the diphthongal quality still resurfaces in sandhi.
 * The vowels ai and au were correspondingly realized in Vedic as long diphthongs āi and āu, but they became correspondingly short in Classical Sanskrit: ' > '.
 * The Prātiśākhyas claim that the "dental" consonants were articulated from the teeth ridge (dantamūlīya, alveolar), but they became dentals later, whereas most other authorities including Pāṇini designate them as dentals.
 * The Prātiśākhyas are inconsistent about but generally claim that it was also a dantamūlīya. According to Pāṇini it is a retroflex consonant.
 * The pluti (trimoraic) vowels were on the verge of becoming phonemicized during middle Vedic, but disappeared again.
 * Vedic often allowed two like vowels in certain cases to come together in hiatus without merger during sandhi, which has been reconstructed as the influence of an old laryngeal still present in the Proto-Indo-Iranian stage of the language: PIE *h₂weh₁·nt- → va·ata-.

Accent
Vedic had a pitch accent which could even change the meaning of the words, and was still in use in Pāṇini's time, as can be inferred by his use of devices to indicate its position. At some latter time, this was replaced by a stress accent limited to the second to fourth syllables from the end.

Since a small number of words in the late pronunciation of Vedic carry the so-called "independent svarita" on a short vowel, one can argue that late Vedic was marginally a tonal language. Note however that in the metrically-restored versions of the Rig Veda almost all of the syllables carrying an independent svarita must revert to a sequence of two syllables, the first of which carries an udātta and the second a so-called dependent svarita. Early Vedic was thus definitely not a tonal language like Chinese but a pitch accent language like Japanese, which was inherited from the Proto-Indo-European accent.

Pitch accent was not restricted to Vedic. Early Sanskrit grammarian Pāṇini gives accent rules for both the spoken language of his post-Vedic time as well as the differences of Vedic accent. However, no extant post-Vedic text with accents are found.

Pluti
Pluti, or prolation, is the term for the phenomenon of protracted or overlong vowels in Sanskrit; the overlong or prolated vowels are themselves called pluta. Pluta vowels are usually noted with a numeral "3" indicating a length of three morae (trimātra).

A diphthong is prolated by prolongation of its first vowel. Pāṇinian grammarians recognise the phonetic occurrence of diphthongs measuring more than three morae in duration, but classify them all as prolated (i.e. trimoraic) to preserve a strict tripartite division of vocalic length between hrasva (short, 1 mora), dīrgha (long, 2 morae) and pluta (prolated, 3+ morae).

Pluta vowels are recorded a total of 3 times in the Rigveda and 15 times in the Atharvaveda, typically in cases of questioning and particularly where two options are being compared. For example:
 * "Was it above? Was it below?"
 * Rigveda 10.129.5d
 * Rigveda 10.129.5d

 * "Is this larger? Or this?"
 * Atharvaveda 9.6.18
 * Atharvaveda 9.6.18

The pluti attained the peak of their popularity in the Brahmana period of late Vedic Sanskrit (roughly 8th century BC), with some 40 instances in the Shatapatha Brahmana alone.

Phonology

 * Vedic Accents
 * Frederik Kortlandt "Accent and ablaut in the Vedic verbs"
 * Melissa Frazier "Accent in Proto-Indo-European Athematic Nouns and Its Development in Vedic" (obsolete link) Internet Archive copy
 * Arthur Anthony Macdonell "A Vedic Grammar for Students: Appendix II: Vedic Metre"

Other

 * — Keyboard Software for typing in the International Alphabet for Sanskrit
 * — sources results from Monier Williams etc.
 * — dynamic online declension and conjugation tool

title: Vedic Sanskrit


text:
Talk:Sanity check

Comment
In the intro, verifying the divisibility of a number by 3 or 9 is not the same as casting out nines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.144.57 (talk • contribs) September 19, 2008 (UTC)

Banking example
In the banking program section, the part "and that deposits or purchases are sane in fitting in with patterns established by historical data" is not a sanity check. This is a reflection of what the banking program might consider likely or expected behavior, but not impossible. A sanity check determines if a result is simply not possible, it does not have any bearing on an entirely possible, however unlikely, result.--Chilipepper987 (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sanity testing → Sanity check – I checked sources after finding this article while looking something up. The WP:COMMONNAME for the topic is "sanity check," which is better represented (by far) in sources, and the current title could refer to legal determinations of insanity rather than to checking mathematical calculations, which is the topic of the article. I couldn't do the move myself because it is over an existing redirect. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC) – WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree with the move, but if it is over an existing redirect that it might be controversial. FrodoBaggins (blackhat999) (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The two topics are different but related. The common name is still sanity testing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain. Right now the other term is used as a redirect for the current article title, suggesting that the topic associated with either term is one and the same. Could you please point me to sources that use one term or the other for one meaning or the other? I'm pretty sure "sanity check" is by far the more familiar term than "sanity testing" because it is the term I have encountered in my own reading about checking mathematics steps (the topic of the current article) and it is much more represented in published books. The term now used as the article title is the least used term found in the literature (it is barely found in the literature at all). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know. You'd have to ask the individual who created the other article as a redirect in 2006: . Both "sanity test" and "sanity testing" are common in the software development world and it has a different meaning than sanity check. Compare "sanity test and sanity check at StickyMinds.com, the largest software testing site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. As a sanity check, you can run an ngrams search. Red Slash 22:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Sniff test" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sniff_test&redirect=no Sniff test] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sanity check


text:
Single-track vehicle

A single-track vehicle is a vehicle that leaves a single ground track as it moves forward. Single-track vehicles usually have little or no lateral stability when stationary but develop it when moving forward or controlled. In the case of wheeled vehicles, the front and rear wheel usually follow slightly different paths when turning or when out of alignment.

Single-track vehicles have unique dynamics that, in the case of wheeled vehicles, are discussed at length in bicycle and motorcycle dynamics, that usually require leaning into a turn, and that usually include countersteering. Single-track vehicles can roll on wheels, slide, float, or hydroplane.

Wheeled

 * bicycle, tandem bicycle, tall bike, and recumbent bicycle
 * motorcycle, scooter, and feet forward motorcycle
 * gyrocar and gyro monorail
 * kick scooter
 * unicycle, self-balancing unicycle, Uno (dicycle), and monowheel
 * inline skate and roller ski (when only one is in contact with the ground or when the second follows behind the first)

Sliding

 * the snowboard and monoski
 * the skirider
 * the ice skate (when only one is in contact with the ice or when the second follows behind the first)

Intermittent contact

 * the pogo stick
 * the bipedal robot

Hydroplaning

 * the slalom water ski
 * the wakeboard

Narrow-track vehicle
A vehicle is approximately single-track when the axle track is small enough with respect to the center of mass height to require leaning into a turn. Countersteering may or may not be required.
 * the skateboard and all its varieties, such as the snakeboard
 * the surfboard
 * the caster board (when the rear wheel closely follows the front wheel)
 * the Uno dicycle

title: Single-track vehicle


text:
PSOLA

PSOLA (Pitch Synchronous Overlap and Add) is a digital signal processing technique used for speech processing and more specifically speech synthesis. It can be used to modify the pitch and duration of a speech signal. It was invented around 1986.

PSOLA works by dividing the speech waveform in small overlapping segments. To change the pitch of the signal, the segments are moved further apart (to decrease the pitch) or closer together (to increase the pitch). To change the duration of the signal, the segments are then repeated multiple times (to increase the duration) or some are eliminated (to decrease the duration). The segments are then combined using the overlap add technique.

PSOLA can be used to change the prosody of a speech signal.

title: PSOLA


text:
User talk:Ecikven

Once the Basic Test is complete and Basic Test Record is Available. The module will be delivered for Sanity test. Purpose of the Sanity Test is to verify that the product is in a state where Function test cases can be executed. Duration of this test is ONE DAY. Scope of this test:

1.	Installation Instruction, SAG and CD are available. 2.	Inspection of BT record. 3.	Module can be installed 4.	Start and Stop can be performed 5.	All the relevant processes are up and running Based on success/Failure of the Sanity Test considering the above mentioned five points, the Modules goes either to the State FT Drop1 or back to the Design team

title: User talk:Ecikven


text:
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) is the presiding officer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The chairman is the highest-ranking and most senior military officer in the United States Armed Forces and the principal military advisor to the president, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and the secretary of defense. While the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff outranks all other commissioned officers, the chairman is prohibited by law from having operational command authority over the armed forces; however, the chairman assists the president and the secretary of defense in exercising their command functions.

The chairman convenes the meetings and coordinates the efforts of the Joint Chiefs, an advisory body within the Department of Defense comprising the chairman, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chief of staff of the Army, the commandant of the Marine Corps, the chief of naval operations, the chief of staff of the Air Force, the chief of space operations, and the chief of the National Guard Bureau. The post of a statutory and permanent Joint Chiefs of Staff chair was created by the 1949 amendments to the National Security Act of 1947. The 1986 Goldwater–Nichols Act elevated the chairman from the first among equals to becoming the "principal military advisor" to the president and the secretary of defense.

The Joint Staff, managed by the director of the Joint Staff and consisting of military personnel from all the services, assists the chairman in fulfilling his duties to the president and secretary of defense, and functions as a conduit and collector of information between the chairman and the combatant commanders. The National Military Command Center (NMCC) is part of the Joint Staff operations directorate (J-3).

Although the office of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is considered very important and highly prestigious, neither the chairman, the vice chairman, nor the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a body has any command authority over combatant forces. The Goldwater–Nichols Act places the operational chain of command from the president to the secretary of defense directly to the commanders of the unified combatant commands. However the service chiefs do have authority over personnel assignments and oversight over resources and personnel allocated to the combatant commands within their respective services (derived from the service secretaries).

The chairman may also transmit communications to the combatant commanders from the president and secretary of defense as well as allocate additional funding to the combatant commanders if necessary. The chairman also performs all other functions prescribed under or allocates those duties and responsibilities to other officers in the joint staff.

The current chairman is General Charles Q. Brown Jr., who assumed office on 1 October 2023, having been ceremonially sworn in on 29 September.

Organization and assistants

The principal deputy to the chairman is the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), another four-star general or admiral, who among many duties chairs the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC).

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is assisted by the Joint Staff, led by the director of the Joint Staff, a three-star general or admiral. The Joint Staff is an organization composed of approximately equal numbers of officers contributed by the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force who have been assigned to assist the chairman with the unified strategic direction, operation, and integration of the combatant land, naval, air, and space forces. The National Military Command Center (NMCC) is part of the Joint Staff operations directorate (J-3).

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is also advised on enlisted personnel matters by the senior enlisted advisor to the chairman, who serves as a communication conduit between the chairman and the senior enlisted advisors (command sergeants major, command master chief petty officers, and command chief master sergeants) of the combatant commands.

Precursor
Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, USN, served as the chief of staff to the commander in chief of the Army and Navy from 20 July 1942 to 21 March 1949. He presided over meetings of what was called the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Leahy's office was the precursor to the post of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Appointment and rank

The chairman is nominated by the president for appointment from any of the regular components of the armed forces, and must be confirmed via majority vote by the Senate. The chairman and vice chairman may not be members of the same armed force service branch. However, the president may waive that restriction for a limited period of time in order to provide for the orderly transition of officers appointed to serve in those positions. The chairman serves a single four-year term of office at the pleasure of the president, with reappointment to additional terms only possible during times of war or national emergency.

Historically, the chairman served two two-year terms, until the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 amended the chairman's term of office to a single four-year term. By statute, the chairman is appointed as a four-star general or admiral while holding office and assumes office on 1 October of odd-numbered years.

Although the first chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Omar Bradley, was eventually awarded a fifth star, the CJCS does not receive one by right, and Bradley's award was so that his subordinate, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, would not outrank him. In the 1990s, there were proposals in Department of Defense academic circles to bestow on the chairman a five-star rank.

Previously during the presidency of Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff position was rotated in accordance with the incumbent chairman's armed force service branch. In this rotation, the incoming chairman would be from a different service branch. For example, in 1957, following the retirement of Admiral Arthur Radford as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, President Eisenhower nominated Air Force general Nathan Twining as Radford's successor. When General Twining retired, Eisenhower nominated Army general Lyman Lemnitzer to succeed Twining as chairman.

In October 1962, when President Kennedy appointed Army general Maxwell Taylor as General Lemnitzer's successor, Kennedy eventually broke the traditional rotation for the position between the Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Army. Kennedy replaced a chairman who was from the Army with another general who was also from the Army. At that time, Kennedy should have appointed either Air Force chief of staff General Curtis LeMay, chief of naval operations Admiral George Anderson Jr., or commandant of the Marine Corps General David Shoup to succeed General Lemnitzer as the fifth chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since that, the traditional rotation was abolished.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was an Army general for three consecutive terms from 1960 to 1970: General Lemnitzer served as chairman from 1960 until 1962. Lemnitzer was replaced by Army general Maxwell Taylor, who served from 1962 until 1964. Taylor was replaced by Army general Earle Wheeler, who served from 1964 until 1970. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was also an Army general for three consecutive terms from 1989 to 2001: Army general Colin Powell served as chairman from 1989 until 1993 and was succeeded by Army general John Shalikashvilli, who served from 1993 until 1997. When General Shalikashvilli retired in 1997, he was also succeeded by Army general Hugh Shelton, who served from 1997 until 2001.

According to the Monthly Rates of Basic Pay for commissioned officers, effective January 1, 2023, basic pay is limited to the rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive Schedule in effect during calendar year 2023, which is $17,675.10 per month for officers at pay grades O-7 through O-10. This includes officers serving as chairman or vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, chief of staff of the Army, chief of naval operations, chief of staff of the Air Force, commandant of the Marine Corps, chief of space operations, commandant of the Coast Guard, chief of the National Guard Bureau, or the commanders of the unified combatant commands.

Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by branches of service within the Department of Defense

 * Army: 10
 * Air Force: 5
 * Navy: 4
 * Marine Corps: 2
 * Space Force: 0

title: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff