text:
Talk:Grimm's law

A Grammar of Modern Indo-European
The text is practically the same as the one you can find in A Grammar of Modern Indo-European (v.3.30), pages 43-45. You can check the book here. They do mention the Wikipedia as one of their resources in the bibliography at the end of the book. But I don't know what came first. --62.57.230.59 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pull or Push?
The article presents the change of proto-Indo-European voiceless stops into voiceless fricatives as the event which "pushed" the whole system in that direction. Isn't there another, more popular theory according to which the loss of aspiration in voiced aspirated stops "pulled" the system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staseman (talk • contribs) 04:02, 20 April 2006

 * Can you cite a source and explain how that might have worked? Oh, and please get yourself a username if you want to take part in discussion. --Doric Loon 14:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

An username is not required or obliged to take part in any discussion Doric. Sander 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but it helps. It's a courtesy. --Doric Loon 23:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

 * To return to the beginning question, it is rarely possible, after the fact, to tell whether a shift was pushed or pulled. As the shift is actually going on, it is (theoretically) possible to clock variation and frequencies, and/or note that (say) voiceless stops are getting more and more aspirated. Under most circumstances the issue has little interest (as is true of most "functional" so-called explanations of phonological change: they sound nifty in formulation, but in actual practice contribute little or nothing). Indeed, even the concept of phases adds little to the discussion. At most one might say, for instance, that the change of voiced stops to voiceless ones can't have gone to completion before the (original) voicless stops started to move. But Pre-Germanic could well have gone through a phase when some (shifted) voiceless stops still alternated with voiced ones (say, varying with register or age or whatever) while another set (the original voiceless ones) didn't alternate, with the fricativization coming along only later.
 * Put differently, we have some idea of what cannot have happened, but very little idea of what probably happened, beyond the fact of the three-way shift itself. Declaring that voiceless stops became fricatives first of all is to claim to know more than we do. Alsihler 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How would a specific user name make his/her question more courteous? And how would it help understanding the question? Admonishing someone for transgressing a non-existent rule seems like needless antagonism and discourteous in itself.

Gw
Does always become /w/, rather than /gw/? If so it should be removed from the table, as it doesn't exactly show Grimm's Law in action. --Ptcamn 00:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes and no. It only needs some clarification. The.
 * —Frankly, the "wife" example is really, really weak. I've never seen a remotely convincing etymology for the Germanic forms: Kluge opts for *weyp- "hide, cover" (with elaborate discussion about why she might be veiled ... and neuter besides), which is also Pokorny's and Partidge's preference, though the latter mixes it up with *weyb- "vibrate"; the OED laconically says (correctly) "of obscure origin". As for the example in the article, I can find no mention of a root . And more to the point, there is an excellent etymology for the taking, viz., "hot, warm", PGmc *warmaz > OE wearm etc., etc. = Latin formus (not attested apart from Paulus-Festus, alas), Sanskrit gharma- "heat", etc. Alsihler 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The University of Texas, Austin seems to believe it generally turned to *g in Germanic, They don't show any examples from *gwher in common English, but the Germanic words given have a modern derivation in German "gerben" (prepare leather). If *gwhen would cause Germanic *gunð, English has the modern derivation "gun", originally borrowed from Old Norse, for a type of large weapon. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The "wife" etymology isn't all that weak. It's clearly unusual that this word for "woman" is neuter, unlike other Proto-Germanic words for women, so the idea of a metonymy "vulva" > "woman" is not unmotivated. The example *warmaz is hardly better, because there is also the verb *werH- "to be hot", so there is no guarantee that it contains an original labiovelar stop. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

?
Which is the correct transcription?

Greek transliteration
What transliteration scheme is it that renders πούς as pūs? I would think it would be pous. 24.159.255.29 00:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

 * No, ού is in fact transliterated as ū. Greeks already pronounced the diphthong that way in the Classical period of Greek, even though they always spelled it OU. That's the accepted transliteration, and it holds in modern linguistics. RokasT 11:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I BEG to differ! There seems to be a confusion here between transcription (phonemic or otherwise) and transliteration. A translteration is a system for rendering each character of the original in an unambiguous way in a different signary. It doesn't have to be one-to-one (θ = th etc. is kosher), but the more straightforward and consistent the transliteration the better. Now, regarding the case in hand, we know that the sequence ou in Greek eventually became /ū/, but it is historically the outcome both of the diphthong *ow and secondary lengthening of *o. Besides, if you're going to take it on yourself to interpret Greek ou as ū, then presumably you would also render ei sometimes as ē and sometimes as ey depending on which it stood for in the original. And what about "iota subscripts"? Pretend they aren't there (which in a way is what the standard Greek orthography means)? In any case, I'm unfamiliar with any school of historical linguistics that would treat Greek transliteration in such a way, so far from it being "accepted" as a standard transliteration. Alsihler 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Your prayers have been heard. --RokasT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

/x/
Anyone think there should be a note somewhere that /k/ became /x/ before advancing to /h/? I'm inclined to think so, since it has implications for Verner's law. 24.159.255.29 01:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it must have. In fact, we don't really know when it did become /h/: it might well have been [x] in Gothic, at least in some positions. And note that e.g. *hr in word-initial position becomes kr in Scandinavian languages, which implies (but does not prove) that in a word like *hringaz "ring" it was something more than an ordinary [h]. Alsihler 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"hvað"
I'm pretty sure that Icelandic "hvað" is not an example for the *kʷ→hw shift, since it's still pronounced with a /k/ (even though it's not written that way). I'll remove this. -- Schnee (cheeks clone)

 * A little learning is a dangerous thing. hvað is indeed the direct descendent of PGmc *hʷat-aⁿ (< *kʷod-ōm). It's probably not the best idea in any case to cite Icelandic, since Old Norse hvat does just as well (and isn't going to stir up irrelevant arguments about pronunciations that are 2,000 years too late).

 * In general, I find both that the etyma are poorly chosen (why trot out a contested and implausible set to demonstrate the reflexes of *gʷh when there are far clearer ones lying around?) and that the presentation the cognate forms as cited is questionable in detail. As hinted above, the Greek transliteration is unacceptable; forms of different meaning are sometimes glossed and sometimes not (Skt pāda is presented as meaning "foot", by implication; it does get that meaning, late, but earlier it meant "quarter", that is, "leg", of an animal), there are many small fluffs of detail (Latin "vivus" should have ī, and so on and on). I suppose someone (sigh, meaning me) should take the stuff in hand. I don't know how hard to be on the creator of the table, though the business about a root *gʷhíbh- (presumably a typo for gʷhībh-; and his or her discussion of it) has gone far to alienate my sympathies; whether or not the connection between the Germanic and Tocharian forms is valid, the other supposed cognates are both wrong (they reflect PIE *gʷenH₂- "woman") and are cited in a botched transliteration. Two of a trade never agree, and so on, and that goes double for historical linguists, but some things are out of place in what is supposed to be a rehearsal of basic principles. I'm working on a substantial revision.  Alsihler 22:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

 * hvað with a /k/ in front is a recent development, it was /x/ before that, with maybe some speakers still pronouncing it that way. 68.188.31.26 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian for 'foot'
Yesterday I commented in the Grimm's Law article that 'pod' is not the Russian for 'foot'. My comment had disappeared by this afternoon, without explanation. If Russian 'pod' is indeed considered cognate with English 'foot', Latin 'pes' etc., because of its meanings 'hearth', 'floor' and 'under', should not one of these meanings be stated in the article (perhaps in brackets immediately after the word) as justification? Levka 16:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Please read the summary of the revert: "Undid revision 108885647 by Levka (talk) This is talk page material, not article material" You do not make comments directly to article pages (unless they're commented out with: <!-- comment here -->.  This is because articles are not the place for a discussion such as this.  This talk page is the proper place for such discussion.

 * Addressing your real question, the words "Knight" and "Knecht" are both cognates of each other, yet mean fairly different things in both languages. We're not attempting to establish the similarity of meanings, but rather simply presenting a list of words that are cognates to those words.  If you feel that the Russian entries are confusing, and misleading, and you know that the current meaning of the word, is different from the cognate that you're comparing it to, you can put it in parentheses: "Russian: pod (hearth, floor, under), ..." in order to remove that misleading nature.  It is however not considered acceptable to attempt to discuss an issue directly on the article page. --Puellanivis 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Puellanivis, for your patience with a newcomer to Wikipedia. Please accept my apologies for breaching the established etiquette – I should have studied it more carefully before leaping in!

I do of course realise that cognates will often have acquired quite divergent meanings over the centuries, which is precisely why I think it would be helpful occasionally to give meanings in parentheses, particularly when the majority of the words cited still share a basic meaning (e.g. "foot").

Finally, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say in your reply above "...you can put it in parentheses...". Are you actually inviting me now to make this insertion in your article? If so, I will gladly do it.

Best wishes, Levka 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, it's not "my" article, it's our article. I am by no means an expert on Grimm's Law, so if you know something that I don't, it would be great to see you add it to the article.  :) --Puellanivis 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Peg/ Baculum?
According to Chambers' Dictionary of Etymology "peg" is borrowed from Middle Dutch "pegge" and is of uncertain origin after that. Deman7001 17:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If no one else disapproves, I would like to change the words in the table. Perhaps this could be changed to English warp, virbas(it's either Sanskrit or Lithuanian I can't remember). I'm still looking for a most ideal example. I checked the German page and it has Pegel listed as cognate with baculum, but I don't think peg is cognate with Pegel or that Pegel is cognate with baculum either. I checked an German online Etymological dictionary and Pegel doesn't appear. Also, one would expect that if peg and Pegel were cognates that Pegel would have shifted to Fegel or Pfegel.Deman7001 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

 * No problem with your change if you like it better: warp is most closely related to German werfen (throw), and is cognate with Latin verber, whence English reverberate. You have to be careful with a /p/ in final position, because it can be a Germanic /b/ which has been subject to terminal devoicing; so initial or medial position are safer, but in this case it does seem to be a Germanic /p/ resulting from Grimm's law.  But peg was also fine.  Yes, it is borrowed from Dutch, but that is also a Germanic language and therefore does not affect its relevance.  According to Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch, German Pegel IS cognate with peg.  As you know, the High German consonant shift moved p > pf in initial position, so any High German word beginning with a non-affricated /p/ must be a loan word.  In fact, Pegel is taken from Low German, which is very close to Dutch, so that tallies nicely.  The trouble is, good examples of a Germanic /p/ are hard to find.  The symmetry of Grimm's law demands that there must have been an original IE unaspirated /b/ which became /p/ in Germanic, but it seems to have been a very rare phoneme in PIE, and Calvert Watkin's dictionary, which I happen to have beside me, only knows seven IE roots beginning with it - all of which have some question mark or peculiarity attached to them.  Some scholars have questioned whether IE had the phoneme at all.  On balance, I think it probably did.  But we will always be struggling to demonstrate it with examples as clear as the father/pater or thou/tu pairs.  --Doric Loon 08:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Simplifying the table
Apparently people don't know what "The most illustrative examples are used here." means, adding things that are shifted by separate sound changes and so don't illustrate Grimm's law very well. I suggest we include only English on the Germanic side (English is conveniently conservative with respect to Grimm's law), and maybe Greek and/or Sanskrit on the unshifted side. Thoughts? --Ptcamn 08:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And why on earth is φρατήρ commented out? --Ptcamn 08:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is to only include "illustrative examples", "φ" would be pronounced as a voiceless labiodental fricative or an aspirated voiceless bilabial plosive. To include cognates with other sound shifts than Germanic muddles things, and complicates the point. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

When did this occur?
Hi, when in pre-history did this sound-change occur? --Kjoonlee 23:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am currently studying the 'Grimm's Law' at the university and in my textbook 'Klaus Weimann, Einführung ins Altenglische (Introduction into Old English), Heidelberg Wiesbaden, 1995' there is also /bh, dh, gh/ to /v, ?, j/. ? = the voiced form of th (Sorry, can't find the correct symbol, but I hope everybody understands what I mean). My point is therefore that the author was totally ignored this part of the Grimm's Law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.237.35 (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Dating Grimm's Law
I am currently working on several Germanic-related articles. My research has led me to compose a short passage relating to the dating of Grimm's law. It appears below with notes:

There is growing consensus among researchers that the First Sound Shift took place around 500 BCE. One argument used to substantiate this date observes that the Greek word for hemp (kánnabis) appears to have been borrowed into that and other Indo-European languages sometime around the 5th century BCE from a hitherto unidentified but purportedly non-Indo-European source in the form *kanab-. Based on the cognates of the word in attested Germanic daughter languages (Old English hænep, Old High German hanaf, Old Icelandic hampr) it is assumed that the Proto-Germanic form of the word was *hanapaz. According to this reconstruction, it would appear that the word entered the Proto-Germanic vocabulary prior to the First Sound Shift. Assuming that hemp became known in both regions at or around the same time, the First Sound Shift can thus be considered to have taken place no earlier than the 5th century BCE.

Comments
If someone would like to include this information here, I can post the full citations for the references. There is also an original argument offered by van Coetsem (1994) which involves extra-linguistic evidence (Celtic in particular), but I have not been able to locate an occurence of its being cited in other work. With that being said, I view van Coetsem's argument to be the stronger of the two. If interested, please contact me on my userpage. Aryaman (☼) 17:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensability of the table - adjusting the column order.
Two suggestions for the tables:

1. Generally, we are trained to think in terms of time moving forward and represented as moving from left to right in diagrams or other representations on a page. The older becomes the newer, the earlier pronunciation changes into the more recent pronunciation.

With this in mind, I think the table would be more understandable, more intuitive, if the column order was changed. The columns would then also reflect the order in which the symbolic examples are given and the order in which the process actually took place.

Additionally, internal consistency within the table is easier to understand.

Note that column 1 states: *p→f But then the language examples reverse that order, citing the shifted examples before (to the left of) the non-shifted original state. So the example order conflicts with the rule's order.

To resolve both these issues, I think the column of older non-shifted forms should appear to the left of the column of the newer shifted forms.

2. Not as critical, but perhaps more logical in terms of process, would be to put the symbolic rule in the middle column. So, one would read a row like this:

Col 1 | Col 2 | Col 3

"the old state" | "underwent this change" | "to the new state."

Hlaufman (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian "hva" *kʷ→hw
Some dialectal Norwegian still uses *kʷ "kva" in speech instead of hw "hva". Don't know if it's relevant. /per —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.0.201 (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Gaelic"
What exactly is meant by "gaelic" in the Non-Germanic (unshifted) cognates column? It is not Irish\Gaelic, but the examples given are extremely close to it. Is it the common root of all the Goidelic languages? Bogger (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

 * These are the Scottish Gaelic forms. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Source(s) for Tocharian Cognates
Might I ask for sources for the Tocharian cognates of wife? I'll happily add this information to the entry once I come upon a good hard source. Dr. C.S. Lewis-Barrie, Ph.D. (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's from Calvert Watkins' appendix of Indo-European Roots to the American Heritage Dictionary. Apparently, there are no other known cognates, and both the phonetic and semantic shifts seem to be unusual, so it seems wildly disputed. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hidden cognates
I re-hid the less illustrative cognates once again. I know they are correct, but it would be confusing for a layman to see a bunch of examples shifted in (for a layman) haphazard ways. This shouldn't be a list to show all known cognates to words, but the most illustrative examples for explaining Grimm's law, in particular. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Question.
Why does it say that *b→p and then show English: warp; Swedish: värpa; Dutch: werpen; Icelandic, Faroese: varpa and shows the Latin version as verber. Should it not be v→w or something? 98.27.163.188 (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aaahh, the v/w distinction isn't primarily phonetic, as much as ortographic. Apparently both Latin and Proto-Germanic is believed to have had one single v-sound /w/ (as in wait). The distinction here is between warp and verber, but the problem is that *b was such a rare phoneme in PIE, that it's difficult to find good examples. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

CHaracter set ?
Many of the characters in the table are appearing as filler symbols rather like a very fat lower-case "L". Is there some "proper" character set we are supposed to have loaded for these pages to display correctly? And how do we make certain our browser uses it in this instance?
 * Install Unicode, I think that should fix it. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Viv
"Viv" was dialectal/poetic only in Swedish since at least 1922 (http://runeberg.org/svetym/1230.html) I have never heard it, "Fru" or "Dam" are always used instead. Please remove if it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.86.193.9 (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a list of cognates, not necessarily common words. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirect from Great consonant shift
I propose redirecting the article Great consonant shift here. Please see Talk:Great consonant shift for discussion. +Angr 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Grimm's law is certainly related to the Great consonant shift article, but does make a clear distinction between the First and Second shifts. The new article Great consonant shift is intended to be a short summary for the beginner. Although it is a stub and needs more material for both shifts, the massive detail in the Grimm's law article is for people who have more than a beginner's knowledge of the subject. I added a "Main article" link to the Grimm's law article. Greensburger (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion centralized at Talk:Great consonant shift. +Angr 13:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged first non-trivial
Some of the consonant laws in the Semitic group are non-trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.226.52 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the first to be explicitly discovered, not to occur. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 18:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Spanish example words
Hello, I have given Spanish examples for practically every Germanic word in the 'non Germanic' section to the right of the page; they have disappeared today with no explanation. I can also notice that no Romance language examples are being accepted as examples, being those the retainers of more than one IE feature not already present in Germanic. I have observed in latter years a biasing towards Germanic when it comes to IE research, and wouldn't like to think that Wikipedia follows that trail.

Spanish example words
Hello, I have given Spanish examples for practically every Germanic word in the 'non Germanic' section to the right of the page; they have disappeared today with no explanation. I can also notice that no Romance language examples are being accepted as examples, being those the retainers of more than one IE feature not already present in Germanic. I have observed in latter years a biasing towards Germanic when it comes to IE research, and wouldn't like to think that Wikipedia follows that trail. Druiweplukker (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was the one to remove them (with an explanation, but also as a minor edit, which may have hidden it from you?). I would think having Latin examples covers the Italic branch adequately. You may also note we don't have any examples from Hindi, Bengali, Modern Greek, Albanian, Welsh, etc. The idea is not to list every known cognate, just sufficiently many to demonstrate non-occurrence elsewhere.
 * Also, a Germanic focus in an article that's about a Germanic sound change is hardly a bias.-- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, your point sounds logical; but I have seen Spanish hardly ignored when exemplifying about IE, not to mention Portuguese or Italian, much less covered. There is also a good deal of Gothic-origin words here, such as escanciar (skagkjan, to pour) and Rodrigo (Roderick) or Alfonso (Alafuns), so we could deepen into what's the scope of Germanic, but there would not be any point on it I guess. I didn't happen to see the explanation, but it's OK as you have given plenty of it. Also, interesting profile that of yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Druiweplukker (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This sound change has also affected the English language, as many latin loan words arrived both directly from latin and indirectly (shifted) via German. English often indicates the loan source in the spelling. I would think that it would be useful for many readers to see the removed spanish cognates if they illucidate similar phenomena.OrenBochman (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Two questions
1) Did the shift cause any clashes at the end of the chain that we know of? Like p... shifting to f... clashing with a pre-existing f...? 2) Are there any known exceptional words? Words that didn't shift, where not imported from other languages, and are not covered by the exception rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 * There was no pre-existing "ɸ" or "f" before the changes. There were various contextual partial exceptions (such as that the shifts did not apply after "s") and later complications (such as Verner's law), but Grimm's law itself does not seem to have neutralized contrasts... AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

merge Great consonant shift into Grimm's law?
Angr proposed to merge these two articles on June 16, 2009, but did not initiate a discussion nor state the reasons for his merge. I'm not really an expert on this subject, so I am not certain how to go about merging the two articles. But this should be dealt with soon, as the merge request is outstanding for over three years now. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? WTF? (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not much to merge, I'd just blank it and redirect it to Grimm's law.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's discussion at "Redirect from Great consonant shift" directly above. Maybe make it a disambiguation page... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the previous discussion even User:Greensburger who started the former appears to consider it a "layman introduction" into the same topic. I think easing on the technicalities in this article would be a better way to reach the same goal. So yeah, not much to actually merge from there. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page would be better because Grimm's law and the High German consonant shift have very little to do with each other, other than that they both affected German and involved a chain shift of consonants. It would be misleading to have a single page treat them both as though they were somehow related. CodeCat (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WTF (That's a vocative, not an interjection), I did initiate a discussion and state the reasons. It's all at Talk:Great consonant shift. I've reopened the discussion there in the form of an RFC at Talk:Great consonant shift. Please discuss this there so we don't have different people discussing it in different places. Angr (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Effect on geminates?
The Indo-European word *átta and its Germanic descendants show that Grimm's law preserves geminate plosives (at least -tt-) and does not turn them into fricatives. I believe geminates were rather rare in PIE, but a few did exist so what effect did Grimm's law have on them? It seems likely to me, from a common sense point of view at least, that geminates were devoiced, but did not become fricatives; after all, why would a language that devoices voiced plosives keep them when geminated even though this would have been (at the time of the chance) a non-phonemic distinction? Are there any sources that consider this question and give examples? CodeCat (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

 * "Atta" was originally a kind of baby-talk word (meaning "daddy", not actually "father"), and such don't always follow normal sound changes, so I'm not sure that I'd deduce too much from it. There were few geminated stops within roots or stems in Indo-European, but when t + t came together across a morpheme boundary, the first "t" affricated or assibilated, as seen in a number of forms in Greek (including dental consonant final middle-voice perfects), in Latin ēst "he eats", etc. AnonMoos (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 * *atta is the only PIE word I can think of that has a geminate, but there may be more that I'm not aware of. I don't think it still was a baby talk word in Germanic, as it became the normal word for father in Gothic. Sound laws are normally considered exceptionless (Grimm's law certainly is!) so if this word was not affected, it must be part of the law. CodeCat (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 * But in non-Gothic Germanic, pater-cognates prevailed. Here's something which comes from a rather unreliable source (all I can find right now by Googling), but which I think is probably true nevertheless: [Geminates] "appear mostly in words of expressive origin, children vocabulary, onomatopoeia, etc., which makes it more likely that PIE inherited gemination mainly as an expressive resource, different from its central phonological system"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "I don't think it still was a baby talk word in Germanic, as it became the normal word for father in Gothic": just because it became the normal word for father, that doesn't mean it wasn't a baby talk word before. The common Brythonic words for father and mother (Welsh tad and mam and something similar in Cornish and Breton), both started out as baby talk words, *tata and *mamma, and I'm sure there are plenty of examples from other languages. Angr (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

True, but...
After all, you must admit that the Germans and other Nordish tribes implemented a great amount of latin languages into their vocabulary. Sure, they've chosen to say it differently due to their different tongues. But the worlds mostly - if not all - came from the greek and latin vocabulary. Does this proof the indo-european language thesis? Not at all, it just proves that languages were more dynamic in the past than we could ever imagine nowadays: They interchanged words very heavily, especially from the South to the North, from "high culture" to "low culture". --178.197.227.192 (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

 * No, the words did not mostly come from Greek and Latin. There are some Greek and Latin loanwords in the oldest Germanic languages, but really not very many. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

 * 178.197.227.192 -- There are no attested Greek or Latin loanwords during the proto-Germanic period, when Grimm's Law was in operation, and Germanic speakers were presumably mainly located in southern Scandinavia, and not in any kind of direct contact with Mediterranean civilizations. AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

 * 178.197.227.192, stop using that shit. The Germanics in ancient times didn't borrow anything from the so-called "civilization" - they didn't even have a written language (runes) untill 2 AD, they didn't really needed it. The maximum of peaceful interaction is trade. Like the Celts, they were free and fearless people, not cowards behind stone walls. I would say that the further north the "higher" culture - it was a completely oral and living phenomenon for all tribesmens, unlike the "civilized" southerners, where whole culture was available only to a few percent of literate people who could read Livius or Homer poems.

MHG wülpe
Currently the article claims there was a Middle High German word wülbe "she-wolf" and cites Kuiper (1995) for it. I don't have access to the paper, but someone else does and says Kuiper claimed no such thing; instead Kuiper cited Middle High German wülpe and derived it from Proto-Germanic *wulƀjō- (in his transcription). By West Germanic gemination, this would have become Proto-West-Germanic *wulbbij-, nominative singular *wulbbī, which regularly yielded MHG wülpe (compare modern Standard German Rippe "rib", Sippe "extended family"). **Wülbe doesn't seem to be attested anywhere.

If this isn't fixed in a month, I'll just delete it – unless I can improve on it after reading this paper (German is my native language). David Marjanović (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The West Germanic gemination only applied after -j-, which only occurred after light syllables because of Sievers' law. After heavy syllables -ij- appeared, which did not cause gemination. So not only is -ulbj- not possible in Proto-Germanic, but -ulb(i)j- could never undergo gemination. If it did, it would be the only attestation of this in all of West Germanic, so that would need some very convincing sourcing to be any more than a badly researched fringe theory. CodeCat (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Oops. But anyway, Seebold (1967: 129) reconstructed PGmc. *wulgw-ī-/jō to explain ON ylgr, adding (my translation): "In the remaining Germanic dialects the root-final consonant has been assimilated to that of 'wolf'." PGmc. *b is, according to that paper, the regular outcome in initial position and only there. David Marjanović (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Also, are you aware that b > p is a regular part of the High German consonant shift in Upper German dialects? CodeCat (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I natively speak an Upper German dialect. Today at least, /b d g/ are voiceless lenes (except in the Carinthian dialects, because those have reinterpreted the entire sound system in Slovene terms) – all the way to Austrian Standard German, incidentally (Carinthians try to devoice their lenes when speaking it, often either failing or overshooting and landing at the fortes). When I started learning French, I had to consciously learn to articulate voiced obstruents ([z] included, but I digress)! I strongly suspect the voiceless lenes go straight back to the High German consonant shift, and the Old Bavarian spellings with p and k (also Lombardic crapworf "the crime of 'throwing' a corpse out of a grave") only indicate this voicelessness, perhaps because the Romance dialects spoken in the same areas had voiced [b d g], perhaps because Latin was taught with a Romance (or Old Irish...) pronunciation and everyone who was literate at all had learned to read & write in Latin, perhaps both.
 * Notker (Old Alemannic) did use b d g in some environments, but his famous spelling rule presupposes that b d g were voiceless nonetheless.
 * By Middle High German times, however, the spellings were much more regularized; I wouldn't expect p for /b/ anymore.
 * David Marjanović (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't assume that. After all, the devoicing d > t was reflected in Middle High German spelling, so presumably the g > k and b > p changes of Upper German were reflected the same way. CodeCat (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a devoicing either. Modern northern German (including northern Standard accents) has syllable-final fortition; southwestern German wouldn't show traces either way due to various lenition phenomena across the board, except maybe in Walser dialects that are beyond me; southeastern versions like mine have no trace of syllable- or word-final phenomena; epic MHG, based on a Swabian (southwestern but not too southern) dialect, spelled out word-final fortition, but that doesn't mean d was voiced.
 * On the other hand, many place names and elements in personal names still begin with p, and the oldest attestation of potatoes in Upper Austria (from 1644: ertöpfl) has t for /d/. To return to your actual point, then, I don't have another explanation for the p in wülpe.
 * David Marjanović (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, you mean the change from Proto-West-Germanic *d to t. That's a qualitatively different thing: this *d must have been the voiced plosive [d], while *b must have been [β] or [v] in most positions and *g certainly was [ɣ] in almost all positions. Maybe the High German consonant shift changed voiced plosives into fortes, and voiced fricatives into lenis plosives. That would explain why *d and *dd behaved identically (t, tt), while *b and *bb as well as *g and *gg show a split (b, pp, g, cc/ck). I have wondered if short *b and *g did at first split, too, becoming p and c/k in the positions where they were already plosives (behind nasals, at least *b also word-initially), and then the complementary distribution was averaged out; but in order to test that hypothesis I'd need to study basically all surviving Old Bavarian and Old Alemannic writings, and I have no way of doing that, LOL.
 * David Marjanović (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note to self: Seebold's (1967) summary: 1) PIE *gʷʰ- becomes PGmc *b-, except before *-u-, where it becomes *g- (boukólos rule, not explicitly mentioned by Seebold). 2) PIE *-gʷʰ-, and *-kʷ- affected by Verner's law, become: a) PGmc *-h- before *-t-. b) pre-PGmc *-gw- behind nasals, possibly later simplified to *-g- before *-u-, *-ō-, *-j-, *-r-, *-l-, *-n-; *-gw- may also have been the outcome behind liquids, but the only example of that position is Old West Norse ylgr, which – Seebold doesn't say – could have come from *-gw- or from *-g- as far as I can tell. c) pre-PGmc *-w- ~ *-u- before semivowels, liquids and nasals. d) Following the developments b) and c), *-w- is dropped before *-u-, *-ū- and *-ō-; *-g- is dropped behind *-i- and *-e-. 3) Lots of analogical leveling within paradigms and within word families. 4) There are few examples of PIE *gʰw and *gʲʰw, but they are "evidently" treated like *gʷʰ. (No idea how Seebold even wanted to tell *gʰw from *gʰʷ.) David Marjanović (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Ah yes, that was a tiny bit of OR by me, trying to make sense of the *gʷ problem that mystified me myself. It seems wülpe (which I converted from Upper to Standard MHG as wülbe, probably incorrectly) shows the same artikulatorischer Sprung as *wulfaz, and *gʷ when product of Verner voicing (and thus word-internal) never really became *b at all. Sorry for that. How should we proceed now? What do you advise?
 * As for the geminates, it seems Upper German retained them even after "heavy" syllables, so West Germanic *wulbbj° would really become *wülpp°, but MHG then simplified that outcome to wülp° eventually. In any case, the West Germanic geminate *bb always hardened, even in Central German, such as in Sippe and Rippe, as you mentioned.
 * It would seem in any case that the paradigm was something like *wulbī- vs. *wulgjō-z originally, so the introduction of b into the weak cases in West Germanic is clearly secondary. That would mean Seebold is right and there is no problem. However, we would have to assume that the delabialisation prior to *j preceded the artikulatorischer Sprung, as in the weak cases it evidently did not happen.
 * I believe it is sometimes assumed that in Proto-Germanic, Kw clusters were still distinct from labiovelars, but I'm not sure why, either. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Another remark: As far as I'm aware, Middle High German spelling wasn't all that standardised when you look at the actual manuscripts. Indeed, I think that p for Proto-Germanic (and Central/Standard German) b is found word-initially all the way from Bavarian and Alemannic Old High German to the Upper German written language of the early modern period, whence it is still frequently found in place names and surnames, as well as in some Standard German words (such as Pilz) which originally came from Upper German. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone shift this to layman's terms?
Hi,

I love linguistics, but I find this article hard to follow as it seems to be written for linguistics majors. Can someone add more explanations of stops, fricatives, sibilants, shibboleths, geminis, etc., for those who don't quite understand them? ;) DBlomgren (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We have Wikipedia articles for all of those terms. CodeCat (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

History?
I feel like the "History" section of this article is written for linguistics specialists who happen not to be familiar with this topic and want to learn about the history of research on the topic rather than what researchers actually say about the origins of this phenomenon, how it happened, why it happened, when it happened, and where it happened. John McWhorter (in several of his "Great Courses" lecture series) seems to think it originates with native speakers of a Semitic language, possibly Phoenicians, who learned Proto-Germanic en masse, and "badly", and passed their version of the language onto future generations. I this a common view among Germanicists? What do others say? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 * No, that is decidedly not a common view. I would go so far as to describe it as WP:FRINGE. No one knows why Grimms law happened, any more than we know why sounds change in general.—Ermenrich (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that says it's fringe? I'm an "interested layman" (or "hobbyist") when it comes to the historical linguistics of the Germanic languages, but judging by your user page you are as well. Don't get me wrong: I'm not under any impression that "classical Japanese literature" and "medieval German literature" are equidistant from historical linguistics as it relates to the Germanic languages. That's why I'm asking you for clarification rather than assuming you don't know what you're talking about and walking away.
 * McWhorter also does not appear to be a germanicist, but unlike me and apparently you he is a professional linguist, and apparently a reputable enough one that the The Teaching Company have called him back five times to record courses for them. Great Courses have pretty poor coverage of the fields I do have a specialist's knowledge of, but I'm fairly certain that the guy they get to talk about the New Testament and early Christianity (Bart Ehrman) is one of the foremost scholars, if not the foremost scholar, in his field in North America (he also wrote the textbook that is apparently the most widely used in undergraduate courses on the topic in North America), so I'm inclined to believe they commission well-regarded specialists in the fields they are talking about, and said specialists are careful not to present idiosyncratic views as though they were widely held by other scholars. I would hope that, if McWhorter were uncritically presenting a fringe view that was widely rejected by specialists in the field to a mostly lay audience, some colleagues either in Columbia or in a linguistics department at another institution would politely explain to him that he is wrong and he should stop (it does seem that someone corrected him on a number of errors he made in discussion of Japanese that I won't go into, as he didn't repeat those errors in his later courses). The above view has, however, been presented in several of his courses (including the relatively recent "Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths of Language Usage", where several of the errors regarding Japanese were notably absent). One would think that, if the view were being promoted uncritically to a lay audience in such a prominent forum, sources explicitly addressing it as "fringe" would be in no short supply.
 * I should specify that I don't have a dog in this race, and would be very pleased if you could present me with a source that supports your above statement. So far, browsing around Wikipedia, I've found only a 39-page scholarly review of a book that seemingly predates several of the Great Courses series and that (without working through the entire PDF and rather taking Wikipedia's word for it...) appears to present the view that there was a subsumption of a "Vasconic" substrate ancestral to Basque by a Semitic superstrate to form Proto-Germanic, which seems to be saying that Proto-Germanic wasn't an Indo-European language, which I agree is fringe and bears no resemblance to the view seemingly promoted by McWhorter. (On a loosely related note, do you agree with my reading that McWhorter's view appears to be different from that of Theo Vennemann?)
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fringe because basically no one else cites this idea, which originates with Vennemann, not McWhorter. To quote one review by Nelson Goering (which you can find by searching Vennemann Semitic Germanic at Google scholar):
 * Or here:
 * Nostratic is yet another fairly marginal idea in scholarship.
 * If you want a standard account in relatively simple language look at Salmons A History of German or Young and Gloning's A History of German Through Texts. You'll find no mention of this thesis. I believe and  will back me up on this. We just don't know why sound changes happen, however unsatisfying as that may be, and this idea is not the only one accepted by the vast majority of linguistics.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm... okay, someone should really fix Germanic substrate hypothesis (and perhaps Vasconic substrate hypothesis), which appears to date Vennemann's formulation of the hypothesis to the 2003 book, which (given that McWhorter seems to cite it before that date) led me to the assumption that the one McWhorter presented (which, to be clear, I never assumed to be McWhorter's original formulation) was a separate hypothesis. (That combined with the fact that wording of our article implies that Vennemann considers Proto-Germanic to have been "formed" from a subsumption of a Vasconic language by Semitic language rather than a direct descendant of Proto-Indo-European; something I'm still not sure if he did.) That said, thank you! That pretty handily solves my problem as far as this article goes. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that languages were spoken in Northern Europe before the arrival of PIE or rather (pre-)Proto-Germanic speakers, and that these languages might have played a role in the emergence of the characteristic Germanic sound shifts is quite old and dates back to the the first half of the 20th century. Vennemann's and McWhorter's approaches are very similar in this context, as they both draw on documented languages and language families as potential contact languages. This is highly unimaginative since we know from fragmentary evidence that pre-IE Europe must have displayed a linguistic diversity that was completely erased with the sole exception of Basque. An interesting recent piece of research about the topic is this paper.
 * But FWIW, sound change does not have to be triggered by contact. Sound change is mostly internally driven. Contact can be an additional factor, and often change is accelerated by social disruption and periods of population bottlenecks, but usually it just happens. A very interesting and readable source about this is Peter Trudgill's Millennia of Language Change (2020).
 * A word about McWhorter who otherwise is known as anything but unimaginative. He is an established scholar, but that doesn't preclude that some of his bolder ideas are controversial (e.g. his proposal that all languages with an isolating structure have undergone a creolization process) and occasionally utter fringe (e.g. linking the radical typological restructuring of the Central Flores languages to potential contacts with Ebu gogo/Homo florensis!, the paper is accessible via the search bar of Wikipedia Library). –Austronesier (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And yes, Germanic substrate hypothesis needs to be radically rewritten. –Austronesier (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A word about McWhorter who otherwise is known as anything but unimaginative. He is an established scholar, but that doesn't preclude that some of his bolder ideas are controversial (e.g. his proposal that all languages with an isolating structure have undergone a creolization process) and occasionally utter fringe (e.g. linking the radical typological restructuring of the Central Flores languages to potential contacts with Ebu gogo/Homo florensis!, the paper is accessible via the search bar of Wikipedia Library). –Austronesier (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And yes, Germanic substrate hypothesis needs to be radically rewritten. –Austronesier (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Research history
Speaking of this heading: it might be worth noting that the similar sound law *p- > f- in Hungarian was identified a bit earlier (Sajnovics 1770, Gyarmathi 1799) and some histories of linguistics claim this as an inspiration for GL. Any opposition to mentioning this? -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 09:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The pioneering work of Sajnovics and Gyarmathi is mentioned in Comparative_method, but without concrete examples. If RS draw a line from their research to the formulation of Grimm's law, a brief mention here is ok, but the wider context could then also be expanded in Comparative_method. –Austronesier (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grimm's law


text:
File:Susan Werner - Time Between Trains.jpg

Cover for album Time Between Trains by Susan Werner.

Fair use rationale for

 * It is believed that the use of this image on the English-language Wikipedia to illustrate an article on the audio recording in question falls under the "Non-profit educational" clause of the Fair Use doctrine currently upheld by United States law. (17 U.S.C. § 107)
 * The image is irreplaceable; a free analogue is impossible to produce as the original will be covered by copyright for the foreseeable future
 * Owing to the limited web-resolution of the image, only a small portion of a copyrighted work is used
 * For the same reasons, the portion of the copyrighted work used is of inherently lower quality than the original, reducing the risk of competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for or value of versions held by the owner of the copyright

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


text: User talk:67.161.22.244

title: User talk:67.161.22.244


text:
Music of New Brunswick

New Brunswick offers musical entertainment at different venues, including the Harvest Jazz & Blues Festival in Fredericton and Symphony New Brunswick, with its main series occurring in Saint John, Moncton and Fredericton.

Festivals
New Brunswick's capital city is Fredericton, which is home to the Harvest Jazz & Blues Festival, an annual event. The Nashwaak Music Festival is an annual event, featuring Country, Roots and Folk music. Held every New Brunswick Day weekend 20 km north of Fredericton.

The Moncton music scene local Acadian and songwriters as well as concert festivals held at Magnetic Hill Concert Site.

Saint John's main music festival is Area 506, where each summer East Coast musicians gather dock side along the city's harbour.

The city of Miramichi is best known for its country and bluegrass music, featuring a blend of Acadian, Irish and Scot's traditional style of music. The Miramichi Folksong Festival preserves the history and rich musical traditions of northeastern New Brunswick.

Sappyfest is an annual independent festival held in Sackville, New Brunswick founded by Sappy Records.

Country music
The introduction of radio to the province in the 1920s gave local country artists exposure to a wide audience, and several musicians parlayed this exposure into successful musical careers. Radio/television pioneer Don Messer debuted on Saint John station CFBO in 1929, later gaining fame as the host of the popular CBC program Don Messer's Jubilee. Fiddler Ned Landry made his first CFBO appearance in 1934, and would eventually record eight albums with RCA Victor in the 1950s.

New Brunswick has also produced several popular contemporary country artists, including Julian Austin and Chris Cummings.

Notable artists

 * Matt Andersen
 * Measha Brueggergosman
 * Edith Butler
 * Stompin' Tom Connors
 * Eric's Trip
 * Don Messer
 * Natasha St-Pier
 * Roch Voisine
 * Chris Colepaugh
 * David Myles
 * Maestro Fresh Wes
 * Matt Minglewood
 * Ken Tobias
 * Myles Goodwyn
 * Julie Doiron
 * Jeremy Dutcher
 * Brandon Kingston
 * Art Murphy

title: Music of New Brunswick


text:
User talk:Definitive

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
 * Read the tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Hey there. I just noticed that your latest article was imported from another source. If you own or have permission to use the copyright for this material, please indicate this on the talk page of your article. Otherwise, we can't accept it here. If you want to rewrite the article in your own words, please do so on the "/Temp" subpage of the article. Also, regardless of whether this article infringes on copyright, we welcome any other original contributions you may wish to make. Thanks! - Vague | Rant 03:54, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Definitive


text:
User:Zach Cohen

Hello
I completely wrote Chinese Democracy. Yay.

title: User:Zach Cohen


text:
Talk:Music of New Brunswick

{| width=100% cellspacing=10 style="background:none;" ! style="border:1px solid #bfd7ff; background-color:#e1edff; padding:0.2em 0.4em; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left; "|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Music of New Brunswick article. (This is not a forum for general discussion) {| width=100% cellspacing=10 style="background:none;" ! style="border:1px solid #bfd7ff; background-color:#e1edff; padding:0.2em 0.4em; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; text-align:left;"|If you feel that you can have positive contributions to articles about  Canadian music, become a member of the Canadian music WikiProject. Simply join the list of members. If you don't know what to write or where to begin, or if you have doubts or ideas on how to improve any article about Canadian music, please address the project's discussion forum.

Examples
Updated with reliable sources, Music New Brunswick shows a list of members, The Country Music Hall of Fame shows a list of inductees, UNB website shows involvement with children's musical education, the Green Festival is linked though the Rexton website with a link there to Weldford, New Brunswick where that particular festival is held, hope this helps. Wild Heart of Kent (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Music of New Brunswick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130710010619/http://sappyfest.com/about/ to http://sappyfest.com/about/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522081249/http://extend.unb.ca/music/index.php to http://extend.unb.ca/music/index.php/
 * Added tag to http://www.francofete.com/index/index.cfm?id=600%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Music of New Brunswick


text: User talk:130.160.56.11

title: User talk:130.160.56.11


text:
Time Between Trains

Time Between Trains is the 4th album by American singer-songwriter Susan Werner, released in 1998 (see 1998 in music).

Track listing
all songs written by Susan Werner, except where noted

 * 1) "Time Between Trains" – 3:49
 * 2) "Old Mistake" – 4:26
 * 3) "Bring 'Round the Boat" – 3:36
 * 4) "Sorry About Jesus" – 3:09
 * 5) "Petaluma Afternoons" – 3:52
 * 6) "Courting the Muse" – 3:30
 * 7) "Montgomery Street" – 4:59
 * 8) "Like Bonsai" (Greg Simon, Werner) – 4:07
 * 9) "Can't Let You In" (Mike Sumler, Werner) – 3:44
 * 10) "Standing in My Own Way" (Dana Cooper) – 3:57
 * 11) "Vincent" (Don McLean) – 3:39
 * 12) "Movie of My Life" (hidden track)

Personnel

 * Susan Werner – guitar, piano, vocals, vibraphone
 * Gary Buho Gazaway – trumpet
 * Steve Khan – accordion, Hammond organ
 * Viktor Krauss – acoustic bass
 * Hunter Lee – bagpipes
 * Kenny Malone – percussion, drums
 * Hank Medress – hands, palmas
 * Greg Morrow – drums
 * Jelly Roll Morton – harmonica
 * Michael Rhodes – electric bass
 * Tom Roady – percussion
 * Bill Schleicher – whistle
 * Darrell Scott – bouzouki, dobro, guitar, mandolin, electric guitar, keyboard, background vocals, resonator guitar
 * Antoine Silverman – violin

Production

 * Producer: Darrell Scott
 * Executive producer: Hank Medress
 * Associate producer: Miles Wilkinson
 * Engineer: Miles Wilkinson
 * Second engineer: Rob MacMillan
 * Mixing: Miles Wilkinson
 * Mastering: Peter Moore
 * Photography: Jay Strauss

title: Time Between Trains


text:
Talk:Time Between Trains

This album has a hidden track that follows "Vincent," called "Movie of My Life." Haven't added it myself because I don't know the length. --Mr. A. 11:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Time Between Trains


text: User talk:66.161.203.102

title: User talk:66.161.203.102


text:
Talk:William Wycherley

French to English
From the article:
 * which caused even his great admirer Voltaire to say afterwards of them, "Il semble que les Anglais prennent trop de liberté et que les Françaises n'en prennent pas assez"--

I just love how that whacky 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica assumed that all educated English users also knew French. We could use a translation, (and not from AltaVista's Babelfish, either ;-). func (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

French to English done, but more needed?
I put up a rough translation of the French but it seems to me that more work is needed here. For example, this paragraph is off-subject (Plutarch's impeachment of Aristophanes???), opinionated, and extremely overblown:

"In all literatures-- ancient and modern--an infinite wealth of material has been wasted upon subjects that are unworthy, or else incapable, of artistic realization; and yet Wycherley's case is, in our literature at least, without a parallel. Perhaps he felt that the colossal depravity of intrigue in which the English comedians indulged needs to be net only warmed by a superabundance of humour but softened by the playful mockery of farce before a dramatic circle such as that of the Restoration drama can be really brought within human sympathy. Plutarch's impeachment of Aristophanes, which affirms that the master of the old comedy wrote less for honest men than for men sunk in baseness and debauchery, was no doubt unjust to the Greek poet, one side of whose humour, and one alone, could thus be impeached. But does it not touch all sides of a comedy like Wycherley's--a comedy which strikes at the very root of the social compact upon which civilization is built?"
 * I agree. Such digressions bore the reader. Rintrah 15:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow
I found this article almost unreadable. Guess it's good that it was (mostly) not written by Wikipedia contributors, then. -- Ultra Megatron 04:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Date of death
Lede says 31 December 1715. Text says 1 January 1716. Can we at least agree on this, please? --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Style
Much of the article reads like a moralistic Victorian short story, more literary than encyclopaedic. I have tightened up some grammar and may add more dating in the chronology.Cloptonson (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have duly added the promised dating from information sourced in the ODNB, with more precise details of his military service and first marriage.Cloptonson (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Second Marriage
I shall be rewriting this paragraph:

''In coming to Wycherley's death, we come to the worst allegation that has ever been made against him as a man and as a gentleman. At the age of seventy-five he married a young girl, and is said to have done so in order to spite his nephew, the next in succession, knowing that he himself must shortly die and that the jointure would impoverish the estate.''

I intend to make a more accurate and factual account of the second marriage, as there was a high degree of coercion, which I will source to his sketch in the ODNB. The quoted age of 75 is inaccurate if we take seriously the baptism date and death date difference (actually 74).Cloptonson (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

First Marriage
This phrase, apparently lifted from the late Victorian edition of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, is ambiguous to interpret about the progression of Wycherley's relationship with his first wife and I have decided to delete this for that reason:

An introduction ensued, then love-making, then marriage..

When the Encyclopaedia was published 'love making' in common parlance was the term for courtship, whereas these days it is more usually the term for sexual relations - which may not have literally been the case in Wycherley's day despite the sexual licence common amongst the English court then. The couple did not produce children.Cloptonson (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tone problems
The article has significant problems with tone/style/puffery throughout (besides the "Early life" section). The whole second paragraph of the "First two plays" section is probably the most obviously unsuitable, but the whole final paragraph of the "Last two plays" section, nearly the whole final paragraph of the "First marriage" section, and many other parts have major issues, mostly because they're taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica with minimal changes. A number of sentences are confusing/unclear because of this, and some changes to the text taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica aren't supported by the original. AKiwiDeerPin (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As one who has tried to improve the presentation at different times in last few years, I found yesterday that changes seem to have been made by intervening editors that had altered or removed citations I had put in, with the effect that I had a citation for one part of a book but somehow the initial citation that would have introduced the full details of the book to the reader had been deleted, a few unexpected appearances of 'Not defined' comments in red, and of bracketed numbers that did not connect to footnoted citations ("[1]", "[2]", and "3]"). I have reinstated the removed citations, also unified citations to the ODNB to one format that omits page numbers (some of my previous ones depended on the page of the ODNB the information was taken from). The only changes I have made to text taken from the 1911 EB has been to tighten the grammar and paraphrase to read better to modern eyes. Hope that improves things in your sight.Cloptonson (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have read through the article and thank you for the further paraphrasing, cutting out much 1911 EB verbiage. I did restore a few words that may have been accidentally deleted, I have removed a 'clarification needed' tag because the phrase is taken from the source in the ODNB article, which quotation marked the "ill-usage" without detailing what form that took. I suspect they were grievances over his behaviour towards them as their commander. I have rephrased my reference to deployment on the Isle of Wight - there were no Dutch landings but they were anticipated with the naval attacks on Solebay that summer recently going on. I also replaced the sentence, which appeared to have been removed, that set this service in context of the Third Anglo-Dutch War.Cloptonson (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Later life section needs clarification
AKiwiDeerPin (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "succeeded to a life estate in the family property" - Is this different from just inheriting the property? If not, that would be a much clearer phrase to use. If it is different, it still should be clearer/explained.
 * "by special licence...he married" - What does "special licence" mean here?
 * "the mistress of a cousin" - Whose cousin?
 * "who had collusively and somewhat coercively" - Collusion with whom? Coercing whom?
 * "the jointure would impoverish the estate" - "Jointure" should be made clearer/explained.

 * Note they are from sentences cited to that 1911 EB, unless otherwise stated. Reply to your points
 * "succeeded to a life estate in the family property" - as the sentence is cited to the 1911 EB it may have been directly lifted from it by earlier editors. Don't know straight off how it could be paraphrased without knowing if there is a distinction, I have limitations to my English legal knowledge.
 * "special licence" - this is what wikipedia itself says about this from its own article on Marriage license in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, abeit the paragraph needed a citation added: There were two kinds of marriage licences that could be issued: the usual was known as a "common licence" and named one or two parishes where the wedding could take place, within the jurisdiction of the person who issued the licence. The other was the special licence, which could only be granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury or his officials and allowed the marriage to take place in any church. This waived obligation to arrange banns in church (the 3 Sundays of public notice of the marriage) and restrictions on church where the marriage could take place. I have wikilinked the special licence.
 * "cousin" - Thomas Shrimpton was a cousin of Wycherley on the latter's maternal side. I have resolved the ambiguity.
 * "collusion" - the collusion of all sides, if we accept Wycherley's not turning her down and keenness to marry her as collusion on his part.
 * "coercion" - from Shrimpton and Jackson on Wycherley. IIRC 'collusion' and 'coercion' (or words that derive from them) were both mentioned in my ODNB source - if you have access to the ODNB yourself delete either word if the ODNB did not in fact use it. The ODNB does make clear that Elizabeth Jackson was forced onto Wycherley.
 * "jointure" - see wikipedia article Jointure. I have wikilinked the word.
 * Also BTW it appears that the reference to Wycherley's return to Roman Catholicism seems to have been removed. This does his religious history an injustice after his youthful interlude in the RC church, though I accept it may have been accidentally excised. If this was in the ODNB, I will restore it. (Nearest ODNB is in Shrewsbury Library but there is no 1911 EB there.)Cloptonson (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Having accessed an ODNB, I have restored the reference to his reconversion to Romanism.Cloptonson (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:William Wycherley


text: User talk:24.6.247.166

title: User talk:24.6.247.166


text: User talk:70.49.98.9

title: User talk:70.49.98.9


text:
Red-giant branch

The red-giant branch (RGB), sometimes called the first giant branch, is the portion of the giant branch before helium ignition occurs in the course of stellar evolution. It is a stage that follows the main sequence for low- to intermediate-mass stars. Red-giant-branch stars have an inert helium core surrounded by a shell of hydrogen fusing via the CNO cycle. They are K- and M-class stars much larger and more luminous than main-sequence stars of the same temperature.

Discovery
Red giants were identified early in the 20th century when the use of the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram made it clear that there were two distinct types of cool stars with very different sizes: dwarfs, now formally known as the main sequence; and giants.

The term red-giant branch came into use during the 1940s and 1950s, although initially just as a general term to refer to the red-giant region of the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. Although the basis of a thermonuclear main-sequence lifetime, followed by a thermodynamic contraction phase to a white dwarf was understood by 1940, the internal details of the various types of giant stars were not known.

In 1968, the name asymptotic giant branch (AGB) was used for a branch of stars somewhat more luminous than the bulk of red giants and more unstable, often large-amplitude variable stars such as Mira. Observations of a bifurcated giant branch had been made years earlier but it was unclear how the different sequences were related. By 1970, the red-giant region was well understood as being made up from subgiants, the RGB itself, the horizontal branch, and the AGB, and the evolutionary state of the stars in these regions was broadly understood. The red-giant branch was described as the first giant branch in 1967, to distinguish it from the second or asymptotic giant branch, and this terminology is still frequently used today.

Modern stellar physics has modelled the internal processes that produce the different phases of the post-main-sequence life of moderate-mass stars, with ever-increasingly complexity and precision. The results of RGB research are themselves being used as the basis for research in other areas.

Evolution
When a star with a mass from about (solar mass) to  ( for low-metallicity stars) exhausts its core hydrogen, it enters a phase of hydrogen shell burning during which it becomes a red giant, larger and cooler than on the main sequence. During hydrogen shell burning, the interior of the star goes through several distinct stages which are reflected in the outward appearance. The evolutionary stages vary depending primarily on the mass of the star, but also on its metallicity.

Subgiant phase
After a main-sequence star has exhausted its core hydrogen, it begins to fuse hydrogen in a thick shell around a core consisting largely of helium. The mass of the helium core is below the Schönberg–Chandrasekhar limit and is in thermal equilibrium, and the star is a subgiant. Any additional energy production from the shell fusion is consumed in inflating the envelope and the star cools but does not increase in luminosity.

Shell hydrogen fusion continues in stars of roughly solar mass until the helium core increases in mass sufficiently that it becomes degenerate. The core then shrinks, heats up and develops a strong temperature gradient. The hydrogen shell, fusing via the temperature-sensitive CNO cycle, greatly increases its rate of energy production and the stars is considered to be at the foot of the red-giant branch. For a star the same mass as the sun, this takes approximately 2 billion years from the time that hydrogen was exhausted in the core.

Subgiants more than about reach the Schönberg–Chandrasekhar limit relatively quickly before the core becomes degenerate. The core still supports its own weight thermodynamically with the help of energy from the hydrogen shell, but is no longer in thermal equilibrium. It shrinks and heats causing the hydrogen shell to become thinner and the stellar envelope to inflate. This combination decreases luminosity as the star cools towards the foot of the RGB. Before the core becomes degenerate, the outer hydrogen envelope becomes opaque which causes the star to stop cooling, increases the rate of fusion in the shell, and the star has entered the RGB. In these stars, the subgiant phase occurs within a few million years, causing an apparent gap in the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram between B-type main-sequence stars and the RGB seen in young open clusters such as Praesepe. This is the Hertzsprung gap and is actually sparsely populated with subgiant stars rapidly evolving towards red giants, in contrast to the short densely populated low-mass subgiant branch seen in older clusters such as ω Centauri.

Ascending the red-giant branch
Stars at the foot of the red-giant branch all have a similar temperature around $5,000 K$, corresponding to an early to mid-K spectral type. Their luminosities range from a few times the luminosity of the sun for the least massive red giants to several thousand times as luminous for stars around.

As their hydrogen shells continue to produce more helium, the cores of RGB stars increase in mass and temperature. This causes the hydrogen shell to fuse more rapidly. Stars become more luminous, larger and somewhat cooler. They are described as ascending the RGB.

On the ascent of the RGB, there are a number of internal events that produce observable external features. The outer convective envelope becomes deeper and deeper as the star grows and shell energy production increases. Eventually it reaches deep enough to bring fusion products to the surface from the formerly convective core, known as the first dredge-up. This changes the surface abundance of helium, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. A noticeable clustering of stars at one point on the RGB can be detected and is known as the RGB bump. It is caused by a discontinuity in hydrogen abundance left behind by the deep convection. Shell energy production temporarily decreases at this discontinuity, effective stalling the ascent of the RGB and causing an excess of stars at that point.

Tip of the red-giant branch
For stars with a degenerate helium core, there is a limit to this growth in size and luminosity, known as the tip of the red-giant branch, where the core reaches sufficient temperature to begin fusion. All stars that reach this point have an identical helium core mass of almost, and very similar stellar luminosity and temperature. These luminous stars have been used as standard candle distance indicators. Visually, the tip of the red-giant branch occurs at about absolute magnitude −3 and temperatures around 3,000 K at solar metallicity, closer to 4,000 K at very low metallicity. Models predict a luminosity at the tip of, depending on metallicity. In modern research, infrared magnitudes are more commonly used.

Leaving the red-giant branch
A degenerate core begins fusion explosively in an event known as the helium flash, but externally there is little immediate sign of it. The energy is consumed in lifting the degeneracy in the core. The star overall becomes less luminous and hotter and migrates to the horizontal branch. All degenerate helium cores have approximately the same mass, regardless of the total stellar mass, so the helium fusion luminosity on the horizontal branch is the same. Hydrogen shell fusion can cause the total stellar luminosity to vary, but for most stars at near solar metallicity, the temperature and luminosity are very similar at the cool end of the horizontal branch. These stars form the red clump at about 5,000 K and. Less massive hydrogen envelopes cause the stars to take up a hotter and less luminous position on the horizontal branch, and this effect occurs more readily at low metallicity so that old metal-poor clusters show the most pronounced horizontal branches.

Stars initially more massive than have non-degenerate helium cores on the red-giant branch. These stars become hot enough to start triple-alpha fusion before they reach the tip of the red-giant branch and before the core becomes degenerate. They then leave the red-giant branch and perform a blue loop before returning to join the asymptotic giant branch. Stars only a little more massive than perform a barely noticeable blue loop at a few hundred  before continuing on the AGB hardly distinguishable from their red-giant branch position. More massive stars perform extended blue loops which can reach 10,000 K or more at luminosities of. These stars will cross the instability strip more than once and pulsate as Type I (Classical) Cepheid variables.

Properties
The table below shows the typical lifetimes on the main sequence (MS), subgiant branch (SB) and red-giant branch (RGB), for stars with different initial masses, all at solar metallicity (Z = 0.02). Also shown are the helium core mass, surface effective temperature, radius and luminosity at the start and end of the RGB for each star. The end of the red-giant branch is defined to be when core helium ignition takes place.

Intermediate-mass stars only lose a small fraction of their mass as main-sequence and subgiant stars, but lose a significant amount of mass as red giants.

The mass lost by a star similar to the Sun affects the temperature and luminosity of the star when it reaches the horizontal branch, so the properties of red-clump stars can be used to determine the mass difference before and after the helium flash. Mass lost from red giants also determines the mass and properties of the white dwarfs that form subsequently. Estimates of total mass loss for stars that reach the tip of the red-giant branch are around. Most of this is lost within the final million years before the helium flash.

Mass lost by more massive stars that leave the red-giant branch before the helium flash is more difficult to measure directly. The current mass of Cepheid variables such as δ Cephei can be measured accurately because there are either binaries or pulsating stars. When compared with evolutionary models, such stars appear to have lost around 20% of their mass, much of it during the blue loop and especially during pulsations on the instability strip.

Variability
Some red giants are large amplitude variables. Many of the earliest-known variable stars are Mira variables with regular periods and amplitudes of several magnitudes, semiregular variables with less obvious periods or multiple periods and slightly lower amplitudes, and slow irregular variables with no obvious period. These have long been considered to be asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars or supergiants and the red-giant branch (RGB) stars themselves were not generally considered to be variable. A few apparent exceptions were considered to be low-luminosity AGB stars.

Studies in the late 20th century began to show that all giants of class M were variable with amplitudes of 10 milli-magnitudes of more, and that late-K-class giants were also likely to be variable with smaller amplitudes. Such variable stars were amongst the more luminous red giants, close to the tip of the RGB, but it was difficult to argue that they were all actually AGB stars. The stars showed a period amplitude relationship with larger-amplitude variables pulsating more slowly.

Microlensing surveys in the 21st century have provided extremely accurate photometry of thousands of stars over many years. This has allowed for the discovery of many new variable stars, often of very small amplitudes. Multiple period-luminosity relationships have been discovered, grouped into regions with ridges of closely spaced parallel relationships. Some of these correspond to the known Miras and semi-regulars, but an additional class of variable star has been defined: OGLE Small Amplitude Red Giants, or OSARGs. OSARGs have amplitudes of a few thousandths of a magnitude and semi-regular periods of 10 to 100 days. The OGLE survey published up to three periods for each OSARG, indicating a complex combination of pulsations. Many thousands of OSARGs were quickly detected in the Magellanic Clouds, both AGB and RGB stars. A catalog has since been published of 192,643 OSARGs in the direction of the Milky Way central bulge. Although around a quarter of Magellanic Cloud OSARgs show long secondary periods, very few of the galactic OSARGs do.

The RGB OSARGs follow three closely spaced period-luminosity relations, corresponding to the first, second and third overtones of radial pulsation models for stars of certain masses and luminosities, but that dipole and quadrupole non-radial pulsations are also present leading to the semi-regular nature of the variations. The fundamental mode does not appear, and the underlying cause of the excitation is not known. Stochastic convection has been suggested as a cause, similar to solar-like oscillations.

Two additional types of variation have been discovered in RGB stars: long secondary periods, which are associated with other variations but can show larger amplitudes with periods of hundreds or thousands of days; and ellipsoidal variations. The cause of the long secondary periods is unknown, but it has been proposed that they are due to interactions with low-mass companions in close orbits. The ellipsoidal variations are also thought to be created in binary systems, in this case contact binaries where distorted stars cause strictly periodic variations as they orbit.

title: Red-giant branch


text: Category:Hertzsprung-Russell classifications


text: User talk:69.157.49.75

title: User talk:69.157.49.75


text:
Ephraim Ruebush

Ephraim Ruebush (September 26, 1833 – November 18, 1924) was a music teacher, publisher, and co-founder of the Ruebush-Kieffer Company, one of the largest and most influential publishers of gospel song books in the United States.

Ephraim Ruebush was born in Churchville, Virginia, the son of John Ruebush and Mary Huffman. In September 1853, he traveled to Singers Glen, Virginia, to study music and printing under Joseph Funk. He married Lucille Virginia Kieffer on March 28, 1861. With his brother-in-law, Aldine Silliman Kieffer, he founded the Kieffer-Ruebush music company in Dayton, Virginia. This became one of the largest and most influential gospel music companies of its day, printing songbooks into the 1940s. Ruebush died on November 18, 1924, and is buried in Dayton.

Jacob Henry Hall, an author of books on gospel music and a book on gospel songwriters, was associated with the company.

title: Ephraim Ruebush


text:
File:Susan Werner - New Non-Fiction.jpg

Cover for album New Non-Fiction by Susan Werner.

Fair use rationale for

 * It is believed that the use of this image on the English-language Wikipedia to illustrate an article on the audio recording in question falls under the "Non-profit educational" clause of the Fair Use doctrine currently upheld by United States law. (17 U.S.C. § 107)
 * The image is irreplaceable; a free analogue is impossible to produce as the original will be covered by copyright for the foreseeable future
 * Owing to the limited web-resolution of the image, only a small portion of a copyrighted work is used
 * For the same reasons, the portion of the copyrighted work used is of inherently lower quality than the original, reducing the risk of competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for or value of versions held by the owner of the copyright

title: File:Susan Werner - New Non-Fiction.jpg


text:
Talk:Jan Palach

Untitled
Palach stated, that he is a part of a group of suicide candidates and that they draw lots who will be the first one. Nothing else is known about that group. (speculations about CIA - involvement). --jvano 03:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"...unfortunate popularity of Palach in the media" is a mean thing to say. For me and many other Czechs, who belong to a nation unfortunately often beset by inferiority complexes, Palach is a source of pride in one who cared enough about freedom and democracy to make the ultimate sacrifice, without being in any way a model as a suicide. (edit by User:132.185.144.122)

I am also Czech, but I am not proud of him at all. It is really an unfortunate phenomenon.--jvano 14:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion is old, but I hope we can agree to disagree (and that there's plenty of room for disagreement) and apply that to improving the article.
 * The pro argument, now made in many places, is that Palach's act of dissent spurred the 1989 protests to his memory,  which led to a cycle of confrontations with Communism that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall etc.  I don't know how you prove that statement!,  but it certainly "has legs" and should be reported from as neutral a perspective as possible. KenThomas (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "unfortunate". Pavel Vozenilek 00:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Belated thanks. KenThomas (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:37, 8 January 2006
What an idiot. 81.178.234.43 23:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You sir,are an untolerant fool,who does not know anything about being under a communist dictature for 40 yeares strait,after being under Nazi dictature 6 years strait.You dont make fun of (im an atheist,its just an exampleú say Christ,when he died for his teachings,nor of any other martyr,like say Jan Hus .Please think and RESEARCH before you dub someone an IDIOT stupidly,or it is only you,that has the right for that title.New Babylon 09:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Not knowing what happened, perhaps the IP-only poster was an idiot etc.  However,  as an editor using only an IP,  they'll likely never to see your rant.  Therefore I'm not sure of the point of having the above on the discussion page (etc).  Could someone clarify the underlying issue?  Thanks.KenThomas (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wave of Suicides
I would remove also the sentence "Reasons for such a wave of suicides are unclear.". The are very clear to anyone who has lived under a regime of tyranny. Anyone against this editing? --Vernetto 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That sentence refers to a wave of suicides in 2003. Either you missed that or you're calling the current government of the Czech Republic a regime of tyranny, which is a little POV. =) - TheMightyQuill 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bronze cross
The bronze cross is fairly recent is it not? So the sentence saying it was put there after the Velvet Revolution (implying fairly soon after) is incorrect. Any comments? 89.240.14.166 21:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jan Palach Square
Why the deuce wasn't there any mention of Jan Palach Square in this, when there is even an entire section devoted to "Place Names"?! I find the fact there is still a street named after him to be one of the most fascinating aspects of this story - in so many other countries, stories involving suicide are still censored for "the public good." One who took his own life would certainly never be considered a national hero in most Western countries, amirite? Omgplz (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

2003 deaths
Could someone more familiar with the incident, or able to read the local language, please indicate the reason given by these youths so long after the fall of the regime that oppressed Palach and all Czechs and Slovaks and so many others? The way the article reads now, it suggests that they felt their situation equal to Palach's. Were they oppressed minorities somehow, or was this some unrelated darkness in which Palach's name was implicated out of context? When I search for the name of the boy mentioned I come up with a sports figure. Abrazame (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The reference used in the article seems more a rant against capitalism than a reliable source; it's a private page on the web,  which mostly complains that the velvet revolution did not solve a wide range of social ills (oh,  surprise ;).  I'll review the sources it links to see if there's any substance here;  it seems quite shocking that someone may have killed themselves over this,  and it could even be troll/parody.  I don't remember anything in the media at the time.  KenThomas (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I do not see any independent sources for this story and the linked sources are all quite odd, as well as unverifiable.  I will likely remove this as non-notable unless there is further discussion.  KenThomas (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Translating from Czech
NOTE: I've begun to translate this from Czech (which I read-- slowly). Started with more detail in the lede sentence, not sure when I'll have time to unravel and integrate the rest. Also will expand a bit, as in the addition. For those who may care, Radio Prague is the source of the first claim;  in Czech,  there's a lot more available about Palach in the past year. I'll source (and list potential sources here) also as I have a chance.

Please, no flame/edit wars. KenThomas (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced claim
In the spring of 2003, a total of six young Czechs burned themselves to death - this definitely needs to be properly sourced. I live in the Czech republic and I've never heard of this. Yes, Adamec burned himself to death (he was apparently insane), but I have not heard of any other suicides in this manner. I'm sure it would have received much media coverage. Nazgul02 (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph about his death is longer then the one about his life
Can we arrange this up please? It is so fast to die and so slow to learn walking before, maybe we should add something about the way he learnt walking when he was a child: before, on 4 legs, then on 2, you know the story don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.199.92 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jan Palach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721190108/http://www.bullockmusic.info/Dafydd_Bullock_Website/Catalogue.html to http://www.bullockmusic.info/Dafydd_Bullock_Website/Catalogue.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Where was he really born -- Prague or Všetaty ?
Some sources say he was born in Prague, and some say he was born in Všetaty (Mělník District). Which is correct? Mksword (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Czech sources say he was born in Prague. Všetaty is where he grew up. Nazgul02 (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jan Palach


text:
Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum

The Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum is the presidential library and burial place of Herbert Clark Hoover, the 31st president of the United States (1929–1933), located on the grounds of the Herbert Hoover National Historic Site in West Branch, Iowa. The library is one of thirteen presidential libraries run by the National Archives and Records Administration.

In 1954, a group of Hoover's friends incorporated the Herbert Hoover Birthplace Foundation to raise money for the preservation of his birthplace and the area around it, and to plan for improvements to the site. One of their ideas was to build a small museum, and with Hoover's approval work began in the late 1950s. The architectural firm of Eggers and Higgins of New York drew the plans for the original building, a modest limestone structure of just over 4,000 square feet. While the museum at West Branch was still under construction, Hoover decided to expand it and to make it his Presidential Library.

The Library and Museum was officially dedicated and opened to the public on August 10, 1962, Hoover's 88th birthday. Hoover and former President Harry S. Truman were present at the dedication. Hoover began his speech by saying, When the members of the Congress created these presidential libraries they did a great public service. They made available for research the records of vital periods in American history –and they planted these records in the countryside instead of allowing their concentration on the seaboard.

Already the three libraries of President Roosevelt, President Truman, and President Eisenhower, by their unique documentation, serve this purpose, and today we dedicate a fourth –my own.

Within them are thrilling records of supreme action by the American people, their devotion and sacrifice to their ideals. Santayana rightly said: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it." These institutions are the repositories of such experience –hot off the griddle.

In these records there are, no doubt, unfavorable remarks made by our political opponents, as well as expressions of appreciation and affection by our friends.

We may hope that future students will rely upon our friends. In any event, when they become sleepy they may be awakened by the lightning flashes of American political humor.

The original Library and Museum building was expanded several times, with major additions being completed in 1964, 1971, 1974 and 1992. The architects for the 1964, 1971, and 1974 expansion projects were Wetherell, Harrison & Wagner Associates.

On August 8, 1992, former President Ronald Reagan rededicated the Library and Museum. The rededication was the result of a renovation project that expanded the library to 47169 sqft. The $6.5-million expansion was a public–private partnership, with Washington supplying $5 million for bricks and mortar, supplementing $1.5 million raised by the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library Association for new exhibits. The architects for the 1992 expansion were HNTB Corp.

Holding almost 300 collections, the Library is an important center for the study of conservative thought, agricultural economics, famine relief, commercial aviation, political journalism, government efficiency and reorganization, isolationism, and U.S. foreign policy. In addition to the papers of Herbert Hoover, the manuscript holdings include those of Lewis Strauss, Gerald P. Nye, Felix Morley, Clark Mollenhoff, Robert E. Wood, Westbrook Pegler, and Laura Ingalls Wilder, among others.

The Library and Museum is located within the Herbert Hoover National Historic Site, which contains Hoover's birthplace, a reconstruction of Hoover's father's blacksmith shop, a one-room schoolhouse, a Quaker meeting house, and –on a hill overlooking the Library and Museum and Historic Site –the graves of Herbert and Lou Henry Hoover.


text:
New Non-Fiction

New Non-Fiction is the fifth album by American singer-songwriter Susan Werner, released in 2001 (see 2001 in music).

Track listing
All songs written by Susan Werner, except where noted

 * 1) "Stationary" – 3:16
 * 2) "Shade of Grey" – 3:50
 * 3) "Blue Guitar" – 2:55
 * 4) "Yellow House" – 2:14
 * 5) "(It's OK To) Feel Good" – 3:55
 * 6) "All of the Above" – 3:41
 * 7) "Everybody's Talkin'" (Fred Neil) – 4:06
 * 8) "Misery and Happiness" – 4:44
 * 9) "Barbed Wire Boys" – 3:20
 * 10) "Big Car" – 3:08
 * 11) "Nefertiti's Dream" – 3:38
 * 12) "Epilogue: May I Suggest" – 3:28

Personnel

 * Susan Werner – acoustic guitar, vocals, background vocals, Wurlitzer
 * Richard Bell – Hammond organ, Wurlitzer
 * Kenneth Blevins – drums
 * Byron House – bass
 * Colin Linden – acoustic guitar, dobro, electric guitar, baritone guitar
 * Jon Randall – background vocals
 * David Roe – gut string guitar
 * Tammy Rogers – mandolin

Production

 * Producer: Colin Linden
 * Engineer: Susan Werner, John Whynot
 * Mixing: John Whynot
 * Mixing assistant: Chad Brown
 * Mastering: John Whynot
 * Instrumentation: Colin Linden
 * Art direction: Steve Cook
 * Design: Steve Cook
 * Photography: Lauren Lyons

title: New Non-Fiction


text: Talk:New Non-Fiction

title: Talk:New Non-Fiction


text: Category:Main sequence stars

title: Category:Main sequence stars


text: User talk:65.96.219.203

title: User talk:65.96.219.203