text:
Talk:Oblique case

in ergative languages
I find it very odd (actually, wrong and contradictory) that the absolutive case of ergative languages is referred here as a kind of oblique case. An oblique case is supposed to be a marked/secondary case, as opposed to the unmarked/primary/citation/direct case which corresponds to the "plain" form of a word. In accusative languages like English, the primary case is the nominative and the secondary/marked/oblique case is the accusative (a word in the nominative is said to be in its "plain" or unmarked form and this is the form used to cite the word; e.g. "I" and "who" are the plain forms while "me" and "whom" are the oblique forms); if there are other cases apart from those two, like the dative in Latin and German, these are also oblique cases. But in ergative languages (such as Basque), the primary/unmarked case is the absolutive, while the ergative is secondary and marked (e.g. in Basque the "plain", primary form of the first person singular pronoun is "ni", in the absolutive, while the ergative form "nik" is a clearly marked, secondary case just like other oblique cases such as the dative "niri" and the genitive "nire"). Uaxuctum 12:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think it really says that; it's trying to contrast nominative/oblique with absolutive/ergative. It perhaps can be clearer.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Style
Yeah, so this article is really hard to read for someone who has a rudimentary understanding of linguistics.

 * In linguistics (or generally in the linguistic sciences), an oblique case (Lat. casus generalis) is a noun case of analytic languages that is used generally when a noun is the predicate of a sentence or a preposition. An oblique case can appear in any case relationship except the nominative case of a sentence subject or the vocative case of direct address.
 * Too many parentheticals in the first sentence makes it really hard to follow. Can appear in any case relationship?  What does that mean?

 * Languages with a nominative/oblique case system also contrast with those who have an absolutive/ergative case system. In ergative-absolutive languages, the absolutive case is used for a direct object (the subject will then be in the ergative case); but the absolutive case is also used for the subject of an intransitive verb, where the subject is being passively described, rather than performing an action.
 * I have very little idea what I'm being told in this paragraph.

 * Bulgarian, the only analytic Slavic language, also has an oblique case - or, rather, two of them at pronouns (cf. English "Give me that ball" and "Give that ball to me") and one (syntactically and grammatically speaking) at nouns.
 * Also has an oblique case? There weren't any listed before it.  And the sentence goes on to be packed pull of parentheticals.  Syntactically and grammatically speaking?  Is that even necessary?  And wouldn't syntactically imply grammatically?  And is this paragraph even relevant? NickelShoe 19:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Um...please? NickelShoe 19:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well i am ignoring all the comments exept the first one for this topic. The page is too hard to understand i agree. Most pages on wikipedia are accessible to most and start with basic understanding. I am not saying the more complex analysis of the oblique form in linguistics should not be included. But the first paragraph should be weitten in such a way that any person wondering what oblique form is can find out without having to read masses of text and referring to several or more other pages. PAGE OVERHAUL!! Wuku (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Misc
As I understand it, Bulgarian is not the only analytical slavic languages, the closely related Macedonian language being the other one (and don't get political about this, al you Bulgarians! :)) JAL, 2006-07-24

Merge with Object (grammar)?
Should this article be merged with Object (grammar)? FilipeS 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian
I don't really understand why the Bulgarian example is an oblique case, since there seems to be a distinction between dative and accusative. I think the object forms of pronouns in English and Dutch would be better examples. Ucucha 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a speaker of two synthetic Slavic languages (Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian) and could not help noticing that these languages display the same grammatic construct: 'Baci mi loptu'/'Vrzi mi žogo' (SC/SLO for 'throw me the ball') 'Baci meni loptu'/'Vrzi meni žogo' (SC/SLO for 'throw the ball to me (not him))

so I'm not exactly sure as to what the analytic nature of the Bulgarian language has to do with the oblique case.

Marko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.87.246 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Our article says, "These personal pronouns have both a short and a long form for the accusative and the dative." It sounds as though the difference in form is not acc vs dat. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Odd sentence fragment found tacked on the end of this section: "and this website is a good website." Flag for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.230.55 (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

me - genitive
The article says that ˝me˝ is not used in the genitive case of possession, but in rural English it very often is ˝That's me tractor you's stealin'˝ 93.96.96.27 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Added. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's actually the same. Thats a sound change changing my to mi - but it doesn't sound the same as "me" because its unstressed and lax. "Me" in "Me tractor" doesn't sound the same as the "me" in "Me Tarzan you Jane".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearer explanation required
I'm afraid that the explanation of what the oblique case is, does not do much for those without profound knowledge of linguistics. Someone with a deep understanding of the subject matter should make an attempt at making things clearer. LaughingSkull (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to second that. I came here after encountering the term "oblique case" elsewhere, and I still have *no* idea what it means. And I do have some "basic plus" knowledge of grammar (although mainly in a language other than English). 85.228.188.241 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's 12 years later and the explanation is still completely incoherent to a non-grammarian (i.e. me). 68.193.122.198 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

merg (acc/dat)
The recently created Dative/Accusative is a content fork for this article. I'm sure there are languages with an acc/dat (objective?) case, but not in English, and the article was created to illustrate English (is the link from English object pronouns). — kwami (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The article created is not a content fork for this article. It is in fact written in opposition to the claim that English has lost its dative and accusative cases and somehow shifted to an oblique case. English does not have an oblique case and the argument that it does is very much counter to established and accepted linguistic descriptions of the language. Even within the oblique case article it is proposed that that case is used in languages in which there are only two cases, nominative and a single 'everything that's not nominative' case. Even under the mentions of English given herein, it is admitted that the language does not fit this description as it also has a genitive case.

The Dative/Accusative article does not propose there being a dative/accusative case nor of there being any tie to the oblique case. It does however, correctly note that it refers to a single set of identical forms used for both the dative and accusative cases in languages which have both dative case and accusative case but in which the morphological forms used for each case have merged into a single combined form (yet still representing either dative or accusative depending on the case in which it appears via syntax). Arguing that English now has an oblique case rather than a dative and an accusative case based on the pronouns for each being identical is no different than arguing that English has only a single case because if you look at nouns, John/book/shopping could all be subject, direct object, or indirect object all having the same form. So, along those lines, does that mean that we should drop nominative from the case lineup as well?

Don't merge.Drew.ward (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 * It's both unsourced and factually incorrect; although the terms 'accusative' and 'dative' are used in some English grammars, it's generally accepted that they are the same thing. There is certainly no difference between having two cases which are the same, and having one case which does two things: Both are a single morphological form that covers two syntactic roles. — kwami (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The FORMS are the same, the cases not. If you can't separate consideration of forms from the cases themselves then you shouldn't be editing anything on case.  Sorry.  And this is neither unsourced nor original research.  Your pushing the idea of a new case in English IS on the other hand either your own original research or that of a minority of people who do not represent the consensus.Drew.ward (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course the forms are the cases! Case is a morphological category. An inflectional form. If the forms are the same, the case is the same. You're confusing case, a morphological category, with case role, a syntactic category. The only question is whether the difference between "I" and "me" is one of case at all, not how many cases "me" is. Jesperson put "case" in scare quotes, and Quirk, Hudson, and Blevins deny that English has case at all, rather than positional allomorphs. But the only reason the terms 'dative' and 'accusative' are used with English is the influence of Latin, German, etc. grammar. "Me" is a single case; whether we call it objective, oblique, or dative/accusative is merely a terminological preference. — kwami (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Support merge of Dative/Accusative into this article. I agree that case is a morphological category and should not be confused with grammatical function. We do not need two articles on this case. We should discuss the content and name of the merged article separately. But see sections and, below. --Boson (talk)
 * Support merge as long as the dative/accusative case article has no sources it is AfD fodder. It also clearly makes the argument that the use of Objective or oblique case for languages such as English is wrong, and as such it should be included as an alternative point of view in the articles about those cases - if sources are produced.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Different meanings of oblique case
The term "oblique case" is sometimes used to refer to forms of pronouns like "me" in English but, in view of the differing terminology, we should explain the different meanings in more detail. There are a number of issues.

We should perhaps add (sourced) material here (or elsewhere) discussing the view that English does not have case, and the view that English has analytic case in addition to inflectional case (treating "to" and "of" as case markers for dative and genitive, respectively. --Boson (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to state which authorities use the term "oblique case" to refer to a single case (like the example me in English).
 * The 'normal' meaning is: any one of a number of cases, excluding the nominative and the vocative. In other words, there are "oblique cases" collectively (e.g. accusative, and dative), not a single "oblique case". As quoted elsewhere from Crystal, "oblique . . . refers to the form taken by a noun phrase (often a single noun or pronoun) when it refers collectively to all the case forms of a word except that of the unmarked case . . . [my emphasis]
 * The 'normal' meaning of "oblique case" is not really described at all in this article.
 * Huddleston and Pullum, in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language do not use the term "oblique case"; the index redirects to other terms. They use the term accusative case for words like me. This is not restricted to direct objects (" . . . The nominative is not restricted to subject function . . . and the accusative is likewise not restricted to object function . . .").
 * Quirk et al., in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, use the term "objective case" for words like me, reserving "oblique cases" for the 'normal' meaning that includes different cases. ("In the main, formal English follows the normative grammatical tradition which associates the subjective pronouns with the nominative case of pronouns in inflectional languages, and the objective case with the oblique cases (especially accusative and dative cases) in such languages.")
 * Greenbaum, in The Oxford English Grammar, also uses "objective case" for words like me. The term oblique object is mentioned as being used (by others) in the sense of prepositional object (e.g. to her)

 * "Objective case" suffers from the same problem you object to with oblique: "Spanish has two objective cases" (DAT and ACC), etc. For either, the singular, esp. with the, is used to specify that a single case is being referred to.
 * Yes, objective case is probably more common that oblique case re. English. However, this is part of a larger shift in terminology: objective goes with subjective and possessive; oblique goes with nominative and genitive. In some of our articles we do use "subjective", and in such cases "objective" is appropriate.
 * I've seen a distinction between an oblique case for the single marked case of a language, and objective case for the single non-nominative, non-genitive case of some Germanic languages, but I don't know how general this is.
 * BTW, an "oblique object" is s.t. different, at least as I've seen it: in I begrudged him his success, 'his success' is an oblique object, as it can be expressed w the prep. 'for'.
 * I don't understand Crystal's definition. Taken literally, it makes little sense: "oblique is the form when it refers to all the forms" – so, is it "a form", then? that is, a single case? What does "refer to" mean? "Correspond to", maybe? The only way I can get your reading is by changing "is the form" to "is the term", but now we're getting into OR. Sloppy definitions like this plague Crystal's dictionary. The Routledge dictionary, though, gives the traditional Latin def you were looking for, and is very clear about it. But although "objective" is used in a couple entries (like Bulgarian), it is never explicitly defined.
 * BTW, I think the whole "analytic case" thing is opening a can of worms. It is highly dependent on theory, and so is infinitely arguable. The normal, morphological use of the word "case" is much more straightforward: with rare exception, you either have a different morphological form or you don't.
 * — kwami (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree that Crystal's definition is not very clear, but the only sensible (and possible) interpretation of it seems to me to be in agreement with most other common definitions. I assume it was his (not very successful) attempt to get round the problem of giving the definition of a singular lemma for a word that is normally used to refer to a set or class, the traditional dictionary solution being something like "any one of several . . .". He tried to get round that clumsy phrasing by using "collectively" ("when it refers collectively to all the case forms of a word except that of the unmarked case, or nominative "); in context "this term refers to the form taken by a noun phrase (often a single noun or pronoun)" can only be interpreted as "the form taken in any specific instance " (i.e. the accusative OR dative OR genitive . . .).
 * I also agree that the "analytical" business opens up a can of worms, and I don't think we should address it until other problems have been sorted out. In the long run, though, I think it might deserve a brief mention, possibly in a footnote, with a link to another article where it is better explained. If done well, I think it might help to avoid the confusion between form and function.
 * --Boson (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move to Objective case
Since this article seems to be mainly about the English "objective case", and "oblique case" is - at best - ambiguous, I would suggest moving that content to Objective case (which currently redirects here). If any encyclopedic material should emerge on oblique cases as a class, that could be kept at "Oblique case", but, for the present, I would have this page redirect to the new Objective case. Hatnotes and terminological notes reflecting the above should, of course, be provided. I don't think there is an ideal solution, but I believe this would be a good compromise and supported by WP:COMMONNAME. --Boson (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Its coverage is largely w English because this is WP-en and we use English examples when we can. However, its scope is more general than that, or at least it should be.
 * Objective case is just as ambiguous: Spanish has "two objective cases", dative and accusative, whereas English has one. Same for oblique, and for many languages locative. We don't avoid the term locative case for Latin just because other languages may have two or three "locative cases".
 * There is another ambiguity: In Tongan, the objective pronouns are inalienably possessive pronouns, while the subjective pronouns are alienably possessive pronouns.
 * There is possible confusion between oblique case and an oblique (non-core) argument, though. But then there are oblique objects as well, and those are core.
 * There may be a sometime distinction between OBJ, which excludes GEN, and OBL, which includes it, but I'm not sure how well that can be justified overall.
 * In Case Grammar, if I've got it straight, objective is specifically the direct-object role, whereas oblique is the generic object role.
 * Objective tends to be used by the same sources which use subjective and possessive, generally specifically for English. I think this can be reflected in the articles that specifically deal with English. Oblique reflects a more WP:WORLDVIEW approach.
 * Part of the change in terminology for English is due to discomfort with the idea that these are cases at all. But since this article is specifically about the objective/oblique case, such concerns are of secondary importance.

 * Quirk uses objective and subjective. Blevins uses subject and general forms (he doesn't believe they're case). Allerton uses oblique and nominative, as does Keith Brown – not that I think much of generative grammar, but it's been influential. The Germanic Languages (Routledge) seems to mostly use subject vs. oblique; 'objective' is specifically D.O. — kwami (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kwami you have yourself in several places pointed out that the Oblique would include genitive yet that this is not the case in English. You and others here have also pointed out that most of the sources you are drawing upon list objective as only representing the direct object role.  Just these two points show that 1. objective and oblique should not be merged; and 2. that English does not have an oblique (because you have admitted it has a genitive).Drew.ward (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 * No, different sources use these terms differently. Both are used for the English case – as are accusative and dative (either one covering both DO and IO). There is also a difference between languages – the dative in German is not the same as the dative in Greek. And then there's a difference between cases and thematic roles which may go by the same names. The question is which would be better for us to use. You have yet to provide any source for your usage, and certainly not for the dubious claim that English has two different cases which are the same. — kwami (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 * It looks to me as if the article could be about three completely different topics, and at least two are being conflated:
 * The 'normal' (WP:COMMONNAME) meaning of oblique case, as defined by Crystal, Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com), etc., viz.: any one of the cases except the unmarked one in the language concerned; that would include accusative, dative, genitive, ablative, etc., depending on the language. If this is the topic of the article, the opening paragraph ["A (pro)noun in the [my emphasis] oblique case can generally appear in any role except as subject, for which the nominative case is used."] neeeds changing, since it only makes sense to talk of  an oblique case, not  the oblique case.
 * A single, specific, morphologically defined case that can be used, for instance, in the role of a direct or English object, like the English me. This appears to be the topic of (at least) most of the article.
 * A 'deep structure' case. None of the article seems to be (deliberately) about this topic, though it may be muddying the waters.
 * I would suggest we leave out the deep-structure case, which is something completely different, and decide whether the article is about oblique cases (in the sense - approximately - of all non-nominative cases in the appropriate languages) or about a specific case (such as the one possibly used for direct and indirect objects in English).
 * Could you provide a quotation for the use of "oblique case" to mean a specific case (such as the case of me in English, i.e. not nominative/subjective but also not genitive/possessive)?
 * --Boson (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The intention was to have an article that explains what the oblique/objective case is, just as we have articles on other cases, so that if you come across a gloss of 'dative', 'ablative', 'oblique', etc, you'll be able to look up what this means. The complication of 'the X case' vs 'an X case' arises with other cases as well: there may be more than one locative etc. in a particular language, but that doesn't mean that we don't use the term 'locative' when there is only one (as in Latin).

Quotes: Sure. The following quotes are from various authors in Ekkedard König & Johan van der Auwera, eds. 1994. The Germanic Languages (Routledge). Dutch has three cases in its PNs, with ik – mij – mijn corresponding to English I – me – my, so this is a parallel situation to English with its genitive. As in English and Dutch, there are also possessive pronouns, as shown in Table 8.5, with the column headings,
 * Marijke van der Wal & Aad Quak, Old and Middle Continental West Germanic, p. 84. "Inflectional loss for the nouns and the reduction of the personal pronouns to only two forms, subject and oblique, made it impossible for the impersonal construction to survive [in Dutch]."
 * John Ole Askedal, Norwegian, p. 232. "The personal pronouns are the only nominal category of Modern Norwegian to exhibit a morphological case distinction between a subject ('nominative') and a non-subject ('accusative' or 'oblique') form".
 * " Subject form |  Oblique form  |  Inflected adjectival possessive  |  s-genitive "

These are all parallel to the English oblique/objective, and they illustrate why I don't care for the term 'objective': in "Who, me?" and "It's me"!, me is not an object, nor is it in "Me and Jim went to the store", which would be standard English if our teachers didn't keep telling us that me can't be a subject.
 * Hartmut Haberland, Danish, p. 324: "Whereas there is a distinction in pronouns between a non-oblique (nominative, subject) and an oblique (accusative, non-subject) case, there are no corresponding traces of the historical inflectional system of nouns.' P. 328: 'Pronouns retain two case forms, sometimes called nominative and accusative, since they typically express subjects and objects ... The term accusative is misleading, though, since apart from the function of expressing direct and indirect objects, the oblique form has a number of other function as well, like in prepositional phrases (jeg stoler på dig 'I trust (in) you'), predicatively (det er ham 'it's him'), and in comparisons (jeg er større end dig 'I am bigger than you')."

In Table 10.3, the column headings for the Danish pronouns are,
 * " Non-oblique |  Oblique "

The possessive PNs aren't listed because they're in the next table. Afrikaans also has possessive PNs, as in Table 15.6.
 * Bruce Donaldson, Afrikaans, p. 491. "The personal pronouns preserve the only living remnants of case in Afrikaans, but even here the distinction between subject and oblique case pronouns is only to be found in the singular."

For Gothic they do speak of the various oblique cases, just as in Latin, as there are separate accusative and dative cases. 'Objective' is used in a couple articles as well, though not to the extent that 'oblique' is, so it seems to be author choice which to use. But this is the first time I remember seeing the term "non-oblique" for the nominative! — kwami (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the instances of "objective":

(scare quotes in original) Here the author uses "accusative" for the OBL/OBJ case, as in 'the boy in the picture is me'; "objective" is a semantic relation of i.a. the genitive. The "common case" is the conflated NOM-ACC. That is, 'objective' is accusative, not oblique. Here objective is parallel to subjective and possessive rather than to nominative and genitive, a pattern I've seen over and over. — kwami (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ans van Kemenade, Old and Middle English, p. 133. "The distinction between dative and accusative was lost: both came to appear as 'objective' case, cf. a number of constructions such as the double object construction"
 * Erik Andersson, Swedish, pp 289–290. "The genitive covers a wide range of meanings. Possessive genitive [owner, user, etc.] Partitive genitive ['the members of the association'] Nexus genitive is either subjective, objective or temporal ['the attack of the enemy', the performance of the play', 'today's attack'] ... In many of these cases the genitive can be replaced by a prepositional phrase [etc.] But this possibility does not apply to a genitive for owner or user, or a subjective genitive."
 * Silke Van Ness, Pennsylvania German, p 428. "The nominal morphology for the younger speakers continues to syncretize in its convergence toward English so that the common case will function not only as the subjective and objective case, but also as the indirect object"
 * Ekkehard König, English, p 539. "Only pronouns have preserved a three-term distinction between a nominative ('subjective'), accusative ('objective') and a genitive ('possessive') form".

 * Henry Sweet and Otto Jespersen both argued that the terms accusative and dative shouldn't apply to English case. Sweet preferred "common case" for the case covering the meanings of the old english accusative and dative cases, Jespersen proposes Objective. Morgan Callaway Jr. argued that the distinction between the two existed even though it had no morphological marking. Concerning the Number of Cases in Modern English. Morgan Callaway, Jr. PMLA, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Mar., 1927), pp. 238-254. It would require very good sources to decide which interpretation is the prevalent today - and it would still require us to include the earlier views of Jespersen and Sweet. Ten years later 'Case' in Modern English F. G. Cassidy. Language , Vol. 13, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1937), pp. 240-245 summed up the debate - saying that it boiled down to the accurate use of distnction between case form and case function. That is exactly the pivot of the debate between Kwami and Drew today - Drew favors a functional definition of case, kwami a formal. The question of formal versus functional approaches happens to be the main un-settled issue in linguistics still at this day and a POV fork is unlikely to settle it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 * It's unrelated to the formal/functional debate, actually. Rather, it's morphological vs. syntactic. And in formal linguistics, at least in Case Theory, there's "case" (the inflection) vs "Case" (the function). Others speak of "analytic case", "abstract Case", "deep Case", "case roles", or "thematic roles". But generally, without some sort of dab (or unless people are being sloppy), case is a morphological category for both formal and functional linguists. In the Routledge dict., the entry for case says, "Grammatical category of inflected words which serves to indicate their syntactic function in a sentence", and speaks of cases being lost or replaced, which couldn't happen unless they were morphological. Crystal's dict. also defines case morphologically, and says that, "In languages which lack morphological variations of this kind, the term 'case', as traditionally used, does not apply." (The non-traditional use is then capitalized, as above.) ELL2 states that "Case is essentially a system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads", and the entire article is morphological. Payne's Morphosyntax presents case as morphological throughout. That's the default position. — kwami (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Kwami it is related because morphology is a formal category and Drew is talking about syntactic functions (syntactic roles are functions).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Morphology and syntax are both formal categories, the difference is a matter of scope. But when you said "The question of formal versus functional approaches happens to be the main un-settled issue in linguistics", it sounded like you meant formalist vs functionalist linguistics, which is the main battleground in linguistics today, and morphology vs. syntax has nothing to do with that. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No syntax has two meanings - one of them is formal (word order), the other is functional (namely syntactic roles) (syntactic roles are the functions connected to formal word order positions or morphological marking). And in this sense the question of whether to define case formally as a morphological phenomenon or as a functional phenomenon related to syntactic roles is very much the same debate as formalism versus functionalism in contemporary linguistics.
 * This is off topic for the article, but that's not what the functionalist/formalist debate is about: it's about whether we treat language as a predominantly formal or functional phenomenon. Do we see it based on structure? or on function? Both formalists and functionalists deal with both word order and syntactic roles, with both morphological case and case roles (e.g. case grammar [functionalist] and case theory [formalist]), with both phonetics (form) and phonology (function), etc. No functionalist ever ignored morphology or word order because it was in the wrong camp! But for the functionalist, the form derives historically from its function and use, whereas for the formalist it derives from underlying or innate structure: nature vs nurture, hard-wiring vs frequency effects, etc. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P)lease don't lecture me on the formal functional debate i do know what that is about. And your definition is also the same as my definition since it follows that if one wants to see language as a functional phenomenon then one would tend to prefer functional definitions of grammatical categories and vice versa if one prefers formalism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree, we definitely don't want a POV fork. That is why I support the merge above. My concern is that this article is (possibly) talking about two fundamentally different meanings of oblique case (that should probably be dealt with in two separate aticles, whatever they are called)
 * a class of cases, any one of a number of cases excluding the nominative (or similar)
 * a specific case, defined morphologically.
 * I don't regard this as a POV fork; I don't think the facts are in dispute here, merely the terminology, which is a problem only if the article title includes the word "oblique", which effectively has two (or more) meanings. I am not very happy with the word "objective" either, though it does seem to be one of the most common terms for that meaning of "oblique".
 * The other problem is the issue of whether to define case morphologically or syntactically. I would tend to favour retaining both of these in this article, though one could probably argue about the weight to be given to each position. However, I would not necessarily regard this as a POV fork since syntactic  function and morphology are two different topics, regardless of whether the word "case" is used (correctly or incorrectly).
 * A problem with the term common case is that it is used for English nouns, referring to the non-genitive (also called plain case).
 * I also wonder if it is a good idea to mix up English and other languages. Would it be better to have everything about the case of English pronouns in one place and have separate articles on other languages kept free of anything specific to English (except for examples without undue weight, of course)? In my opinion, the overall structure of the set of articles and the actual content of the articles should be made clear, regardless of the terminology used; the article titles should then be reviewed and, if necessary altered to reflect the actual content. --Boson (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Latin, Gothic, etc. use of oblique cases is trivial. We can cover that under grammatical case, and make a mention of it here. I don't think it warrants anything more than that.
 * Morph/syntax should reflect our sources, including whatever Drew digs up, but what I've seen has been almost exclusively morphological. Some talk about case marking on verbs, but it's still morphology, and would not apply here. But if you take a look at, say, thematic relation or a similar article, no-one is positing "oblique" as a syntactic/semantic "deep" case: its utility is purely morphological.
 * Yeah, 'common case' is no good, IMO.
 * We already have articles specific to English: English personal pronouns, object pronoun, etc. IMO, an article on a case should be about the case, not about a language. Same as any of our other case articles. Of course, you choose the sample languages which fit, so in this case we'd expect a lot of English.
 * Agreed. Titles are secondary to content. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oxford concise dictionary of English Grammar:

 * oblique  1. Designating any case other than subject(ive). In an inflected language, all inflected cases of nouns, pronouns, and adjectives (other than subject(ive), i.e. NOMINATIVE) are covered by this umbrella term. In English the term is occasionally applied to the object forms of those pronouns that have them.
 * objective  1. (n. & adj.) (The case) expressing the object. The differences between Subjective pronouns (or subject pronouns) (e.g. I, she, they, etc.) and objective pronouns (or object pronouns) (e.g. me, her, them, etc.) can be described in terms of subjective and objective case. 3. (n. & adj.) (In Case Grammar.) (Designating) one of six original cases, defined by meaning, that underlie surface structure. This case, sometimes also called AFFECTED or PATIENT, is narrower than the traditional object case.
 * case  1. The functional role of a noun or noun phrase in relation to other words in the clause or sentence. 2. The form of a word (shown by inflection) expressing this. In English (unlike Latin, which has six cases) the only distinction of case in nouns is between the COMMON case (i.e. the ordinary base form for the singular: boy, with plural boys) and the GENITIVE (boy's, boys'). Even this analysis is disputed, since the genitive inflection can be added not only to a word, but also to a phrase (e.g. the King of Spain's daughter), which may not even end with a noun (e.g. the man opposite's car).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster
Oblique case refers to any case except the Nominative or Vocative (thus possessive and object cases are the oblique cases.) I have corrected the introduction. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

 * The dictionary is not a reliable source, and in any case your edit would be more appropriate for Wiktionary. — kwami (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Saying that Merriam-Webster is not a reliable source is absurd. It is a standard and long-established authority. The edit is directly appropriate to this article.  Please do not revert it or edit war over it. I have not reverted or erased anything in this article.  But I have made an addition.  (EnochBethany (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC))

The Concept of Case
The concept of case is greatly confused and misunderstood. Case has commonly been confused with suffix use. But even suffixes in English are often neglected. For example, what case is the -ward case? North is a noun as in the sentence, "John walked to the North." "To" here supplies the case; prepositions indicate case just as suffixes do in inflected languages. The suffix -ward could have been used: "John walked northward." In high school, there was no vocative case in my English classes. But the particle O could have been called the case marker of the vocative case: "O John, come here." And O might have been called a preposition in this use. Compare, "To John I come." IMHO, there are many, many cases; most not named as such, but roughly equal in number to the variety in suffixes that indicate relation to the sentence plus prepostions, plus word-order markers. Probably picking some of them to call "oblique," is questionable and arbitrary.(EnochBethany (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC))

please rewrite this article
This article is a mess. I am comfortable with the subject material as I am a researcher in area - but I cannot follow the main article. The discussion on the talk page is much clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.86.130 (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

casus generalis
What's casus generalis?

"oblique case" in Latin is "casus obliquus" (cf. Latin-German: Kasus obliquus, Obliquus, obliquer Kasus).

Google book search has these results for "casus generalis": So: Accourding to this google book search results "casus generalis" should be a single case (i.e. there are no other cases) which is something different than "casus obliquus" (there is also the casus rectus or there are the casus recti). -EXplodit (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Im Mittelpersischen gab es keine verschiedenen Casus mehr, sondern nur einen Casus generalis." - 'In Middle Persian there were not different cases anymore, but just a general case'. I.e.: casus generalis is a single case - so pretty much like with english substantive (the house, to the house, of the house), if one doesn't label forms with -'s (house's) genitive or possessive case anymore.
 * "[...] italischen Sprachen [...] die Übernahme griechischer Lehnwörter im Akkusativ erfolgt. Dieser beginnt damit seine Rolle als Casus generalis anzutreten." - 'in italic languages worrds were adopted in their accusative form. Thus this case is becoming a general case'. That sounds like one case is replacing all others and thus becoming the only case, similiar to english substantives (see above).
 * "In some Serbian Torlak dialects [...] we also find feminine forms in the so called casus generalis (historical Accusative)". That sounds like the accusative case replaced all other cases and became the only case.
 * "Klwnn zeigt, daß das Wort aus der Vulgärsprache [...] ins Syrische gelangt war. Der Akkusativ [chelÓnEn - greek letters, capital ones instead of macrons] war bereits zum Casus generalis geworden" - 'The word klwnn shows that the word came from the vulgare language into the syric language. The accusative [greek word form] already became the general case.' That sounds like the accusative case replaced all others, at least all other word forms in case of this single word.
 * "eine steigende Tendenz zur Durchbrechung von Rektionsregeln zugunsten eines casus generalis (=Nom./Akk.)" - 'a tendency of breaking inflection rules to form a general case (=nom./acc.)". That sounds like some speakers of a language ignore the correct inflection rules in a way that a general case is formed whose single form is like the nominative and accusative form. Like cf. german "drei Männer gehen" and "dreien Männer gab er" (nominative and dative case) with english "three men go or are going" and "to three men he gave" (like a single general case).
 * Erben (1972 [..]) erläutert [...], dass lat. casus genitivus eine "unrichtige Lehnübersetzung" [..] ist [...]. Die angemessene lateinische Entsprechung sei "casus generalis, d. h. Kasusform, welche die Gattung oder den Zugehörigkeitsbereich der näher bestimmten Größe angibt, bei adverbalem Gebrauch den Wirkungsbereich der Verbalhandlung". - 'Erben explains that lat. casus genitivus is a wrong translation. Die correct latin term would be casus generalis'. I.e.: casus generalis = genitive. While there were/are many antique latin terms for genitive case (casus patricus, casus patrius, casus paternus, casus interrogandi), I've not found "casus generalis" used for this. The different between this "casus generalis" and the above ones can be explained this way: Latin generalis (-e) (adjective) means both, "Of or belonging to a kind or species, generic (very rare)" which is the sense used here, and "Of or relating to all, general" which is the sense used above.

title: Talk:Oblique case


text:
Talk:Wong Tai Sin District

Clarify
Should clarify between the Wong Tai Sin area, and the Wong Tai Sin district which covers Wong Tai Sin, Chuk Yuen, Lok Fu, Tsz Wan Shan, Diamond Hill, Hammer Hill, Choi Hung, etc.

Fair use rationale for File:Wong Tai Sin District Logo.svg
File:Wong Tai Sin District Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Wong Tai Sin District


text:
Talk:German cruiser Blücher

Gun calibers and other measurements
I came to think of the following: it is (historically) important that we use the original measurement units when specifying gun calibers and other measurements of the ship and its technical systems (e.g. using inches and feet where that is appropriate, but be very mindful of continental Europe's preference for metric units when specifying some calibers and most other measurements (giving the equivalent corresponding measurements in parentheses is OK in most places, of course). I'll look into this in more detail if no one else beats me to it. :-) --Wernher 17:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm all for giving the info in metric where it's avilable - after all, it was a german ship, and germans used/use the metric system. WegianWarrior 14:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The units are ok, but the information isn't. Regarding length the main text differs from the infobox. Main text: 202.8 meters at launch, and modified to 205.9 meters during sea tests. Infobox states that length is 203.2 m. Apparently 202.8 meter was the length at lauch of Admiral Hipper and Blücher was 203.2. Both ships were modified during sea tests and Blücher was 205.9 when it entered service. I belive this should be the value listed in the infobox. It was a permanent modifications of the ship. Check the numbers with the Admilar Hippe Class article, and preferably reference sources. There are conflicting numbers, and Wikipedia shouldn't contrubute to confusion. Hstyri (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

More on ship's early operational history
My primary source, Binder & Schlünz, contains detailed info on the ship's life from its launch till its final minutes. I'll try to include some of this in the op. hist. section, but will be happy for help by anyone having good sources and 'feeling the urge'. --Wernher 17:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wish I had a good source... I'm sure I have a pamplet from Oscarsborg around somewhere relating the events from the 9th April in detail, but can't seem to find it thought. It ticks me off, since it had lots of details about not just the early history of the ship (and the fortress), but also on what has happened to the ship after it went down. WegianWarrior 14:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pictures and such?
Does anyone have, or be able to get access to, some decent pictures to include? I sort of imagined three pics.. a picture of the ship in all her splendour, a map of the area just around Oscarsborg showing where she was first hit, where she was torpedoes and where she sank, and (if possible) pictures from the sunken ship.WegianWarrior 14:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Armament
Blücher did not carry any 40 mm AA (Source: Hildebrand, Röhr, Steinmetz: Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe Vol. 2; Whitley: Kreuzer im Zweiten Weltkrieg). I guess german ships received them much later in the war. Also, Whitley lists only 8 single 20 mm and no mines for Blücher (the latter only for Admiral Hipper and Prinz Eugen). I do not want to mess up the box, furthermore I am not a registered english user (only german), so could somebody please correct? --172.177.34.147 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Changes made, using Whitley's Cruisers of WWII (1995 edition). Collin's Warships of WWII records the class as having capacity for 160 mines. Also extended the ship box and deleted some duplicated info. Folks at 137 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Which time reference to be used here?
The article refere to the first shot at 05.21 and the sinking at 07.22. This is German (summer)time or GMT. Norwegian time is 04.21 and 06.22. What time reference should be used? KjellG 08:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

First (Second) hit
The article state this to be at the base of one of the 20,3 cm turrets. How come that Stückmeister im Türme A und B both abandoned their turrets in full combat order? The first (some say the second) 28 cm hit was in the battle mast above the bridge, doing little damage besides killing AO II and some of his staff. The top of the mast, with battle station for AO I, got out of alignment rendering the top long distance, range finder useless, but Blücher had 4 other large range finders and a number of smaller ones. The 20.3 cm batteries was all i full combat order until after the second torpedo hit and the turret crew ordered to take part in fire fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.65.18 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Joshua, Moses and Aaron
I believe the old guns that got the first hits on Blucher were called Joshua and Moses (Aaron was not manned). Moses was dropped in the ocean when being installed, hence the name. And Aaron was named after the name-sakes brother. ref http://www.admiral-hipper-class.dk/bluecher/miscellaneous/oscarsborg_bluecher_wreck_site_today/oscarsborg_bluecher_wreck_site_today.html

JP Axelsson jpaxelsson@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCED:C7B0:21CB:3EF3:B702:8A7D (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 * An interesting detail, but I don't know that it's particularly relevant for this article, which should focus on the ship. It would probably be more relevant at the Oscarsborg Fortress article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 * The name bit is supported by reliable sources. I'll add it to the Oscarsborg article when I have time. One thing, though, the guns were of course not called Moses, Aaron and Joshua. Being nicknamed by Norwegians, not English-speakers, they were called Moses, Aron and Josva. As far as I recall, it is not entirely clear which two of the three guns were fired on 9 April 1940, will check with reliable book sources. Manxruler (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"Blucher (1939 German criser)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Blucher (1939 German criser). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~ GB fan 09:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How much did this baby cost?
Must have stung - basically just out of port and a total loss w/o scoring against any enemy. 50.111.8.86 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:German cruiser Blücher


text:
Ermentrude of Orléans

Ermentrude of Orléans (27 September 823 – 6 October 869) was the Queen of the Franks by her marriage to Charles II. She was the daughter of Odo, count of Orleans and Engeltrude de Fézensac.

Queenship
The traditional historiography on queenship has created an image of a queen who a king's "helpmate" and provider of heirs. P.Stafford has examined queenship in a lot of depth, using Ermentrude's role in the Carolingian dynasty. They had power within the royal household and partially within the court. Their official duty was running the royal household smoothly, such as directing the children's education, supervising the staff and managing the private royal treasury. They unofficially acted as hostesses, ensuring the royal family was not involved in scandals and giving gifts to high-ranking officials in a society where this was important to maintain bonds. As a result, queens were expected to act as wise, loyal and chaste women.

In particular, Ermentrude was described by a contemporary, John Scotus Eriugena, as a 'strong woman' (femina fortis). 2 letters written in her name survive, a further 5 letters were addressed to her, and 12 charges issued by Charles II had her involved. In her free time, she showed a gift for embroidery.

Consecration
In 866, Ermentrude was consecrated by the Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims during a politically turbulent time regarding his relationship with Charles II. It was the coronation of a wife rather than a bride, as she was crowned over 20 years after her wedding. According to Z. Mistry, the ordination shows two important ideas about Ermentrude and queenship in general: a) dynastic security b) how to be a good wife to a king.

Throughout the ordination, Ermentrude is repeatedly compared to Sarah from the Bible, and Z. Mistry concludes that this is an attempt from Hincmar and Charles II to bless the Carolingian dynasty with more heirs through Ermentrude. This is because Sarah struggled to have children until she reaffirmed her faith, showing that fertility and dynastic survival was entwined with devout faith. Fittingly, Ermentrude had an interest in religious foundations and associations with several convents, including Chelles and Avenay.

Z. Mistry points out that Hincmar also developed an ideology for the behaviour of queens in his ordination and other works. He expected Ermentrude to be ‘loveable like Rachel, wise like Rebecca, loyal like Sarah.’ This list for how to be a good queen was common in Carolingian times, as Eriugena praised Ermentrude for her chastity, piety, and constant prayer, all virtues reminiscent of biblical women.

Issue
Ermentrude of Orléans and Charles II, also known as "The Bald", married in 842. Their children were:
 * Judith (844–870 or later), Queen of Wessex by her marriages with Kings Æthelwulf and Æthelbald, Countess of Flanders by her marriage with Margrave Baldwin I
 * Louis II of West Francia, also known as "The Stammerer" (846–879)
 * Charles I of Aquitaine, also known as "The Child" (847–866)
 * Lothar (848–865), monk in 861, became Abbot of Saint-Germain
 * Carloman (849–877)
 * Rotrud (852–912), a nun
 * Ermentrud (854–877), a nun
 * Hildegard (856–c. 860), died young
 * Gisela (857–874)
 * Godehilde (864–907), a nun

title: Ermentrude of Orléans


text:
12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend

The SS Division Hitlerjugend or 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend" (12. SS-Panzerdivision "Hitlerjugend") was a German armoured division of the Waffen-SS during World War II. The majority of its junior enlisted men were drawn from members of the Hitler Youth, while the senior NCOs and officers were from other Waffen-SS divisions. Most of the enlisted men were teenagers, starting from the ages of 16 or even 15.

The division committed several war crimes while en route to and during the early battles of the Allied Normandy landings, including the Ascq and Normandy massacres, and several massacres, arsons and rapes in the cities of Plomion, Tavaux, Bouillon, Godinne, Hun, Rivere, Warnant and Namur. It first saw action on 7 June 1944 as part of the German defensive operations at Caen against Allied Forces, and suffered great casualties during the Battle of the Falaise Pocket.

In December 1944, the division was committed against the US Army in the Ardennes offensive. After the operation's failure, which became known as the Battle of the Bulge, the division was sent to Hungary to participate in fighting around Budapest. The division eventually retreated into Austria and surrendered to the 7th US Army on 8 May 1945. After the war several members of the division, including its former commander Kurt Meyer, were convicted of war crimes.

Formation and training
The idea for the Waffen-SS division was first proposed by Artur Axmann, the leader of the Hitler Youth, to Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler in early 1943. The plan for a division made up of Hitler Youth members born in 1926 was passed on to Adolf Hitler for his approval. Hitler approved the plan in February and SS-Gruppenführer Gottlob Berger was ordered to recruit the personnel. SS-Oberführer Fritz Witt of 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (LSSAH) was appointed the divisional commander. Personnel from the LSSAH provided the regimental, battalion and most of the company commanders for the division. About 2,000 personnel were transferred from the LSSAH and in September 1943, the division had over 16,000 recruits on its roster, undergoing training in Beverloo Camp in Leopoldsburg, Belgium. The indoctrination was often brutal; while in Allied captivity, an SS man from the division recalled: "In the Waffen-SS you couldn't do anything if an Unterfuhrer hit you during the training. The purpose of the training is to make you just as they are; it's pure sadism".

In March 1944 the 12th SS was attached to the I SS Panzer Corps and transferred to Caen in Normandy. At the beginning of June, the division had over 150 tanks.

Ascq massacre
The division committed its first massacre while en route to Normandy. The division executed 86 French men on 1 April 1944 in Ascq, France, in a reprisal against the civilian population after the railway they were on was sabotaged. The commander of the convoy, SS-Obersturmführer Walter Hauck, ordered troops to search and arrest all male members of the houses on both sides of the track. Altogether, 70 men were shot beside the railway line and another 16 killed in the village. In 1949, Hauck was put on trial in Lille, France, and was sentenced to death. His sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. He was freed in 1957 after a further sentence reduction.

Normandy
On 6 June 1944, the division, along with the 21st Panzer Division, were the closest Panzer divisions to the landing beaches but they were unable to move until ordered by the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW, armed forces high command). The division was ordered to the front at 14:30 hours on 6 June, over twelve hours after the first reports of the landings. Prior to this Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt had ordered over half of the division to deal with a parachute landing on the coast near Lisieux which was found to be dummies from Operation Titanic.

The division's advance to the areas near the British–Canadian landing beaches of Sword and Juno proceeded slowly due to Allied air attacks. The first units of the 12th SS reached their assembly area near Evrecy at 22:00 hours on 6 June but the Panther battalion ran out of fuel east of the Orne River. According to Marc Milner, "[t]his was just the first example of sloppy staff work and command and control that characterized 12th SS Division's experience in the beachhead battles". At 10:00 hours on 7 June, the 25th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment, along with 50 Panzer IV tanks of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment, arrived and moved into position north-west of Caen. Supported by a battalion of artillery (3rd Battalion, 12th SS Panzer Regiment), this battle group was ordered to stop the Canadian advance and drive through to the coast, a few kilometres away. They failed to break through the Canadians around Buron, a kilometre to the north. Meyer countermanded the divisional commander's order on his own initiative, feeling that objective unrealistic and hoped merely to stop the flow of Canadian units inland until the situation could be stabilized.

The attack by the division was supposed to have been supported by the 21st Panzer Division but they could not disengage from fighting the British 3rd Infantry Division and were still at Couvre. Casualties of the 25th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment amounted to about 300 men, while 15 tanks from the 12th SS Panzer Regiment were also destroyed. Late on 7 June, the 26th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment under command of SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Wilhelm Mohnke arrived on the battlefield. Meyer had pushed back one part of the Canadian advance but to the west, the 7th Canadian Infantry Brigade had occupied a group of small villages three kilometres into the German line. The 26th Panzergrenadier Regiment crossed behind Meyer's regiment and took post to the west. The 1st Battalion launched an attack towards Norrey-en-Bessin, defended by the Regina Rifles, 7th Canadian Infantry Brigade, 3rd Canadian Division. Their orders were to overrun the Canadians and force a deep wedge between them and the British to the west. No reconnaissance of the Canadian positions was done and the infantry met intense defensive fire from firmly established positions.

The attack at 03:30 hours on 8 June had little initial success. The various companies in the attacking battalion failed to coordinate effectively and suffered many casualties. Facing Canadian artillery and the supporting heavy machine guns of the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa, the 1st Battalion of the 12th SS was forced to fall back. Despite their losses, the Regina Rifles stood their ground. The Hitlerjugend division was criticized for performing inadequately in the opening days of the Normandy campaign, with the Canadian Brigadier, Harry Foster, later noting that "no use was made of the fact that the Reginas' flanks were exposed; instead, the enemy flung himself straight against the strongest points and utterly failed to exploit the undoubted weakness of his opponent's position". On the Canadian right, the 2nd Battalion attacked the Royal Winnipeg Rifles defending the village of Putot-en-Bessin at 06:30 hours. The battalion managed to break into the village and surround several companies, pushing the Winnipeg Rifles out of the village by 13:00 hours and inflicting 256 casualties – of which 175 were taken prisoner. Later that day, a counter-attack by the Canadian Scottish Regiment, with artillery, tank and tank-destroyer support, re-took Putot with the SS giving up the struggle for the village and withdrawing around midnight. Oliver Haller concluded that "It is evident that the 12th SS was not capable of conducting successful offensive operations against prepared positions in Normandy. Artillery and anti-tank guns were the key to victory, and the Allies possessed large numbers of these effective weapons. All of the German assaults were checked and defeated in detail. The 3rd Canadian Division had won a decisive victory".

The 3rd Canadian Division ceased major combat operations until July, with only one day of major operations, on 11 June, at the Battle of Le Mesnil-Patry. This saw the 12th SS inflict many casualties on the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada and the 1st Hussars (6th Armoured Regiment) which lost 51 Sherman tanks. Also on 11 June the 46th Royal Marine Commando assaulted Rots. The official historian of Le Régiment de la Chaudière, described the "ferocious battle" including hand-to-hand fighting and "smoldering" tanks,                                                                                "from each blackened turret hangs the charred corpse of a machine gunner". The following two weeks was a period of relative quiet, as both sides were exhausted. What did not stop was the constant Allied artillery, naval bombardment and air attacks. Major operations for both sides began again in July, including Operation Windsor and Operation Charnwood.

During Charnwood, the division was driven from its positions in Buron and nearby villages of Gruchy and Cussy and the divisional command post in the Ardenne Abbey, which had been occupied since before D-Day, was lost. Witt was killed in action by a Royal Navy naval artillery barrage which hit the divisional command post at Venoix on 14 June 1944 and Kurt Meyer was placed in command of the division. In August, the division was involved in the fighting around Falaise against the Polish 1st Armoured Division battlegroups who were trying to close the Falaise Pocket. The 12th SS, along with several other German units and panzer ace SS-Oberscharführer Rudolf Roy who destroyed 26 allied tanks, was instrumental in re-opening the corridor out of the pocket on 20 August, allowing an estimated 10,000 German soldiers to escape encirclement.

During their retreat from France, members of the LSSAH and the Hitlerjugend division murdered 34 French civilians in the towns of Tavaux and Plomion. The units in the division that were not fit for combat were ordered to return to Germany on 8 September, leaving behind a small Kampfgruppe attached to the SS Division Das Reich. The division losses during the fighting in Normandy, in the three months from June to September, amounted to c. 8,000 men, over 80 per cent of its tanks, 70 per cent of its armored vehicles, 60 per cent of its artillery and 50 per cent of its motor vehicles.

Ardenne Abbey massacre
Another massacre was committed by the division on its second day of operations during Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of France. During the evening of 7 June, 11 Canadian prisoners of war from the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders and the 27th Armoured Regiment (The Sherbrooke Fusilier Regiment), were shot in the back of the head. After a year of investigations from August 1944 to August 1945, the Canadian War Crimes Commission (CWCC) strove to discover the details of the murders. As commander of the regiment, Kurt Meyer was the prime suspect. At Meyer's war crimes trial in December 1945, he was found guilty of inciting his troops to commit murder and of being responsible as a commander for the killings at the Abbey. He was sentenced to death on 28 December 1945; his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 1946. He was released in 1954.

Ardennes offensive
In September, SS-Obersturmbannführer Hubert Meyer was placed in command of the division. In November 1944, the division was sent to Nienburg in Germany, where it was to be reformed. The majority of reinforcements were transferred from Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine personnel. Hubert Meyer was replaced by SS-Obersturmbannführer Hugo Kraas, and the division was attached to the 6th SS Panzer Army of SS-Oberstgruppenführer Sepp Dietrich, which was forming up for Operation Wacht am Rhein (the Second Battle of the Ardennes, popularly known as the Battle of the Bulge), a large-scale offensive to recapture Antwerp and halt the Allied advance. The operation opened on 16 December 1944, with Kampfgruppe Peiper from the 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler breaking through the American lines with some difficulty. After the 12th SS reached the front, it was met with heavy resistance from American troops stationed on the Elsenborn Ridge. Despite repeated efforts, the division could not budge the American defenders. As a result, the division was ordered to swing left and follow the advance line of the remainder of the 1st SS Panzer Division. American troops prevented the division from reaching its objective, and after the destruction of Kampfgruppe Peiper from the LSSAH, the advance of Dietrich's forces was altogether stopped. On 8 January Hitler gave the authorization to withdraw. The attack was ultimately a failure. The 12th SS had been severely mauled, with only 26 tanks and assault guns and an average of 120 men remaining in each battalion. In total during the offensive the division had lost 9,870 men which included 328 officers and 1,698 NCO's. By 28 January 1945, the 12th SS, along with all the German forces, had been pushed back to its starting positions.

1945
On 14 January 1945, Dietrich's 6th SS Panzer Army was ordered to Hungary where it was to take part in an offensive to recapture the Hungarian oilfields and open the way to Budapest, where 45,000 men of the IX SS Mountain Corps had been encircled. While the division was in transit, the IV SS Panzer Corps launched several unsuccessful relief operations. The division, alongside the LSSAH as a part of I SS Panzer Corps arrived in Hungary in early February 1945, a few days before the city fell. The division next took part in Operation Spring Awakening, another operation to retake the Hungarian oilfields. The attack got underway on 6 March 1945; after initial success, the combination of the muddy terrain and strong Soviet resistance ground them to a halt. On 16 March, the Soviet forces counterattacked in strength, driving the entire southern front into a retreat towards Vienna. The Soviet forces took Vienna on 13 April. Retreating through Odenburg and Hirtenberg, the division reached Linz, Austria near the American lines. On 8 May 1945, 10,000 men of the division surrendered near the town of Enns to the troops of the 65th Infantry Division commanded by Major General Stanley Eric Reinhart.

Organization
The organization structure of this SS formation was as follows:

<!--- ==Order of Battle June 1944==
 * Divisional HQ
 * Brigadeführer Fritz Witt (Killed in action 14 June 1944)
 * Oberführer Kurt Meyer (from 14 June 1944)
 * Sturmbannführer Hubert Meyer (from 6 September 1944)
 * Brigadeführer Fritz Kraemer (from 24 October 1944)
 * Brigadeführer Hugo Kraas (from 13 November 1944 – 8 May 1945)
 * 25th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment Hitlerjugend, Standartenführer Kurt Meyer (until 14 June 1944), Obersturmbannführer Karl-Heinz Milius (from 14 June 1944)
 * I. Battalion, Sturmbannführer, Hans Waldmüller (Killed in action 8 September 1944)
 * 1st Company
 * 2nd Company
 * 3rd Company
 * 4th (Heavy) Company
 * II. Battalion, Sturmbannführer Hans Scappini (Killed in action 7 June 1944)
 * 4 × Companies as per I.Btn
 * III. Battalion, Obersturmbannführer Karl-Heinz Milius (until 14 June 1944), Obersturmbannführer Fritz Steiger (from 14 June 1944)
 * 4 × Companies as per I.Btn
 * 13th (Panzerabwehrkanone) Company, Erwin Kaminski
 * 14th Flak Company, Hauptsturmführer Brantl
 * 15th Reconnaissance Company, Horst von Büttner (Killed in action 8–9 June 1944)
 * 16th (Pionier) Company, Emil Werner
 * 26th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment Hitlerjugend, Standartenführer Wilhelm Mohnke
 * I. Battalion, Sturmbannführer Bernhard Krause
 * 1st Company
 * 2nd Company
 * 3rd Company
 * 4th (Heavy) Company
 * II. Battalion, Sturmbannführer Bernhard Siebken
 * 4 × Companies as per I.Btn
 * III. Battalion, Sturmbannführer Erich Olboeter
 * 4 × Companies as per I.Btn
 * 13th (Panzerabwehrkanone) Company, Obersturmführer Polanski
 * 14th Flak Company, Obersturmführer Martin Stolze
 * 15th Reconnaissance Company, Obersturmführer Bayer
 * 16th (Pionier) Company, Obersturmführer Trompke
 * 12th SS Panzer Regiment, Obersturmbannführer Max Wünsche
 * I. Battalion (66+ × Panther tanks), Sturmbannführer Arnold Jürgensen
 * 1st Company
 * 2nd Company
 * 3rd Company
 * 4th Company
 * Repair Company
 * II. Battalion (96 × Panzer IV), Sturmbannführer Karl-Heinz Prinz
 * 5th Company
 * 6th Company
 * 7th Company
 * 8th Company
 * 9th Company
 * Repair Company
 * 12th SS Artillery Regiment, Sturmbannführer Fritz Schröder
 * I. Battalion (12 × Wespe SP-Artillery, 6 × Hummel SP-Artillery)
 * II. Battalion (18 × 105 mm LeFH 18 (towed howitzers))
 * III. Battalion (12 × 150 mm SFH (towed heavy howitzers), 4 × 105 mm Kanone (towed howitzers))
 * 12th SS Motorcycle Regiment
 * 12th SS Reconnaissance Battalion, Sturmbannführer Gerhard Bremer
 * 1st Company, Obersturmführer Peter Hansmann
 * 2nd Company, Obersturmführer Walter Hauck
 * 3rd Company, Obersturmführer Keue
 * 4th Company, Obersturmführer Heinz Beiersdorf
 * 5th (Heavy) Company, Hauptsturmführer Gerd von Reitzenstein
 * 12th SS Panzerjäger Battalion, Sturmbannführer Jacob Hanreich
 * 1st Battery
 * 2nd Battery
 * 12th SS Werfer Battalion, Hauptsturmführer Willy Müller
 * I Battery (4 × 150 mm Nebelwerfer)
 * II Battery (4 × 150 mm Nebelwerfer)
 * III Battery (4 × 150 mm Nebelwerfer)
 * 12th SS Flak Battalion, Hauptsturmführer Rudolf Fend
 * I Battery (4 × 88mm flak gun)
 * II Battery (4 × 88 mm flak gun)
 * III Battery (4 × 88 mm flak gun)
 * IV Battery (9 × 3.7 cm FlaK 43)
 * 12th SS Pioneer Battalion, Sturmbannführer Siegfried Müller
 * 1st Company
 * 2nd Company
 * 3rd Company
 * Motorised Bridging Unit
 * 12th SS Panzer Signals Battalion, Hauptsturmführer Erich Pandel
 * 12th SS Instandsetzungs, Hauptsturmführer Artur Manthei
 * 12th SS Nachschub Truppen, Hauptsturmführer Rudolf Kolitz
 * 12th SS Wirtschafts Battalion
 * 12th SS Fuhrerbewerber Lehrgange
 * 12th SS War Reporter platoon (mot)
 * 12th SS Feldgendarmerie Company
 * 12th SS Field post office
 * 12th SS Medical Battalion, Sturmbannführer Rolf Schulz M.D. -->

title: 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend


text:
Esterel

Esterel is a synchronous programming language for the development of complex reactive systems. The imperative programming style of Esterel allows the simple expression of parallelism and preemption. As a consequence, it is well suited for control-dominated model designs.

The development of the language started in the early 1980s, and was mainly carried out by a team of Ecole des Mines de Paris and INRIA led by Gérard Berry in France. Current compilers take Esterel programs and generate C code or hardware (RTL) implementations (VHDL or Verilog).

The language is still under development, with several compilers out. The commercial version of Esterel is the development environment Esterel Studio. The company that commercialize it (Synfora) initiated a normalization process with the IEEE in April 2007 however the working group (P1778) dissolved March 2011. The reference manual is publicly available.

The Multiform Notion of Time
The notion of time used in Esterel differs from that of non-synchronous languages in the following way: The notion of physical time is replaced with the notion of order. Only the simultaneity and precedence of events are considered. This means that the physical time does not play any special role. This is called multiform notion of time. An Esterel program describes a totally ordered sequence of logical instants. At each instant, an arbitrary number of events occur (including 0). Event occurrences that happen at the same logical instant are considered simultaneous. Other events are ordered as their instances of occurrences. There are two types of statements: Those that take zero time (execute and terminate in the same instant) and those that delay for a prescribed number of cycles.

Signals
Signals are the only means of communication. There are valued and non-valued signals. They are further categorized as being input, output, or local signals. A signal has the property of being either present or absent in an instant. Valued signals also contain a value. Signals are broadcast across the program, and that means any process can read or write a signal. The value of a valued signal can be determined in any instant, even if the signal is absent. The default status of a signal is absent. Signals remain absent until they are explicitly set to present using the emit statement. Communication is instantaneous, that means that a signal emitted in a cycle is visible immediately. Note that one can communicate back and forth in the same cycle.

Signal Coherence rules
Thus present A else emit A end is an erroneous program, since the writer "emit A" should run before the reader "present A", whereas this program requires "present A" to be performed first.
 * Each signal is only present or absent in a cycle, never both.
 * All writers run before any readers do.

Primitive Esterel statements
Pure Esterel has eleven primitive statements.

Derived Esterel statements
Esterel has several derived constructions:

Other Esterel statements
The full Esterel language also has statements for declaring and instantiating modules, for variables, for calling external procedures, and for valued signals.

Example (ABRO)
The following program emits the output O as soon as both inputs A and B have been received. Reset the behaviour whenever the input R is received.

module ABRO: input A, B, R; output O; loop [ await A || await B ]; emit O each R end module

Advantages of Esterel

 * Model of time gives programmer precise control
 * Concurrency convenient for specifying control systems
 * Completely deterministic
 * Finite-state language
 * Execution time predictable
 * Much easier to verify formally
 * Can be implemented in hardware as well as in software

Disadvantages of Esterel

 * Finite-state nature of the language limits flexibility (but expressivity is sufficient for the chosen application field)
 * Semantic challenges
 * Avoiding causality violations is often difficult
 * Difficult to compile in the general case, but simple correctness criteria exist

title: Esterel


text:
Talk:Dynamometer car

Initial cleanup
There's a bit of cleanup on the initial text. I found the external links by Googling for "dynamometer car"; all of the links I've added appear on the first page of links returned by Google. slambo 12:27, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Obsolete?
Dynamometer cars are by no means obsolete for testing of new vehicles at specialized test centres. Here is an example. David Jaša (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have better photos including interior...
A few months ago I made a trip down to the IRM and this dynamometer car was running: http://www.irm.org/cgi-bin/rsearch.cgi?icwork=Chicago+Milwaukee+St.+Paul+&+Pacific+%28Milwaukee+Road%29=X5000

It's probably worth mentioning that car in the article, since it is operational (I got the pleasure of riding with the crew inside) although it isn't the prettiest, nowadays.

I got very good photographs and video of the interior and exterior. I'm not sure if I can share them without waving my rights to the photos. I could probably find information on that, but I'm too lazy to do it now.

I was also told that dynamometer cars are used in training new drivers, since they can be used to make sure the crew isn't straining the engine or anything else like that.

Trainguyrom (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dynamometer car. 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/20060614131934/http://victorianrailways.net/pass%20cars/pass%20car%20pages/dynamom.html to http://www.victorianrailways.net/pass%20cars/pass%20car%20pages/dynamom.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) 17:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dynamometer car


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Self-nom. I have worked on this article for the past few months, and I believe it has now reached a stage we may consider it for FA. I intend to develop subarticles from its sections in the future, but for now I think the article is around optimal content lenght. Yes, it is a bit larger then 32kb but I am not sure what could be removed *now*. Anyway I'd love to hear your comments on what can be improved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral: This is very interesting and may well be featured article material; but frankly I lost the plot half way through, I think it needs a good copy edit, preferably by someone with knowledge of the subject, the many Polish, or eastern European terms and names seem to have an erratic application  of the definite article.  The page does also seem to be quite heavy work, especially trying to remember who the "Kresy", the "Sejm" and the "szlachta" and their assorted friends and enemies are.  To be fair, the terms are explained in the article, but perhaps more user friendly terms could be used throughout for the benefit of the less retentive like myself.  Perhaps it should be referred to Peer review rather than here. Giano 18:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on the erratic application? I'd be happy to fix any inconsistencies and such regarding the names and such. As far as examples you mention: the term Kresy is explained two times (first and second time it is used in the article); same with Sejm and szlachta (I improved the sentence they first are used in, it was: ....with its uniquely powerful Sejm parliament dominated by szlchta nobles..., now is: Its extremly powerful parliament (known as the Sejm) dominated by dominated by nobles (known as the szlachta).... As far as I know, there are no other English translations of those words. Kresy is a geographical name, referning to Sejm as the parliament would be as erroneus as for US Senat or Congress, and szlachta are as distinct from 'nobles' as are for example Russian boyars, again meriting its own word. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * e.g. the term "szlachta" sometimes has a "the", sometimes not; perhaps sometimes a "the" is not required but often it reads as thought it is, this is a very monor quibble,easily sorted. The article is improving all the time. A time on Peer reviewwould be very beneficial Giano 09:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The English isn't very good. I did what I could to help, fixed some typos and improved some grammar at points, but it needs more work. Not an objection, though. Everyking 23:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about the English. It is not my strongest point as I am not a native speaker. I am afraid there is little more I can do about that complain - hopefully you can do more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've proofread it - how is it now? - David Gerard 15:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Very interesting subject and article. However, I'm not certain that it is up to FA status yet, on account of the points raised above, with which I concur.  I would refer to peer review. Jacob1207 16:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've done a proofreading - how is it now? - David Gerard 15:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * excellent. support - Xed 00:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Andris 10:56, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support.--Emax 14:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. ('though still anxiously) - Halibutt 08:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, but only after a copyedit. I've done a few sections. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - this is good and interesting. I copyedited it, are there others who could check it over? - David Gerard 15:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Dynamometer car/to do

 * Add photos of dyno cars
 * Describe in much more detail the operation of this piece of equipment.
 * Describe the history of the car type's development

title: Talk:Dynamometer car/to do


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahram Ghane

Shahram Ghane
A landscape architect. Doesn't appear to be notable, and the article does nothing to prove otherwise. [[User:Xezbeth| Xezbeth ]] 12:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * delete Nice chap I'm sure, but not notable. Move to a user page if he logs in Dunc|☺ 13:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with Duncharris: Possibly ok for a personal page, but he lists guitar ahead of his career, so professional notability is going to be slim.  Geogre 13:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. --Spangineer ∞ 16:45, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete --fvw *  19:56, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 21:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Either non-notable or reason for notability not mentioned in article. - Andre Engels 02:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. Wyss 04:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Pan-Iranism

Pan-Iranism is an ideology that advocates solidarity and reunification of Iranian peoples living in the Iranian plateau and other regions that have significant Iranian cultural influence.

According to the Routledge Handbook of Persian Gulf Politics: "'One important point distinguishing radical nationalism of pan-Iranism from pan-Arab or pan-Turk orientations in the region is the fact that the Iranian version currently does not seem to include irredentist plans in its political program. Rather than demanding the return the lands separated from Iran in the past, such as Afghanistan, Tajikistan, the Republic of Azerbaijan, Bahrain, or the Kurdish areas of Iraq and Turkey, the Pan-Iranist Party emphasizes the cultural integration of the Iranian civilizational basin.'"

However, there are adherents of Pan-Iranism who have irredentist views and ambitions and demand the return of former Iranian lands returned to them, as part of reconstructing the past borders of Persia.

Origins and ideology
Iranian political scientist Mahmoud Afshar developed the Pan-Iranist ideology in the early 1920s in opposition to Pan-Turkism and Pan-Arabism, which were seen as potential threats to the territorial integrity of Iran. He also displayed a strong belief in the nationalist character of Iranian people throughout the country's long history.

On the eve of World War I, pan-Turkists focused on the Turkic-speaking lands of Iran, Caucasus and Central Asia.Touraj Atabaki, "Recasting Oneself, Rejecting the Other: Pan-Turkism and Iranian Nationalism" in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London, GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001. Actual Quote: "As far as Iran is concerned, it is widely argued that Iranian nationalism was born as a state ideology in the Reza Shah era, based on philological nationalism and as a result of his innovative success in creating a modern nation-state in Iran. However, what is often neglected is that Iranian nationalism has its roots in the political upheavals of the nineteenth century and the disintegration immediately following the Constitutional revolution of 1905– 9. It was during this period that Iranism gradually took shape as a defensive discourse for constructing a bounded territorial entity – the 'pure Iran' standing against all others. Consequently, over time there emerged among the country's intelligentsia a political xenophobia which contributed to the formation of Iranian defensive nationalism. It is noteworthy that, contrary to what one might expect, many of the leading agents of the construction of an Iranian bounded territorial entity came from non Persian-speaking ethnic minorities, and the foremost were the Azerbaijanis, rather than the nation's titular ethnic group, the Persians.

....

In the middle of April 1918, the Ottoman army invaded Azerbaijan for the second time.

...

Contrary to their expectations, however, the Ottomans did not achieve impressive success in Azerbaijan. Although the province remained under quasi-occupation by Ottoman troops for months, attempting to win endorsement for pan-Turkism ended in failure.

...

The most important political development affecting the Middle East at the beginning of the twentieth century was the collapse of the Ottoman and the Russian empires. The idea of a greater homeland for all Turks was propagated by pan-Turkism, which was adopted almost at once as a main ideological pillar by the Committee of Union and Progress and somewhat later by other political caucuses in what remained of the Ottoman Empire. On the eve of World War I, pan-Turkist propaganda focused chiefly on the Turkic-speaking peoples of the southern Caucasus, in Iranian Azerbaijan and Turkistan in Central Asia, with the ultimate purpose of persuading them all to secede from the larger political entities to which they belonged and to join the new pan-Turkic homeland. It was this latter appeal to Iranian Azerbaijanis which, contrary to pan-Turkist intentions, caused a small group of Azerbaijani intellectuals to become the most vociferous advocates of Iran's territorial integrity and sovereignty. If in Europe 'romantic nationalism responded to the damage likely to be caused by modernism by providing a new and larger sense of belonging, an all-encompassing totality, which brought about new social ties, identity and meaning, and a new sense of history from one's origin on to an illustrious future',(42) in Iran after the Constitutional movement romantic nationalism was adopted by the Azerbaijani Democrats as a reaction to the irredentist policies threatening the country's territorial integrity. In their view, assuring territorial integrity was a necessary first step on the road to establishing the rule of law in society and a competent modern state which would safeguard collective as well as individual rights. It was within this context that their political loyalty outweighed their other ethnic or regional affinities. The failure of the Democrats in the arena of Iranian politics after the Constitutional movement and the start of modern state-building paved the way for the emergence of the titular ethnic group's cultural nationalism. Whereas the adoption of integrationist policies preserved Iran's geographic integrity and provided the majority of Iranians with a secure and firm national identity, the blatant ignoring of other demands of the Constitutional movement, such as the call for formation of society based on law and order, left the country still searching for a political identity." The ultimate purpose was to persuade these populations to secede from the larger political entities to which they belonged and join the new pan-Turkic homeland.  It was the latter appeal to Iranian Azerbaijanis, which, contrary to Pan-Turkist intentions, caused a small group of Azerbaijani intellectuals to become the strongest advocates of the territorial integrity of Iran.  After the constitutional revolution in Iran, a romantic nationalism was adopted by Azerbaijani Democrats as a reaction to the pan-Turkist irredentist policies threatening Iran's territorial integrity. It was during this period that Iranism and linguistic homogenization policies were proposed as a defensive nature against all others. Contrary to what one might expect, foremost among innovating this defensive nationalism were Iranian Azerbaijanis. They viewed that assuring the territorial integrity of the country was the first step in building a society based on law and a modern state. Through this framework, their political loyalty outweighed their ethnic and regional affiliations. The adoption of these integrationist policies paved the way for the emergence of the titular ethnic group's cultural nationalism.

Geographically and culturally, Greater Iran is generally acknowledged to include the entire Iranian plateau and its bordering plains, extending from Mesopotamia and the South Caucasus in the west, to the Indus River in the east, and from the Oxus River in the north to the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman in the south.

History
With the collapse of the Qajar dynasty, which had descended into corruption, and the rise of Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1925, who began introducing secular reforms limiting the power of the Shia clergy, Iranian nationalist and socialist thinkers had hoped that this new era would also witness the introduction of democratic reforms. However, such reforms did not take place. This culminated in the gradual rise of a loosely organized grass roots Pan-Iranist movement made up of nationalist writers, teachers, students, and activists allied with other pro-democracy movements.

In the 1940s, following the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, the Pan-Iranist movement gained momentum and popularity as a result of the widespread feeling of insecurity among Iranians who saw the king, Reza Shah, powerless against such foreign presence in the country. There were soldiers from Russia, England, India, New Zealand, Australia and later on, America, present in the country, especially in the capital, Tehran. The Allied occupation influenced a series of student movements in 1941. One of these new groups was an underground nationalist guerrilla group called the Revenge group, also known as the Anjoman. The Pan-Iranist Party was founded later on by two of the members of the Revenge group and two other students in the mid-to-late 1940s in Tehran University. Though the pan-Iranist movement had been active throughout the 1930s, it had been a loosely organized grass roots alliance of nationalist writers, teachers, students, and activists. The party was the first organization to officially adopt the pan-Iranist position, which believed in the solidarity and reunification of the Iranian peoples inhabiting the Iranian plateau. In 1951, the party leaders Mohsen Pezeshkpour and Dariush Forouhar came to a disagreement as to how the party should operate, and a division occurred. The two factions greatly differed in their organizational structure and practice. The Pezeskpour faction, which retained the party name, believed in working within the system of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Forouhar faction, which adopted a new name, Mellat Iran (Nation of Iran Party), believed in working against the system.

Iran-e Bozorg
was the name periodical published in the city of Rasht by the Armenian political activist Gregory Yeghikian (Գրիգոր Եղիկյան). It advocated the unification of Iranian peoples (e.g., Afghans, Kurds, etc.) including the Armenians. Yaqikiān believed that, with education and the rising of the levels of people's awareness, such a goal was feasible through peaceful means. The journal benefited from the contributions of a number of leading intellectuals of the time, including Moḥammad Moʿin and ʿAli Esfandiāri (Nimā Yušij), and carried articles, poetry, a serialized story, and some news. It also published articles in support of the Kurds who had risen in rebellion in Turkey, which caused the protest of the Turkish counsel in Rasht and led to the banning of the paper by the order of the minister of court. Yaqikiān tried, without success, to have the ban removed and eventually moved to Tehran, where he published the paper Irān-e Konuni.

Iran
Tajikistan

title: Pan-Iranism


text:
User talk:Outis~enwiki

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Outis. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Outis~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Outis~enwiki


text:
Jacques Dudon

Jacques Dudon is a French just intonation composer and instrument builder. He is best known for developing a series of photosonic disk (disque photosonique) instruments in the 1980s that produced sound from modulated light (a light source shines through painted glass discs; the resulting patterns of light are picked up by photo cells and converted into a voltage which can then be treated as a sound signal).

The production of synthetic sound in this manner has been used in "optosonic" instruments since the early 20th century (for example the Optophonic Piano). However Dudon's method is notable for the generation of tone which is produced by the overlapping of two or three discs, and the opportunities this design provides for timbral shifts by slowing one or more discs manually, thereby altering the waveform.

In the 1970s, he created 150 water instruments called "aquaphones" (described in his pioneering book La Musique De L'eau ), including a "flutabullum", a system of transforming flute sounds by recording them underwater).

Aquavina
The aquavina was an experimental musical instrument created by Jacques Dudon.

It was essentially a variant of the Appalachian dulcimer, but with a metal resonator body partially filled with water. The player would agitate the instrument while playing, resulting in a constant acoustic phasing effect within the instrument's harmonics.

title: Jacques Dudon


text:
Talk:Argumentum ad numerum

Isn't this the same as Bandwagon Fallacy? --Hob 12:36, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be merged. Shawnc 16:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Bandwagon fallacy for discussion. Shawnc 17:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Argumentum ad numerum


text: User:Vague Rant/Copynote

title: User:Vague Rant/Copynote