text:
Talk:Glottalic theory

Ejectives in Armenian?
I'm not a professional linguist, but doesn't Armenian have ejectives? And isn't it an indo-european language?

 * Yes, it most certainly is Indoeuropean, and it might have ejectives, but if it does, they are not primary (ie, inherited directly from Indoeuropean), so it isn't of much relevance here, I believe. Or did you have something else in mind? --Twid 17:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some dialects of armenian look like other indo european languages like greek and latin (having voiced stops where they do) and others have glottalic stops similar to IE in the proposed glottalic theory. I like this theory. It makes Germanic sound changes less anomalous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.236.121.9 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Addition: Classical Armenian (and that's the decisive stage of the language) certainly had ejectives. There's a long treatment of this (in German) in Jan Henrik Holst: Armenische Studien, 2009, pp. 23 - 44. As to Modern Armenian, the other writer is right: it depends on which dialect you mean; some dialects still have the ejectives, some don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.202.199.92 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that in romanizations of armenian, the apostrophe (p', t', k') marks aspiration, not ejectives Canaron (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2019 (CET)

Chain shifted all three??
The text segment on noting that Germanic chain shifted all three is inaccurate. As the above poster noted, the Germanic sound changes are less anomalous under Glottalic theory. The text as is reads wrong, as under glottalic, PIE(G) [PIE with glotallic] b, d, g and gw are unchanged into Germanic! So, really it should state that only two shift. The unaspirated stops pass from p->f, t->þ, k->h and kw->hw. (I suspect that Germanic perhaps had these stops first pass quickly through an aspiration phase that led to the further shift, and recall seeing an article somewhere on that...) The remaining Germanic-identifying change is that the ejectives are reduced to stops with or without aspiration, i.e. t` becomes simple t.

It makes a good contrast too with Italic, Greek, etc. choosing a different series of *two* chain shifts, where Italic, et al. keep p, t, k and kw intact, instead turning b, d, g and gw into fricatives, thus allowing the ejectives to migrate into voiced stops. --Sturmde 29 June 2005 13:48 (UTC)

 * Actually the reference to chain-shifting all three sounds is accurate. But the sentence it is in is prone to misunderstanding; indeed I misread it the same way on first reading. The sentence is subject to the condition, “If the parent language had a typologically unstable system (the traditional p/b/bh system).” All of the examples (Indo-Iranian, Greek and Italic, Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Armenian) then describe the changes from the traditional reconstruction. This is a little confusing in an article on the glotalic theory, but the point is that the typological instability of the traditional reconstruction supposedly explains the many different reflexes of the voiced (aspirates?) in the daughter languages.
 * The glotalic theory certainly fits Germanic very well. But if the voiced (asperates?) were really unaspirated, why did they evolve in so many different ways. Was it to make phonetic space for the evolution of ejectives into voiced stops? Then why didn’t the ejectives evolve in many ways (or just remain ejectives)? --teb728 22:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

More objections
Proto-Indo-European did not permit a root to begin and end with a voiced stop, i.e., there are no such roots as *deg or *ged in the reconstruction above. I wonder if this argument should be treated seriously. At least according to Adolf Erhart's book ''Indoevropské jazyky. Srovnávací fonologie a morfologie, not only the roots as *deg but also the roots as *tegh, *dhek'' are prohibited! Why? It seems to be a similar phenomenon, caused by a similar reason, but yet it cannot be explained the same way as the absence of the *deg-type roots. The roots as *tek, *teg, *dek, *dhegh are all possible and frequent. And finally, the roots as *degh, *dheg are also possible but rare.

Moreover, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov divided IE languages into Taihun and Decem groups (it's a pity that not a word on this here; the names are analogical to Centum and Satem). According to these scholars, the Taihun group (mainly Armenian and Germanic, maybe also Anatolian and Tocharic) represents the older stage of the IE consonantism, while the Decem group (Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, Greek, Italic, Celtic) is more progressive with voiced stops on the place of supposed previous ejectives. There is a huge problem in the argumentation, however. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov reconstruct voiceless, ejective and voiced rows basing on both Germanic and Armenian facts - but without sufficient base for such a reconstruction.

In Old Armenian we find voiceless and voiced unchanged, but there are non-aspirated consonants on the place of postulated ejectives. At the same time, Germanic has voiceless fricatives (f, þ, x) on the place of voiceless stops, aspirated voiceless stops (p, t, k) on the place of postulated ejectives and voiced fricatives (β, ð, γ) on the place of postulated voiced stops.

Two facts should be emphasized. Voiced stops in Germanic are the result of further development of previous fricatives (and not in all positions). If the Glottalic theory were right, we could observe the process of the type d > ð > d here. It is not impossible but less probable than the change dh > ð > d like in the classic (non-glottalic) attempt.

The second significant observation now. De facto aspirated (except in some positions) voiceless stops in Germanic (p, t, k) come from the same source (ejectives) as non-aspirated voiceless stops in Old Armenian. In the same time, Armenian has also aspirated voiceless stops (p`, t`, k`) but they come from a different source (voiceless) and they correspond to Germanic voiceless fricatives.

Example: Gothic taihun "10" has the aspirated t- while Armenian tasn "t.s." has the non-aspirated t-. Maybe it has been the conventional transliteration used for Armenian which has confused the authors of the Glottalic theory: it is Old Armenian aspirated t` (and not t) which has (at least in the most instances) the same phonetic value like Germanic (aspirated) t.

Yet another observation. According to the traditional point of view, there was a consonantal change in Proto-Germanic (ex. *dhogwh- > *daγ(w)). Next, there was the second consonantal change in some Germanic dialects (ex. *daγ(w) > Tag in modern German). Similarly in Armenian: after the first common Armenian consonantal shift there was the second consonantal shift in some Armenian dialects. Isn't it striking?

It looks like if languages, once put out of the steady state, tend to subsequent changes next. So, the simplest solution (in accordance to Occam's razor) seems to be to presume that Common Germanic and Old Armenian consonantal systems are more changed in comparison to the PIE state than consonantal systems of most other IE languages.

And finally. The classic view (such as Illych-Svitych presented) among followers of the Nostratic hypothesis is as follows:

Note that ejective sounds are changed in placed. So, the glottalic hypothesis gains no support even from this. So, in my opinion, it has too many weak points and it lacks real arguments.

Perhaps part of these remarks should be noticed in the "objective chapter" of the article.

--Grzegorj 13:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem I see with some of your arguments is that they are not universally accepted. For example, there is no consensus that voiced stops developed from fricatives in Germanic. Glottalic theory types (nb not me) are among those that assert the opposite development. Also, the argument based on aspiration is not sound because (a) there is no way to tell whether Gothic or other old Germanic languages had aspiration; (b) even in the modern languages, aspiration is only initial, exactly where you'd expect it given a strong initial stress (which is not reconstructed for early Proto-Germanic!). Hence aspiration could very easily have developed *within* Germanic, after the development of dynamic stress -- quite possibly even after the split into daughter langs. Benwing 03:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You are fully right. There are some "but's" however. It seems to be obvious that reconstructions based on two or more languages are much more probable than those based on only one language (are the latter permissible at all in science?). The followers of the glottalic theory usually claim that their view is based on similarities between Armenian and Germanic (Gmc). But they do not emphasize (it would have been very strange if they had emphasized) that their Germanic reconstructions are not generally acceptable. So, their colossus stands on two legs, one of them is made of clay.

 * In fact, voiced fricatives (on the place of classic IE voiced aspirated = glottalic IE voiced stops) are present in most Gmc languages. E.g. IE (classic) *gh > Old English gh [γ] > ZERO or y in Modern English; similarly *bh > v except some positions. Even if we find *b on the place of *bh in German, there is foundation to assume existance of *β in the past, namely, the old *w seems to have mixed with *β and developed into b like in gelb < *γelw-, cf. English yellow.

 * In all Gmc languages *f, *þ, *x, *s > *β, *ð, *γ, *z after an unstressed syllable ("Verner's law"). Indeed, some scholars do propose *f > *b etc. instead, which is however very doubtful for some reasons:

 * the change "a voiceless fricative" > "a voiced fricative" is just more probable than "a voiceless fricative" > "a voiced stop",
 * the parallel change *s > *z is undoubtful (so, a voiceless fricative to a voiced fricative, not to a voiced stop),
 * the voiceless stops did not undergo to the change,
 * if *f had really changed into *b immediately, two fonologic features (fricativeness and voicing) should have been claimed to be changed at the same time which is much less probable than a simple change.
 * Anyway, the results of "Verner's law" fully mixed with the descendants of (classic) *bh, *dh, *gh. So, e.g. if we assumed the immediate shift *x > *g, we would have *x > *g > γ at least in some positions (fricative > stop > fricative).

 * For all those reasons, the model with Gmc *β, *ð, *γ is simpler and more probable than that with *b, *d, *g. As I said, "it is not impossible but less probable". I would even say that the idea of Gmc *b, *d, *g would violate Occam's razor. And I would say that there is no reason for assuming Gmc *b, *d, *g, except the glottalic theory. But then this assumption cannot be invoked as an argument for it (because of a logic error of vicious circle).

 * And about aspiration: the most important is that Old Armenian aspirated stops never correspond to Germanic aspirated stops but rather to voiceless fricatives. Besides, it is not true that aspiration in Germanic languages is only initial. For example, the German orthoepic norm tells about aspiration of [p t k] also in other positions, including the final position after a stressed vowel (like in Galopp, Betrieb, Gewalt, Kontrast, Musik, weg) and the position before [l r n] like in April. Icelandic also knows aspiration in many positions. So, it is more likely that aspiration disappeared in some positions because it can be explained with the help of one reason (reduction in an unstressed syllable in some position). If we assumed that aspiration is secondary in Gmc, there would be hard to find one reason for explaining all instances where aspiration can happen.

 * Of course I do not say that these arguments are "better" than those which have already been presented in the article. These are only addings.

 * --Grzegorj 00:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Two random comments. One: surely Nostratic is even more controversial & less solid a theory than this, and wouldn't thus make a very good objection? And two: eg. * > * is a change in both voicing and MOA just as well as eg. * > * is, so the implausibility of such changes doesn't seem like a plausible objection either.
 * --Tropylium 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Nostratic is not more controversial and less solid because it is based on an outer reconstruction which is always more plausible than an internal reconstruction. This is why it is a good objection.

 * You might be right, as I'm not sure how good Nostratic's standing exactly is these days. But I do believe I could think of an exception to that "always" (something involving kooky theories about isolates, frex...)

 * You are also wrong in the point 2. * > * is not a change in both voicing and MOA because both and  are voiced (please study the meaning of both symbols before you use your argument). No voicing change is supposed to happen here then, the only change is "aspirated occlusive" > "fricative". There is nothing special in this change, examples are numerous. Thus the discussed objection is plausible, despite of what you say.

 * Grzegorj 08:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

 * "Voiced aspirated" is just another way of saying "brethy voice" AFAIK. Still voiced, yes, but not modal (full) voice - and that is what voiced fricativs have, 99% of the time. I'll also grant that it's a smaller change in voicing than unvoiced > fully voiced, but I believe the point does still stand.

 * Do any of these numerous spirantization examples of yours happen to involve voiced aspirates in non-IE langs, BTW? I'm only aware of that occuring in Germanic and Iranic. --Tropylium 10:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(reindenting) It suddendly occurs to me that it is possible, especially within the glottalic framework, that Verner's law predates Grimm's. This minimizes the voicing/MOA flip-flops. And checking the VL article, hey presto, that idea is presented there alreddy in an entirely non-glottal context. :) -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In actually examining samples of the so-called "Taihun" languages, Tocharian for example does not even have an initial "t" for its word for 'ten' - in fact, the "sam" word would imply it is probably Satem anyway and so outside of the Decem/Taihun split. So I think that the statement about what the decem and taihun languages are needs to be rewritten or deleted. --50.67.247.221 (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ejectives
Were there ejectives in PIE? Read the following quotation: "The central tenet of the Glottalic Theory of the Proto-Indo-European obstruent system is that what has been traditionally reconstructed as a plain voiced stop series can be more convincingly reconstructed as a series of ejectives, which are inherently voiceless. However, the abundant evidence that this series was voiced has led to outright rejection by many of the Glottalic Theory. In an apparent attempt to obviate these objections, Frederick Kortlandt claims to have found ample comparative evidence that this series underwent a change from ejectives to implosives to voiced stops in several branches of Indo-European. In this address evidence will be presented to demonstrate that Kortlandt's implosive model is fraught with implausibility and inconsistencies and should also be rejected." (Simpson Humanities Center)

So, the evidence that Germanic (aspirated or not) *p *t *k, as well as Armenian non-aspirated *p *t *k are secondary and stand for original voiced stops is abundant. Charles Barrack demonstrated that even Kortland's attempt (ejective *t’ > implosive *d’ > Germanic *t(h) = Indian d) causes objections.

--Grzegorj 07:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * So what are these arguments? Your link (which I fixed BTW) provides only a summary of the conclusions.

 * I however offer this paper: How Old Is The English Glottal Stop? I may be only an amateur in linguists, but to me those seem like good arguments about glottalization being an old feature of at least Germanic unvoiced stops. And according to another paper I've redd, the 1st laryngeal, commonly (AIUI) interpreted to having been a glottal stop, had similar effects on vowels in Slavic as the traditionally *voiced series (before its merging with *brethy.) (This could probably be added to the section mentioning Winter's Law by someone who knoes a bit more about it than me.) --Tropylium 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

 * This paper looks highly suspect to me. Kortlandt is really stretching in his attempts to find evidence for pre-glottalization and ignoring lots of other, equally plausible (or more plausible) explanations -- e.g. concomitant glottalization is hardly unusual in voiceless stops at the ends of words, and such stops often become simple glottal stops (e.g. in lots of Chinese dialects). Benwing (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 * It's really unfortunate that Barrack's arguments are apparently not provided anywhere easily accessible (are there proceedings?). Talking with Martin Kümmel and others at a conference last year, I was surprised to find that they (as mainstream Indo-Europeanists) had warmed to at least the possibility to phonetically interpret the traditional media (voiced stops) as glottalised, more specifically implosives, in view of certain well-known root constraints (even if they are only relative and not absolute, meaning that certain root shapes are strikingly rare, statistically speaking). That does not mean that mainstream Indo-Europeanists necessarily accept other arguments in favour of the glottalic "theory" (recte: hypothesis), though, such as typology, pre-glottalisation and pre-aspiration in modern Germanic languages (or even the High German sound shift), the Armenian evidence or Lachmann's law, all of which I'd consider at least problematic (some variant of Winter's law seems to be accepted by many – as it is in the LIV –, but the precise formulation of the law and its phonetic interpretation are still not quite clear). The "pre-glottalised voiced stops" posited by the Leiden school at some point (as it had become clear to me some time before that) would seem to be nothing else but implosive stops, phonetically. It would make sense to assume implosives for the latest PIE stage but since it is *b and not *g that is rare (not quite absent, though – the LIV has a number of verbal roots ending in it but none starting with it) this cannot have been the original state and we have to assume ejectives for some older stage.
 * To sum it up, it would be premature to declare the glottalic "theory" flat-out dead – even if it may have seemed like that not long ago (Schumacher demolished the arguments in class quite cogently, or at least almost all of them), when even a controversial scholar such as Vennemann had abandoned it. (His reason, however, seems to have been the incompatibility of the hypothesis with his Semitic speculations, a reason unlikely to turn out relevant for mainstream linguists. No offence to him, who is a pleasant enough and charming gentleman in person, a skilled rhetorician and far from unimaginative, unintelligent, unoriginal or not bold, he does have numerous admirable qualities, I just seem to disagree with his methods, reasoning, conclusions – and especially his suggestion that the opposition to his Semitic etymologies is somehow politically motivated – on a regular basis, and I've learned from experience to automatically distrust any view that Vennemann endorses, and funny enough it seems that he's being consistently out of step with the Indo-Europeanist mainstream yet again. ) It's one of those hypotheses that die surprisingly hard and keep giving you the feeling that there may be something to them; I mean, it's not exactly a crazy hypothesis, if anything, it's just somewhat unorthodox, in more than one sense.
 * One phonetic development that is especially striking is the fact that the only coronal (non-nasal stop that appears at the end of words in at least Italic, if not even PIE (as assumed by many investigators), is the voiced stop, while phonetically, this is totally unexpected: Usually, word-final stops are neutralised to the voiceless counterpart (in Armenian, interestingly, it's the voiceless aspirate). What you, Benwing, say, would rather support an interpretation of the word-final d as an originally glottalised stop. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The t-d-dh exemplification
The Polish linguist Witold Mańczak in his book Wieża Babel (in Polish) gives the information what the example is that contradicts the assertion that no language is known which has voiced aspirates unless it also has voiceless aspirates. I have moved the observation on disputable character of this assertion into the "objections" chapter, and added the additional information taken from W. Mańczak's book, as the information is really hard to be found elsewhere. --Grzegorj 09:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

About "Objections"
Please don't cut off quite large parts of the article without discussing it first, OK? -- Grzegorj 01:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry about that. It seemed to require a lot of work to save. The stuff about "typologically unstable systems", for example, needs support. Yes, you'd expect ejectives to remain in some branches (unless of course they weren't actually ejectives), but it's bizarre to state that the branches wouldn't go in different directions phonologically if they had a "stable" system. As for empirical evidence, that's precisely what the vowel lengthening laws are supposed to be. I'll try giving it another passover with a little more finesse; please let me know if I take out anything you think can be justified. kwami 02:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, some fragments of the article need additions but it is the attraction of Wikipedia that no subject is ultimately finished and you can put more and more additions. And, which is the most important, we should report various views here rather than force our own ones. (BTW. the "unstability" stuff is not mine but Benwing's, see "history".) Despite of what you write, the Glottalic theory does not seem to be generally accepted, at least in its original form (and even if the glottalic - not necessarily ejective - character of the D series is accepted in fact, the old t/d/dh symbols are in use in the prevailing part of publications), and, as a consequence, it seems to be very useful to inform the reader about various objections against the theory which can be found in the literature (regardless we agree with them or not). Counterarguments, i.e. arguments which shake the original arguments of the followers of the glottalic theory, are yet more interesting. I mean the statement that there are no languages which have breathy voice consonants but no voiceless aspirates. Such a statement was formulated some years ago as one of the most important arguments but now we know that it is false. That is why I changed "no" into "few" in the article, and added the fragment on Kelabit. Note that this piece of information is rather hard to find elsewhere and that is why I have protested against removing it. Of course, some of the arguments of the anti-glottalicists can also be "counterized". I would suggest you to add your objections against "typologically unstability" instead of removing the thing, as it would be more useful for the reader than presenting the problem in the light of one point of view only. --13:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Grzegorj

Generally accepted?
"Although controversial at first, some variant of the glottalic theory is generally accepted today." Well, I can't pretend to know enough of the literature to be sure, but it seems to me that "generally accepted" is a considerable overstatment. Vennemann, for example, has changed his mind and no longer accepts the theory - see the article in the 2006 Transactions of the Philological Society. In the most recent handbook (2004), Fortson's Indo-European Language and Culture, it says "The glottalic theory enjoyed a not insignificant following for a time, and still has adherents; but it has been rejected by most Indo-Europeanists."

At best, one might say "still controversial", it would seem. --Pfold 11:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The article itself seems to present a controversy. I wouldn't say that it's "generally accepted" enough to use that wording in an encyclopedia. --Puellanivis 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Cross-linguistic tendencies & internal evolution of PIE
Concerning the part tagged for verification:

''One objection to this reconstruction is that the voiced consonants are frequently voiceless in the daughter languages; aspirates in Greek and voiceless fricatives in Latin, for example. While it is common for aspirates to become tenuis and then voiced, as pʰ → p → b (lenition), the reverse is rare.''

Okay, what? From what little I've redd, changes like b → pʰ happen all the time - eg. in Old Chinese and various other languages of East Asia - while I'm aware of NO examples of changes in the reverse direction. Additionally, changes of the former sort are usually postulated to happen in this sequence: Note especially how this is in line with the view of glottalic PIE being a precedessor of traditional PIE. And on another note, the article claims that this would require uniform internal evolution of PIE; I'm not sure how that folloes, since in this view b → bʰ (→ pʰ) would be limited to Italic, Greek, and Indo-Aryan, while Germanic and Armenian would have pʼ → p directly. Doesn't seem very uniform to me. I also don't understand why needing to postulate a period of internal evolution for PIE would be a bad thing in the first place? Doesn't the fact that PIE existed as a single language downright imply that? --Tropylium 16:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The voicing - which is harder to sustain in stops than in continuants - becomes brethy
 * Brethy voice is re-interpreted as aspiration
 * Aspiration is then re-interpreted as the distinguishing feature
 * The now-redundant voicing then disappears, leaving a stable system

 * I completely agree with you. I thought that reading that was funny after I just read up on breathy voice in it's respective Wikipedia article.

 * "In some...Bantu languages, 'breathy voiced' stops have been phonetically altered to devoiced stops..."

 * Proof positive right there and with citations too! :D --Redroot 19:27, 08 July 2007

User:Kwamikagami claims that the article for lenition has the sorces required. I think he's missing the point; yes, b → p → pʰ is rare (altho that's exactly what has gone on in most of Germanic if you agree with non-glottalic PIE reconstruction). We're not interested in the intermediate [p], tho; to repeat, the usual intermediate on the reverse path is the traditionally reconstructed bʰ! Also, while each step of pʰ → p → b is common, the chain as a whole isn't - and it's impossible here anyway due to the PIE tenuis stops not being dragged along too. --Tropylium 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Yet another amateur here, but what Tropylium says here seems right on the money. Boldly getting rid of the 'pʰ -> p -> b' stuff and reorganising the 'internal evolution' stuff.  4pq1injbok (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Vocalic lengthening before voiced stop
I puzzled as to why this should be considered a puzzling phenomenon - it is common enough in English!

 * It's puzzling because only occurs before voiced consonants that were originally glottalic in Balto-Slavic and Latin (when they are made to be voiceless.) So a root like wegh would become weg in   Proto-Balto-Slavic but one with weg would become we:g, inexplicably.  In Latin, this only happens if the final consonant was devoiced:  wegh-to- would become vectu- but weg-to- would become ve:ctu-.  Someone should definitely flesh this section out with real world examples!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.35.143 (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Inexplicably"? Doesn't the aspiration take a bit of time, too, so that [wegʰ] and [weːg] have the same length? That wouldn't surprise me at all. In my native southern German, a stressed syllable can either have a long vowel or a lengthened consonant (or a consonant cluster), so that in all cases it has a similar length. Lenes can't be lengthened, and that means that the few words like Ebbe, Egge, Bagger – at least some of which are imported from Low German – sound overly hasty. David Marjanović (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lengthening before consonant clusters consisting of voiced stop + (voiceless) stop is also found in Dutch dialects. Phonetically, this is really trivial. If Lachmann's law really has a phonetic basis, which is controversial, I doubt it has anything to do with the glottalic theory, even if it is correct in some form (especially the implosive or preglottalised variant; for Winter's law, this is more plausible). That this lengthening does not happen in front of old aspirates is unsurprising if you keep in mind that the Proto-Italic reflexes are probably voiceless fricatives, which then go back to voiceless aspirates as in Greek as an intermediate step from breathy-voiced stops. I think Lachmann's law is probably irrelevant and one of the weakest arguments considering that its interpretation is so uncertain. In fact, the common Italic/Celtic (Proto-Italo-Celtic?) rule that inserts /a/ after the first consonant in CDC clusters just like in CCCC clusters (for the /a/-epenthesis in clusters of four consonants, see Schrijver 1991: 416, 488ff.), which suggests the reinterpretation of CDC as CʔDC, is far more suggestive, and it is clearly different from and precedes Lachmann's law: frāctus < *frāgtos < Proto-Italic *fragtos < Pre-Proto-Italic *bʰra(ʔ)gtos < PIE *bʰr(ʔ)gtos was affected by both. It is exactly this example which I find striking and which makes me find the idea of a pre-glottalised or implosive realisation of the PIE voiced stops attractive. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it really true that /p'/ tends to be absent in languages that have ejectives?
I wonder if whoever first came up with this factoid looked too hard at Na-Dené or other North American languages that generally have very few labials. Several have /w/ as the only labial consonant, others have /w/ and /m/ and/or /b/ (voiceless lenis) – but, AFAIK, /pʰ/ is just as rare as /p'/. Is this different in Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian and Caucasian languages? I thought not…

Incidentally, the classical Proto-Nostratic reconstruction could also explain why classic PIE /b/ was so rare: classic PIE corresponds to classic PN /p/, and if that one was aspirated (as its direct descendant is in the Kartvelian languages, but admittedly nowhere else), it is the one most expected to be absent…

While I am at it, I will invert the "is now generally accepted" part. It is plain wrong. It makes the article look like it was written 20 years ago. David Marjanović (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, it's true, and independent of the lack of labials in some North American families. You get the opposite pattern in implosives. Restricting ourselves to the more common labial-alveolar-velar places, if a language has one implosive, it will be ɓ. ɗ is rather uncommon, and ɠ is rare. If a language has one ejective, it will be k’. t’ is less common, and p’ uncommon. It is assumed this pattern is due to the volume of air necessary to make these sounds easily: implosives work better with a large air pocket above the glottis, whereas ejectives work better with a small air pocket. Aspirate pʰ, on the other hand, is extremely common: if you have aspirates and labials, you will almost always have pʰ.
 * There is a regional lack of p (vs. b) around the Sahara, including Arabic, where p may have shifted to f. However, this areal feature does not extend to any of the posited homelands of p-IE, and some think it may be due to the more recent prestige of Arabic. A summary of these patterns can be found in the World Atlas of Language Structures, (Dryer, Haspelmath, Gil, & Comrie, eds). kwami (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I just ran thru a bunch of language phonologies... Some examples:
 * Hausa language - Lacks both p and p', like many Chadic languages
 * Hadza language - Lacks p' and t' (but not further back ejectivs like ts')
 * Gǀwi language - Ditto, and I don't think Khoisan heritage applies as an explanation!
 * Proto-Mayan - b' replaces p'
 * --Tropylium (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add, the general tendency still appeared to be to have no holes whatsoever in the inventory, and I didn't spot a single language with just k' (maybe that's a theoretical universal similar to "n comes before m"?). But if there was a hole, it was always p'. --Tropylium (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

 * As far as I'm aware, this is completely parallel to the situation in nonglottalised stops: If a language lacks one of the voiceless stops, it's usually /p/ (the "frontmost" stop). If a language lacks one of the voiced stops, it's usually /g/ (the "backmost" stop among the common voiced stops). This seems to have a phonetic explanation, but I can't think of it anymore. If ejectives are interpreted as glottalised voiceless stops and implosives as glottalised voiced stops, this absolutely makes sense. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Check out WALS. Lack of /p/ is a circum-Saharan areal feature. Lack of /g/, however, crops up sporadically all over the world. So I don't think the two are directly comparable. — kwami (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * My Austrian German dialect has kʰ but neither pʰ nor tʰ and I actually have the most trouble consistently aspirating this pʰ when trying to speak Standard-German or even English. For me and other speakers it often ends up as a voiceless unaspirated p instead. So I was surprised to learn here that pʰ supposedly come so easily if you already have other aspirates. 213.47.74.51 (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Relative rareness of p and g has an easy phonetic explanation. See here:

 * Basically, maintenance of voicing requires a minimum pressure drop across the glottis. This requires more lung force when the space behind the tongue closure is small (/g/) than large (/b/). Insufficient lung force and the sound devoices. Contrarily, to get an audible release in a voiceless stop, you need a minimum pressure drop across the tongue closure, which is harder to achieve when the space behind the closure is big and requires a bigger volume of air to build up the pressure (as in /p/). This is not really a problem with /b/ because voiced sounds are much louder (that's why we don't usually have voiceless vowels or approximants). For the same reason it's easy to see why both ejective and aspirated p's are relatively rare -- in fact, both require even more air than plain /p/.

 * BTW there's no reason why the (relative) absence of PIE /b/ needs to be typological. It has in fact been suggested that the word-initial change /b/ > /w/ occurred in pre-PIE. Benwing (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I also doubt that the lack of /p/ in various African languages is due entirely to Arabic influence. This may be the case in Berber and Hausa but it seems rather less likely in Yoruba and extremely unlikely in the case of Ewondo and other languages in Cameroon / Southeast Nigeria. Benwing (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that's the explanation I was thinking of. Also, when languages have implosives, front implosives such as [ɓ] or [ɗ] are much more frequent than [ʄ] or even [ɠ], let alone [ʛ]; I've actually noticed that in East Asia. Actually, this makes me think that if the traditional PIE voiced stops were really implosives, the b-gap is completely contrary to what is to be expected, what with [ɓ] actually being the most common implosive stop. Either there was a change like /b/ or /ɓ/ > /w/ (this has been proposed by Michael Weiss, actually), or the voiced stops were originally (in pre-PIE) ejectives after all (which would be more satisfying from the point of view of areal typology and the phonotactic constraints), and they changed into PIE implosives as an intermediate step to the attested voiced stops. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another possibility Kümmel mentions is that (pre-)PIE /b/ or /ɓ/ became /m/ instead (first proposed by Jochem Schindler, apparently), or that, vice versa, the PIE voiced stop row goes back to denasalised nasals or nasal clusters (prenasalised stops?), but /m/ remained (he mentions some possible cognates in Uralic which contain nasals where PIE has voiced stops). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Typology and universals
Hello everyone! I admit this is a bit off-topic, but it is an extremely interesting subject (to me, at least :D). Could we possible create an article devoted to these typological matters? I am especially interested in phonetics and phonology, but other subsystems of language would be useful as well, I suppose. --Pe t 'usek [ petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com ] 07:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Linguistic typology, Implicational hierarchy and Linguistic universal exist, but they probably could use work. --Tropylium (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Unfalsifiable"
I don't really understand the addition of this part. Unfalsifiability, AFAIU, is a very strong objection; something unfalsifiable "isn't even wrong". But that's not the case here, as far as I can see. The theory has not been falsified yet, but that is not what is required; the requirement is that it would have to be impossible, even in theory, to present any evidence to the contrary. But just the possibility of Nostratic eventually being accepted, and within that scenario the possibility of the decem-series not being the ejectiv series, should be sufficient to constitute falsifiability. (The "More objections" discussion some ways up here indeed has a table to exactly that effect.)

The original version just stated "unprovable" - I thought that was about the lack of direct evidence, which is cover'd in a previous paragraph. Am I not seeing something here?

Or, if some critics have simply call'd the theory unfalsifiable, that's a different case then - it just needs a citation and possibly a small discussion to the short-lived footnote's effect - but is that really a consensus view? -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

 * See JIEES 22/1994, pp. 133-149, "Proto-Indo-European *b and the Glottalic Theory" for one quotation of GT as pre-PIE being unprovable due to the lack of comparative evidence, and some intelligent search could probably yield more as that is something as obvious as 2+2=4. It is unprovable (or unfalsifiable, if you will), within the current generally accepted framework of PIE, namely due t the status of PIE (or Indo-Hittite) not having any obvious genetic relationship to other proto-families. Nostratic is supported by a tiny fraction of linguists today, even less then the GT itself, so you cannot possibly legitimise one with the other.
 * Comparative method can only reconstruct the latest stage of a language (some diverging dialect continuum), but in order to reconstruct earlier stage of a language you need comparisons with cognate families or some highly consistent internal reconstruction. Of those little supporters of glottalic theory today, namely the folks at the Uni of Leiden, AFAIK none of them treats the glottal stops (or "preglottalized stops" or whatever the fancy current term is) as some "pre-PIE", but Late PIE directly reflectable in the daughters. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Genetic evidence has come to support the Glottalic theory, in more recent years.
It is relevant to point out that recent genetic studies (by Nasidze, 2000 and Underhill 2009) have finally come to support the hypothesis that Haplogroup R (and R1), and it's descendant haplotypes R1a* (R1a1), originated nearer Northwest Iran. While the former marker, has been linked to post-glacial (and perhaps Neolithic), Caucasoid expansion, the distribution of the latter marker is widely believed to represent (at least one wave) of Indo-European expansion.
 * How on earth does this support glottalic theory of PIE? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

 * And I for one distrust genetic "proofs". Some 10 years ago we had no genes whatsoever in common with the neanderthals, now we have some 4% in common. And languages aren't genetically transmitted. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 22:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My god. How does it not support Glottalic theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:D7B0:5D18:C1DE:2A83:245E (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Korean
It might be noted that the structure of the revised glottalic theory (barring some differences in location of articulation) is exactly the same as that of modern Korean: a voiceless series with allophonic, weak aspiration when word-initial, a glottalised series, and a strongly aspirated voiceless series. The first series shows weak voicing intervocalicly. Jakob37 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The tense(d) or faucalised consonants of Korean cannot be described as glottalised at all, neither even as implosive, see Korean phonology. They're actually rather like voiceless geminates, judging from the description. Also, the series which shows weak voicing intervocalically is the unaspirated (lax(ed)) series. Can't see any resemblance here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

potential garbage in typological claims
Kortlandt's work in Slavic accent is spot-on, but the stuff I've seen in support of the glottalic theory looks like a lot of garbage. Kortlandt obviously knows his stuff when it comes to careful and complex ordered sound changes but seems out of his league with typological arguments or arguments requiring comparing lots of ancient and modern varieties to work out what's original and what's not. As a simple example, Kortlandt was quoted in this article as "pointing out" that the change bh->b is not found, hence typologically suspect. But this is utter garbage and trivially falsifiable. This exact change is found independently numerous times in the Indic languages -- the first and most obvious place to look if you want to check out the truth of this statement. Examples are the far northwestern Dardic languages (but not all, sometimes developing into tone); Sinhala in Sri Lanka, in the far south; some dialects in Bangladesh, in the northeast; etc.
 * Interesting notes, but these examples cannot really be separated from the glottalic theory itself. I have not seen anyone lay out the model in full, extended detail, but my impression is, in the glottalic view these would be treated as retentions in marginal areas rather than innovativ deaspiration, just like how groups like Iranian or Celtic would have undergone a merger B' → B rather than Bʰ → B. The claims on Sindhi imply that glottalic theory would involve reconstructing the main difference between the two voiced series as glottalication even during the disintegration of Indo-Aryan.

Romany meanwhile has bh -> ph; places in Bangladesh have bh -> β; etc.
 * Bʰ → Pʰ is obviously a lot more plausible than B → Pʰ. However, since glottalic theory asserts that B → Bʰ is a plausible change, this doesn't seem like an issue. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All these changes are exactly parallel with postulated IE changes. You'd think people making typological assertions against the traditional PIE model would at least bother to check the Indic languages -- the only area generally preserving bh dh gh -- to see how these have actually developed, to see what change is really reasonable or not.

In fact, nearly all of the typological claims of the glottalic theory have been disputed. I think we need to be much more careful including any unchallenged typological assertions by pro-glottalic authors. Benwing (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

re Adjarian's Law
In case I do not find time to go into this in the near future: the fact that Adjarian's Law is a counterargument against Glottalic Theory has nothing to do with the original value of the traditional voiced aspirate series, per se (which the GT is not even about). It is instead about how to reconstruct the Proto-Armenian unaspirated voiceless series. The problem is the existence of a dialect group (Middle Armenian) where the Old Armenian Pʰ, P, B system evolves into [Pʰ, B, P]. This development is impossible if we only allow shifts in ±voicing and ±aspiration - something should have merged into something else.

Kortlandt's proposed solution is to reconstruct a glottalized *Pʼ series, which becomes voiceless in standard East Armenian, but voiced in the problem dialects. Adjarian's law allows a different detour: the B series first develops into voiced aspirates, which then break into voiced stop + breathy voiced vowel; the P series also becomes voiced; and then, the voiced series is devoiced specifically before these breathy voiced vowels, "undoing" the merger of the two non-Pʰ series. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you add it to the article? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This would probably take some reorganization to add a section treating Armenian in partcular. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, my understanding is that the B series is now thought to have been breathy-voiced in Old Armenian (like in Indo-Aryan), as it is still so realised in several dialects. This obliterates the need for the reconstruction of ejectives. Ejective realisations do exist in Eastern Armenian, but they are mostly weak (barely audible) in Armenia (own experience) and only become more noticeable as one travels north (or so I heard), and they are particularly conspicuous in Tiflis. Of course, the Armenians there are bilingual in Georgian, so the obvious explanation for the ejective realisation is that it is simply Kartvelian influence. Also, a few very old Iranian loanwords such as arcatʿ "silver" have taken part in the Armenian sound shift as well, showing that it is real and that ejectives cannot be reconstructed for Proto-Armenian (nor for Old Armenian, probably). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The link to "Middle Armenian" is to diachronically middle, not geographically. Do we cover these dialects somewhere? — kwami (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, all we have is Classification des dialectes arméniens. However, see the table at Armenian language at the end, which confirms what I said about breathy-voiced stops. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Implosives instead of ejectives
Details in chapter 2 (this is in German, but probably largely understandable even for non-German-readers). Very useful rundown on the relevant facts and arguments, but it would have been nice to mention that the development from ejectives to voiced stops is actually attested in Chechen and some other Northeast Caucasian languages, see Nakh languages, even if perhaps on a global scale the change may be comparatively rare (Kümmel 2008 probably goes into this, however). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Broken link. :-( David Marjanović (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Caucasian substrate
New (2015) publication by Bomhard; see. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of "voiced aspirated stops" were the only voiced stops
I really don't understand this, early in article I read According to them, the non-aspirated forms occurred in roots where two non-ejectives were present because of a rule that prohibited more than one aspirate in the same root. And also, ''Thus, an Indo-European *DʰeDʰ (where *Dʰ represents any non-ejective stop) might be realized as *DeDʰ (attested in Indic and Greek) or as *DʰeD (attested in Latin). In contrast, traditional theory would trace a form attested as both *DeDʰ and *DʰeD to an Indo-European *DʰeDʰ.''

Later however, I come across this statement, ''If the "plain voiced stops" were not voiced, the "voiced aspirated stops" were the only voiced stops. The second constraint can accordingly be reformulated as two nonglottalic stops must agree in voicing.''

These cant both be true. If only one aspirate was tolerated in a root, then this means that PIE breathy voiced stops were not the only voiced stops. The PIE root bheydh (to trust) would have been phonetically realized as either bʱɛjd or bɛjdʱ. Is there something I'm not getting. Since Dʰ represents any non-ejective stop, that includes dʱ and tʰ. Idielive (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I think the idea is that the voiced aspirate stops were the only voiced stop phonemes, and unaspirated voiced stops were merely allophones of the aspirated voiced stop phonemes. AJD (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The Germanic borrowing argument discredited
The term '*rik-' in Proto-Germanic was borrowed from Proto-Celtic '*rixs-' or '*riks-', not '*rig-'. For references see A Comprehensive Introduction to Nostratic Comparative Linguistics (Bomhard 2023) and Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/r%C4%ABks). Pcg111 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Nobody is saying anything, so I’m going to add the change and cite Bomhard. If you have any problems with this edit, please leave them on this page or revert the edit. Pcg111 (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Glottalic theory


text:
Dime museum

Dime museums were institutions that were popular at the end of the 19th century in the United States. Designed as centers for entertainment and moral education for the working class (lowbrow), the museums were distinctly different from upper middle class cultural events (highbrow). In urban centers like New York City, where many immigrants settled, dime museums were popular and cheap entertainment. The social trend reached its peak during the Progressive Era (c. 1890–1920). Although lowbrow entertainment, they were the starting places for the careers of many notable vaudeville-era entertainers, including Harry Houdini, Lew Fields, Joe Weber, the Griffin Sisters, and Maggie Cline.

Baltimore
In Baltimore, Maryland, Peale's Museum is credited as one of the first serious museums in the country. This type of attraction was re-created in the American Dime Museum in 1999, which operated for eight years before closing permanently and auctioning off its exhibits in late February 2007.

Boston
Kimball's Museum and Austin & Stones Museum in Scollay Square were both well-known attractions, the former having a friendly connection to, and sometimes competition with, P. T. Barnum. Barnum and Moses Kimball even shared "Fee Gee Mermaids" on a regular basis.

Cincinnati
Both John James Audubon and sculptor Hiram Powers produced displays for the Western Museum, organized by Dr Daniel Drake in 1818 and continued by Joseph Dorfeuille. "Satan and his Court" wax figures with moving parts and glowing eyes are typical of these displays.

New Orleans
On Canal Street, "Eugene Robinson's Museum and Theater" featured entertainment on the hour and also presented some of its attractions on a nearby riverboat. The common promotion gimmick of a brass band at the front entrance of these Dime Museums featured some of the earliest documented traditional jazz; Robinson's riverboat museum also hired Papa Jack Laine.

New York City
P. T. Barnum purchased Scudder's Dime Museum in 1841 and transformed it into one of the more popular single cultural sites that has existed, Barnum's American Museum. Together, P.T. Barnum and Moses Kimball introduced the so-called "Edutainement", which was a moralistic education realized through sensational freak shows, theater and circus performances, and many other means of entertainment. The first incarnation "American Museum" on Ann Street burned down in 1865. It was relocated further up Broadway, but this venue too, fell victim to fire.

For many years in the basement of the Playland Arcade in Times Square in New York City, Hubert's Museum featured acts such as sword swallower Lady Estelene, Congo The Jungle Creep, a flea circus, a half-man half-woman, and magicians such as Earl "Presto" Johnson. This museum was documented in photography by Diane Arbus. Later, in Times Square, mouse pitchman Tommy Laird opened a dime museum that featured Tisha Booty — "the Human Pin Cushion" — and several magicians, including Lou Lancaster, Criss Capehart, Dorothy Dietrich, Dick Brooks, and others.

Chicago
In 1882, C. E. Kohl and Middleton opened their first Dime Museum in Chicago. It was located at 150 West Madison Street, east of Halsted.

In 1883 they opened a new one at 150 S. Clark Street, near Madison (now 10 South Clark Street) and a third one at 150 W. Madison, opposite Union street.

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

title: Dime museum


text:
Talk:Bun huggers

This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/Bun huggers. dbenbenn | talk 21:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bun huggers


text:
United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense

The U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense is one of twelve subcommittees of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations. Military defense spending is the largest individual component of federal discretionary spending, making the Defense Subcommittee one of the more powerful Appropriations subcommittees. When referring to federal discretionary spending as a whole, many budget analysts make a distinction between defense and non-defense discretionary spending. The United States Senate Committee on Appropriations has joint jurisdiction with the United States House Committee on Appropriations over all appropriations bills in the United States Congress. Each committee has 12 matching subcommittees, each of which is tasked with working on one of the twelve annual regular appropriations bills.

Appropriations process
Traditionally, after a federal budget for the upcoming fiscal year has been passed, the appropriations subcommittees receive information about what the budget sets as their spending ceilings. This is called "302(b) allocations" after section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. That amount is separated into smaller amounts for each of the twelve Subcommittees. The federal budget does not become law and is not signed by the President. Instead, it is guide for the House and the Senate in making appropriations and tax decisions. However, no budget is required and each chamber has procedures in place for what to do without one. The House and Senate now consider appropriations bills simultaneously, although originally the House went first. The House Committee on Appropriations usually reports the appropriations bills in May and June and the Senate in June. Any differences between appropriations bills passed by the House and the Senate are resolved in the fall.

Appropriations bills

An appropriations bill is a bill that appropriates (gives to, sets aside for) money to specific federal government departments, agencies, and programs. The money provides funding for operations, personnel, equipment, and activities. Regular appropriations bills are passed annually, with the funding they provide covering one fiscal year. The fiscal year is the accounting period of the federal government, which runs from October 1 to September 30 of the following year.

There are three types of appropriations bills: regular appropriations bills, continuing resolutions, and supplemental appropriations bills. Regular appropriations bills are the twelve standard bills that cover the funding for the federal government for one fiscal year and that are supposed to be enacted into law by October 1. If Congress has not enacted the regular appropriations bills by the time, it can pass a continuing resolution, which continues the pre-existing appropriations at the same levels as the previous fiscal year (or with minor modifications) for a set amount of time. The third type of appropriations bills are supplemental appropriations bills, which add additional funding above and beyond what was originally appropriated at the beginning of the fiscal year. Supplemental appropriations bills can be used for things like disaster relief.

Appropriations bills are one part of a larger United States budget and spending process. They are preceded in that process by the president's budget proposal, congressional budget resolutions, and the 302(b) allocation. Article One of the United States Constitution, section 9, clause 7, states that "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..." This is what gives Congress the power to make these appropriations. The President, however, still has the power to veto appropriations bills.

Jurisdiction
Funding requirements for the United States military are laid out in the U.S Constitution. In addition to the general requirement that funds withdrawn from the Treasury only through "appropriations made by law" (Article I, Section 9), the Constitution gives Congress the authority to "raise and support Armies," but limits funding for the military to a maximum of two years (Article I, Section 8). This restriction is generally not an issue for Congress, since by law, the federal budget operates on a year-to-year basis.

The subcommittee oversees overall funding for the Department of Defense, including the Army, Navy, Air Force. The subcommittee is also responsible for funding for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Some defense agencies are the responsibility of separate subcommittees. Funding for military construction activities, such as military personnel housing and infrastructure, and veterans issues are handled by the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. Funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is handled by the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.


text:
Talk:Toronto City Council

Not enough information
This article seams to be vague and lacking of content. Perhaps we could add some more content; i.e. proposed laws, important decisions made in the history of the council, controversies, ect.

No more red links
The easy way out is to just remove the links. Of course, someone who's a true expert on this sort of thing can do a bit of research and make an article for each councillor.

Red Links
The red-linking to non-existent and non-notable councillors is an eyesore. Can this be resolved?

St Paul's ward
The article on History_of_neighbourhoods_in_Toronto claims that St Paul's was one of the original wards of Toronto, but it's missing from the list in this article. Could someone add it, and add information about its borders too? I suspect St Paul's corresponds to Yorkville, because there are multiple things in Yorkville named "St Paul's whatever". That would also explain why St Paul's is missing from the list of wards, because Toronto didn't annex Yorkville until 1883, which is later than the source cited. (Someone should also look into other parts of Toronto that were annexed late, like Parkdale and Brockton. Did they have their own ward names too?) 99.225.130.171 (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And now I have a cite. "on Feb. 1, 1883, the Village of Yorkville vanished, joining the city as St. Paul's Ward." http://www.torontosun.com/life/columnists/2009/02/01/8221486-sun.html. (That took me all night to find!) 99.225.130.171 (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability of SOME of the Toronto City Councillors
Hi,

I'm just wondering: Does EVERY SINGLE council member need their own Wikipedia page? I understand more notable Councillors like Rob Ford for previously being Mayor of Toronto (and his shenanigans), and Kristyn Wong-Tam for her LGBTQ rights activism. But a LOT of City Councillors are known just for simply being a Toronto City Councillor (as elected) per ward. Would it be advisable to keep the "non-notable" Councillors on Wikipedia, or should we do a cut-down on pages for some of the council members. As some of them do NOT meet notability guidelines other than being a Toronto City Councillor who won the 2014 Toronto Election. Thanks!

Sincerely, Tibbydibby (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I ping since I kinda want your opinion on this. I know (to a few I pinged) that this is NOT a K-pop related issue but some of the City Councillors (like Paul Ainslie) are definitely only as notable as a typical member of EXO. Which in other words, NOT independently notable outside of the Council Chambers other than being a City Councillor of a certain ward. Tibbydibby (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

 * For cities which meet the standard of being an internationally famous global city — such as Toronto, Montreal, New York City, Los Angeles or London — serving on the city council is accepted as an automatic WP:NPOL pass which qualifies the councillor for a Wikipedia article. That's not true for smaller cities like Sudbury or Fredericton or Fort Wayne or Peoria or Milton Keynes, but it is true for global metropolises like Toronto where even the municipal politics can and regularly does become a topic of national or international media coverage.
 * And even more importantly, there's no easy way to divide Toronto city councillors into notable and non-notable camps on any objective or neutral criterion beyond the fact of serving on the council — any attempt to decree that some Toronto city councillors are notable, while others aren't, would bog down in arguments of the "keep because I said so" or "delete because I hate their ideology" variety, and couldn't be resolved on any objective criteria.
 * You, for instance, think that Kristyn Wong-Tam falls into the notable camp and Ainslie doesn't — but a conservative from Scarborough could easily argue the exact opposite. There isn't, for example, anything about Wong-Tam's LGBT activism that's so uniquely notable that she'd get a Wikipedia article if she had to depend on that instead of her Toronto City Council seat to qualify — the coverage she gets for LGBT activism is because of the profile she has as a city councillor, and not because her activism (which mostly boils down to "helped to shepherd WorldPride 2014 through the bureaucratic and regulatory hurdles at city hall") is encyclopedically notable independently of that context. And almost nobody on council actually yet has a truly comprehensive article that says everything that Wikipedia could reasonably say about them — even Ainslie's article could easily get beefed up well beyond where it stands right now.
 * So the only strictly objective criteria we can use are that either all Toronto city councillors are eligible for articles without exception, or none are but the mayor and the ones who have also served in the provincial or federal legislatures — it's not a body where we can objectively and fairly split the members up into separate camps where some are notable for serving on the council and others aren't, because what further criteria would we use to divvy them up? Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I too have struggled with this issue. Calling one councillor notable and another non-notable is a subjective mess no sane editor wants to broach. However, one possible option I have considered is grouping some councillor articles together in a single place. It might be possible to create a single article for councillors who have been appointed rather than being elected. These are people who have been appointed by council to fill a remnant term after some elected councillor has resigned before the next election. Tentatively called: Appointed Toronto City Councillors, it would include such people as Peter Leon, Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, and Fred Dominelli. It would not include Paul Ainslie who was appointed but then was subsequently elected. I am sure there are other examples. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You have all brought up really good points... Thanks for your input so far. Tibbydibby (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it's incredibly important when you have a city that is bigger then some provinces in this country and bigger than some U.S. States then yes the city council is vitally important.--Jack Cox (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Censorship
An editor reversed the addition of the well-sourced fact that this council allows discrimination against the disabled in housing if said disabled is not of the master faith. This is disgusting, he passively admitted in his edit summary that he finds this fact racist. It's a sad day when the theories of "white privilege" trump the actual disadvantage of having a non-functioning spinal cord. Yes, this editor thought this paralyzed man was oppressing these poor defenceless Muslims by having lower occurrences of melanin. It is amazing that such nasty people exist and control what the public read or do not read. Chrissie Avgie (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the editor, but this article is not the place for you to add your personal opinion in any case. It's not an internet forum. This article is about how City Council operates, etc., so that people can understand. If you wanted to write an article like "Housing policy in Toronto" then the incident that made the news could fit. Maybe Toronto Community Housing article too. But it's never about anyone's personal opinion, and its not about repeating news articles. Alaney2k (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Toronto City Council. 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/20111004102201/http://www.ontarioroots.com/images/maps/toronto_boundaries.swf to http://www.ontarioroots.com/images/maps/toronto_boundaries.swf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225014052/http://app.toronto.ca:80/im/council/councillors.jsp to http://app.toronto.ca/im/council/councillors.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Toronto City Council


text:
Talk:Pandora Spocks

This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/Pandora Spocks. The consensus was to keep it. dbenbenn | talk 21:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pandora Spocks


text:
1997 in games

This page lists board and card games, wargames, miniatures games, and tabletop role-playing games published in 1997. For video games, see 1997 in video gaming.

Games released or invented in 1997
• Aliens vs. Predator Collectible Card Game

• American Megafauna

• Babylon 5 Collectible Card Game

• Bohnanza

• Checkpoint

• Close Action

• Colossal Arena

• Dark Eden

• Delta Green (role-playing game supplement)

• Dune Collectible Card Game

• Dzikie Pola (role-playing game)

• Fluxx

• Imajica

• In Nomine (role-playing game)

• LionHeart (Strategy, Wargame)

• Monster Collection

• Multiverser (role-playing game)

• Primordial Soup

• Rat-a-Tat Cat

• Shadowrun: The Trading Card Game

• Spaceopoly

• Tigris and Euphrates

• Trinity (role-playing game)

• Warlords

• Werewolf: The Wild West (role-playing game)

Game awards given in 1997

 * Spiel des Jahres: Mississippi Queen - Werner Hodel, Goldsieber
 * Games: Quoridor

Significant games-related events in 1997

 * Eden Studios, Inc. founded by George Vasilakos and M. Alexander Jurkat.
 * TSR, Inc., the owner of the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop role-playing game, was acquired by Wizards of the Coast.

title: 1997 in games


text:
Mardi McConnochie

Mardi McConnochie (born 1971) is an Australian author and playwright.

She is the author of three novels, Coldwater (2001), The Snow Queen (2003), Fivestar (2005), several plays and two books for children, Melissa, Queen of Evil (2006) and Dangerous Games (2007). McConnochie's novels have grappled with questions about celebrity and the possibilities open to women and women artists.

As well as novels, McConnochie has written for the stage and for television. Her television credits include Home and Away, Always Greener, McLeod's Daughters and Pacific Drive.

McConnochie lives in Sydney with her partner, the novelist, James Bradley.

Life and work
McConnochie was born in Armidale, New South Wales and raised in Adelaide, South Australia. She has a PhD in English Literature from the University of Sydney.

McConnochie's novels have grappled with questions about celebrity and the possibilities open to women and women artists. The first, Coldwater, transplants the Brontë sisters to a penal colony off the coast of New South Wales, using their plight to explore different approaches to art, life and love. It was shortlisted in the "Best First Book (SE Asia and Pacific Region)" category for the Commonwealth Writers Prize, and was named by The Washington Post as one of the Books of the Year.

Her second novel, The Snow Queen is set in Adelaide and tells the story of a former Russian ballerina stranded in post-war Australia. It saw McConnochie voted one of the Best Young Australian Novelists by The Sydney Morning Herald in 2004.

Her third novel, Fivestar focuses on contemporary notions of celebrity, charting the rise and fall of an antipodean girl group reminiscent of The Spice Girls.

Melissa, Queen of Evil, her first novel for children, won the 2006 Aurealis Award for Best Children's Novel.

The Flooded Earth (Also known as "Quest of the Sunfish") won the Best Children's Fiction prize at the US 2019 Green Earth Book Awards.

Novels

 * Coldwater (2001)
 * The Snow Queen (2003)
 * Fivestar (2005)
 * The Voyagers (2011)
 *  Quest of the Sunfish: Escape to the Moon Islands  (2016)
 * Quest of the Sunfish: The Castle in the Sea (2017)
 *  Quest of the Sunfish: The Skeleton Coast (2017)

title: Mardi McConnochie


text: User talk:Alec Connors

title: User talk:Alec Connors


text:
1998 in games

This page lists board and card games, wargames, miniatures games, and tabletop role-playing games published in 1998. For video games, see 1998 in video gaming.

Games released or invented in 1998
• Alpha Blitz

• Alternity (role-playing game)

• Aquarius

• Bosworth

• CORPS (role-playing game system)

• Cranium

• Crimson Skies

• Deadlands: Hell on Earth (role-playing game)

• Devil Bunny Needs a Ham

• Doomtown

• Elfenland

• The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen (role-playing game)

• Falling

• Filthy Rich

• GIPF

• Great War at Sea: US Navy Plan Orange

• Great War at Sea 2: The North & Baltic Seas

• Guillotine

• Knightmare Chess 2

• Legend of the Burning Sands

• Lord of the Fries

• Lotus

• Panzer Grenadier

• Reminiscing:The Millennium Edition

• Return to the Tomb of Horrors (for 2nd Edition AD&D)

• Revelation (role-playing game)

• Samurai

• Star*Drive (role-playing game)

• Star Trek: The Next Generation Role-playing Game

• TAMSK

• Through the Desert

• Tribe 8 (role-playing game)

• Twisted Golf

• Warhammer 40,000 (third edition, originally published in 1987)

• Warhammer Ancient Battles

• War of Resistance, China Theater 1937-1941 (Game Research/Design)

Game awards given in 1998

 * Spiel des Jahres: Elfenland - Alan R. Moon, Amigo Spiele
 * Games: Fossil

Significant games-related events in 1998

 * Hasbro purchases the name "Avalon Hill", back inventory of that company, and rights to Avalon Hill titles for US$6 million.
 * Rio Grande Games founded.

title: 1998 in games


text:
Edward Hirsch

Edward M. Hirsch (born January 20, 1950) is an American poet and critic who wrote a national bestseller about reading poetry. He has published nine books of poems, including The Living Fire: New and Selected Poems (2010), which brings together thirty-five years of work, and Gabriel: A Poem (2014), a book-length elegy for his son that The New Yorker called "a masterpiece of sorrow." He has also published five prose books about poetry. He is president of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation in New York City.

Life
Hirsch was born in Chicago. He had a childhood involvement with poetry, which he later explored at Grinnell College and the University of Pennsylvania, where he received a PhD in folklore.

Hirsch was a professor of English at Wayne State University. In 1985, he joined the faculty at the University of Houston, where he spent 17 years as a professor in the Creative Writing Program and Department of English. He was appointed the fourth president of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation on September 3, 2002. He holds seven honorary degrees.

Career
Hirsch is a well-known advocate for poetry whose essays have been published in the American Poetry Review, The New York Times Book Review, The New York Review of Books, and elsewhere. He wrote a weekly column on poetry for The Washington Post Book World from 2002-2005, which resulted in his book Poet’s Choice (2006). His other prose books include Responsive Reading (1999), The Demon and the Angel: Searching for the Source of Artistic Inspiration (2002), and A Poet's Glossary (2014), a complete compendium of poetic terms. He is the editor of Transforming Vision: Writers on Art (1994), Theodore Roethke’s Selected Poems (2005) and To a Nightingale (2007). He is the co-editor of A William Maxwell Portrait: Memories and Appreciations and The Making of a Sonnet: A Norton Anthology (2008). He also edits the series "The Writer’s World" (Trinity University Press).

Hirsch's first collection of poems, For the Sleepwalkers, received the Lavan Younger Poets Award from the Academy of American Poets and the Delmore Schwartz Memorial Award from New York University. His second book, Wild Gratitude, received the National Book Critics Circle Award in 1986. He was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1985 and a five-year MacArthur Fellowship in 1997. He received the William Riley Parker Prize from the Modern Language Association for the best scholarly essay in PMLA for the year 1991. He has also received an Ingram Merrill Foundation Award, a National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship, the Rome Prize from the American Academy in Rome, a Pablo Neruda Presidential Medal of Honor, and the American Academy of Arts and Letters Award for Literature. He is a former Chancellor of the Academy of American Poets. Hirsch's book, How to Read a Poem and Fall in Love with Poetry (1999), was a surprise bestseller and is widely taught throughout the country.

Poetry collections

 * For the Sleepwalkers, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1981)
 * Wild Gratitude, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986)
 * The Night Parade, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989)
 * Earthly Measures, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994) ISBN 0-679-76566-2
 * On Love, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998)
 * Lay Back the Darkness (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003) ISBN 0-375-41521-1
 * Special Orders (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008) ISBN 0-307-26681-8
 * The Living Fire : New And Selected Poems (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010) ISBN 978-0375710032
 * Gabriel: A Poem (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014) ISBN 978-0-385-35357-1
 * Stranger By Night (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2020) ISBN 978-0-525-65778-1

Non-fiction books

 * Transforming Vision: Writers on Art, Selected and Introduced by Edward Hirsch, (Boston: Little, Brown, 1994) ISBN 0-8212-2126-4
 * How to Read a Poem and Fall in Love with Poetry, (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1999) ISBN 0-15-100419-6
 * Responsive Reading, (1999)
 * 'Introduction' in John Keats, Complete Poems and Selected Letters of John Keats, (New York: Modern Library, 2001) ISBN 0-375-75669-8
 * The Demon and the Angel: Searching for the Source of Artistic Expression, (New York: Harcourt Brace, 2002)
 * Poet's Choice, (New York: Harcourt, 2006) ISBN 0-15-101356-X
 * A Poet's Glossary, (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2014) ISBN 978-0-15-101195-7
 * 100 Poems To Break Your Heart, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2021) ISBN 978-0544931886
 * The Heart of American Poetry, (Library of America, 2022) ISBN 978-1598537260

Editor

 * Transforming Vision: Writers on Art, (The Art Institute of Chicago/ Bulfinch Press, 1994) ISBN 978-0821221266
 * A William Maxwell Portrait, (Norton, 2004) ISBN 978-0393057713
 * Theodore Roethke: Selected Poems, (The Library of America, 2005) ISBN 978-1931082785
 * Irish Writers on Writing, edited with Eavan Boland, (Trinity University Press, 2007) ISBN 9781595340320
 * Polish Writers on Writing, edited with Adam Zagajewski, (Trinity University Press, 2007) ISBN 9781595340337
 * To a Nightingale: Poems from Sappho to Borges, (Braziller, 2007) ISBN 978-0807616277
 * The Making of a Sonnet, (Norton, 2008) ISBN 978-0393333534
 * Hebrew Writers on Writing, edited with Peter Cole (Trinity University Press, 2008) ISBN 9781595340528
 * Nineteenth-Century American Writers on Writing, edited with Brenda Wineapple (Trinity University Press, 2010) ISBN 9781595340696
 * Chinese Writers on Writing, edited with Arthur Sze (Trinity University Press, 2010) ISBN 9781595340634
 * Romanian Writers on Writing, edited with Norman Manea, (Trinity University Press, 2011) ISBN 9781595340825
 * 100 Poems To Break Your Heart, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2021)ISBN 978-0-544-93188-6

title: Edward Hirsch


text:
Diekirch

Diekirch (Dikrech or (locally) Dikrich ; from Diet-Kirch, i.e. "people's church") is a commune with town status in north-eastern Luxembourg, in the canton of Diekirch and, until its abolition in 2015, the district of Diekirch. The town is situated on the banks of the Sauer river.

The town's heraldic shield, showing a crowned lion on a castle, was granted in 1988. It is based on the town's 14th-century seal and arms.

In 1977, Diekirch became the first town in Luxembourg to have a pedestrian zone.

Diekirch is home to a brewery of national importance carrying the town's name.

Three secondary schools are located in Diekirch: Lycée classique de Diekirch, Lycée technique hôtelier Alexis Heck and Nordstadlycée.

The town is home to the national operational headquarters of the Luxembourgish Army at the Haerebierg Military Centre (located on the hill Herrenberg) and the National Museum of Military History, reflecting Diekirch's pivotal role in the famous Battle of the Bulge, called by the Germans Rundstedt-Offensive, a major battle of World War II. It was here that the river Sauer was crossed on the night of January 18, 1945, by the US 5th Infantry division.

The town is also the seat of one of the six regional headquarters of the Grand Ducal Police and one of Luxembourg's two judicial districts.

As far as sports events are concerned, Diekirch has gained a reputation for its annual cross country running competition — the Eurocross — which is an IAAF permit meeting and attracts world-class runners, with Gabriela Szabo and Irina Mikitenko among its past winners.

History
The town received its name, according to old sources, when Charlemagne in the late 8th century resettled Saxons, in order to bring them under his control. One of the centre of these settlements was in the area of Diekirch. In order to convert the pagan Saxons to Christianity, a church was built, which gave the settlement its name: "Diet-Kirch" ("people's church"). In Old Franconian, thiuda (Old High German: "diot" - the people). Þeudō is a reconstructed word from Germanic, which plays a role in the etymology of the term "Deutsch".

In the 14th century, John, the blind king of Bohemia, fortified it, surrounding the place with a castellated wall and a ditch supplied by a stream. It remained more or less fortified until the beginning of the 19th century when the French, during their occupation, levelled the old walls and substituted avenues of trees.

In the course of extensive excavation in the 1960s, it was shown that the St. Laurence church is a Roman building. In the early 20th century, wall ruins and mosaics were found north of the town center. Archaeological investigations in 1992–1993, 1999, and 2008 enabled the reconstruction of a large Roman villa, which extended over all the land of the medieval town and was abandoned in the early 5th century.

Diekirch is the host city and namesake of the "International March of Diekirch", a 20 km up to 40 km military road march event. The march commemorates John the Blind and invites both Military Members and civilians to participate and to pursue earning the Medal of the "Marche de L’Armée", a Luxembourgish Army award. The marches of 2020 and 2021 were canceled due to the Coronavirus Pandemic and were scheduled to be canceled again in the summer of 2022, but march officials decided to conduct the march as a virtual event to ensure its continuance and to invite an international audience to participate. The march drew significant interest from Service Members throughout the NATO area of influence, most notably the United States Army. The 492nd Civil Affairs Battalion based out of Buckeye, Arizona was notable for hosting the largest individual marching event in the United States and for the participation of Embassy representation. In 2023 the march returned to being only held as a live event in Diekirch.

Mascot
The town's mascot is the donkey. There is a donkey fountain in the centre of Diekirch. The yearly cavalcade (carnival procession) is held under the sign of the donkey.

Notable people

 * Paul Eyschen (1841–1915), a Luxembourgish politician, statesman, lawyer and diplomat. He was the 8th Prime Minister of Luxembourg, serving for 27 years, 1888–1915.
 * Alphonse Munchen (1850–1917), a Luxembourgish engineer and politician; Mayor of Luxembourg City from 1904 to 1915.
 * Joseph Bech (1887–1975), a Luxembourgish politician and lawyer. He was the 15th Prime Minister of Luxembourg, serving for 11 years, from 1926 to 1937.
 * Henri Losch (1931–2021), a Luxembourgish actor, writer, and teacher.
 * Ali Kaes (born 1955) a Luxembourgish politician, mayor of Tandel
 * General Gaston Reinig (born 1956) a Luxembourgian soldier and a former Chief of Defence of the Luxembourg Army

Sport

 * Alfred Albert Joe de Re la Gardiur (1881–1941), a Professional wrestler.
 * Léon Roth (born 1926) a Luxembourgian sprint canoer, competed in the 1952 Summer Olympics
 * Johnny Lucas (1931–1993) a Luxembourgian sprint canoer, competed in the 1952 Summer Olympics
 * Michael Pinto (born 1993) a Portuguese footballer, played over 250 games and 31 for Luxembourg

Twin towns — sister cities
Diekirch is twinned with:

 * 🇧🇪 Arlon, Belgium
 * 🇩🇪 Bitburg, Germany since 1962
 * 🇫🇷 Hayange, France
 * 🇺🇸 Liberty, United States
 * Monthey, Switzerland

title: Diekirch


text:
Softporn Adventure

Softporn Adventure is a comedic, adult-oriented text adventure game produced for the Apple II in 1981. The game was created by Charles Benton and released by On-Line Systems, later renamed Sierra On-Line. Years later, Softporn Adventure was remade and expanded as Leisure Suit Larry series of adult-oriented video games, and the first entry in that series, 1987's Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards, was a nearly direct graphical adaptation of Softporn Adventure. Another graphical version was released as Las Vegas for various Japanese computers in 1986 by Starcraft.

Gameplay
In the game, the player (playing a down-on-his-luck party animal) searches for certain items that will allow him to win the affections of three beautiful (and sometimes not-so-beautiful) women. Benton claimed that parts of the game were based on his own life, but did not specify which ones.

Development
Softporn Adventure was originally written for the Apple II in Applesoft BASIC in 1981 by programmer Chuck Benton. Benton programmed the game as an exercise to teach himself programming on the Apple II, and did not initially intend to promote the game commercially. Benton's friends enjoyed the game and encouraged him to self-publish it. Sometime in 1981, Benton was selling his game at a trade show where he encountered Ken Williams, co-founder and President of On-Line Systems (later known as Sierra On-Line). Williams eventually decided to release the game as part of On-Line Systems' catalog.

Advertisement
The game's box cover and advertisement features three nude women and a male waiter in a hot tub, shot at Ken and Roberta Williams's home. From left to right in the hot tub are Diane Siegel, On-Line's production manager; Susan Davis, On-Line's bookkeeper and the wife of Bob Davis, the creator of Ulysses and the Golden Fleece; Rick Chipman, an actual waiter from a local restaurant, The Broken Bit; and Roberta Williams. The ad was considered somewhat scandalous at the time because of the degree of nudity displayed. The photographer was Brian Wilkinson, a local newspaper editor and acquaintance of Ken Williams. Wilkinson shot several dozen takes before arriving at the image finally used for the cover, but only a few of them still exist.

The photo accompanying Time's article was of the Softporn Adventure advertisement. United Press International also covered the game's release. Although Benton's mother and On-Line Systems' Coarsegold, California neighbors disliked the game's erotic content, and the company received hate mail, the positive and negative publicity helped sell an estimated 50,000 copies, an unusually large number especially at a time when Apple had only sold a couple hundred thousand Apple II microcomputers. Because computer stores did not want to order only one game from On-Line they purchased other software with it; Williams estimated that Softporn temporarily doubled On-Line's sales. Benton's own romantic life also reportedly improved.

Softalk, which covered Apple hardware and software products and had close ties to important advertiser Sierra, published the hot tub advertisement in September 1981. For the next year the magazine published many letters to the editor debating the advertisement's morality and appropriateness; the magazine stated that three times as many readers supported publishing it as opposing the advertisement.

Softporn was withdrawn from sale after a few months. Customers asked for a version for women, but Benton could not find a female collaborator. He worked on other Sierra games until leaving the company in 1985 to found Technology Systems, Inc.

Reception
Softline called the Atari version of Softporn "a refreshing change of pace from the average software game" but criticized its sexism, noting the inability to seduce men and reporting that "the parser does not recognize the word woman". The magazine stated that the game "reinforces the notion that all computer freaks are emotionally underdeveloped high school and college boys", but nonetheless concluded that it "is hopelessly addicting ... it's just a shame that [the author] didn't take the time to make his program a bit classier".

Reviews

 * Jeux & Stratégie #14

Legacy
In 1986, after Sierra lost a Disney license, Al Lowe suggested that Sierra, who owned the rights of Softporn Adventure, remake it with the improved tools now at their disposal, and Ken Williams agreed. Lowe then used the puzzles of Softporn Adventure for creating Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards. Lowe reportedly came up with the name "Leisure Suit Larry" after remarking that Softporn was "so outdated that it ought to be wearing a leisure suit".

Also in 1986, a Japanese company Starcraft released a graphical version of Softporn Adventure titled Las Vegas. It was released for FM-7, PC-88, PC-98, and Sharp X1.

In 1991, Softporn Adventure was also ported by Gary Thompson to Microsoft C for IBM PC compatibles. Thompson loved Softporn Adventure in 1981, so he printed out the source code and archived it. In the late 1980s he re-designed, and re-wrote it for the PC and released it on CompuServe. In 1991, after purchasing a copy of Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards, he realized it was the same game. After contacting Lowe, the designer of Leisure Suit Larry, he obtained permission from Ken Williams and Lowe to release his re-designed PC version as shareware on the Internet. Williams said he would allow Thompson to release his Softporn on the internet because, as he wrote, "Quite frankly, I seriously doubt it will affect the sales of Larry."

In 1994, Thompson got an email from Lowe, graciously requesting his permission (since the rights were already owned by Sierra anyway) to release Thompson's PC version on a collector's edition of LSL called Leisure Suit Larry's Greatest Hits and Misses. The company requested his version because Thompson's Softporn was the only version available for the PC that completely held true to the original game. Thompson updated and re-wrote the game again. This bug-fixed version was then released on Sierra's collector's edition CD-ROM.

The source code of an Apple II (Applesoft BASIC) and of the CP/M (Pascal) versions is available on the web. The IBM PC version was also released later as freeware by Lowe on his webpage.

In 2013, the game was unofficially ported from the original Apple II files to Commodore 64 by Jan Kruse.

title: Softporn Adventure


text:
Trafalgar-class ironclad

The two Trafalgar-class battleships of the British Royal Navy were late-nineteenth-century ironclad warships. Both were named after naval battles won by the British during the Napoleonic Wars under the command of Admiral Nelson. The two ships were named HMS Nile and HMS Trafalgar.

Design
Laid down in 1886, they were designed by William Henry White to be improved versions of the Admiral class, having a greater displacement to allow for improved protection. However they sacrificed a full armoured belt for greater thickness amidships in a partial belt.

They were originally intended to have a secondary armament of eight 5 inch guns but this was changed to six quick-firing 4.7 inch guns for use against attacking torpedo boats, which led to a weight increase of 60 tons, partly due to the increased amount of ammunition carried. This was one of the changes which led to the vessels being 600 tons overweight, causing an increase in draught of a foot.

The Trafalgars were the penultimate low-freeboard battleships built for the Royal Navy. This design had been favoured for several years because it reduced the size of the target that the ships presented to enemy guns in battle, and because the smaller hull area allowed thicker armour. However, as a consequence of having a freeboard of only about 15 feet, the vessels were unable to cope with very rough seas. This was mitigated by having them spend most of their active service in the relatively calm Mediterranean.

When they were built, many observers overestimated the vulnerability of large ships to torpedoes and the perceived inability to avoid them, which made them believe that large warships would inevitably be replaced by smaller, less vulnerable, and less valuable, vessels. For example, John Hibbert, the parliamentary secretary of the Admiralty, told Parliament in March 1886: "I think I may safely say that these two large iron-clads will probably be the last iron-clads of this type that will ever be built in this or any other country. In France they are ceasing to go on with the construction of large iron-clads."

title: Trafalgar-class ironclad


text:
Cape Corps

The Cape Corps and its predecessor units were the main military organisations in which the Coloured members of South Africa's population served.

History
As one of the military units of South Africa with one of the longest histories, the Cape Corps reflects the history of South Africa's Coloured population to a great extent.

1781–1782
The first Coloured unit to be formed was the Corps Bastaard Hottentoten (Afrikaans: "Corps of Bastard Hottentots"), which was organised in 1781 by the Dutch colonial administration of the time. Based in Cape Town and drawing its members from men of mixed Hottentot and White ancestry, this unit had about 400 members under the command of Hendrik Eksteen and Gerrit Munnik. The unit was disbanded in 1782 when French mercenaries arrived in the Cape.

1793–1806
In 1793 this unit was re-formed in Cape Town as the Corps van Pandoeren (Pandour Corps) with 200 men under the command of Captain Jan Cloete, only to be disbanded again in 1795.

The unit was re-formed again under the British colonial administration in May 1796, this time under the name Hottentot Corps. It was headquartered in Wynberg and consisted of about 300 men. In 1798 the headquarters were moved to Hout Bay.

On 25 June 1801 the Cape Regiment was formed. It was organised as a British imperial regiment of ten companies and retained all the personnel of the Hottentot Corps.

With the Dutch taking over colonial administration of the Cape once again, the Corps Vrye Hottentotten ("Corps of Free Hottentots") was formed on 21 February 1803. It was later renamed the Hottentot Ligte Infanterie ("Hottentot Light Infantry") and saw action against the British expeditionary force to capture the Cape colony from the French allied Batavian Republic during the Napoleonic Wars at the Battle of Blaauwberg.

Formation: 1806-1814
When the British returned to the Cape following the Battle of Blaauwberg in 1806 the Dutch Hottentot Ligte Infanterie was disbanded and reformed as The Cape Regiment in October 1806 a British line regiment. Major John Graham was transferred from the 93rd regiment of foot to lead the newly formed Cape Regiment. Headquartered in Cape Town, initially based at Rietvlei, it was organised as a typical colonial unit with British officers and Coloured other ranks. In later years, the Regiment also had a troop of light cavalry added. Following the Congress of Vienna and the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1814 the Dutch Cape Colony was formally transferred to the British as the British Cape Colony.

Cape Colony: 1814-1870
On 24 September 1817 the Regiment was reduced in size (a previous order to completely disband having either been ignored or rescinded) to two small units of about 200 men for the defence of the Cape Colony's eastern frontier. The two units were named the Cape Cavalry (consisting of one troop of dragoons) and the Cape Light Infantry. Mathew Richmond, coming from the Royal Military College, joined them in 1817.

In 1820 these two units were again combined under a unified command and renamed the Cape Corps. The Cape Mounted Riflemen (Imperial) were formed on 25 November 1827; the cavalry wing was disbanded and the Corps reorganised as battalion of mounted infantry.

In 1850 some soldiers effectively mutinied by joining Coloured rebellion in the eastern Cape; the regiment was subsequently reconstituted as mixed unit with both White and Coloured members. Some years later, in 1854, the recruitment of Coloured members for the battalion was completely halted.

The battalion was completely disbanded in 1870 when military service was abolished for Coloureds, although its name and traditions were appropriated in 1878 by another (all-White) Cape Mounted Riflemen.

World War I: 1915–1918
As part of South Africa's efforts for World War I, the Cape Corps was re-formed in the Cape Province by Sir Walter Stanford, as a single battalion in December 1915 as part of the Union Defence Force. In 1916 the Corps was expanded and a second battalion raised. The original battalion was redesignated the 1st Battalion and the new unit (which was disbanded in 1918) as the 2nd Battalion.

World War 2: 1940–1950
In order to provide additional troops for South Africa's participation in World War II, the Cape Corps was reconstituted again on 8 May 1940, partly from the Association of the 1915-1918 Corps.

This unit was assigned the role of a non-combatant service corps with a pioneer battalion and five motor transport companies. It was later expanded to include several motorised infantry battalions, infantry battalions, prisoner of war (POW) guard battalions and POW escort battalions. At its peak strength, the Corps had about 23,000 members. On 13 October 1942 the Corps absorbed the South African Indian and Malay Corps but was disbanded at the end of hostilities in 1945.

In 1947 the Cape Corps was reconstituted as a Permanent Force Coloured service corps only to be disbanded in 1950 by the newly elected National Party, which abolished military service for Coloureds.

Apartheid era: 1963–1991
The Cape Corps was reformed again in 1963, as a non-combatant Coloured service corps; it was considered to be the successor to all the previous Coloured and Cape Corps units since 1796. The Corps was designated a Permanent Force unit of the South African Defence Force in 1972.

In 1973 the unit was renamed the South African Cape Corps Service Battalion. When the South African Defence Act was amended in 1975 to give Coloureds "equivalent status to whites" in the South African Army, the battalion was renamed the South African Cape Corps Battalion, its combatant status was restored and the first Coloured officers were commissioned.

During the period 1979 to 1989 the South African Cape Corps (SACC) was substantially expanded:
 * The SACC Maintenance Unit was formed in 1979 from some of the members of the original service battalion.
 * The original combat battalion was renamed 1st Battalion when the 2nd Battalion was raised in December 1984.
 * The 3rd Battalion was raised in Kimberley in 1989.
 * The SACC School and SACC School for Junior Leaders were founded.

In 1990 the SACC was reduced to a single battalion and redesignated 9 South African Infantry Battalion which was reroled as a seaborne light infantry unit. Currently, as a result of the post-1994 transformation of South Africa, Coloured soldiers, sailors and airmen serve alongside their fellow South Africans in a fully integrated South African National Defence Force.

Corps symbols

 * Corps badge: Although there were numerous variants, the Corps badges of the 1915 - 1991 era all consisted of the Crest of the Arms of the Cape of Good Hope Colony, i.e. the figure of Hope with her left hand resting on an anchor and her right hand or elbow resting on Table Mountain, with an inscribed scroll below. During 1915 to 1945 the inscription read "CAPE CORPS", while during 1963 to 1991 it read "FORTITER ET FIDELITER". The figure of Hope also appeared on the gorgets of the Dutch Cape regiments up to 1795.
 * Corps motto: Fortiter et fideliter (Bravely and faithfully) (1963–1991).

Battle honours

 * Awarded to the Cape Mounted Riflemen:
 * Cape of Good Hope (awarded in 1841 for service in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Kaffir Wars).

 * Awarded to the 1915 Cape Corps:
 * Kilimanjaro
 * Behobeho
 * Nyangao
 * East Africa 1916-1917
 * East Africa 1917-1918
 * Megiddo 1918
 * Nablus
 * Palestine 1918

The 1915 Cape Corps did not inherit the battle honour of the Cape Mounted Riflemen.

Operations
The Cape Corps' most famous combat operation is the Battle of Square Hill which took place in what was then known as Palestine on 16, 17 and 18 September 1918. It was this battle in particular which earned the Cape Corps its combat reputation and for which the Palestine 1918 Battle Honour was awarded.

While known as the SACC this unit served regularly in Namibia during the South African Border War.

title: Cape Corps