text:
Talk:Proto-Norse language

distinction?
The thing I'm unclear on here is:

Is there a distinction between Proto-Norse and Proto-North Germanic?

 * Well, no there isn't. I'll add that name.--Wiglaf 01:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Though there is some (small) differences between P-N an Proto-Germanic --Asdfgl 22:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You guys seem to forget that Proto-Germanic is in fact the name of an earlier stage of the language. It is the ancient common language of the Germanic peoples, as it were. The next stage of evolution, would be into North-West Germanic and East Germanic. East Germanic evolved into the now extinct language of the Goths, while all the other surviving Germanic languages of today descend from the other branch. So, there is little difference north-west Germanic and Proto-Scandinavian (except for the pronounciation of /z/ or /R/ and some changes in the pronounciation of diphthongs.).
 * Now, the term Proto-norse is actually a little off, in my opinion. I have never seen it used in academic literature. I know for a fact that at least Norwegian scholars, writing in English, use the terms North-West Germanic and Proto-Scandinavian for these stages of our language. I can get citations if necessary. --Alexlykke (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very easy to find academic sites using the term "Proto-Norse" by googling. As for the terminology of Norwegian scholars, they appear to have their own preferences as in e.g. using norrønt solely for Old West Norse (I wonder if they seriously consider OWN and OEN to have been separate languages).--Berig (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Norwegian scholars do not consider Old East and Old West Norse different languages, but merely dialects of Old Norse; at least this is speaking for the ones I am in contact with on a regular basis. I believe it is a matter of tradition that insular and Norwegian Old Norse is separated from Old Danish and Swedish. I guess it has something to do with old politics and maybe the fact that written Old Swedish, for instance, and Old Norwegian look pretty dissimilar from each other, seeing as Norway got the tradition of writing in latin letters from England, and Sweden and Denmark got it from Germany. I also believe writing in the mother tongue started earlier in Norway, which might further contribute to explaining the differences in the orthography, though this is merely an hypothesis of the top of mye head.
 * I was not speaking of not having seen the term Proto-Norse used anywhere, I merely commented that I haven't seen that specific term in the literature I have read during my still relatively short time at the UiO (University in Oslo). As far as I'm concerned, googling still doesn't count as looking for academic literature, but you would know that.--Alexlykke (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! As for the usefulness of google in determining what terminology is around, I cannot see any problems there. If you can fin a term on a university site through google, the term is used on the university site, whether google is implied or not. If you want to use google for finding a word in exclusively scholarly articles you can always use "Google scholar". It produces 103 hits for "Proto-Norse".--Berig (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

fleshing out article
I will flesh out this article some more once I've managed to get som sleep... --Asdfgl 22:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Norse languages
From what I undestand, there are a group of languages called Norse languages, and 2 groups within Norse languages known as West Norse languages and East Norse languages. I'm not sure whether or not all North Germanic languages are Norse languages or not.

 * Pretty correct! North Germanic equals Norse - the term Norse seems to be treated approximately as the "Conscandinavian" (I invented that word now - don't use it as a term!) word Nordisk when referring to c:a 700-1100 AD. The common opinion of Nordic linguistics is that, there are two Norse languages in the linguist sense, East Nordic, and West Nordic. I was going to write an extensive explanation here, but it may suffice that I claim that this family tree of the Nordic Languages is what I've been taught and expericenced - with the exception: the distinction between the Sveamål and the Götamål has disolved so much that practically they're just pronunciation variants of the same dialect. Also the status of Gutnish in relation to Swedish is disputed - my personal non-professional opinion is that Gutnish is a third group beside East and West Norse. User:Rursus 09:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that Germanic and Nordic are pretty much synonymous. Gringo300 23:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * No. You must have meant that "north germanic and nordic" are pretty much synonymous, which is perfectly true. User:Rursus 09:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

two different names for the same thing

 * Proto-Norse and Proto-North Germanic are just two different names for the same thing. On the other hand, Proto-Norse is not Proto-Germanic, as such is the protolanguage for all the Germanic languages, not just the North Germanic languages  -- 15:42, 2 July 2005 (CDT)
 * On the other hand, early Proto-Norse was very similar to Proto-Germanic.--Wiglaf 2 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Phonology
So, were /w/ and /j/ also phonemes of the language? They show up, or at least <w> and <j> do, in the inscriptions they display. Are these realized differently than one might expect? In any case, the phonology section is apparently incomplete. -Branddobbe 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * And on a different note, is  really supposed to be IPA [χ] (voiceless uvular fricativ), or is this a leftover from other transcription systems that use chi for IPA [x] (voiceless velar fricativ)? --Tropylium 14:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * To start with the first question first. Yes, the phonology section is incomplete. I never got around cleaning that one up properly. So /w/ and /j/ should be added. Or rather, the /u/ and /i/ should be classified as semivowels.

 * As for the second question. Yes, /h/ should be IPA [x].
 * -Asdfgl 16:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"When the phoneme /z/, represented in runic writing by the *Algiz-rune, changed to a sound represented by ʀ is debated. Also it may be mentioned that it is argued whether the language should be called Proto-Norse, or Northern Proto-Germanic." To whoever changed this: The phoneme /z/ never changed to /y/, as represented by the ýr-rune. It did change, however, to a new phoneme believed to be pronounced roughly alike to modern american-english /r/,e.g. as in "president".--Alexlykke (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It has probably been mistaken for the IPA symbol that looks like theʀ, namely ʀ--AkselGerner (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah? Still seems like a mix up between phonology and graphology, because /y/ that correlates grapho-phonologically with the Ýr-rune (in the viking age), never had naytinhg to do with what said in the text. Except of course that the AlgiR-rune, came to be the Ýr-rune later, i. e. 500 years after what we are writing about here. The IPA-symbol is for the french /R/, right? That hasn't got anything to do with /y/.--Alexlykke (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I read it, the original meaning didn't concern the Ýr-rune at all, except through the link to that rune hidden in the R symbol. I read the sentence to be concerned only with the representative sound of the Algiz-rune changing. But that would involve a grapheme-phoneme mixup, the sound represented by the Algiz changed from a (protogermanic) retroflex voiced sibilant to a ... retroflex voiced apical flap or trill or something? Most sources aren't very keen on precise IPA use so I don't know what it is thought to have been.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Harald Bjorvand and Terje Spurkland both call it an apico-alveolaric retroflex approximant, or something like that, in their writings.--Alexlykke (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Proto-Norse a legitimate classification?
The term has traditionally been used to refer to the language of the early runic inscriptions, but it fails on two counts. First, a protolanguage is defined as a reconstruction from attested linguistic data. The language of the runic inscriptions, however, comes from actual attested data (obviously), and so is not a reconstruction and therefore not a protolangauge. The second failure of the term proto-Norse is that the language of the early runic inscriptions could just as easily have been ancestral to West Germanic languages as to North Germanic languages.

It would be better to call the language of the early runic inscriptions Northwest Germanic and the language of the later runic inscriptions of Scandinavia and Scandinavian settlements Old Norse. (Note that good evidence in support of this suggestion can be found in the sources given in the article for Northwest Germanic.)

Consider the problems caused by the classification Proto-Norse that are evident in the article itself:

"The differences between attested Proto-Norse and unattested Proto-Germanic are small. The difference in name is mostly a matter of convention. Inscriptions found in Scandinavia are considered to be in P-N; inscriptions found elsewhere that are old enough are considered to be Proto-Germanic. For example, the name inscribed on the Negau helmet is Proto-Germanic though it would be the same in Proto-Norse. One distinctive difference between the two is the P-N lowering of P-G ē to ā; this is easiest seen in the pair mēna (Gothic) and máni (Old Norse) (English moon)."

That's from the article as it stands tonight while I write this. It claims that the difference between PN and PGmc is just a matter of convention rather than an indication of actual difference. The only real difference offered between PGmc and PN is the lowering of ē to ā; but this change occurred not only in North Germanic, but also in West Germanic (māne in MDutch, māno in OSaxon and OHG). Rather than being a distinction between PGmc and PN, this lowering is a distinction between PGmc and NWGmc.

It seems silly to perpetuate a flawed distinction like Proto-Norse just for the sake of convention. We could just as easily call it something more accurate (like Northwest Germanic or Early Runic) and redirect searches for Proto-Norse to the more accurately titled page — we could even have a note in the page that the language has commonly (though wrongly) been called Proto-Norse in the past. 128.187.0.164 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Coming up with new definitions of languages is not within the scope of wikipedia. It would be original research. If Proto-Norse is the term which is generally used among scholars, and in general discourse, than that is what we should use. --Barend 11:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed 97.531%, this is the well chosen policy of a dictionary, and it should classify things as the majority of experts are used to, so that ordinary hominoids like me, may learn what our experts have researched. But, and this is a major but, Mr User:128.187.0.164 have a point - even science is sometimes plagued by prejudices and badly grounded opinions that must be challenged. This should of course be outside the scope of dictionaries, except the Criticism sections, which are very important IMHO to get scientific accuracy and a balanced view. They should be considerably shorter than the facts, but they must accurately and neutrally (NPOVly) reflect major criticisms. This is important in order to get Wikipedia converge towards truth at the same speed as science converges towards truth. User:Rursus 09:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The problem with treating runic inscriptions as attestation is that it ignores the fact that the runic script is likely to have been highly conservative. Look at modern english phonetics and written standards, the written standard is only a few hundred years old and yet it is extraordinarily conservative when comparing to the currently spoken languages. A runic script, being of high status and low pervasion is even more liable to remain unchanged despite (compare [dispait]) phonological changes. It is learned by heart, and it being difficult and arcane only adds to the power that it gives to its users. The same runes could have been used to write north and west germanic at that time, but that doesn't mean that language spoken by the north germanic casters of the runes was the same as that of west germanic speakers of the time.--AkselGerner (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, that is only speculation, and I don't find it very convincing. One might also speculate that the runic script was likely to be the opposite of conservative - very similar to the spoken language, because there was no written norm, no dictionaries, and no large text corpus which could serve to make certain spellings of words authoritative. Indeed, in the later runic inscriptions, from medieval times, the orthography clearly evolves, along with the spoken language. And I don't think it's very reasonable to call it "difficult and arcane" either - it's no more difficult than our modern alphabet, and in the high middle ages it seems to have been very widespread, as evidenced by the Bryggen inscriptions. We don't know that it wasn't as widespread in proto-norse times - as any everyday inscriptions on wooden items that might have existed would have been very unlikely to survive to our time.--Barend (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

 * You're quite simply mistaken. The general conservativeness of runic scripts is an established fact. Also, are you suggesting widespread literacy in iron age northern europe? And to top that you are arguing at once that there was not a large amount written discourse and at the same time that there was. The fact is that any writing system is conventional and low-occurring compared to spoken language, as such it always deviates from the spoken language in a conservative way, counting from the date of it's inception or latest authoritative revision. The runes in the proto-norse times were of cultist importance and their inscribers in all credible research is seen to have been highly trained specialists, even though not always free men. The futhark was an instrument of power, and it's very purpose involved it being in fact difficult and arcane, not in the sense that it is difficult for us modern, educated people to learn, but in the sense that their mastery in that day and age was something to be enawed of. This is not a system of writing owned by just anyone and with which just anyone can write whatever he wants, the runes were seen to be of magical religious significance, not to be tampered with lightheartedly. The ones learning their use have most likely been taught using existing (old) inscriptions. Also, a proto-language is by definition one that can be reconstructed by comparative research, for natural reasons comparative analysis cannot penetrate from the old scandinavian languages through the unified Old Norse (ie. there can in fact be no Proto-Norse or Proto North Germanic), because all existing north germanic languages descend from that language (Old Norse). The whole article is then a fallacy. Proto-Norse (which would be the reconstruction based on Old Danish, Old Swedish, Old Norwegian and Old Icelandic) coincides with Old Norse, which unlike the purported subject of this article is an attested language, and for that reason cannot be a protolanguage. I suggest this article be moved to "The oldest north germanic runic inscriptions (and the language form they imply".--AkselGerner (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Am I "quite simply mistaken"? I disagree. I wasn't claiming that anything was definitely this way or the other, I'm merely saying that we can not know, we can only speculate, and what you are speculating, is also speculation. You believe the futhark was "an instrument of power, owned by not just anyone, etc." I am merely saying that we know that that was not the case in the 13th-14th centuries, because of the massive amount of mundane inscriptions we have preserved from that time. And we can not know that there were not also thousands of everyday, mundane inscriptions in the iron age, because if they had existed, they would not have survived until now. Quite possibly the never existed, but we don't know that. We can only speculate.
 * As for this article, it is not in itself a fallacy, because it describes a language that existed. Exactly where it was spoken, we may not know for sure, but we know that it did exist, and it's so different from the languages which it evolved into that it must be considered a separate language. So it should have an article. The name of that article should, by fundamental wikipedia-policy, be the name under which it is widely known. If that is "proto-norse", than that is where we must have the article.--Barend (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * When a "speculation" is widely accepted in the scientific community, then the speculations of other people should take second place at best. And the article does not in fact describe a language that existed. Instead it describes a runic script and the conjectures made about the language it was used to transcribe (or the history thereof). The sources are overwhelmingly runic, the mentioned words loaned into finnish, for example are accredited to protogermanic, not proto-norse. The article should be named for the subject that it deals with, namely that of Iron Age Futhark. The name of any reconstructed language should be based on scientific definitions, because "the name by which it is widely known" is open to all kinds of opinions rather than fact (e.g. "everybody I know calls the language of the elder futhark Proto-norse", or "here in denmark we call the language of the elder futhark proto-danish). For widely used misconceptions there should be clarifying articles redirecting to the accepted name.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Runic attestation is attestation like any other. By your logic, we shouldn't have an article about Latin, but The oldest romance latin alphabet texts (and the language form they imply). There was a language spoken in the Nordic area in the period 200-700 AD, I assume you're not disputing that. We know this language from the runic inscriptions. If you're saying that is controversial, you should come up with references, in stead of merely claiming "wide acceptance in the scientific community". At the University of Oslo, you can study GERM1101, Germanic languages:Gothic and Proto-Norse (Urnordisk in Norwegian), and the University of Oslo is very much part of the scientific community. I don't know why you make a dig at the danes, as far as I can see, they call it da:urnordisk, just like we do in Norway and Sweden, German de:Urnordisch. I don't want to have a strong opinion about the precisely correct term in English, I'll leave that to the mother-tongue speakers, but Proto-Norse is the term I've always seen. I don't know exactly what it is you want to do, but you seem to say that the language this article describes never existed. Well, references, please! What I know is that there is some controversy as to whether a distinction can be made between Proto-Norse and earlier Proto-Germanic. This is an ongoing debate, and is mentioned in the article, as it should be.--Barend (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Proto-Norse is clearly a legitimate classification as Barend writes.--Berig (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 * It appears that I have been unclear, for that I apologize. I do not object to runes, or to danes or to anything else. I object to the use of the term "proto" for a language that is not in the article stated to be a reconstruction of the comparative method. I am not an expert on this specific subject, having studied it only through one course, but I am an expert on the comparative method, and proto-language should be strictly reserved for the reconstructions of that method. If proto-norse is a reconstruction (and in that case, as I said, it can have been reconstructed only on the basis of the variations within the daughter languages of Old Norse da:fællesnordisk since Old Norse is regarded as a single language. If "proto-norse" is a product of Old Norse Internal reconstruction then its proper scientific name is pre-Old Norse (or maybe Pre-Norse as the "old" is a bit superfluous anyway. The article as it stands seems to focus on the runes, not the process of reconstruction. If it is a reconstruct then the method of reconstruction as well as examples of the variations upon which the reconstruction was based MUST be given, these are not only of major encyclopedic interest to the subject but also, I believe, quite attractive to the public in general.

 * Also, for clarification, I made a dig at danes because I am myself danish and wanted to add a fictive example of the possible ridiculous claims that may or may not be made. In this case there probably are in fact those out there that feel that since an endonym for Old Norse was "dansk tunga" then it should be reconstructed also with that label. If I had made up the example about say icelandics or swedes it would given me a guilty conscience. To reclarify: The article makes no in line mention of how its subject has been found, but focus on runes may imply to others as it implied to me that the statements on the phonology was based on the runic findings.

 * I agree with you that there should be mention of the potential proto-germanic source language of the oldest runic inscriptions, but in that section I believe should be mention of the general conservativity of written scripts, especially high-status scripts.
 * As for latin, it has been spoken continuously even through the disintegration of it's mother culture, and its degree of written attestation is otherwise of an altogether different magnitude than a handful of inscriptions. However, if it's article was called proto-latin then I would object to that as well.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the clarification. It seems, then, that the disagreement is mainly about the name for the article, and on that, as I said, I don't want to have a strong opinion, as I'm not a native English speaker, except that I think it should be under the name which is most commonly used for the language in English language scholarly discourse. Just another point, though, by your definition of proto-languages, it seems to me that "Proto-Norse" (or whatever one may call it) is a borderline case, since, in fact, much of the presumed vocabulary and other details about the language is actually reconstructed, since the attestation is so, relatively, sparse (a couple of hundreds inscriptions, if I remember correctly). Is that not so?--Barend (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, that's what I would like to know too! Especially the method used. Obviously, if the reconstruction is based on the early forms of the daughter languages of Old Norse then it is on the border of internal reconstruction and comparative reconstruction since the variation between the languages at that point was probably more on the lines of dialect than of different languages. --AkselGerner (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the difference between the modern Scandinavian languages are still on the lines of dialect (dialect vs language is often just politics). I believe that sholars have reconstructed Proto-Norse both based on a variety of sources: Old English, Gothic, OHG and Old Norse. In fact these languages are referred to when they analyse Proto-Norse runic inscriptions. I am not entirely happy with the prefix proto- either, but according to Wikipedia's naming conventions we have to call the language by its most common name in English.--Berig (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dialects:If Cantonese is a dialect of chinese, well, then definitely. On the other hand, speakers of Vendsyssel, Bornholm and Alsing dialects of danish probably can't understand each other without some use of standard danish, and those are all inside a 500km radius circle. Understandability isn't a rock-hard criteria either, but at least it's better than nothing.
 * Wiki-policy: That wouldn't and shouldn't stop us from clarifying the problems in the naming, if there are such. It is a common task of encyclopedias to clarify potential misnomers, usually via redirects, but not always. For example, peanuts are not nuts, and while that doesn't mean encyclopedias should redirect to "root-peas" or other made up name, they should still point out that fact. But I still don't know enough to say either way. The mentioned languages as input for the comparative method will always give proto-germanic, but biased towards west-germanic.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Proto-Norse (Urnordisk) is the term used in lectures at the University in Oslo (UiO)--Alexlykke (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ur- is not a translation for Proto-. Nobody talks about "Urindoeuropæisk" or "Ururalsk". Proto- specifically refers to a product of comparative reconstruction, just as pre- refers to a product of internal reconstruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkselGerner (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In Swedish, "urindoeuropeisk" is commonly used. Are you certain that's not the case in Norway or Denmark? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be so, but Proto-scandinavian, (not Proto-norse, I forgot, sorry) is still the term used in lectures, given in english language at the university in Oslo, at least by Terje Spurkland. I am fully aware that (ur-) is not an accurate translation for (proto-), as languages is my field of study, especially germanic and nordic languages. --Alexlykke (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I thought the parantheses implied an identification of the two terms with each other.--AkselGerner (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem, I was a little vague, not your fault.--Alexlykke (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what Antonsen has to say on the issue (Runes and Germanic Linguistics, p.31 — OCR'd so please forgive any typos):
 * The language represented in by-far most of the oldest runic inscriptions has traditionally borne the name "Proto-Nordic" (at times "Proto-Norse" or "Primitive Norse" or "Proto-Scandinavian"), and in many present-day studies, it still does. Since a protolanguage is by definition a wholly reconstructed, unrecorded parent stage of a family of languages, the term "Proto-Nordic" is inappropriate as the designation of a language known to us through written records. Much more significant, however, is the fact that this language represents, from the point of view of its linguistic structure, an earlier stage of not just the later Scandinavian languages, but also of the later West Germanic languages. In other words, this language displays no characteristics peculiar only to the Scandinavian linguistic area. It is Germanic minus Gothic, but, nevertheless, a language displaying significant differences from the parent Proto-Germanic, as we have seen. The growing recognition of the unsuitability of the term "Proto-Nordic" has led to various attempts to find a substitute, like Einar Haugen's "Runic" (1976), Herbert Penzl's "Runengermanisch" (1994), and H. F. Nielsen's "Early Runic" (2000a). I find terms based on the writing system to be not only unsuitable, but even objectionable. First of all (and most importantly), they do not take into consideration the basic fact that not all the inscriptions in the older futhark are written in the same language, and secondly, the terms tell us nothing about the historical position of the language in question, which was the fundamental reason for reevaluating the language of the inscriptions in the first place. I give this stage the geographical designation "Northwest Germanic" to differentiate it from East Germanic (i.e., Gothic) and to locate the general area in which it was spoken.

This affects not just the name of the article, but it claim that this language is the ancestor of only the Scandinavian languages, and agrees with the opening statement in this talk topic. --Pfold (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Antonsen's view is interesting but not generally accepted. The one undisputed fact is that the language recorded in runic inscriptions from 200–700 AD is the common ancestor of the North Germanic languages (whether they are actually distinct languages or "merely dialects" of a single language is a completely irrelevant debate in this context; however, I note that treating a group of varieties, some of which are as sharply distinct as Icelandic and Danish – not to mention Elfdalian or Gutnish –, as a single language, is pretty absurd; the internal diversity of North Germanic is comparable to that of Slavic). Reconstructing the most recent common ancestor of all North Germanic dialects attested in Latin script yields a language that probably dates to the 8th century, into the transitional period between Late Proto-Norse and Viking-Era Old Norse. In any case, Late Proto-Norse (6th–8th centuries) can be treated as effectively the common ancestor, even if Early Proto-Norse might also be the ancestor of West Germanic; however, the contrast in the ending of the nom. sg. of masculine n-stems, -a in Early Proto-Norse (probably for [æ], later yielding -e > -i in Old Norse), with West Germanic -o (only in Anglo-Frisian -a [ɑ], probably secondarily – reflecting a regular sound development – in view of the accepted Proto-Germanic reconstruction *-ōn or *-ô – contrast the gen. pl. ending, originally homonymous and still so in West Germanic, yielding Early Proto-Norse -o > Old Norse -a, and also the 1. sg. pret. ind. of the weak verbs in -do or -to > Old Norse -ða or -ta) advises against this hypothesis (see also the sound law discussed pp. 441ff., which plays out differently in West Germanic than it does in North Germanic).
 * While one can quibble with the moniker "Proto-Norse" as not technically entirely correct (admittedly, "Primitive North Germanic" or "Archaic North Germanic" would be more precise), the language of the runic inscriptions from around the middle of the first millennium are close enough to the (most recent, or slightly more ancient) common ancestor of the North Germanic languages of the second millennium that this objection is rather pedantic, and in any case "Proto-Norse" is the established term. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Kragehul absurdity
Just want to criticize the interpretation of the Kragehul spear: it's not mine, but taken from "Runristningar - Från spjutspetsen i Stabu till Anna i Älvdalen - FABEL I KLASSIKER", ISBN 91-7842-1750. As not entirely unusual, a part of the translation is ridiculous: gagaga ginuga == ga-ga-ga, super-ga. Very informative, or: when ideas are lacking resort to some undeterminable magic we cannot reconstruct. I instead claim gagaga ginuga == gagangan, ginunga, some n:s forgotten or customary omitted. gagangan, ginunga == walked far. I.e.: I the eril of Asgisl, (have) walked far, .... This is original "research" however. If you find a doctor who interprets unlike what's in the current text, then the text can be rewritten - otherwise, I'm not a linguist. Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It is sadly a well established fact that runecarvers used single-rune abbreviations, magical ones usually repeated. One example is the triple T as a magical invocation of Tyr, that's at least a likely interpretation given some of the contexts in which it is found. Most of the interpretations of the gaga-ginuga are just that, ga-ga. It's ridiculous to use mental resources and paper on discussions on something that just cannot any longer be established as fact. The meaning is lost, it cannot be reestablished, especially since the vocabulary items to which it may have originally referred may have been lost. The only interpretation worth mentioning is the one single interpretation which is (a tiny bit) more supportable than the rest, namely that the runes refer to the word for which the runes are named, in this case Gebô and Ansuz > Gift (of) Aesir.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, then someone should try to simply match the Tune Runestone with a Gothic dictionary. I've done it and I got þrijoz dohtriz dalidun arbija, "three daughters divided the inheritance", not the version of the article. I still think the academic circles haven't followed common sense and minimalist interpretations. ... said: Rursus (Bork, Bork!) 19:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Too bad that Proto-Norse is not Gothic (some 700–1000 years of divergence can introduce a lot of misleading homonymies), context cannot be ignored, and experts are no ignorant fools. Ottar Grønvik has suggested "Three daughters made a good funeral feast (as the best loved of the inheritors)" – still no straight Gothic interpretation. Laypeople who insist they know better than all the experts and read ancient inscriptions using a dictionary in an (at best) only loosely related language are known as crackpots. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

-z/-R
I have a question for all the proto-norse experts out there. I've studied Old Norse in Norway, and in the process have had a rough introduction to proto-Norse. I am also very interested in Runes, and have therefore read a couple of books about runes. In all the Norwegian literature I have read, the letter which is in this article written z, is written R, and described as a retroflex r-sound. And, of course, it evolved into the r in Old Norse. Why is the R not used in this article? Is it a case of the Norwegian academic community disagreeing with the rest of the world? Or is it, simply, an omission?--Barend (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The reason is that it is regarded in protogermanic as a retroflex voiced sibilant or the like that gradually converted to the sound you mentioned in the north germanic branch. There is little basis for assuming that the change would have happened at this time, but also little basis for assuming that it hadn't. The cautious approach is to use the "phoneme" z that can be tracked to proto-germanic, since the runic script bears so much more likeness to that language than to Old Norse, a note can be made of the transition this element's phonetic correlation went through. A useful solution would be to line up the historical developments side by side in a chart. On the left the protogermanic (the "before" state), in the middle the runes and the phonetic values they are assumed to refer to, and on the right the corresponding phonological elements of Old Norse (the "after" state).--AkselGerner (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The Proto-Germanic phoneme was most probably phonetically an apico-alveolar [z̺] (see pp. 45ff.). The most plausible phonetic development from there, in my opinion, would be an alveolar approximant [ɹ], which is often apical as well; this could be the transitional stage appearing some time in the Proto-Norse period (and into the Runic Swedish period, apparently; the details of the dating of the North Germanic rhotacism and its stages are difficult, therefore I think it's best to write $\langlez\rangle$ in Proto-Norse), which was confused, conflated or identified with /r/, until it eventually merged with the /r/ phoneme of North Germanic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Primitive norse
I see that the term primitive norse is used here. What is the reason for this term? As far as I understand proto-norse was even more grammatically advanced/complex than classical norse. --Oddeivind (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Primitive is here used in the sense of "from which something is derived, primary", which is the original meaning of the word, and not in the sense of "simple, underdeveloped." –Holt (T•C) 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's common to call forms of a language older than the "Old" form "Primitive" if they're actually attested (and "Proto" if they're only reconstructed). Another example is Primitive Irish, which is older than Old Irish. —Angr 18:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As Proto-Norse is partly reconstructed and partly attested, "Primitive" and "Proto-" can be used as seen fit. –Holt (T•C) 18:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and two aspects of the prefix ur- in urnordisk(a) are represented in English :).--Berig (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not sure there is a single standard term in English-language scholarship. I'm sure I've seen Proto-, Primitive, Archaic, and others. Part of the problem may be that the corpus of whatever we call it is relatively small, so we might easily have to talk about both attested examples and reconstructed examples from what is, at least notionally, the same language, and so having to switch back and forth amongst strict distinctions of Proto and Primitive or whatever is not overly convenient (and potentially confusing to the reader). I'm not sure most English-speaking scholars are too bothered by precisely which term is used, since it tends to be pretty clear what we're talking about.  Still, a once-upon-a-time colleague of mine, Martin Syrett, wrote a monograph for NOWELE titled The Unaccented Vowels of Proto-Norse, which suggests to me that current title Proto-Norse is a perfectly acceptable as a general label to English-speaking scholarship, even if other terms with Primitive, etc. might be also. Carlsefni (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Title
Article Proto-Norse language should be renamed in only Proto-Norse --MilanKovacevic (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not Proto anything - there are runic inscriptions, so it's not a reconstruction of a hypothesized parent. --Pfold (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's no other "Proto-Norse" thing to disambiguate the language from, as with Old Church Slavonic. — Eru·tuon 19:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree – Proto-Norse redirects here, and per WP:NCL this means that the disambiguator "language" is unnecessary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Grammar
This article goes quite deep when it comes phonology, but it says next to nothing about Proto-Norse grammar. Of course not much can be said with certainty since the language is so poorly attested, but I guess authors have elaborated on questions like "did Proto-Norse still have an instrumental case" or "did Proto-Norse preserve the mediopassive", questions that spring to mind when we compare proto-Norse to Gothic and the early West Germanic languages. Steinbach (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

 * From what I understand, the grammar is very similar to the reconstructed Proto-Germanic grammar, but I can't be entirely sure since most sources on Proto Norse are prohibitively expensive to buy and look into. Reboot01 (talk) 6:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Krause doesn't mention any form that (he says) could be interpreted as an instrumental case (in fact, on p. 48f., Krause 1971 says explicitly that there is no case in the inscriptions where a noun in an instrumental case form would be syntactically expected, and therefore it is completely uncertain if Proto-Norse still had separate instrumental forms like West Germanic), and the only mediopassive form would be haite(-ka) 'I am called'. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * An overview of the attested endings would certainly be nice. Rua (mew) 12:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 * We do have Proto-Norse inscriptions, some of which are rather long, and I believe there are books on the subject, they're just hard to find and very expensive, so I don't think it would be impossible to at least create a tentative grammar of Proto-Norse from what we have on here? --Reboot01 (talk) 3:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Krause (1971) does have a grammar sketch (pp. 46–54, pp. 101–134), but it's fairly succinct, and culminates in a listing of attested and reconstructed noun and verb forms on pp. 123–128. These books are quite old and I believe can be found elsewhere if you know where to look. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is this called Proto-Norse if it's attested?
I am curious about the naming of this article. It's listed as Proto-Norse, but the body includes attestations of the language.

Aren't proto-languages unattested by definition? If those are truly attestations of Proto-Norse, then it should be renamed. If those aren't actually attestations (perhaps they're attestations of a later stage), then they shouldn't be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourdearbenefactor (talk • contribs) 20:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 * From what I understand, it's just become the most commonly understood/used name for it in the general and academic use. Reboot01 (talk 21:39, 30 April 2020

 * This, exactly. It's just become the conventional term. In fact, "Proto-Norse" is technically a misnomer because the oldest attestations (known as "Early Proto-Norse", spanning the 2nd to the 6th century) well precede the divergence of North Germanic into (mainly) western and eastern dialects, and a reconstruction of "Proto-North Germanic" could therefore only reach into the "Late Proto-Norse" period (late 6th to 8th century), or at least definitely not before 500; as I pointed out above, more correct terms would be "Primitive North Germanic" or "Archaic North Germanic", but it's too late to change entrenched usage now, and "Proto-Norse" has the virtue of being succinct. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Proto-Norse language


text:
R36 (airship)

R.36 was a British airship designed during World War I, but not completed until after the war. When she first flew in 1921, it was not in her originally intended role as a patrol aircraft for the Royal Navy, but as an airliner, the first airship to carry a civil registration (G-FAAF).

Design
The design was produced by the new Airship Design Department, work commencing in November 1917. She was a lengthened version of the German Type U Zeppelin L49 (LZ 96) captured intact at Bourbonne-les-Bains in October 1917. The R.36, along with a second ship the R.37 were to be a stretched version of the L49, getting more lift by adding another 33 ft gas bag. Two of her five engines were German Maybach engines, recovered from the downed LZ 113.

Construction began before the end of the war, but the design was altered to include accommodation for 50 passengers. This was more than twice the number carried by the two German airships LZ 120 Bodensee and LZ 121 Nordstern built for passenger carrying.

Unlike the L49 Type U, the control car was not suspended below the hull but directly attached to it, and formed the forward section of the elongated passenger compartment. The engines were housed in five engine cars, one pair (containing the Maybach engines) on either side of the hull forward of the control car, a second pair either side of the passenger compartment and the fifth on the centreline in front of the tail surfaces. Unlike previous British airship designs, the fins and horizontal stabilisers were cantilevered structures, with no external bracing.

Operational history
R.36 was launched for her maiden flight on 1 April 1921 from the Beardmore works at Inchinnan near Glasgow. Late the following day she flew on to RNAS Pulham in Norfolk.

On 5 April it left Pulham at 07:25am bound for  London. After making its appearance over the city it proceeded to Salisbury Plain, where it climbed to 6,000 ft (1800 m) and began manoeuvring trials. Starting a fast turn of 130 degrees it encountered windshear, which overstressed the rudder, collapsing the top rudder and starboard elevator. This made the ship adopt a nose down attitude and rapidly lose height, but it was brought under control at around 3,000 feet. Emergency repairs were made to the damaged control surfaces and the ship limped home on her one remaining rudder and elevator, using differential engine control to help with directional control, reaching Pulham at 9.15pm.

After repairs and strengthening work she re-emerged in June for a successful series of test flights, including an endurance trial starting on 10 June which lasted nearly 30 hours, covering 734 miles (1,174 km) over land and sea. She was also used by the Metropolitan Police for observing traffic congestion caused by the Ascot Races. Journalists and senior police representatives were entertained in great comfort on the day, and the journalists stories were dropped by parachute over Croydon airfield.

On 21 June, returning from another trial flight, she suffered damage during landing. The release of emergency ballast caused a sharp pitching up, straining the ship against the mooring line. The nearest unoccupied sheds were at Howden in Yorkshire since the Pulham sheds were holding German Zeppelins handed over as war reparations. The wind increased and it was decided that the LZ 109 (L 64) would have to be sacrificed to save the R.36. Within 4 hours L 64 had been cut into pieces and cleared to give enough room for R36. Even then she was damaged by a gust of wind during the manoeuvre into the shed.

Repairs were delayed while policy on airships was reviewed because of the R38 disaster and economic conditions. In 1925 she was refurbished for an experimental flight to Egypt as part of the Imperial Airship Scheme, but calculations cast doubt on her ability to make the trip as R.36 would require 13.65 tons of fuel for the trip, leaving only 2.35 tons for ballast, crew, passengers, cargo, and mail which was ridiculous. In the light of her age and condition she was scrapped in 1926. The total flying time achieved by R.36 was less than 100 hours when she was broken up in June 1936. The passenger accommodations of R.36 grotesquely exceeded the carrying capacity of the airship, something which was also true of the only other British passenger airships R.100 and R.101 which historian Robin Higham described as "a very real example of the predicament into which optimists landed themselves."

Operators

 * Air Ministry
 * Metropolitan Police
 * Metropolitan Police

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

title: R36 (airship)


text: User talk:65.4.4.218

title: User talk:65.4.4.218


text: Talk:SSIA

title: Talk:SSIA


text:
Talk:Steeping

Comment
Does this page need to exist? Wikipedia isn't a dictionary...71.194.167.13 05:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I know Right?! 2A00:23C6:1A57:5B01:7EED:C6FF:FE9E:4BA3 (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Why does the first sentence say that this process does not apply to Tea, and then the rest of the article goes on to apply the word to Tea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.29.117 (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Steeping


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backwaters

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge/redirect. There is no content to merge not already contained in Kerala Backwaters, however. I've instead redirected to Backwater, and will add a pointer to Kerala Backwaters from there. CDC  (talk)  04:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Backwaters
Incoherent. Delete. Neutralitytalk 01:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Cleanup and move to Kerala Backwaters Google search of Backwaters + Kerala gets more thn 140,000 hits. Seems to be a significant tourust destination. Dsmdgold 02:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect with Kerala. If the section is expanded enough then move back out into its own article. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Clean and Rename as per dsmdgold. Dave the Red (talk) 05:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename to Kerala Backwaters as suggested above. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge existing article to Kerala, and add redirect to Backwater. Megan1967 06:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Merge with Kerala Backwaters. Hadlock

Created article on Kerala Backwaters; shall we change Backwaters to a redirect page? Tom Radulovich 04:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge with Kerala Backwaters, the article which has been created by Tom Radulovich. These "lagoons" of Kerala are called and well known by the term "Kerala Backwaters".--Bhadani 15:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * M&R to Kerala Backwaters --Irishpunktom\talk 13:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
User talk:Rockatship

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Spinboy 01:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image copyright problem with Image:Studentcentre.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Studentcentre.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 17:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagged as Fair Use
Greetings. Thank you for uploading Image:Universityhall.jpg. This image has been tagged as fair use, since cannot carry a not-for-profit restriction and thus was inappropriate. Please add a detailed rationale for each use of the image, as described on Image_description_page. --Regards, Dethomas 06:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Studentcentre.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Studentcentre.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Universityhall.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Universityhall.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Universityhall.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Universityhall.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rockatship


text:
Simtex

Simtex was a video game developer established by Steve Barcia in 1988. It created a number of turn-based strategy games for the PC, most notably the first two Master of Orion games. The company closed in 1997.

Games

 * Master of Orion (1993)
 * Master of Magic (1994)
 * 1830: Railroads & Robber Barons (1995)
 * Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares (1996)
 * Mech Lords (renamed Metal Lords during development following FASA dispute) (1995 — unreleased)
 * Guardians: Agents of Justice (in development at time of closure — never finished)

The rights to Simtex's games were held by Atari until sold to various parties in a 2013 auction. Wargaming now owns the rights to the Master of Orion series, while Slitherine holds the publishing rights to Master of Magic; it is eXtremePro Group Inc, that owns the full IP, based on trademark records. A third Master of Orion game named Master of Orion III was published by Atari (a subsidiary company of Infogrames) in 2003, having been developed by Quicksilver Software.

title: Simtex


text: File:Jay-z-vol-3-life-and-times-s-carter.jpg


text:
Maryland Science Center

The Maryland Science Center, located in Baltimore's Inner Harbor, opened to the public in 1976. It includes three levels of exhibits, a planetarium, and an observatory. It was one of the original structures that drove the revitalization of the Baltimore Inner Harbor from its industrial roots to a thriving downtown destination. In 1987, an IMAX theater was added, but the museum continued to show its age as the end of the 20th century approached. In May 2004, a large addition to the property was opened, and the modernized hands-on exhibits now include more than two dozen dinosaur skeletons. Subjects that the center displays include physical science, space, and the human body.

Maryland Science Center won a 2006 Best of Baltimore award for "Best Place to Take Kids." In 2008, the Maryland Science Center was named one of the “10-Best Science Centers for Families” by Parent's magazine.

Exhibits

 * Dinosaur Mysteries
 * This exhibit includes full scale, full body models of two dinosaurs — Astrodon (Maryland's state dinosaur) and Acrocanthosaurus — and full scale replica skeletons of Giganotosaurus, Albertosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Herrerasaurus, Tarbosaurus, and Compsognathus. It also includes a section where guests can go on a mock paleontological dig to uncover an Iguanodon skeleton.

 * Newton's Alley
 * This exhibit features hands-on physical science related demonstrations including a "Bernoulli blower," "inertia table," and other similar things.

 * Science & Main
 * Visitors can solve challenges and explore physics such as flying a paper airplane and building with large blocks.

 * Science Aglow
 * This exhibit allows guests to experiment with the optics and physics of light.

 * You – The Inside Story
 * This exhibit shows guests what senses the inside of the human body is used. It includes a bed of nails which guests can try out.

 * SciLab
 * A laboratory for 8 to 9-year-old children, where they can conduct science experiments.

 * Our Place in Space
 * Shows guests different aspects of the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe. It features a revolutionary new piece of technology designed by NOAA called Science on a Sphere. Live presentations on Earth and space are offered daily on the sphere. The Davis Planetarium is also located within this exhibit.

 * Power Up
 * This exhibit shows guests how electric energy is used in everyday lives.

 * Math in Nature
 * This exhibit features interactive activities that shows how nature relies on math.

 * The Kids Room
 * A room for children 8 and younger and their families, which includes a water table, a mock ship, and other activities for young children.

 * The Shed
 * A Do it yourself workshop where visitors can create inventive objects.

 * The Demonstration Stage
 * The Demo stage features live science demonstrations including ones about inertia, static electricity, liquid nitrogen, chemical reactions, combustion reactions, space technology, and other topics.

 * SpaceLink
 * The SpaceLink offers visitors a chance to find out the latest news on space. Visitors can ask exhibit staff questions about upcoming satellite missions and much more.

Awards and Scholarships for Maryland Residents
The Maryland Science Center annually recognizes and celebrates scientific research and academic achievement through the following scholarship and awards offered to outstanding Maryland residents:

 * Dr. H. Bently Glass Scholarship
 * Maryland’s Outstanding Young Scientist Award
 * Maryland’s Outstanding Young Engineer Award
 * Maryland’s Outstanding STEM Educator Award

title: Maryland Science Center


text: User talk:68.100.242.29

title: User talk:68.100.242.29


text:
USS Paul Jones

USS Paul Jones may refer to the following ships of the United States Navy, named after John Paul Jones:

 * USS Paul Jones (1862), a sidewheel steamer, commissioned 1862, decommissioned in 1867.
 * USS Paul Jones (DD-10), a Bainbridge-class destroyer, commissioned in 1902, decommissioned in 1919.
 * USS Paul Jones (DD-230), a Clemson-class destroyer, commissioned in 1921, decommissioned in 1945.

title: USS Paul Jones


text:
Talk:Alto saxophone

German pic
Can't we just use the alto sax pic in the german article? MToolen 01:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The link is here, actually. Anyway, I'm fixing the image that the writer intended to use, and I added some links and various other stuff to the article.  It's still a stub, though... --Jemiller226 18:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Great alto saxophonists"
I'm sensing that the list of alto saxophonists merely reflects individual editors' favorites. (For that matter, why duplicate List of saxophonists in this article?) I've changed "Great alto saxophonists" to "Notable alto saxophonists", as the former is completely PoV. And frankly, I'm puzzled by the inclusion of Fela Kuti among the "great alto saxophonists" (and I'm a Fela fan). He was a great musician but I would not count him among great alto saxophonists, while at the same time wondering how one could measure this, anyway (a "Donna Lee" contest?). (For the same reason, I would not list David Bowie among great alto saxophonists or guitarists, nor Brian Eno among great keyboardists etc.). But then I guess that merely illustrates my point of changing "great" to "notable." Again, however, I think any listing here is redundant, we have a separate list for that. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Read my mind. ¦ Reisio 14:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Manufacturers
I didn't think that SML was currently producing saxophones, and it looks like I'm correct judging from this website. I've removed SML from the list. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to do something about the flat signs? or is it just my computer? wouldnt Bb be better than b? or is it some formatting im not familiar with.

 * Yes and yes. The best solution would be for you to make your system more Unicode friendly - it's 2007. ¦ Reisio 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel like a mention of the big 4 saxophone makers(Selmer Paris, Keilworth, Yanagisawa, and Yamaha) would be appropriate for this section. Yes, they are already mentioned in the article, but they're also given the same emphasis as Buffet Crompton and Vito is. Buffet Crompton and Vito were never exactly saxophone powerhouses, and they definitely aren't now. Notable saxophone manufacturers from the past would also be nice. Names like Buescher, King, Martin, and Couf. Possibly add SML back to the historic section. They might have not made many horns, but from everything I can gather the ones they did make are very good. Mezmorizorz (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Two important points: 1- only if there's published manufacturing/sales data (contemporary and/or historical) to cite. 2- any such mention should be in the saxophone article, not in this one. - Special-T (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Range
The alto can play higher than an F natural. I know for certain it can go upto F#, and almost certainly higher. (Maybe we could add the altissimo in brackets?) BabaDraconis 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I misunderstood your comment, it's already there in the article's fourth paragraph. ---Sluzzelin 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear, reading it back. I meant that it might be a good idea to add the altissimo to the diagram of the instrument's range, perhaps in brackets or ossia sized notes. BabaDraconis 10:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, not only do most saxophones have an F# key, but some even have a G key. A low A can also be sounded with a mute. Justi521 (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please fix the flat signs to show b instead of those square shapes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.139.101.167 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a matter of having up-to-date fonts (though I'm not sure which ones). It looks OK on the various computers I'm using. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The squares mean that your settings aren't allowing the symbol to be shown. There's nothing anyone else can do about it. Justi521 (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * same its just fine for me honestly, i think its a problem with your computer? Rifecos (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Price
I hardly think the section including prices of saxophones is relevent. It's not in any of the pages for the other types of saxophone. I suggest it be removed. ChaosMaster 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 * It's notable, and therefore relevant. ¦ Reisio 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? I think it is not due to its lack of sources and that it has a viewpoint that is not historical, not worldwide, and not neutral. It's not that it's not true; it's just not very encyclopedic. MToolen 03:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Why is it relevant?
 * ...because it's notable...
 * I think it is not due to its lack of sources
 * If you want it cited, go find a source, or mark it with fact and someone else will spend all of 30 seconds doing so.
 * and that it has a viewpoint that is not historical,
 * Yes, we should get that info, too.
 * not worldwide,
 * No, that should be fairly accurate for the entire world, though obviously we're using USD, but this is the English Wikipedia, after all.
 * and not neutral.
 * Erm...numbers do not take sides.
 * It's not that it's not true; it's just not very encyclopedic.
 * Maybe you should read our "encyclopedia".
 * ¦ Reisio 16:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Transposition
The alto saxophone is a transposing instrument and reads the treble clef in the key of E♭ (meaning that a written C for the alto will sound as E♭; concert, a minor third higher).

A minor third higher, or a major sixth lower, as stated in the sidebar? 141.156.214.82 03:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

 * As far as I can tell, you are correct. A written C5 would be concert E♭4, a major sixth lower. I'll take care of it. MToolen 20:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Low A?
Should the existence of low A altos be mentioned here somewhere? High F# is mentioned, but aren't low A's significant enough despite the fact that they are much less common? Xasz (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Which of those notes does your sax have? Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I'd guess-timate the ratio of high-F# horns to low-A horns to be at least 1000:1, so, maybe a short mention of their existence. Published figures/facts about low A's would be worth a sentence. - Special-T (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Range issue
"(meaning that a written C for the alto will sound as E♭; concert, a major sixth lower, or a minor third above)."

This has to be a problem. If the sax plays a sixth LOWER then written, then it will not sound a minor third above. A minor third above may be the same pitch, but it will be an octave too high for what's written. I believe this is a misleading and confusing statement. I'm going to pull it, and it can be reinserted if I'm misinterpreting it. TheHYPO (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just remove the incorrect "or a minor third above"; the rest of it is useful explanation. Happy‑melon 12:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right..."The range of the alto saxophone is from concert D♭3 (the D♭ below middle C - see Scientific pitch notation)"...is wrong. It should be Db4 and is above middle C. And it should go up to Ab6, not Ab5. We are talking concert pitch, aren't we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.237.68 (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 * The concert pitch of the bottom note of the alto's range is the Db below middle C. Sounds like you're reading correctly, but are mistaken about the pitch. - Special-T (talk)

 * Am I being confused because sax music is not written in the range it sounds, whereas other instruments are? i.e. Flute music is written high.  Tuba music is written low. All sax music is written in the center of the treble clef, whether soprano or bari.  It still seems to me that altos don't get down below middle C, which is the one below the treble staff.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.237.68 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Saxhorn
I have moved the following comment from the article to the talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC) "This is wrong. It was a saxhorn, a now-obsolete brass instrument made by the same designer. Saxophone players were asked to premiere and dismissed by the composer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.207.89 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 March 2010"

The saxophone IS common in classical music
The saxophone is used quite a lot in various classical settings. They are used in wind symphonies, quartets, solo with piano, solo with orchestra, member of the orchestra(occasionally), solo with wind symphony, etc.

It was listed before as only being used commonly in wind symphonies. This is simply not true, as the sax is used in almost all outlets of classical music. I replaced "symphonic" with "classical" to make it far more accurate. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Most Common Saxophone
It says in the article that the Alto Saxophone is the most common type of Saxophone. Is that true? I'll be glad if it is since it's my favourite kind of Saxophone, but all the same, is it verified that that is the case. In the Tenor Saxophone article, all it says is that it and the Alto are the most common, without saying that the Tenor is the second most common. ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 10:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 * i mean i think it might be? our wind ensemble has 4 altos, 2 tenors and one bari so i dont know haha it might just be our band placements Rifecos (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit conflict
I'm noting here that @Why? I Ask and I are in a conflict about the range property of the infobox on this article. In order to prevent continued edit-warring or violation of WP:3RR, I would like us to discuss issues here and try to reach consensus. For my part, my reasoning is: 1. the use of Lilypond markup via the Score Extension throughout the Mediawiki projects, including Wikipedia, is widespread, justified and encouraged, see WP:MTHEORY; 2. maintaining snippets of notation in the article wiki text, as musical notation markup, is more maintainable, and will always benefit from future improvements to the rendering (in this case, upcoming changes to render as SVG); 3. any editor can maintain the notation in-situ without needing separate music notation software or having to separately upload an image to Commons; 4. all music markup snippets, throughout Wikipedia, will be rendered in the same consistent fashion, rather than the rendering depending on the use of notation tool (or image format (PNG, JPEG, SVG), text font, with or without background transparency, etc.)—Jon (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes, Lilypond is great, just not for ranges in the infobox when a better alternative exists. An .svg that can easily be copied, downloaded, and scaled serves the reader better. Whenever I click on the range you added, it instead prompts me to download a .midi file instead of bringing up the photo. That means the reader needs another application to view it in higher resolution, and such applications may even be hard to access on mobile. You say that there will be improvements to rendering to allow Lilypond markup to be shown as an .svg on Wikipedia, but you said that currently isn't available. I personally have never seen it implemented, so I can't comment on how that works and offer my thoughts there.
 * I also don't think there's a need for all ranges in each infobox across articles to be exactly consistent ( even if there was, just ask and I can make a range chart exactly the same), and I don't see issues of maintainability either, as the saxophone range is a consistent aspect of the instrument. I also fail to see how uploading a file is any harder than learning a fairly novel markup language. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Classical Saxophone Genre
Classical Saxophone is characterized by the use of the instrument, particularly the alto saxophone in a classical music setting. This includes but is not limited to symphonic orchestras, chamber ensembles and soolo performances that include classical music elements Havalynnx (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

pic of Ornette with a low-A alto
That alto that Ornette Coleman is playing in the picture has a low A. I don't have a ref for that, but there's that extra tone hole on the bell section. If it is, it should be mentioned in the caption. Special-T (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alto saxophone


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons family tree

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The_Simpsons_family_tree
Hyper-trivial, misinformative, and un-encyclopedic.

Reasons why this page should be deleted:

Andrew Levine 01:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) This is extremely trivial -- even to fans of the show. The information given is so obscure, given its source, that most Simpsons fan sites don't provide this sort of thing (though there are a few that do)
 * 2) The vast majority of characters on the list have never been mentioned on the television show itself. The source for this information is a long out-of-print tie-in book that was put out in 1991, which an extremely small minority of the show's famously obsessed devotees have ever read, and which most of the present staff that writes and produces the show have never even heard of. This family tree also has been contradicted by the show in the 14 years since it came out; for example, Homer and Marge's mothers have different names on the series than they do on this chart, and even though the article notes this contradiciton, it still underlines the fact that the book cannot be taken seriously as continuity. Put simply, its irrelevance (not simply its obscurity) makes it a poor reference source.
 * 3) This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Something like a list of characters does because it's integral to understanding the show. This family tree is just ephemera that adds nothing useful.

 * Keep - I think it is of relevant interest to the show, and shows how things in shows can be contradicted from their beginnings and onward. While inaccurate, it still gives some accurate references like the connection between Homer and Herb Powell. It is also interesting to note the ancestory of the families, as well it is interesting to see that Homer and Mr. Burns are distantly related. Note, this particular book was also referenced in the Bart Simpson article for his birth date. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 01:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge (though with this much material, probably better to keep). Question: since this only appeared in the book, does it raise copyright issues? Meelar (talk) 01:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It might raise copyright concerns, especially if that book is the only source. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As summarized and paraphrased text, this is highly unlikely to be copyvio. Radiant_* 10:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * On looking at it a second time, it does not yet appear to be copyvio since it is only paraphrasing and summarizing only a portion of the family trees. Zzyzx11 | Talk 15:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: the topic might be worthy of an article, but as it stands, this is simply a reproduction of material from a book acknowledged to be out of date. The article should reflect all current knowledge about the family tree. --bainer 02:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to The Simpsons. I don't think the article is too long to do this yet.  Most of the length is due to the size of the family tree pictures.  --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, the information is wrong. Marge's mother's name is Jackie Bouvier.  None of the people above Abe Simpson have ever been mentioned.  You can't merge and redirect an image, and other than the image, there is no unique data here.  RickK 05:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Incorrect fancruft? Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, concur with Rick. Megan1967 06:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Though not canon, it does come from an official source (the book mentioned). I think that contradiction could be interesting to some fans, but I'd prefer it merged for easier accessibility. Radiant_* 10:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a single-use joke copied directly from a book, with no significance to the show itself. Wikipedia is not the Library of Congress. sjorford →•← 10:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep though I admit this was a bit of a difficult decision for me. On one hand, this is both fairly trivial and also bordering on copyvio.  I know real family trees can't be copyrighted, but a fictional family tree that appeared in a book... I'm not sure.  On the other hand, I consider the book an official source (it was me who changed the birthdate in the Bart Simpson article a few months ago) and this is genuinely interesting information that can't easily be found elsewhere.  Plus, with the two images and all, it looks like a good bit of work was put into this, so I'd prefer not to delete without good reason. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  14:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would we want to keep false information? RickK 21:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, I consider the book to be an official source (as would most Simpsons fans, I'd imagine). The official-ness of the book is without question, as series creator Matt Groening is the book's author.  It's true that some of the family tree was later contradicted in the series... but then things within the series were later contradicted by the series as well.  For instance, Smithers was a black person in the first season.  Any time a fictional work grows past a certain size, continuity problems are bound to slip in, and such continuity problems are of great interest to fans.  In any case, the parts of the family tree that conflict with the show are specified and discussed in the article, so readers aren't likely to be confused unless they merely glance at it. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  21:43, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, thank you for acknowledging the hard work I put into those images. I would not mind a merge of some sort if it meant keeping thos images :) -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 04:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic and whatever else can be thrown at it --SPUI (talk) 14:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivial and unencyclopaedic information --Bucephalus 17:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Do you know a lot of the information on an encyclopedia is trivial information such as pop culture-related items which is why most of the answers of Trivial Pursuit questions can be found in Wikipedia, Encarta, etc., Bucephalus? :-P However, this is fancruft and this is coming from a Simpsons fan. --Anonymous Cow 18:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Undecided --Spinboy 03:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good overview of the Simpsons family which is a major TV-series. Sjakkalle 06:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How is it a "good overview"? If you read the reasons that the article is listed here you will see that the vast majority of the family tree's characters have never been mentioned on the show and the source is badly out of date. Andrew Levine 00:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, really interesting. I never knew there were so many of them. Grue 18:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There aren't! Flipping heck. It was made up for a tie-in book, it's never been used again, it has no significance to the TV show The Simpsons. None. Whatsoever. AT ALL. Grr. Still delete. sjorford →•← 19:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This would be a tough call notability wise if it wasn't for the fact that this seems extrememly dated. --InShaneee 19:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Objections based on contradiction are irrelevant. This is interesting and useful information, and the fact that it was later contradicted in a work of fiction spanning 15 years doesn't lessen its importance. &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsp talk!  20:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting is up to you, but useful? How is this useful? The vast majority of these people don't appear outside this single work. --SPUI (talk) 22:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess it's useful _because_ the people don't appear anywhere else... the information is not easily found elsewhere &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsp talk!  02:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I found it interesting. --Laura Scudder | Talk 02:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete From the book only, already merged into The Simpsons Uncensored Family Album Commander 02:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * At best it could be considered outside non-canonical material, along the lines of "The Daria Diaries" and the series Daria. It's like saying Cletus Del Ray is Homer's cousin because it's been stated in the Simpsons comic book, while the show has made no mention of this. Though it could explain quite a bit--that darn Simpsons stupidity gene, you know. Iconoclast 02:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, Mr. Burns is a distant relative. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 03:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Which means Larry Burns is too, being the son of Monty Burns. So it begs the question: should we incorporate alternative continuities--comic books, official/nonofficial tie-in publications (e.g. Little Golden Books), promotional publications--into the show guide proper, or link them to seperate wikis? I mean, it's noted in here that Comic Book Guy's real name is officially "Jeff Albertson", though Matt Groening said in some obscure interview it was "Louis Lane". Why the name change, anyway? Did Groening or some other writer forget that comment? Or was he just bullshitting the interviewer, not thinking it'd get printed? Iconoclast 17:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Since it is already merged to the book The Simpsons Uncensored Family Album I vote to redirect there. -- Lochaber 10:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, same article started by the same user one day after the VfD here... fishy. -Jonamerica 21:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm gonna hve to say keep. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Those Simpson relatives have almost no Google results. Brendan62442 18:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft. --Carnildo 23:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The book and the family tree within could be mentioned in another article and die hard fans that really want to look up false info can run to the library. -Jonamerica 20:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Slap bass

Name of technique
This technique is referred to as "slap and pop" or "slap-and-pop," not "slap-back." Slap-back is usually used to refer to an undesireable form of echo. Proposal: move page to Slap and pop. Badagnani 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * No! I propose a move to slap bass, avoiding that issue (in the article title at least) and using the most popular name for the technique. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * i propose either. i have never heard of "slap back" style bass. okay, i'm just moving the bloody thing to Slap bass. i have nevr heard "slap back" in my life. if anyone objects, let's get a discussion going before we move it back, because there seems to be an evident consensus (of us four at least). also, mention popping more. Joeyramoney 05:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This makes no sense
The article is called Slap Back, yet slap back is never used in the article, then the heading: Slap Bass has 'also commonly know as slap bass' underneath it!? 84.71.1.112 10:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * changed! Joeyramoney 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

long lost twin article
it seems this page was originally started by a frail young n00b (or more aptly, one time IP user) who did not see the article Slapping. unfortunately, nor did anyone else who edited this page. a redirect is very clearly in order, but this seemed almost too ridiculous to be true that there were two articles on the exact same thing, so i would rather someone else red. this than i, to affirm that i'm not seeing s&#t. Joeyramoney 06:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * okay, i redirected it. Joeyramoney 18:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Slap bass


text: Category:Something Corporate albums

title: Category:Something Corporate albums


text: Talk:Sheading

title: Talk:Sheading


text:
Priestley Medal

The Priestley Medal is the highest honor conferred by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and is awarded for distinguished service in the field of chemistry. Established in 1922, the award is named after Joseph Priestley, one of the discoverers of oxygen, who immigrated to the United States of America in 1794. The ACS formed in 1876, spearheaded by a group of chemists who had met two years previously in Priestley's home.

The Priestley Medal is among the most distinguished awards in the chemical sciences, behind the Wolf Prize in Chemistry and the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Consequently, it is commonly awarded to scientists who are advanced in their fields, as it is intended to commemorate lifetime achievement. When the ACS started presenting the Priestley Medal in 1923, they intended to award it every three years. This continued until 1944, when it became an annual award.

Recipients

 * 1920s
 * 1923 Ira Remsen
 * 1926 Edgar Fahs Smith
 * 1929 Francis P. Garvan

 * 1930s
 * 1932 Charles L. Parsons
 * 1935 William A. Noyes
 * 1938 Marston T. Bogert

 * 1940s
 * 1941 Thomas Midgley Jr.
 * 1944 James Bryant Conant
 * 1945 Ian Heilbron
 * 1946 Roger Adams
 * 1947 Warren K. Lewis
 * 1948 Edward R. Weidlein
 * 1949 Arthur B. Lamb

 * 1950s
 * 1950 Charles A. Kraus
 * 1951 E. J. Crane
 * 1952 Samuel C. Lind
 * 1953 Sir Robert Robinson
 * 1954 W. Albert Noyes Jr. (son of William A. Noyes)
 * 1955 Charles A. Thomas
 * 1956 Carl S. Marvel
 * 1957 Farrington Daniels
 * 1958 Ernest H. Volwiler
 * 1959 Hermann Irving Schlesinger

 * 1960s
 * 1960 Wallace R. Brode
 * 1961 Louis Plack Hammett
 * 1962 Joel H. Hildebrand
 * 1963 Peter Debye
 * 1964 John C. Bailar Jr.
 * 1965 William J. Sparks
 * 1966 William O. Baker
 * 1967 Ralph Connor
 * 1968 William G. Young
 * 1969 Kenneth S. Pitzer

 * 1970s
 * 1970 Max Tishler
 * 1971 Frederick D. Rossini
 * 1972 George B. Kistiakowsky
 * 1973 Harold C. Urey
 * 1974 Paul J. Flory
 * 1975 Henry Eyring
 * 1976 George S. Hammond
 * 1977 Henry Gilman
 * 1978 Melvin Calvin
 * 1979 Glenn T. Seaborg

 * 1980s
 * 1980 Milton Harris
 * 1981 Herbert C. Brown
 * 1982 Bryce Crawford
 * 1983 Robert S. Mulliken
 * 1984 Linus Pauling
 * 1985 Henry Taube
 * 1986 Karl A. Folkers
 * 1987 John D. Roberts
 * 1988 Frank H. Westheimer
 * 1989 George C. Pimentel

 * 1990s
 * 1990 Roald Hoffmann
 * 1991 Harry B. Gray
 * 1992 Carl Djerassi
 * 1993 Robert W. Parry
 * 1994 Howard E. Simmons
 * 1995 Sir Derek H. R. Barton
 * 1996 Ernest L. Eliel
 * 1997 Mary L. Good
 * 1998 F. Albert Cotton
 * 1999 Ronald Breslow

 * 2000s
 * 2000 Darleane C. Hoffman
 * 2001 Fred Basolo
 * 2002 Allen J. Bard
 * 2003 Edwin J. Vandenberg
 * 2004 Elias J. Corey
 * 2005 George A. Olah
 * 2006 Paul S. Anderson
 * 2007 George M. Whitesides
 * 2008 Gabor A. Somorjai
 * 2009 M. Frederick Hawthorne

 * 2010s
 * 2010 Richard Zare
 * 2011 Ahmed H. Zewail
 * 2012 Robert S. Langer
 * 2013 Peter J. Stang
 * 2014 Stephen J. Lippard
 * 2015 Jacqueline Barton
 * 2016 Mostafa El-Sayed
 * 2017 Tobin J. Marks
 * 2018 Geraldine L. Richmond
 * 2019 Karl Barry Sharpless

 * 2020s
 * 2020 JoAnne Stubbe
 * 2021 A. Paul Alivisatos
 * 2022 Peter B. Dervan
 * 2023 Cato T. Laurencin
 * 2024 Carolyn Bertozzi

title: Priestley Medal


text: Talk:Setlist

title: Talk:Setlist


text:
Talk:Steppin' Razor

Rewrite 02-06-2006
I've rewritten the article to indicate the term's provenance - if there are any roaming experts in 1960s Jamaican slang, please inform the rest of us as to the source of the term. I couldn't find any references except songs. I'm now going to wikilink a few other articles here... Tyrhinis 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Steppin' Razor


text:
Four Lane Ends

Four Lane Ends is the name of several locations in England:

 * Four Lane Ends Interchange, a metro station in East Newcastle upon Tyne
 * Four Lane Ends, Thornton-Cleveleys, a road junction in Thornton-Cleveleys, Lancashire
 * Four Lane Ends, a district within the ward of Richmond, South Yorkshire
 * Four Lane Ends, a hamlet near Tiverton, Cheshire

title: Four Lane Ends


text:
Market value added

Market value added (MVA) is the difference between the current market value of a firm and the capital contributed by investors. If MVA is positive, the firm has added value. If it is negative, the firm has destroyed value. The amount of value added needs to be greater so than the firm's investors could have achieved investing in the market portfolio, adjusted for the leverage (beta coefficient) of the firm relative to the market.

Basic formula
The formula for MVA is:

 * $$ MVA = V - K $$

where:

 * MVA is market value added
 * V is the market value of the firm, including the value of the firm's equity and debt
 * K is the capital invested in the firm

MVA is the present value of a series of EVA values. MVA is economically equivalent to the traditional NPV measure of worth for evaluating an after-tax cash flow profile of a project if the cost of capital is used for discounting.

title: Market value added


text: File:Jay-z-dynasty-roc-la-familia-2000.jpg


text:
Keetley, Utah

Keetley is a ghost town located in northeastern Wasatch County, Utah, United States.

Description
The town was located along the former routing of U.S. Route 40 (US‑40), north of the former town of Hailstone and east of Keetley Station. (Keetley Junction was further north along US‑40, at its junction with Utah State Route 248.)

History
The town began as a mining community, with a spur of the Union Pacific Railroad increasing the economic interest in the community for a short time. The village was submerged by the waters of Jordanelle Reservoir in 1995 along with Hailstone and Jordanelle.

The town began as a mining camp. Its first name was Camp Florence, for the first "lady" to visit the camp. It became a Pony Express station and a center for the area's mining and lumber industries. As it grew into a town, it was renamed for Jack Keetley, a Pony Express rider and local mining supervisor.

Keetley Agricultural Colony
During World War II Keetley was used as a 'voluntary' relocation camp for many Japanese-Americans. Fred Isamu Wada approached the mayor of Keetley, George Fisher, with the idea of leasing the land with the promise of bringing Japanese farm labor. While initial reaction was unfavorable, the fears were quickly allayed as it was shown that those relocating were not going to be a burden on the locals.

A large, 150 acre farm was established after much intense labor to clear the land of the ubiquitous rocks. While the women and children tended to chickens, pigs, and goats, the men went to work farming sugar beets.

The settlement lasted until the end of World War II when two-thirds returned to their homes in California and the rest scattered to other communities in Utah.

Modern development
Because of its proximity to Park City and the Jordanelle Reservoir, while the site of Keetley itself (along with the former towns of Hailstone and Jordanelle) is now completely submerged by the reservoir, the surrounding area is today the site of new construction, bringing in large resort-style home developments such as Hideout Canyon, Todd Hollow and Deer Mountain. In 2008 the town of Hideout was incorporated in this area.

title: Keetley, Utah


text:
Woodthorpe

Woodthorpe may refer to the following places in England:

 * Woodthorpe, Staveley, a village in the parish of Staveley, in the Borough of Chesterfield, Derbyshire
 * Woodthorpe, North East Derbyshire, a former civil parish of Chesterfield Rural District, near Clay Cross, Derbyshire
 * Woodthorpe, Leicestershire
 * Woodthorpe, Lincolnshire, a location
 * Woodthorpe, North Yorkshire
 * Woodthorpe, Nottinghamshire
 * Woodthorpe, South Yorkshire, in Richmond, Sheffield

title: Woodthorpe