text:
Talk:Australian English phonology/Archive 2

Variation between /aː/ and /æ/
I have changed the values of demand and grasp to 99% for Adelaide. I am Adelaide born - I and many of my friends pronouce demand and grasp with an /æ/.
 * That's all very well, but (a) adding information based on how you and your friends speak generally counts as unverified original research, (b) those figures are from a (fairly small, I think, looking at the numbers) sample of speakers in the different cities, and the quoted findings are 100% long A for both of those words in Adelaide - we can't change the findings of that study.--JHJ 11:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

L-Vocalisation
The article states "Australian English lacks some innovations in Cockney since the settling of Australia, such as the use of a glottal stop in some places where a /t/ would be found, th-fronting, h-dropping, and l-vocalisation." meaning that l-vocalisation is absent in Australian English. In my experience, it's extremely common ... 122.108.167.147 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Ben P122.108.167.147 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, though it's far from universal. I was private schooled (in Adelaide) where it was thought of as unclean pronunciation, so the habit is corrected at a young age for people in my social group.--121.45.73.208 (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Perth?
The table "Variation between /æ/ and /aː/", based on Crystal does not include Perth/WA. Does this reflect Crystal's work, or is it an accidental omission? Grant65 (Talk) 06:15, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure, but I think my mother has a copy of that Encyclopedia, so I might be able to find out. Other people might be able to find out sooner than I can though. (Given it's an encyclopedia, Crystal probably didn't do the original research, though ;) — Felix the Cassowary 12:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I went to my mother's today, and had a look at it. Perth is indeed missing, including in the paragraph of discussion. It cites a chapter of a book as its source, and I think we should probably mention it—but I'm not sure how best to do secondary citing here. The original work was Bradley, D. (1991). ‘ and in Australian English.’ In J. Cheshire (Ed.) English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–34. If anyone can find that source, it would probably pay to see if it mentions anything about Perth, including why it was omitted. —Felix the Cassowary 12:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong Symbols?
It's crept back in again. It's not &  but  &. Jimp 28Aug05

 * See discussion at Talk:Australian English. (Well, you already know it's there, but other people who come in later mightn't.) — Felix the Cassowary 12:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to put the link here to but hadn't got round to it. Then, on the other hand, why not move that discussion here? Jimp 29Aug05

Well now it's all here. Jimp 11oct05

 * Perhaps as a result of this discussion (and below), the text mentioned that /a:/ is sometimes also described as /a:/ (same for /a/). I removed that (and if sometimes also /upside-down-a/ is used, let's give references, right?). Jalwikip (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

/a/ & /aː/
G'day Felix,

I'm all for your splitting the article in two however I don't agree with your using /a/ and /aː/. It's all well and good to use /a/ and /aː/ amongst those who know that it really is and   but do we assume this? What would the point be of writing the article if it's only for those who already know AusE phonology?

There's also the question of consistency. You haven't used /r/ but. You haven't used /uː/ but. Isn't better to use the correct IPA transcription?

I'd already changed these back to &  before I read your reasoning however, for the reasons I've set out here, I'm not going to change them back.

Jimp 28Aug05

 * I didn't use /r/ because I just copy-pasted from the RP English page and removed the unvoiced [w] sound, not used in Australian English. I didn't even know I hadn't used /r/! :)

 * As for not using /u:/, but, that's because, well, the correct sound is , according to the standard we're using.

 * However, using /a/ and /a:/ for the open central vowels isn't wrong: In fact, it's what you're meant to do. They're fully open: opener than /æ/, so they aren't nearly-open central vowels, so [6] isn't the ‘correct IPA transcription’. Therefore, we have to pick one glyph over the other, and IPA principles state that if we have to pick two glyphs, we should pick the simpler one. Every other language which has only one fully open vowel uses /a/, in spite of the fact that the real sound is actually almost always [a_-] or [6_o], and not [a]. Why should we be different for AuE? (Hungarian, in fact, based on the graph at the Hungarian language page, uses /a/ for a phoneme even further back and higher than Australian equivalent.)

 * Also, my reading indicates that the normal IPA transcriptions that are used in the literature are either Harrington-Cox-Evans with /a/ (i.e. what I put up), or M.-D. (which is many times more common, anyway; even though it's less phonetically accurate).

 * I'm thinking of drawing a diagram like they have at Dutch language showing the positions of the vowels (after all, almost no language has the vowels in the cardinal positions—based on the Dutch language vowel chart, in fact, AuE  is further forward that Dutch /y/, and AuE /3:/ is nowhere near IPA [3:]). If we do that, would you object less?

 * — Felix the Cassowary 11:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

If this is what you're meant to do then why don't Harrington, Cox & Evans (1997)? Look at the graph: it's clearly and   (and so it's labelled) it may not right on but it's closer than  and. Jimp 28Aug05

 * The fact that it's closer to the [ɐ] isn't relevant to the intended use of IPA [a] vs IPA [ɐ]. IPA [a] is clearly intended for use as a low front or low central vowel, whereas IPA [ɐ] is intended for use as, essentially, a second lower schwa. Look e.g. at Template:Vowels or open front unrounded vowel, where it says:
 * This symbol (i.e. [a] —FC) very frequently used for an open central unrounded vowel, and this usage is accepted by the International Phonetic Association. Since no language distinguishes front from central open vowels, a separate symbol is not considered necessary. If required, the difference may be specified with the central diacritic, [ä].

 * I'm not Harrington, Cox, or Evans, so I don't know why they chose [6] and not [a]. Incidentally, their IPAification appears to have been based on Clark's (1989), and he used . Try finding that in an IPA chart. (Cox, actually, uses and /a/ in what she's published since then.) And, like I've seen, all the printed stuff I've seen apart from HCE (1997) and the website has used either the M.-D. system (as Cox does) or HCE-but-with-/a/.

 * (Btw, I fixed your links—for some reason, the syntax for links is different from the syntax for wikilinks, just to confuse everyone.)

 * — Felix the Cassowary 12:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not Harrington, Cox nor Evans either and I can't read their minds, however, if I might be allowed to hazzard a guess, I'd assume that they've used exactly because of this fact that it's closer to this than it is to.

Is this irrelevant? I'll go so far as to say that it is relevant ... at least for a phonetic transcription. Sure, if it's a phonemic transcription, then it doesn't matter. Perhaps the material you refer to is exactly that: phonemic transcriptions only.

But which are we using here: a phonemic or a phonetic transcription? Both, of course, but don't we want to tell readers how we actually pronounce things? We do, don't we? Thus, I argue, we should use a phonetic transcription based on the closest IPA symbols and, to avoid confusion, base our phonemic transcription on that.

Isn't this the reason that they used rather than  on the RP page? You speak of our using standard (with respect to ). Are they using the same sandard on the RP page? Who are we? I don't know of this standard. The standard I'm using is the Mac. Uni. website the links to which you've fixed up for me (thanks for that).

Just an asside ... shouldn't we move this discussion to Talk:Australian English phonology?

Jimp 29Aug05

Felix,

You link to the Wikipedia vowel template and the page on the open front unrounded vowel where there is an a in brackets in the central position. This is interesting but why is it absent from the IPA vowel chart?

It seems as if we agree that the vowels in hut and heart are closer to X-SAMPA /6/ and /6:/ than they are to /a/ and /a:/ respectively, as the [http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/speech/phonetics/phonetics/vowelgraphs/AusE_Monophthongs.html Mac. Uni. vowel chart] indicates. You've refered to it as a fact.

What we disagree on is the relevance of this fact. Is this not the kind of fact a reader might be looking for in an encyclopædia? Where better in this encyclopædia to find this fact than Australian English phonology? I argue that this is a fact which should be included here.

You mention the fact that other languages with only one fully open vowel use /a/. You ask why AusE should be different. My answer is that, no, it should be no different ... if it's a phonemic transcription only. You mention Harrington-Cox-Evans' use of /a/ in the literature. All I can guess is that they're giving only a phonemic transcription in this literature.

What I argue is that we should be giving a phonetic transcription. Don't we want to give the whole story? Using /a/ doen't give the whole story. This goes for. But I'm just repeating myself now. What we need is a show of hands. I wonder who with me & who's with you.

Jimp 31Aug05

 * I'm replying on Talk:Australian English phonology; you're right, that's the more appropriate palec. — Felix the Cassowary 11:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

and the expression "good on you" or "although both of these are - something seems to be missing between "or" and "although". --Oop 23:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about not responding to your other comment there, I'll do them both now (I must've missed it in my watchlist).

A central [a] is missing from the IPA vowel chart because that's not its cardinal position. Its cardinal position is indeed front. That doesn't mean it's incorrect to use it in non-cardinal positions. The IPA doesn't contain symbols for every possible vowel; nor even every vowel used in a language; only for those which contrast. No language contrasts a front open from a mid open from a back open vowel, so there's no need to include three fully open vowels; languages can therefore use /a/ to phonemically represent a sound that is phonetically in a centralised position (and indeed, the IPAssociation does so).

If we're going for a phonetic transcription, we're going to have to mark a lot more—the [] allophone of ; the allophone of ; the fact that  is more like (ahem)  or  depending on how liberally we wish to interpret the symbols; the fact that  is more like  or. I don't think this level of detail is necessary, and in any case it's misleading as you'd have to either still include the discussion, or diacritics, because the only Australian vowel that's on (or rather, has a mean value that's basically on) the cardinal pronunciation is /oː/.

Secondly, the purpose of the symbols, there at least, are more to serve as a guide to interpreting pronunciations; that's why the section on vowels begins by discussing the fact that there's two ways of writing Australian phonemes. It's not meant to be, and I don't think it should be, a guide to the phonetics of Australian English. Firstly, because to do that with symbols would not do justice to the phonetics, even dressed up in diacritics. Secondly because we can do that more comprehensibly using graphics and textual descriptions, as I've already included.* Thirdly because if we write as  as would be phonetically justifiable/justified, we'd serve only to confuse people when they actually do read phonemic transcriptions written in Australian English. And finally because if people do want to know the actual phonetic pronunciations of Australian English rather than graphical, textual or symbolic approximations, they're better served by travelling to our fair country, or failing that going to the primary literature.

* Regarding the graphic, I've also included the GIMP source file on the Wikimedia Commons site—follow the links from it—so if you do want to change the character I've used for /a(ː)/, you can without too much difficulty, assuming you have the GIMP. The font I've used is Gentium.

When you say that perhaps the material I've been reading that uses /a/ rather than /ɐ/ is phonemic material only, to some extent you're right. It includes stuff that's been using broad phonetic transcriptions because the precise phonetics of /a/ isn't the matter. But stuff that is concerned with the exact phonetics of /a/ has either used diacritics to symbolise the low central nature of the vowel or, more often, has been using textual and graphical descriptions, including references to the frequencies of the formants of the vowel. Because that's the only way you can capture the phonetics of a vowel on paper.

Regarding standards, I don't mean that there's some standards body that dictates or even suggests appropriate IPA characters for Australian English. I mean a standard as in the normal way of doing something. In Australian English, when length is marked, the normal way of referring to the vowel phoneme in ‘food’ is with, so therefore, is the ‘standard’ glyph.

— Felix the Cassowary 11:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Good Points
You put forth some very good points, Felix. Also, the vowel chart you've created serves to negate most of my concerns. I'd been worrying that the use of /a/ would indicate quite fronted vowels but the graph makes the fact that these are central clear enough. I'm not about to go changing things back to /6/ (in fact I've just done the opposite). At least not until I have a bunch of others (who seem to know what they're talking about) who also would prefer /6/. Thanks for the graph. It would be nice to have one for diphthongs I'd do it myself if only I had time to figure out how. Anyway, all in all, I think you've done a good job on this page. Jimp 1Sep05

 * Thanks. I'd like to do one for the diphthongs too, but it's also a case of figuring out how... I don't really know if the Gimp can draw likes with arrows (I've copy-and-pasted the one for /i:/ from the Dutch diphthongs chart, but I don't know that that's suitable in general). I might see what I can do tonight though. — Felix the Cassowary 03:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And voilà! (The arrows look a little wonky, but it’s still good, I insist) — Felix the Cassowary 10:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice graph. Don't worry about the wonkyness of the arrows: we've got to live with pixels. Is /i:/ really a diphthong though? It certainly has a significant on glide but I though diphthongs had to have two targets. I'll see if I can't dig up that article I read ... here it is. Cox found this long on glide but only one target. Also the [http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/speech/phonetics/phonetics/ausenglish/auseng_vowels.html Mac. Uni. site] I've refered to lists /i:/ as a monophthong. Jimp 2Sep05

 * I don’t know whether an onset is enough to make it phonetically a diphthong, but this is suggestive:

 * Two vowels classified as monophthongs may exhibit diphthongal qualities. ' is typically diphthongal in character in that it has a variable onglide for most Australian speakers. ' can sometimes be realised with onglide but is more typically monophthongal.

 * Phonemically, I think it only makes sense. In many (but not all) contexts the only distinctive feature between and  is length, so length has to be the thing that distinguishes them (in fact, in almost all the contexts where there's another feature that would distinguish them—e.g. word finally— isn't permitted). So phonemically the length contrast is between  and . Note also from what you cited Short/long pairs of vowels, which are similar in phonetic quality, retain comparable onglide propotions and compare and contrast  with an onglide of almost 50 per cent length, and  and  with around 10 per cent each.

 * If is another phonemic long vowel, then we need to create an extra category. Because the targets of,  and  are close enough to be identical, it'd need to create a category of long vowel + onset or long vowel - onset, but diphthong seems to be suitable.

 * Anyway, it could be best not to attempt to answer the question. This version doesn’t, but it’s a lot busier. If you like it better, you can add it to the article and I’ll make one that shows only the short vowels. The article you gave indicates that this is theoretically valid (e.g. The results of the duration data confirm the traditional analysis of Asutralian English vowels that there are essentially two length types: long, which includes diphthongs, and short. A three-way length distinction as proposed by Bernard (1967b) is not support by the present data.)

 * (In any case, I did include /i:/ on the other chart as a way to avoid answering the question.)

 * —Felix the Cassowary 04:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The /ɜ:/ is more like /ɘ:/ in my mouth and in that vowel chart it's also appears closer.

 * No it's not, though it might be more like . But that isn't the basis on which we alter the page; we're following established conventions, not making knew ones. Also, the exact pronunciation varies; for me it's a slightly retracted (which looks almost the same as a slightly advanced  when mapping only F1 and F2, as that chart is ... sounds almost the same, too). Let's follow the convention. —Felix the Cassowary 10:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

 * and are allophones and that should be noted.

 * It is, although without specifying the exact qualities (because is also used, and probably others). —Felix the Cassowary 12:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Competing Orthographies
The table below is of various competing orthographies for Australian English vowel phonemes: I have put this comparative table in this talk page to show some of the competing orthographies for Australian vowel phonemes that have been created by various Australian Linguists (see here for references). – AxSkov ( ☏ ) 16:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * M.-D. don't use lenght symbols, do they? At least, the Macq. doesn't, nor do modern publications that use them. — Felix the Cassowary 03:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No, M-D doesn't use lengths that I know of, it was a mistake. It was an oversight, somehow I put those length symbols in the table when I was compiling it. – AxSkov ( ☏ ) 04:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Good-good, I haven't read anything by them so I didn't want to edit it if I was wrong. — Felix the Cassowary 04:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Feesh and Cheeps and Fush and Chups
I presently have this in the section of the kit vowel in Australian English including the common stereotypes. ; : for example kit, bid, hid''. (M.-D. .) The target for this vowel tends to be tenser than in other varieties of English. Because of this, some New Zealanders often claim that Australians say feesh and cheeps for fish and chips while some Australians conversely claim that New Zealanders say fush and chups.''

Does this include unnecessary information? Cassowary thinks that it does. But those stereotypes are very real, and so should perhaps be mentioned somewhere in the article. 64.194.44.220 02:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Should we include all stereotypes? (well, except for the fake ones, like the way Americans say "sprint" as "flicrk", that's a very common fake stereotype). Should we include that some Australians will stereotype Australian Wogs as doing the same? the fact that Americans will stereotype Australians as saying "buy" for "bay" or "boy" for "buy"? How about the "g'doy moyt" stereotype of Australian wogs, by non-wog Australians? Anyway, how is New Zealand English relevant to a discussion of Australian English? It's not, but in order to include that statement as relevant you'd need to explain why Aussies say Kiwis say "fush and chups" (by the way, the kit-bit split is the wrong place to link to, because there is no split in New Zealand English).

 * I'll agree that it might perhaps be relevant in a discussion of the differences between Australian and New Zealand English, but that's not what that is. That's a discussion of Australian English, without regard for others.

 * —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 03:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Golf-gulf merger
The golf-gulf merger article is in danger of being deleted. 64.194.44.220 22:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * And, User:64.194.44.220, you can save it. Just find us a reliable source. Jimp 06:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Kambah sounds like Canberra?
Hi, at present the article on the Canberra suburb of Kambah, Australian Capital Territory contains the assertion "Kambah sounds like Canberra." It doesn't really the way I hear most people say the two words, maybe my hearing is not good or I move in the wrong circles. They quite possibly both derive from Ngambri. Perhaps, as to pronounciation, a fellow-editor, more skilled in phonics than I am (not at all!) can help. To provide meaningful input, perhaps you would have needed to hear the words pronounced by Canberrans, but maybe not.--A Y  Arktos 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I expect you would. Can you make a recording of both words? I would guess however that "Kambah" was pronounced (i.e. first syllable like "ram", second like "slumber") and "Canberra" is pronounced, so if my guess is right the only difference is the missing "r" in "Kambah". I've never heard the word "Kambah", so I could be way off though. Maybe it rhymes with "Rumba"?  —Felix the Cassowary 02:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have the means (or nous) to make recordings and upload them. In non-phonetic terms I believe Kambah is pronounced that the first syllable rhymes with cam as in 'cam shaft', the second syllable is bah as in 'bah humbug'.  The first syllable of Canberra would rhyme with a 'can of drink'.  Your IPA symbals show the pronounciation being similar but would these rhymes make a difference? Thanks --A  Y  Arktos 21:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah well, I do think some people pronounce "Canberra" the way it's written (in IPA as ) but it always strikes me as odd and unnatural, like the way Americans say "Melbourne" as Mel-BORN instead of MEL-ben. Presumably the person who made the assertion says "Canberra" like I do, whereas you say it like it's written. Now, as for the second syllable of "Kambah", if you say it's pronounced as "bah humbug", then in the IPA that'd make it, but the difference in pronunciation between and  at the end of a word is very slight—mostly just the length of time you say it for. My guess—as someone who's only spent about an hour in Canberra, and most of it in a car—is that if you listen carefully you'll find some people pronounce it with the longer  and some with the shorter . Maybe the person who wrote it used the shorter sound. Or maybe the person who wrote it was just alluding to the fact that the long and short sounds sound similar. (PS: I hope the IPA symbols are showing properly for you. I think I've explained them well enough to understand them, but if I haven't I'll try again. It's hard explaning things you know like the back of your hand ;) —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 10:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I live in canberra and we pronounce canberra as and kambah as

Wrong symbols part two
graph, chance, demand, dance, castle, grasp, to contrast.

This time the question is not really about the symbols used so much as the phoneme. For some of these words I use but I don't think I ever use. I'm pretty sure it's always for me whenever it's not. Then, on the other hand; whereas I say ;  all sound definitely unAussie as opposed to. Is there any pattern as to which side of the BAD-LAD split these TRAP-BATH split wavering words fall? Jimp 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If you're using a flat-a in these words, the division between long and short flat-a is exactly the same here as it is anywhere: short before fricatives, long before unless certain other criteria are met (which they never are for these words). —Felix the Cassowary 03:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Do Australians actually use the term "flat a"? In Britain, I usually hear "short a" for  and "long a" for, though that wouldn't make as much sense in the Aussie context where what we call the "short" one has sometimes become long.--JHJ 08:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * is usually called "broad a" here when it comes from the TRAP-BATH split, or just "the /aː/ sound" otherwise*, with "long a" meaning (taken from the Middle English value). I have no idea where I picked up the term "flat a", but it's less common and only ever used in contrast to broad a. In contrast to long a, and normally, you get "short a" meaning both  and.

 * I think part of the reason for this is because the broad-a/flat-a split is finished and the differences are socially conditioned, whereas the long/short flat-a split still seems to be spreading to new environments (e.g. by the time English was exported to Australia (cf. the Philidelphia and Estuary English systems), it seems it hadn't yet spread to before whereas it is now there with exceptions (either way) exclusively neologisms; in 1985†, it hadn't yet spread to before  whereas by now (IME & unsourced) I'd say  was the normal pronunciation of "badge").

 * * Orthographic a represents so many sounds that it's hardly worth having names for them all.
 * † Blake, B. J., (1985). ‘Short a’ in Melbourne English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 15: 6–20.

 * —Felix the Cassowary 11:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Celery/salary merger
Altered the reference from 'In Victoria..' to 'for some Victorian speakers...' since this merger is far from universal. 61.69.244.153 03:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Oscar (12th March 2006)

/ɐ:/ different before "r"
Australian English /ɐ:/ sounds more fronted to me (closer to /æ:/) in syllables ending with a (theoretical, unpronounced) "r". Any thoughts on this from native speakers of AuE? Richwales 05:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Do you mean that the vowels of ‘farce’/‘farm’ and ‘pass’/‘palm’ in AusE sound different to you? They’re not. The ‘r’ is just one orthographic notation of the long vowel. For instance, when you form colloquial words by appending one of the affixes -ie/-y, -er/-a or -o after the first syllable (or some other opportune place), newly intervocallic fricatives may be voiced. Hence, ‘afternoon’ /aːftənʉːn/ becomes /aːvəʉ/, spelt ‘arvo’.
 * Do you also mean you’re not a native AusE speaker? Is your own accent rhotic? You could be hearing a difference you’re used to hearing as significant, when really, it’s just because the AusE vowel is central vs your own which might be back; or you might have misunderstood an allophone (I’ve heard it as a side-remark that in Melbourne, /a/ is fronted after /k/).
 * —Felix the Cassowary 08:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * No, I'm not a native AusE speaker. I grew up in California, but then lived for several years in Ontario, Canada before moving back to California.  My everyday speech is that of Ontario (I've been mistaken many times, by Canadians, for a native speaker) — but as a result of having become "bi-dialectal", I've become consciously aware of many speech distinctions that are allophones in one dialect or another.

 * I just finished watching the public memorial for Steve Irwin. The service opened with a speech by John Howard, in which he clearly exhibited the distinction I'm talking about here in words such as "rem a rkable", "h ea rts", and " a rms" on the one hand, and "qu a lity" on the other.

 * On the other hand, most other speakers at the Steve Irwin memorial — such as Anthony Field and Wes Mannion — did not make this distinction. I wonder if it might be a regional variation.  I'm pretty sure that, when these vowel sounds are different, they are treated as allophones and the difference is not noticed by most Australians.

 * Richwales 03:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * In Britain, and I believe Australia too, the vowel in quality is different from that in father and calm, and the non-rhotic vowel written ar is the latter. E.g. in RP barmy and balmy are both  but quality is .  So you'd need a pair like balmy/barmy to check whether the ghost of the /r/ has any effect on the vowel quality.--JHJ 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * As JHJ says, the vowel in ‘quality’ is different from the vowel in ‘remarkable’. ‘Quality’ is /kwɔləti/ and has the same vowel as ‘cot’, ‘hot’ or ‘what’/‘watt’. (I don’t know how much the American balm/bomb, cot/caught and very/vary mergers have affected all of this, so I’ll explain it basically all: In a word spelt with a ‘w’, ‘wh’ or ‘qu’ followed by a short ‘a’ not followed by a velar consonant, the ‘a’ is pronounced as if it were a short ‘o’. So the A’s in was, what, watt, waffle, quantity, quality, Warrigul (a town) or warm, quarter, war are all treated as short o’s, and the words are pronounced as /wɔz wɔt wɔt wɔfəl, kwɔntəti kwɔləti, wɔrigəl/, /woːm, k(w)oːtə, woː/ respectively. On the other hand, wary, wafer, whale or wack, wag, wang are /weːri, wæɪfə, wæɪəl/, /wæk wæːg wæŋ/. The word ‘water’ is /woːtə/ but I have no idea why; forms of strong verbs like ‘swam’ /swæm/ are also excepted.)
 * I’m afraid if you didn’t hear a distinction in other speakers of AuE, it would be because you missed a distinction that was made.(*) I doubt any Australians would consider the sounds /ɔ/ and /aː/ to be alike; the difference of length (if nothing else) is very salient. Even /a/ and /ɔ/ (cut vs cot) aren’t all that alike; /æ/ and /a/ (cat vs cut) are nearer.
 * (*) To my (native AuE) ear and lips, the Australian English vowel /ɔ/ is probably less rounded than its symbol suggests. And this might be age-related, so John Howard’s /ɔ/ might be rounder than the younger speakers, making it easier for you to hear the difference. But that’s just a guess...
 * —Felix the Cassowary 08:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I may be getting misled here by the North American father-bother and cot-caught mergers here, so OK, I'll concede that the vowel in "qu a lity" is a different phoneme from the vowel in " a rm". Let me ask you (and/or any other native AusE speaker) a different (but possibly related) question:  Do you perceive the vowel in " a rm" to be the same as, or different from, the initial portion of the diphthong in "l i fe"?  Richwales 16:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Similar. Whether it’s the same or not depends on how broad the speaker’s accent is. Personally I’ve never been very sure there’s much point in using a different symbol (/a/ or /ɐ/ vs /ɑ(e)/, rather than something more like /a/ vs /a(i)/), but that seems to be the lie of the land. —Felix the Cassowary 22:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "our", "ours"
I am aware that in AusEng, "our" is often pronounced as, eg "our car". But there are two things I'd really like to know:

1) Is this pronunciation used before vowels, eg "our aunt" ?

2) Can the adjective "ours" be pronounced as ? --The Lazar 03:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes (well, I have in that context) and yes; these are usual. Some people do say  tho, particularly if ‘speaking properly’. If this is a perculiar feature of AusE and doesn’t constitute original research, then it should be mentioned, perhaps along with Australian-specific pronounciations like auction with a short vowel. The pronunciation [aː] and [aːz] like they use in England are unlikely to be heard here, but I have a friend from NZ at Uni who does precisely that. —Felix the Cassowary 08:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I can second everything Felix said (except for the bit about having a NZ friend at Uni). Jimp 07:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation of ʉː and iː
Would there be any other studies conducted that include ʉː and iː? I believe that the NSW pronouciation is different, eg. "pewl" vs "pool" and "oils" vs "eels". - Diceman 13:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

 * There is some variation between those two pairs (I’m not sure what you mean by ‘oils’, I suppose the vowel of ‘fee’ followed be a the last syllable of ‘royals’). I don’t think I’ve seen any proper regional studies on the topic tho. My impression is that it’s a change that’s probably affecting the whole country, but has spread from Adelaide to Melbourne to Sydney over a period of at least a generation so younger speakers in Sydney might still say ‘pewl’ [pʉːəɫ] whereas older speakers in Adelaide probably normally say ‘pool’ [pʊːɫ].

 * The only study other than the ones I’ve cited in the article that I can remember reading that discuss the issue, was one about whether a given vowel + l combination was pronounced monosyllabically or disyllabically. It didn’t actually discuss the phonetics of the vowel, but I presume that the pronunciations of /ʉːl/ were monos. [ʊːɫ] (your ‘pool’) vs dis. [ʉːəɫ] (‘pewl’) and of /iːl/ were monos. [ɪːɫ] (‘eel’?) vs dis [iːəɫ] (where [iː] contains the onset standard for AusE /iː/; ‘oil’?). It was limited to Adelaidean English, and found that there the monosyllabic pronunciation of ‘pool’ was all but mandatory for the speakers involved, but there was some amount of variation for ‘eel’.

 * —Felix the Cassowary 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The classic (exaggerated) example would be the Kath and Kim pronounciation of "Look at me". The other times I've heard it are on Toyota World Sport (some Rugby commentator) and the Patrick Stevedore dockworkers (their pronounciation of "defeated").

 * Doesn't sound like there's enough to mention these two additional vowles the article yet. - Diceman 06:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

M.-D.
...is used in the article but completely unexplained. What does it stand for? Why is it there? Widsith 14:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * An anonymous user deleted a considerable portion of this article a while ago. I’ve restored it. Hopefully it explains it adequately now. —Felix the Cassowary 02:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reason for /ɔ/
Does anyone know why Harrington et.al advocate the use of the symbol ɔ for the vowel in "hot"?

In the IPA, this symbol represents cardinal vowel 6, which is rounded. Now unless my pronunciation is different from other people's, I would say that Oz. Eng doesn't round this vowel. Wouldn't "ʌ" be more appropriate?

On the other hand, the sound recordings I've heard of [ʌ] don't sound very close to "o".

Marquetry28 14:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Was originally more rounded I think. It's definetly not ɑ or ɒ though. Maybe ɔ̜ (with 'less rounding' diacritic))is a good transcription? 220.253.97.228 (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

 * For a phonemic transcription, the less rounding diachritic wouldn't really be appropriate. There are two things to keep in mind.  One is that low back vowels tend to be less rounded than high back vowels.  Also keep in mind that most dialects of English don't have cardinal, such as RP or GA where it may even be closer to .  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A/schwa
I posted this at the IPA chart for English a while back but I'd probably get a better response (or a response) here. As far as I can hear in Australian English (Sydney, at least) 'winner' wouldn't end with a schwa but an 'ah'-ish sound, 'win-ah', same with words like 'here'/'near' ('he-ah'/'knee-ah'), same for other examples on this page ('win-tah'). And /ʊə/ in tour is by no means rare, except, again the schwa is more of an 'ah' sound. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Schwa can be lowered to ɐ. It's still a schwa. 220.253.138.16 (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

comparison chart
Since many Australian names are given pronunciations with the generic English conventions of help:pronunciation, but others are linked here, I thought it would be useful to include a conversion chart. I'm not sure about one of the  vowels. kwami (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

 * That was right; really old Australian English (i.e. descriptions the 19th century) had a distinct vowel, but it was by far the first of the centring diphthongs to monophthongise. —Felix the Cassowary 11:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The /аɪ/ Vowel
Everyone knows the stereotypical /аɪ/ in Australian English is [ɒɪ] or something like that. How common is this realization? I would like to hear this from an Aussie. Thegryseone (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A proper /аɪ/ sound sounds posh to an Aussie. The usual pronunciation is /ɑɪ/ (which can sound very close to /ɔɪ/), and the ocker pronunciation is /ɑ:/.  That means that "buy" sounds a little bit like "boy" for some people, and "ice" sounds exactly like "arse" when ocker people say it.  Of course, there is no confusion, because anyone who would pronounce "ice" like that would pronounce "arse" with a strongly fronted /a:/.  — Chameleon 09:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never actually heard anyone's pronunciation of "buy" even slightly rhyme with "boy". Also to take into consideration, the area I live in consists mostly of Cultivated and some general Australian accents. --121.45.73.208 (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that pretty much the same as the Cockney /аɪ/? Thegryseone (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ʉːl vs uːl
Living in Tasmania, I've never heard anybody use /ʉːl/, always /ʊu/ or sometimes /ʊːl/. Does this count as another long vowel, a diphthong, or just variation from standard AuE? 220.253.138.16 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * As the sentence before the one you edited said, yes, a fully backed allophone is a common variant in some parts of Australia. I haven't seen anything that explicitly mentions Tasmania but I would imagine it's more than just the Victoria and South Australia that is explicitly mentioned (i.e. that it's a change that's spreading). If you want it could read "some parts of Australia" rather than explicitly mentioning regions, being ambiguous but not breaching WP:NOR like your current edit does.
 * As to whether the vowel counts as "another long vowel, a diphthong, or just variation from standard AuE", you're creating a false dichotomy i.e. it can be another long vowel or diphthong while still being variant from standard AusE: for instance, Victorian speech is clearly within the bounds of standard AusE, but celery/salary or shell/shall aren't distinguished as they are in the rest of the country. One of the articles I read for this considered /ʊː/ to be a phoneme with two realisations: the monophthong before /l/ and [ʊə] word-finally in words like "tour", but [ʊə] is generally a pretty rare sound in AusE.
 * There's also the third question of whether coda /l/ (i.e. /l/ at end of syllable) is lost. As far as I know it's never a case of categorical loss, but instead it's more or less likely to be deleted depending on linguistic and social contexts. Probably there should be a subsection/paragraph on it in the consonants section.
 * It's worth noting that the high-level phoneme classifications you see on the article are for any language largely a matter of opinion. There's no way of proving "too" and "tool" or "tool" and "tour" have the same vowel or have different vowels in our mental representation. But it is convenient to talk about them as if they are, and it's the way most linguistics works.
 * —Felix the Cassowary

It's better to be ambiguous with the regions in my oppinion, because sound changes do occur faster than books and research papers can keep up, especially in this part of the world. 220.253.172.246 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, Dam, etc.
I've heard Aussies pronounce man as and dam, or something like that. They seem to rhyme with mairn and dairm, respectively, if such words existed. Can anyone tell me about this? Thegryseone (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 * As far as I know "man" and "dam" are always pronounced as and  in AusE. There is nasalisation of vowels in the context of nasal consonants, but this is not unique to the [æ] vowels. The article describes the "bad" vowel, and links to the bad-lad split. The phonology of AusE is so different from AmE it doesn't make sense to use American terminology like "tensing" in a discussion of AusE. Incidentally, using "nasal system" like you have is confusing... —Felix the Cassowary 17:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm well aware of all that. I realize that there is a bad-lad split in AuE; however, you're wrong in that this article says nothing about the raising before nasals that I'm referring to. I was never proposing that we use American terminology in a discussion of AuE. I don't know why you thought that. It's just that it was easier for me to describe this phenomenon by using American terminology that I'm familiar with. Thegryseone (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I didn't understand the terminology of your original post. Now that you've clarified you're referring to raising under nasal influence: Allophonic variation of various sorts is common in Australian English. I've never seen any studies particularly on the influence of nasalisation on vowel height. It's certainly not phonemic (i.e. I've never heard anyone pronounce "man's" so it'd rhyme with "Cairns"), but you might try to find some reliable sources on the topic. —Felix the Cassowary 18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I just meant that I've heard those words pronounced in that way. If you know the IPA, it shouldn't be a problem. When you put a transcription in brackets (e.g. []), it means you're attempting to represent an actual speech sound. Here's an audio example of what I'm talking about. Thanks. Thegryseone (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was an asshole about it. The point is that the vowels in man and noun are raised in AusE according to Felicity Cox (2005), and the phonetic transcription for that IDEA example I gave you transcribes man as, and indeed it sounds like that to my ears, although that speaker did seem a bit broad. It's not that uncommon for vowels to be raised before nasals; nasals have a tendency to cause raising in the vowel preceding them for some reason. Take for example the pin-pen merger in Southern American English and in southwestern Ireland or the non-phonemic æ-tensing that takes place in accents that have undergone the Northern cities vowel shift. The only reason I brought this up is because I imagine it is very noticeable to English ears (it's even noticeable to my American ears). Many English people might pronounce man as, which sounds quite a bit different from. You're the Aussie here, so I'm sure you can verify this by simply contrasting your man with your bad (in this case both would have a long vowel, so try to listen for the quality of the vowels) or your noun with your loud. This is just another little thing that distinguishes Aussie English from English English; that's all. Thegryseone (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 * In my English, "man" and "bad", "noun" and "loud" have, as near as I can tell, the same vowel modulo nasalisation, the same vowel. Maybe a little higher, but nothing more significant that the other allophonic variation I have with various vowels in various contexts. I don't have a broad accent. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen for some people the way you describe/to the extent you describe.
 * I never thought you were being an arsehole. I suppose we're both being pretty direct but not fully understanding each other; I'm especially not really sure what your point is: if you have a source, you can add it. If you don't have a source, you can't. If you want to know if it happens, just for your own interest, well, you already have an example, so it must.
 * I don't think [meːn] would ever be a good transcription, because I don't think anyone ever rhymes "man's" with "Cairns". That doesn't mean no-one has this raising, just that it's probably not that extreme. But, for all I know, they do.
 * Maybe it's my fault for assuming there has to be some point when it's just idle thinking aloud. I have a tendency to do that, sometimes.
 * —Felix the Cassowary 21:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't at all propose that it should be transcribed as [meːn] in this or any other article. If anything at all, just a brief mention of the raising of TRAP and MOUTH in a pre-nasal environment would suffice. I just thought it was an American thing to raise before nasals (I do it myself), but I often hear Aussies do it quite a bit as well, and I don't hear English people do it at all. The only difference is that Americans have a tendency to diphthongize it as well as raise it. I'm not really surprised you don't have a broad accent, being a Wikipedian. I'm not saying it's not possible. You're right; I was just kind of thinking aloud. Thegryseone (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually did find a reliable source on this a while ago. It was a paper by Felicity Cox. It turns out that I'm right. To my ears this is one of the most distinctive features of Aussie English, and I'm sure English people would feel the same way. This paper says that in a pre-nasal environment patterns with  for the majority of speakers. Also, it says that younger AusE speakers have difficulty differentiating between than and then, because than is raised and it has a short vowel, like then. There is a potential loss of contrast there as a result. This raising applies to as well in pre-nasal environments. Here's the paper just in case you were curious. It's from Cox's web site, which is a good resource. Thegryseone (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Most interesting. (I have the then/than merger too—its one I didn't consistently distinguish in informal writing until after high school—but not the other stuff tmk. I always thought the "then/than" thing was because they're both commonly [ðən]. It's possible I learnt to hear (and maybe even make) a distinction that doesn't really exist; that's reasonably common with educated people... It's easy to make people believe anything.)

Well, I don't think most native English speakers anywhere distinguish between then and than most of the time (including me), but it's for a different reason than this. I believe Cox is referring to the strong forms of each word, otherwise there would be no point in remarking on it, because it wouldn't be at all surprising, given the general English tendency to reduce the vowel in certain unstressed, monosyllabic words in a sentence to schwa. If I'm reading the paper correctly (I'm still not sure if I am), then about 33% of the study group didn't have such extreme raising in a pre-nasal environment, i.e., they would probably pronounce man as something more like rather than. It's possible that you're in that group. Thegryseone (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I pronounce "then" and "than" both as /ðen/ in strong/citation form, is what I was trying to say. And yes, it's possible I'm in that 33 per cent, but the thing is I hear it in everyone else just the same as me unless they have a particularly broad accent. Now I'm not listening to exactly how people pronounce the word, merely identifying the word, so I don't necessarily hear it properly (plus I haven't been in Australia since you made the original comments earlier this year—in fact, for about a year—so I haven't had a chance to really listen carefully to others). It's also possible that northern suburbs Sydney speech is different in this regard from (northern suburbs) Melburnian speech, which is what I speak. (Plus I would be so not surprised at all at this stage to learn that those 33 per cent, and me, actually use the merged form in connected speech, just not in reading-based citation-form speech.) —Felix the Cassowary 11:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What is "beed"?
Notes and examples

 * /iː/ : for example fleece, beed, heat. (M.-D. /i/.) Includes an onset to the high front vowel, except before laterals (Palethorpe & Cox, 2003).

124.183.163.199 (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Past tense of the verb, to bee. Or should it be bead?  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  03:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously just a typo. One hardly needs to bring it up. —Felix the Cassowary 08:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough I hit google books and found in "A critical history of the text of the New Testament By Richard Simon 1689" (or 1682 depending who you believe) that "beed" has been used as the past tense of "be" (erroneously or not I don't know).

 * Quote :
 * "... there was no Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church, nor of other publick Records, that might make it manifest, that there had beed a Church founded in that City..."

 * This information is of course, as useful as pockets in underpants. I just thought I would share :) 124.186.82.84 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

understanding phonetics
Hi I was wondering if anyone can help me, my 5yr old has started pri primary.He has started on phonetics which i do not under stand at all.his teacher has told him the action for the letter p is like blowing on a candle so now he is convince that candle starts with p. Is there any information i can get my hands on so im not left behind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.214.54 (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell him that you blow the candle out with a p-p-puff ... no, blowing out a candle is usually more of a [ɸ] (which is a bit like a [f] without having your teeth get in the way). Is he an ESL learner?  If not, why the hell is the teacher instructing him on how to pronounce these phonemes (sounds)?  You're more worried about connecting sounds and letters be careful, though, since it's not as simple as it could be (one letter or letter combo can correspond to a number of different sounds & one sound can be written in a number of different ways).  Do you have a library near by?  Get some kids' books & read to him. J IM ptalk·cont 17:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

BATH/PALM/START
Hi, this is just a phonetics question (as most of my questions are). I've seen the Aussie BATH/PALM/START vowel narrowly transcribed as a low front in several places. Is it really ever pronounced that way? Here it shows more of a low central vowel. Thegryseone (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is more central.  instead of  is more of a convenience, just as we often use  for the consonant in ray.  See . J IM ptalk·cont 17:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

CLOTH
Does Australian English have a CLOTH vowel that is distinct from its LOT vowel? Thegryseone (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. LOT = CLOTH ≠ THOUGHT J IM ptalk·cont 17:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing Cockney Innovations?
The article (loosely) states that "en-AU lack some innovations present in Cockney such as the glottalisation of of /t/, th-fronting, and h-dropping". I can vouch that I've heard all of those innovations in Aussie speech, and the latter two quite often (in fact, I'm pretty sure I involuntarily glottalise 't's after a short vowels, but that's probably just me). So are we sure that there isn't a noticable amount of people who would say 'fink' for think, or 'wiv' for with? And/or who drop off /h/ mid-speech (as in 'look at their new ' ouse as opposed to house)? Because otherwise the sentence is flawed. En-AU  Speaker  (T)  (C)  (E) 05:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


text:
Mud bath

A mud bath is a therapeutic spa treatment that involves soaking in a bath of warm mud, often in a natural hot spring or geothermal pool. Mud baths have been used for centuries as a way to promote health and relaxation, and are still popular today in many parts of the world.

The mud used in mud baths is usually a combination of natural mineral-rich clay and water, which is heated to a comfortable temperature. The mud is then applied to the body, and the person is left to soak in the mud for a period of time, typically around 15-20 minutes.

The benefits of mud baths are allegedly numerous. The heat of the mud helps to increase blood flow and stimulate the immune system, while the minerals in the mud are believed to have a range of healing properties. Mud baths are also said to help detoxify the body, ease muscle pain and tension, and promote healthy skin.

A 2021 systematic review of studies which investigated the effect of mud baths on osteoarthritis concluded that mud bath therapy "cannot substitute for conventional therapy" but can be used in addition to it as "treatment with mud-bath therapy may relieve pain, stiffness and improve functional status in patients".

In addition to the physical benefits, mud baths are also believed to have a relaxing and rejuvenating effect on the mind. Many people find that the warm, soothing sensation of the mud helps to reduce stress and promote a sense of well-being.

Mud baths can be found at spas and resorts all over the world, from California to Italy to Japan. Some of the most famous mud bath destinations include Calistoga Spa Hot Springs in California's Napa Valley, where visitors can soak in natural hot springs surrounded by picturesque vineyards, and the Dead Sea in Israel, where the high salt content of the water and mud is said to have a range of therapeutic benefits.

Mud baths come from many sources:
 * Lakes (e.g., Lake Techirghiol in Romania and Käina Bay in Estonia)
 * Saltwater sea (e.g., Dead Sea in Jordan and Israel (West Bank)
 * Hot springs (e.g., Calistoga, Napa Valley, California)
 * Mud volcano (e.g., Tiga Island, Malaysia, El Totumo, Colombia, Gurjaani, Georgia )

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

title: Mud bath


text: User:Visviva/Archive

title: User:Visviva/Archive


text:
Talk:General Lucius D. Clay National Guard Center

Untitled
In order for this templete to be displayed on this page we need to have some information pertaining to BRAC and this facility. Because their is no information on the page, I am moving the templete here until the information can be uploaded. For more information, click here. TomStar81 01:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Part of this article is a blatant rip-off of http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/atlanta.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro441 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be renamed General Lucius D. Clay National Guard Center since NAS Atlanta has been closed since 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jms011 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


text:
ReserveAmerica

ReserveAmerica, provides online campsite reservations and license processing for state, provincial, private, and local government parks, campgrounds, and conservation agencies in North America.

History
ReserveAmerica was founded in 1984 as a software development company specializing in reservations for the local recreation industry. In 1992, the company developed a reservation system for state and federal park systems. ReserveAmerica has provided reservations services for the National Park Service since 1997. In 2001, it was acquired by InterActiveCorp.

In June, 2005, the United States Forest Service contracted with the company to provide a single-source federal recreation information and reservation service. In addition, ReserveAmerica also serves the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and some state parks contracts.

In 2009, InterActiveCorp sold ReserveAmerica to ACTIVE Network. In 2017, Global Payments acquired the Communities and Sports divisions of ACTIVE Network. ACTIVE Network's Outdoors division, including ReserveAmerica, spun off to become the independent company Aspira, headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with nine offices in the United States, Canada and Asia.

title: ReserveAmerica


text:
Japanther

Japanther was an American punk band established by Matt Reilly and Ian Vanek, then students at Pratt Institute. Japanther was featured in the 2006 Whitney Biennial, the 2007 Performa Biennial, and the 2011 Venice Biennale, and collaborated with a diverse pool of artists such as gelitin, Penny Rimbaud, Gee Vaucher, Dan Graham, Eileen Myles, Kevin Bouton-Scott, robbinschilds, Dawn Riddle, Claudia Meza, Todd James, Devin Flynn, Ninjasonik, Anita Sparrow and Spank Rock. Japanther made its name with unique performance situations, appearing alongside synchronized swimmers, atop the Williamsburg Bridge, with giant puppets, marionettes and shadow puppets, in the back of a moving truck in Soho, and at shows with giant dinosaurs and BMXers flying off the walls.

Installations include The Phone Booth Project at The Clocktower Gallery in New York.

Described as "art-rock installation paratroopers" and "a studied form of New Wave anarchism" by Flash Art, a "Performance Galaxy" by Vanity Fair, "Super hard, incredibly fast and overall inspiring" by Thrasher, "more accessible than other bands of its genre" by the New Yorker, and "the best band ever, straight up" by Tokion, Japanther has always been a band apart, running the gamut from performance art to punk rock and back again. Pushing parties to the limit ("Lincoln Center punk-rock concert turned mini-riot" -New York Post), Japanther returned in 2011 with Beets, Limes and Rice, a celebration of ten years in the underground and an ultra-contemporary meditation on "catharsis and being in love in a time of darkness.".

The band's album Beets, Limes and Rice, written in the midst of 84-hour performance piece "It Never Seems to End," was released in digital and vinyl format from Recess Records, on CD from Japanther's own Tapes Records, on cassette from Lauren Records, and by Seayou Records in Europe. The artwork for the album was created by Monica Canilao.

Their song "The Gravy" was featured in the 2010 skateboarding video game Skate 3.

When promoting his new musical project Howardian in 2016, drummer Ian Vanek announced that he had quit Japanther "almost three years ago", all but confirming that the band was over after 13 years.

Discography

 * The Last of the Living Land Pirates CD-R (2001)
 * South of Northport EP (2002)
 * Leather Wings (2003)
 * Dump the Body in Rikki Lake (2003)
 * Japanther/Panthers split 7-inch (2003)
 * The Operating Manual for Life on Earth EP (2004)
 * Japanther/Sneeze split 7-inch (2004)
 * Japanther/Viking Club split CD (2004)
 * Master of Pigeons (2005)
 * Wolfenswan (2005)
 *  Yer Living Grave EP (2005)
 * Don't Trust Anyone Over Thirty (2006)
 * Japanther/ The Good Good split 7-inch (2006)
 * Skuffed Up My Huffy (2007)
 * Challenge 7-inch (2008)
 * Chemical X Zine DVD (2008)
 * Tut Tut, Now Shake Ya Butt (2008)
 * Japanther/The Pharmacy split 7-inch (2008)
 * Rock 'n' Roll Ice Cream (2010)
 * JapantherNinjasonik 7-inch (2010)
 * Beets, Limes and Rice (2011)
 * Eat Like Lisa Act Like Bart (2013)
 * Donut Shop Bounce EP (2014)
 *  Instant Money Magic (2014)
 * Boom for Real (2016)

Compilations

 * I Think We Should Stay Away from Each Other LP (2011)

title: Japanther


text:
Orthogonal trajectory

In mathematics, an orthogonal trajectory is a curve which intersects any curve of a given pencil of (planar) curves orthogonally.

For example, the orthogonal trajectories of a pencil of concentric circles are the lines through their common center (see diagram).

Suitable methods for the determination of orthogonal trajectories are provided by solving differential equations. The standard method establishes a first order ordinary differential equation and solves it by separation of variables. Both steps may be difficult or even impossible. In such cases one has to apply numerical methods.

Orthogonal trajectories are used in mathematics, for example as curved coordinate systems (i.e. elliptic coordinates) and appear in physics as electric fields and their equipotential curves.

If the trajectory intersects the given curves by an arbitrary (but fixed) angle, one gets an isogonal trajectory.

In cartesian coordinates
Generally, one assumes that the pencil of curves is given implicitly by an equation
 * (0) $$:\ F(x,y,c)=0,\qquad $$ 1. example $$:\ x^2+y^2-c=0\ ,\qquad$$ 2. example $$y=cx^2 \ \leftrightarrow \ y-cx^2=0 \ ,$$

where $$c$$ is the parameter of the pencil. If the pencil is given explicitly by an equation $$y=f(x,c)$$, one can change the representation into an implicit one: $$y-f(x,c)=0$$. For the considerations below, it is supposed that all necessary derivatives do exist.

Differentiating implicitly for $$x$$ yields
 * Step 1.
 * (1) $$:\ F_x(x,y,c)+F_y(x,y,c)\;y'=0,\qquad$$ in 1. example $$:\ 2x+2yy'=0\ ,\qquad $$ 2. example $$:\ y'-2cx=0\ . $$

Now it is assumed that equation (0) can be solved for parameter $$c$$, which can thus be eliminated from equation (1). One gets the differential equation of first order
 * Step 2.
 * (2) $$:\ y'=f(x,y), \qquad $$ in 1. example $$:\ y'=-\frac{x}{y}\ ,\qquad $$ 2. example $$:\ y'=2\frac{y}{x} \ ,$$

which is fulfilled by the given pencil of curves. Because the slope of the orthogonal trajectory at a point $$(x,y)$$ is the negative multiplicative inverse of the slope of the given curve at this point, the orthogonal trajectory satisfies the differential equation of first order
 * Step 3.
 * (3) $$: \ y'=-\frac{1}{f(x,y)}\, \qquad$$ in 1. example $$:\ y'=y/x\ , \qquad$$ 2. example $$:\ y'=-\frac{x}{2y} \ .$$

This differential equation can (hopefully) be solved by a suitable method. For both examples separation of variables is suitable. The solutions are: in example 1, the lines $$y=mx,\ m\in \R$$ and in example 2, the ellipses $$x^2+2y^2=d,\ d>0\ .$$
 * Step 4.

In polar coordinates
If the pencil of curves is represented implicitly in polar coordinates by
 * (0p) $$:\ F(r,\varphi,c)=0$$

one determines, alike the cartesian case, the parameter free differential equation
 * (1p) $$:\ F_r(r,\varphi,c)+F_\varphi(r,\varphi,c)\;\varphi'=0,\qquad$$
 * (2p) $$:\ \varphi'=f(r,\varphi)$$

of the pencil. The differential equation of the orthogonal trajectories is then (see Redheffer & Port p. 65, Heuser, p. 120)
 * (3p) $$:\ \varphi'=-\frac{1}{{\color{red}r^2}f(r,\varphi)}\ .$$

Example: Cardioids:
 * (0p) $$:\ F(r,\varphi,c)=r-c(1+\cos\varphi)=0,\ c>0\ .\ $$ (in diagram: blue)
 * (1p) $$:\ F_r(r,\varphi,c)+F_\varphi(r,\varphi,c)\;\varphi'=1+c\sin\varphi\;\varphi'=0,\qquad$$

Elimination of $$c$$ yields the differential equation of the given pencil:
 * (2p) $$:\ \varphi'=-\frac{1+\cos\varphi}{r\sin\varphi}$$

Hence the differential equation of the orthogonal trajectories is:
 * (3p) $$:\ \varphi'=\frac{\sin\varphi}{r(1+\cos\varphi)}$$

After solving this differential equation by separation of variables one gets
 * $$r=d(1-\cos\varphi)\ ,\ d>0 \, $$

which describes the pencil of cardioids (red in diagram), symmetric to the given pencil.

Isogonal trajectory
A curve, which intersects any curve of a given pencil of (planar) curves by a fixed angle $$\alpha$$ is called isogonal trajectory.

Between the slope $$\eta'$$ of an isogonal trajectory and the slope $$y'$$ of the curve of the pencil at a point $$(x,y)$$ the following relation holds:
 * $$ \eta'=\frac{y'+\tan(\alpha)}{1-y'\tan(\alpha)}\ .$$

This relation is due to the formula for $\tan(\alpha+\beta)$. For $$\alpha \rightarrow 90^\circ $$ one gets the condition for the orthogonal trajectory.

For the determination of the isogonal trajectory one has to adjust the 3. step of the instruction above: The differential equation of the isogonal trajectory is:
 * 3. step (isog. traj.)
 * (3i) $$: \ y'=\frac{f(x,y)+\tan(\alpha)}{1-f(x,y)\; \tan(\alpha)}\ .$$

For the 1. example (concentric circles) and the angle $$\alpha=45^\circ$$ one gets
 * (3i) $$: \ y'=\frac{-x/y+1}{1+x/y}\ .$$

This is a special kind of differential equation, which can be transformed by the substitution $$z=y/x$$ into a differential equation, that can be solved by separation of variables. After reversing the substitution one gets the equation of the solution:
 * $$\arctan\frac{y}{x}+\frac{1}{2}\ln(x^2+y^2)=C\ .$$

Introducing polar coordinates leads to the simple equation
 * $$C-\varphi=\ln(r)\ ,$$

which describes logarithmic spirals (see diagram).

Numerical methods
In case that the differential equation of the trajectories can not be solved by theoretical methods, one has to solve it numerically, for example by Runge–Kutta methods.

title: Orthogonal trajectory


text: Category:Grasslands

title: Category:Grasslands


text: Talk:56th Street (Tsawwassen, British Columbia)


text: Category:1996 meteorology

title: Category:1996 meteorology


text:
Talk:Handicap principle

"there was still no empirical evidence for evolutionary pressure for wasteful biology or acts"
Why are we quoting stupid people saying obviously stupid things. Read it again:

"there was still no empirical evidence for evolutionary pressure for wasteful biology or acts"

Are evolutionary biologists allowed to use logic in their profession or has the field just been totally decimated by political correctness now? 2603:8080:2B00:11D4:A7E1:B184:5B55:6999 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 * All abuse of anyone is out of order. The statement is factual and reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Handicap principle


text:
WVRC Media

WVRC Media  is a media corporation comprising radio stations and two radio networks based in the state of West Virginia. The company was known as the West Virginia Radio Corporation prior to a December 2021 rebranding.

The company is controlled by Greer Industries and its owners, the Raese family.

It was founded by Herbert and Agnes Greer, who signed on WAJR in 1940. Since 1972, John Raese and his two brothers have controlled the company; they are Herbert and Agnes' grandsons.

Radio markets
WVRC Media owns stations in seven separate areas in the state of West Virginia:

 * Charleston
 * Morgantown-Clarksburg-Fairmont
 * Elkins-Buckhannon-Weston
 * Cumberland-Keyser
 * Beckley
 * Martinsburg
 * Berkeley Springs

West Virginia MetroNews
WVRC Media owns and operates the West Virginia MetroNews Network. The network features 63 affiliates covering all 55 counties in West Virginia.

title: WVRC Media


text: Category:1996 Atlantic hurricane season

title: Category:1996 Atlantic hurricane season


text:
User talk:Nahaj

=Cryptography=

Hi! (Crypto Project)
Hello! I was intrigued by your comment about your SHA implementation... Are you sure it's the only validated SHA implementation, esp. regarding NIST test? OpenSSL appears here indeed... I know it does not matter, but I'm just curious :-) -- ClementSeveillac 18:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It is the only NIST validated OPEN SOURCE implementation. (You can check the list yourself...  last I looked I was the only one.) If I have somewhere ommitted the "open source" part of that statement, please point me at it and I'll fix it. Nahaj

 * OK, I was wrong. I missed OpenSSL getting validated about two months ago.  So, after five years I'm one of two.  (And still the first.) Nahaj 21:10:49, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
 * I did not look when OpenSSL got its validation, but indeed, you will still be the first in 2042 ;) (that's what's fun with certifications: sometimes, a widely used program is only validated, or, say, legalized, years after it's been used by thousands of users, like GnuPG which was illegal in France until its registration about 3 or 4 years ago :-D ) -- ClementSeveillac 18:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and it will still have been the third to pass the full bit string tests, instead of just the byte tests. :)  What's the significance of 2042? Nahaj 02:33:58, 2005-09-13 (UTC)

=Logic=

Modal Logic, et al. [Archived]
This is the continuation of the thread on the Provability Logic talk page.

Archived to User_talk:Nahaj/Modal_logic_et_al.

K4 systems (Resolution) [Archived]
This is the continuation of the "Modal Logic, et al." thread.

Archived to User_talk:Nahaj/K4 systems (Resolution)

System H
[Context: In some discussion (probably one of the archived ones, I forget) I asked for a reference for the use of the name "H" for intuitionist logic. EJ, below, provided that reference.]

Ad intuitionistic logic = H: I don't know what would you consider a good reference, the name is consistently used by a large number of logicians (particularly, Russian). From top of my head, it is used for instance in this monograph: Vladimir V. Rybakov, Admissibility of Logical Inference Rules, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 136, Elsevier, 1997. (BTW, the letter "H" stands for "Heyting's calculus".) -- EJ 17:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * What I would generally consider a good reference is a specific (accessible on line preferably) paper, or a specific book (expected to be in a University library or availiable through inter-library load) and page number, as I have generally given you.  It looks like what you have given matches that, and I'll have to go borrow a copy. Nahaj 19:59:50, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
 * H is problematic... there is a (non-intuitionist) system named H in the literature predating Heyting's publication (The reason that some list Heyting's system as HIC.) So I've added it to my list of systems that have overlapping names that I need to finish disentangling and put on the site. [[Users:Nahaj]|Nahaj]
 * H (for Henken) is also used ["The logic of provability", G. Boolos, p149] for the a non-intuitionist system between K4 and GL. Nahaj 12:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This is hardly surprising, short names tend to be overloaded. Another H in use is in the name of K4H=K4+$$p\to\Box(\Diamond p\to p)$$ (I got this from Chagrov & Zakharyaschev). Or consider "M", which is on one hand used as a name for McKinsey's axiom, on another hand as a synonym for T. As for Boolos' H = Henkin, I am not convinced that it was really intended as a permanent name for the logic. The logic is only interesting as a counterexample (namely, the simplest known Kripke incomplete normal modal logic), it seems to me that Boolos just needed to have a label for it for the few pages of his book which deal with the logic. This is however a matter of opinion. (BTW, the logic is not between K4 and GL: it does not contain K4, and in fact, adding K4 to it yields GL.) -- EJ 16:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the pointer to the Chagrov & Zakharyaschev, I'll add it to my need to read list. M is used for many others also, Megill and Bunder's M shows up in discussions of D-completeness in logics.  I'll go back and check Boolos' for the location of H (it wouldn't surprise me if I were wrong.) Nahaj 18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Went back and looked. I was wrong, my original line should read "...between K and GL..." instead of "...between K4 and GL..." to be correct. Nahaj 16:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I've found many early authors calling it "Heyting Propositional Calculus H" (I assume to distinguish it from other uses of "H"). Under that name it allowed me to finally track down some results I'd been looking for, specificly the original papers that produced mappings of Heyting's H into S4 and S3. Thank you. Nahaj 13:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Note to EJ on Ken Pledger's numbering
[Context: On the Provability page E.J. said "Just to make things clear: what I wrote was not intended as a personal attack on Pledger (I didn't realize the wording is ambiguous, I of course didn't mean 'crazy Pledger', but 'crazy naming convention', which it is: inventing yet another naming from scratch is a not a good way to resolve the chaotic situation on naming of modal logics) or on you (the comments were meant to be helpful). I'll continue the discussion on your talk page. -- EJ 16:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)"] This section was just trying to correct the apparent misconception that Pledgers numbering was intended to resolve any issues of the current modal logic naming mess. Nahaj 17:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

EJ; I think you missunderstand what Ken Pledgers numbering is about. He was investgating all systems derived from S3 by identifying nested modalities. Most of these systems were (and still are) otherwise unnamed. As his paper points out, the family as a whole has a very nice clean natural structural numbering. Since most were unnamed, it made sense to apply that numbering. (And for the few systems that did have names, he noted [As my pages do] the natural structural numbering, and the traditional name.) Nahaj 17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

List of rules of inference
I noticed your interest in completely rewriting List of rules of inference. I started to make one or two little corrections to that page. Once I got started, I kinda sorta couldn't stop. The fixes I made, while extensive, are still of the quick and dirty variety. I hope I haven't stepped on any plans of yours to rewrite the page—I have no objection to your doing so. I'm curious as to what your ideas for the page were. --JMRyan 11:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm currently swamped... If I'm doing nothing I can hardly feel that you are stepping on anything.  I do, in fact, like what you have done.   Whatever else can be said it is now the case that the rules are rules instead of substitution of equivalences gone wild.  Thank you. Nahaj 03:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

=Invite=

Gregbard 03:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll check it out. Nahaj 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... the project's own link to the participants roster is bad. The page says it is eligible for quick deleation because it moved, but there does not seem to be a clue as to where it moved to. Nahaj 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

="Condensed Detachment" formal section= You left a comment on my talk page referring to an article that, I'm assuming, I made an edit on. Which article are you talking about? Barkeep  Chat 13:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, the article was "Condensed Detachment". (Hence the reason I titled the section "Condensed Detachment citation".)

 * I used the footnotes that were at the bottom of the "old section" to reference the parts that were applicable. I realize that you want to give credit to Larry Wos for sending you that information through an email, however I have the following concerns:

 * As I put on the page, and you removed, it was a letter FROM Dolph Ulrich TO Larry Wos. It was not email authored by Larry Wos. Nahaj 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 * And No, you didn't put it where applicible... Before your first edits of the page the text you put under the D rule section was attributed to Dr. Ulrich.  At the time you made the statement above it was not so credited. And in fact your D rule section NEVER had any author attribution at any time from the time you created it until the time I removed it. Nahaj 15:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Who is Larry Wos? What credibility does he have that could be easily identified and respected by the general public. The link to the website you provide for him does very little to explain who he is.

 * He is one of the most famous [founding] researchers in the field of automated theorem proving with several books to his credit. (And Dolph Ulrich is a current well known researcher in the field with many very nice published papers.)  And why SHOULD it matter who they are? that is a good formal description, which the article needed desparately. Nahaj 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)  And, of course, they could just look at the bottom of the page, and notice that he is co-author of one of the two papers referenced. :) Nahaj 20:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Quoting an email from him implies, at least to me, that this is original research conducted by this Larry Wos; and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research. While this may not be the case, it does, to a certain degree imply that. What Wikipedia is not

 * I can't see how anybody familiar with the topic could think that was original research... I fear you are really reaching on that one.  It is obviously an extended formal description of a common term, not some research project. Nahaj 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 * A notation in the title heading does not fall in line with Wikipedia's manual of style . On a side note, there is no template in Wikipedia to cite emails.

 * It was in the body of the section, not the title (as anyone can check on the history). But you are probably right, it should have been a footnote, .  But you didn't move it to a footnote or reference, you REMOVED it on the grounds it didn't have a citation. So, since I thought what I had was a reasonable citation, and you think it was not, WHAT are you saying should have been there that wasn't? Nahaj 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Lastly, I don't know much on the subject. But I would keep in mind, that citations are needed (according to Wikipedia) when using "direct quotes and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." It is also used to avoid plagiarism issues.

 * This is NOT plagirism, it was a direct quote used with permission of the author. I have no problem with putting in the citation you say it needs if you will just tell me what a citation needs that the one your removed did not already have. Nahaj 20:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more concerns I have. If you believe that this information "needs" to be credited to this person, the more likely that this piece of information needs to be removed. Again, falling under the no original research theme. However, if this is common knowledge in this subject area, then we're OK. Barkeep  Chat 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 * If you have permission from him to use it uncredited, then it doesn't need to be credited to him. The permission I got said I'd give proper credit.  The article would be rather useless without the formal section, but I can't stop you from removing it. But maybe you should let someone who is familiar with the topic make that decision?  In the mean time I've put back on the author information in a footnote (and a statment it is by the author's permission).  If you will tell me what that is missing as a citation, I'll gladly fix that. Nahaj 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I loathe having discussions through talk pages, so instead of responding to your counter points (which never really addressed my concerns) I have moved the citation to the end of the section since it doesn't belong in the title heading, and provided links to the two individuals mentioned in the citation to give the citation credibility. The reason the citation was removed previously is because an email between two people is a weak citation and can't be proven to the general public of Wikipedia. There is no verification that this email actually took place because it is not a published work. Barkeep  Chat 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I had something that made it clear that the whole section was a quote used by permission. You replaced it by something that made it look like only the last sentence was. That is defininately not giving the author proper credit.  Since I'm not always around, and can't keep putting the author's credit for the whole section back on, it appears that there is no way this text can be on Wikipedia without violating the author's rights. So I've removed the section, as you requested above.    (And I resent the fact you started this with a comment about the email of "If this is true", and you've ended it with it "can't be proven"... I think this shows bad faith.)  I think the article is now much poorer for your efforts. Nahaj 14:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You're over reacting to this. Sheesh. First, my comment about "if this is true" was made back in May before our recent dialog, since then we have cleared some things up and that comment is no longer relevant. You added the section on "Formal description" so if you want to remove it that is your right. Back in May I only remove the citation part, and cleaned up the text. I only discussed removing the section if it was based on original research; which you say it is not. I'm sorry if you don't like having the citation at the end of the section, but you don't put it in the heading. By just having that citation show up in the article you avoid any plagiarism issues and the author of the content is given credit. Feel free to put it somewhere else in the body of the text that you feel more appropriate. I'll leave it to you if you want to restore the "Formal description" section. Barkeep  Chat 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * "Feel free to put it somewhere else in the body of the text that you feel more appropriate." Get real... it is a matter of record that I DID, and you removed it in May. It was at the start of the section IN THE BODY (and not in the title as you falsely imply above in your third bullet.)... anybody can check the history to see this is fact. Nahaj 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * "Back in May I only remove the citation part..." Actually, back in May you removed the author credit because you said there was no citation. Nahaj 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * "By just having that citation show up in the article you avoid any plagiarism issues..." The article had credit to the author and no plagarism issues until you removed the author attribution. If it is credited to the author, and you remove that credit, that makes the result plagiarism. Nahaj 15:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Note you have still not address MY issue, that credit was given the author before your May edit, and it qualified as plagerism without credit after your edit. After looking at the GFDL, I can't see how your edit didn't violate it. Nahaj 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Abd could you please point me to the part of the Wiki policy that says that a notice at the start of a section (not in the title) that the entire section was taken from another source is unacceptable? (Obviously it would be without permission... but I can't find anything that says it would be if the material was there with permission) Nahaj 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Message regarding your use of the No Multi License Template
In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect. You currently have NoMultiLicense on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Village pump (policy) if you have any comments.

Delivered by The  Helpful  Bot  at 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here.

title: User talk:Nahaj


text:
Shahram Homayoun

Shahram Homayoun is an Iranian political dissident, political activist, and the owner of "Channel one," a Persian satellite TV station based in Los Angeles, California that broadcasts into Iran daily.

Exile
Shahram Homayoun fled Iran for the United States in 1991. He was a marked man in Iran, because he supported democracy and human rights and his opposition to the Iranian government. He has resided in Los Angeles, California ever since. While in Iran he was the Editor of the "Hamkari" Magazine for two years, Editor of Kargaran (Workers) Magazine for three years, Associate Editor of the daily "Bamdad" (morning) Newspaper for two years. His famous interviews were with Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, Sadegh Khalkhali, Ahmad Khomeini (the son of Ayatollah Khomeini), Ayatollah Shariatmadari, Ayatollah Sadegh Rohani, Yasser Arafat and President of Pakistan General Zia ul Haq.

Interpol Arrest Warrant
According to the Iranian government, Mr. Homayoun "encouraged his audience to engage in acts of terrorism against the Islamic government such as writing slogans (on walls) and resisting the security forces." Independent observers accuse the Iranian government of using Interpol to target political dissidents abroad.

Despite Interpol's "Red Notice" against Homayoun, however, The Federal Bureau of Investigation has assured him that he would be safe as long as he remains in the United States.

Activities
Homayoun has established a Persian satellite TV network based in Los Angeles that broadcasts 24/7 into Iran. The TV channel, named "Channel One," includes programs by Homayoun himself as well as other dissidents and political activists such as Alireza Nourizadeh and Mohsen Sazegara. Abbas Pahlevan, Dr. Danesh Foroughi, Dr. Hassan Rahnavardi, and Dr. Manouchehr Ganji.

He has also started the Ma Hastim movement, which, according to some analysts, has had a "significant influence on Iranian masses," as seen by the "numerous slogans" written on Iran's city walls in its support. He organized alongside other political organizations daily demonstrations in Los Angeles during the 2009 Green Movement in Iran. His TV station and Ma Hastim were instrumental in keeping the Los Angeles demonstrations strong and provided the Western media with all the news coming out of Iran during those days. Recently the Ma Hastim movement, funded by its supporters, built a symbolic cemetery in New York City containing symbolic graves and tombstones of Iranian dissidents and political activists, such as Neda Agha Soltan, killed by the Iranian government since 2009.

Views
Homayoun supports Iranian/Persian nationalism and has been instrumental in keeping Iran's rightful/historical flag, the "Lion and Sun," flying high. This historical flag differentiates between the Islamic Republic's opposition and its cronies. He supports regime change in Iran and believes that the government in Iran should be treated "like South Africa during the apartheid where they were banned from all international organizations, where their sports teams were boycotted, and its officials couldn't travel to the West, and most importantly how their ruling classes assets were seized and frozen abroad."

title: Shahram Homayoun


text:
Talk:Sparse matrix

Vertex reordering
While the Cuthill-McKee algorithm is a fine algorithm, it was first shown that the Reverse Cuthill-McKee algorithm was often better by A. George in 1971. There have been many arguably better algorithms in the last 30 years.

I added some [incomplete, sketchy] remarks.

-- User:Nahaj 2005-08-28

Cholesky factorization
Cholesky factorization usually only shows up (in my experience) for large sparse matrices in solutions of least squares problems via Normal Equations.

There have been many many alternatives since the 1960's and Householders work. [Lawson and Hanson, 1973] covered several, for example. Reference: Lawson, Charles L. and Hanson, Richard J. 1974, "Solving Least Squares Problems" Prentice-Hall.

The article seems, to me, to have a very old fashioned bias in my opinion. I added some remarks against that bias.

-- User:Nahaj 2005-08-28

 * My first sentence shows how small an area I play in. In Tim Davis' note below under "too much emphasis on band matrices" he corrects this, and in email has sent me a pointer to his http://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/sparse/matrices which has lots and lots of symmetric positive definite matrices that arise in non least squares contexts and for which Cholesky factorization would be appropriate. Nahaj 14:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sparse polynomials?
in algebraic geometry sometimes sparse (multivariate) polynomials are mentoined, although I do not know an explicit definition. Assuming somebody here knows a bit about this, it could be a nice topic to add..

guest, 2005-09-14

 * Well, looking forward to seeing a sparse polynomial article! :) I know nothing of the topic, so I can't help. Oleg Alexandrov 21:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

too much emphasis on band matrices
This article has too much emphasis on band matrices.

"Band" matrices are often thought of as arising from the discretization of a 2D mesh. These are not truly "banded" matrices, however, since the optimal ordering (nested dissection) results in a matrix that is far from banded. Bandwidth reducing orderings are not suitable for a matrix arising from the discretization of a 2D or 3D square mesh (for example).

For example, a n-by-n matrix arising from an s-by-s 2D mesh can be factorized in O(s^3) time, where n = s^2, and with only O (n log n) entries in the factor L, or about O(s^2 log s).

On the other hand, if the "natural" ordering is used (the one that "looks banded"), the time taken is O(n^2), or O(s^4). That's quite a bit higher. The number of entries in the factor is O(n times sqrt(n)), or O(s^3).

Cholesky factorization arises in more problems than the Normal Equations (using Cholesky factorization for the Normal Equations is usually a bad idea; QR factorization is more accurate).

-- Tim Davis, Univ. of Florida

 * I agree it is a bad idea... but it is still being promoted in current Surveying texts, and still used by the National Geodetic Survey for the national adjustments.  So I see it a lot. Nahaj 15:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Row Bandwidth def'n incorrect
I don't have a reference in front of me, but I think the definition of row bandwidth is wrong. Something like n-m, where m is the minimizer, is within 1 of the lower bandwidth. But it doesn't appear to capture upper bandwidth. Jonas August 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, the definition was rather strange; thanks for bringing that to our attention. I replaced it by another one. Let me know if the new one doesn't make sense to you either. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Banker's algorithm
I removed the link to a "Banker's algorithm" since it points to another algorithm of the same name, not Dr. Snay's algorithm. Nahaj 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Orthogonal List?
As I remember, Orthogonal List (or a similar name) is a common data structure to store a sparse matrix. Is it correct? Btw, I can't even find any info about Orthogonal List in wikipedia. Could anyone more knowledgeable on this issue write some stuff? Took 05:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bandwidth and invariants
Is this correct?: It seems to me that the bandwidth of a matrix describes the matrix but not the underlying linear operator. That is, by changing the basis in which you write a matrix, you can change the matrix's bandwidth. As such, bandwidth is not an invariant the way trace and determinant are.

Is that right? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are academic explanations so hard to comprehend?
"It stores an initial sparse N×N matrix M in row form using three arrays, A, IA, JA"

I admit, I'm not academic. I believe I have a need for a sparse matrix. I understand the basic theory, but wonder how they deal with insertions. I search the web, and find nothing but incomprehensible academic articles. I decide to search Wikipedia, which I find almost always to answer my questions, except now. I see this article, and try to understand this explanation and get no where.....what is wrong with academics that they can not communicate clearly? Problems with this statement: - Does N*N mean rows and columns? If so, say "rows and columns"! - Does reusing the letter N mean that rows and columns are the same size? If so, say "where the number of rows and columns are the same"! - Why is A reused in A, IA, JA? If there is no reason, then DON'T DO IT! If there is then say so, IN PLAIN ENGLISH! It confused the hell out of me as to what the relationship was given that A is everywhere.

Why do academics make it so hard to understand their writing? It seems like a college social fraternity, with all it's social pressure glory. REBEL AGAINST THE PRESSURE TO WRITE INCOMPREHENSIBLE DOUBLETHINK! Please write so us dumb dumbs can understand.....I believe that is in the in spirit of Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.136.52 (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the suggestions. NxN means it's square. mxn means it's m rows and n columns; this is standard matrix notation that could be referenced but is common knowledge for anyone attempting a sparse-matrix implementation. I cleaned it up a bit. Is that clearer? Cheers. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes its clearer but the IA row values should be explained more than saying they are the "Index of the first nonzero element of row i in A, which is of length m + 1 (i.e., one entry per row, plus one)". [1 3 5 7] do not appear to be indexes (in the sense of an array index) of any nonzeros in rows 1 to 3 (what's the + 1 for?). The first row has a nonzero at position 1. The second row, however, has a non-zero at position 2 as does the third row. Clearly I am not a mathematician and don't understand what is being explained here, but I would like to understand because it has an impact on my practical understanding of EAV structure and database modelling. I suppose the IA and JA arrays have nothing to do with cartesian coordinates and are more complex for purposes of compression but at the risk of appearing stupid, I don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.56.36 (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Please help! I tried now for 15 minutes to understand the second array, and asked several colleagues, and no one seem to know what is meant with those indizes :/ This is REALLY frustrating :/ Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.60.83.75 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Storing a sparse matrix
Please change the example so that the sparse format actually takes up less space than the naive format. (Make the matrix bigger)

Sparse Matrix with consecutive zero rows
What I don't see in the Yale Sparse Matrix format, is how to encode matrixes which have one or more recurring rows with just zero values. Lumpidu (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Storing an entirely zero row is not usually useful in linear algebra, since then the matrix is singular (non-invertible). However, if need be, just store a zero entry as if it were a nonzero. That is, store a 0 in the value array. The diagonal is a reasonable choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.132.229 (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

More on fill-in
The section on fill-in seems very brief. I'm not an expert on this, but I would guess it should refer to things like minimal degree permutation and other reordering algorithms. See e.g. http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/ref/f16-5872.html#f16-6546 http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/demos.html?file=/products/demos/shipping/matlab/sparsity.html

Also, a few comments on special cases could be very helpful. E.g. I read in Gockenbach's textbook (p.228) that the Cholesky factor of a banded matrix retains the same (half-) bandwidth (though zeros within the band can still fill-in). It also seems to be the case that block-diagonal matrices do not fill-in at all, but I have not seen this stated/proven... Can anyone help with this and other special cases? Thanks--Ged.R (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Linked Scheme
Suppose that an m X n matrix with t non-zero terms is represented. How small must t be so that the linked scheme uses less space than an m X n array uses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.156.83.248 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please correct Matlab
I've corrected the mistake: Matlab's sparse uses compressed column form. Please include the proper reference (the referenced article of Moler requires sign-up) http://www.mathworks.com/help/pdf_doc/otherdocs/simax.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimacq (talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Error in example of Yale Format
Hi, i think the examples in Yale Format are wrong in the IA array. The instruction for the IA array reads: (array of index of first nonzero element of row i), so the IA array must have the same number of elements as the number row of the original matrix. That means IA = [0 2 4] for the first example and IA = [0 2 4 8] for the second. I corrected that, pls verify it. Thank you

Confusing statement in the end of Yale Format
Fellows, i found that the following statement is confusing: (Note that in this format, the first value of IA will always be zero and the last will always be NNZ: these two cells may not be useful.)

There is no explicity reason for the last value, with the size of NNZ, to exist in this array. If there is any reason for the last value NNZ, that is linked to the sparse data structure, than it must be made explicity in the article. Hugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antromindopofagist (talk • contribs) 23:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How to read back from Yale Format to matrix?
Yale Format doesn't contain matrix dimensions so I think there could be problems while reading back.

For example, with the matrix $$\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 5 & 8 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 3 & 0 \\ 0 & 6 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{pmatrix}$$

how do we know from A = [ 5 8 3 6 ] IA = [ 0 0 2 3 4 ] JA = [ 0 1 2 1 ] that the last column exists? Couldn't this Yale Formatted matrix be read $$\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 5 & 8 & 0  \\ 0 & 0 & 3  \\ 0 & 6 & 0  \\ \end{pmatrix}$$ ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petosorus (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

 * In all of the formats described by this article, I believe it is implied that the matrix dimensions must be stored separately in addition to what is mentioned. If the Yale format were to be implemented in C, IA would be simply a pointer with no knowledge of its length, and therefore it would not know even the number of rows.  Therefore both dimensions must be stored in addition to the three arrays.

 * In other languages with a proper array data type that "knows" its length, the number of columns is still needed (as you have found out), but the number of rows would be unnecessary. Nonetheless, to get the number of rows you would have to subtract 1 from the length of IA every time, so you may as well just store the number of rows anyway.  The memory overhead would be insignificant unless the matrix is extremely small.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fylwind (talk • contribs) 11:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

 * As it was only implied and not explicit, I prefered to ask to be sure. Thank you for your well developped answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petosorus (talk • contribs) 07:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Strange claim
The assertion that the CSC Compressed sparse column format, is good for matrix-vector products, seems strange. To calculate a matrix-vector product,  you take each row of the matrix and multiply the elements by the values in the vector. The compressed sparse column format seems inconvenient for this, in comparison to the compressed spare row format.Lathamibird (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Examples should be given with indexes starting at 1 instead of zero.
It would be much better to write the article using indexes starting at 1, not at 0. Most people understand it better in that way, as you say my first finger, my second finger... and not my finger number zero. Only some programming languages start indexes at zero (such as C++), many other start at 0 (such as Matlab, R, SQL, Julia and most scientific languages). And for mathematicians and physicists and engineers the natural way to do it is starting from 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.9.117 (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sparse matrix