text:
Talk:Catholic–Lutheran dialogue

Untitled
Futher elaboration is welcome to this article stub. drboisclair 18:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is, indeed, in need of updating
"Parts of this article (those related to the Hope for Eternal Life and later rounds) are outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information," someone put, in a box, at the very top of the article in 2010. And they were correct to so do, except that they so did in January of 2010, and there wasn't really anything to write about 'til October of that year. Still, the article is clearly dated, and so it's right to call attention to that.

Now, in April of 2012, as I write this, there has not only been something published regarding the "Hope for Eternal Life" 11th session, but they've all since reconvened (in October of 2011) for their 12th session. So, yes, some serious updating is now in order... on the 12th session, now, too.

So I'll jump on all that, and see what I can do; and when it's finally updated, I'll remove, if it's okay with everyone, the January 2010 note at the top about the article being out of date.

That will still leave, though, the April 2008 complaint about citations... which is also valid. I'll see what I can do about that, after I get the updating done...

...and anyone who wants to pitch-in, have at it! The more, the merrier.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 01:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Lutheran–Roman Catholic dialogue → Catholic–Protestant ecumenism – Broader, more catch-all spectra. Also, per WP:Consistency in accordance with Category:Catholic–Protestant ecumenism, Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Ecclesiastical differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Catholic theology, Catholic ecclesiology, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)  --Relisting. —  Music1201  talk  16:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose – Roman Catholics' relations with Lutherans is an independently notable subject worthy of its own article, as is, e.g., Roman Catholics' relations with Anglicans (who are also Protestants). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I should also note regarding the usage of Catholic vs Roman Catholic that the term Roman Catholic is typically used in an ecumenical context, even by the Vatican itself (which often omits the word Roman before the word Catholic in other contexts). See, e.g., the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (available here). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I concur with the IP editor above. This article is independently notable of the larger scope topic Catholic–Protestant ecumenism. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 8 August 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved  Dr Strauss   talk   18:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Lutheran–Roman Catholic dialogue → Catholic–Lutheran dialogue – Trying a less dramatic change. Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Category:Catholic–Protestant ecumenism, Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Ecclesiastical differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Catholic theology, Catholic ecclesiology, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc. Order by size, also in according with previously mentioned comparable examples. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.   Dr Strauss   talk   13:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)  --Relisting.   Dr Strauss   talk   15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's consistency between this article and Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue. Also, 'Roman Catholic' is more precise when discussing inter-denominational relations within Christianity. In fact, it would make more sense for the articles on Catholic-Eastern Orthodox differences you've used as examples to refer to Roman Catholicism, as the Eastern Orthodox Church also considers itself catholic- its official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church. I see no need for the change. --A.D.Hope (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support; this removes the unnecessary "Roman" name and brings the article into consistency with the main Catholic Church article and its many sub-articles, as well as widespread consensus. "Roman" is increasingly deprecated on Wikipedia and isn't necessary here for disambiguation (there are no other articles on dialog between Lutherans and any other church that would be called "Catholic". Examples of RMs where similar moves have been made include this, this, this, this, and this.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Capital-C Catholic on Wikipedia refers to the Catholic Church (though oddly, with the exception of Catholic itself, which redirects to Catholicism. I would suspect this is because our software does not allow for non-capitalized titles and it would be confusing if it did. Outside of this specific case, however, our naming conventions on the term are consistent). This is not a theological or historical statement or judgement, just stating what our status quo consensus is, because it invalidates a lot of the arguments of the first oppose here. If that were to be challenged, a large site-wide RfC would actually be a much better venue than an RM because it would impact a vital article that received over 1.5 million page views last year (and yes, we do have RMs/RfCs on such matters, see the recent one at New York, which was listed at CENT).Re: the case at hand, our current practice on Wikipedia is to use Roman in two very limited circumstances: if disambiguation is needed between the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches (Chicbyaccident doesn't like this either, but RMs split about 50/50 on this specific point in general). The other is if a particular diocese refers to itself that way (this also isn't always the case, however.) Any article that refers to the entire institution that is led by the Pope we almost always go through with the move request because Roman can be confusing since it can also be used exclusively to refer to the Latin Church to the exclusion of the Eastern Churches. WP:PRECISION works with WP:CONSISTENCY here to make this an obvious move, since all of the sui iuris particular Churches deal with their relationships with other faiths first and foremost through the Holy See, and this article reflects that. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 15 October 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against changing the scope of this article. Jenks24 (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Catholic–Lutheran dialogue → Catholic–Protestant dialogue – This article Catholic–Lutheran dialogue was created in 2005. There hasn't been any attempt of an article Catholic–Protestant dialogue before, so it is unlikely anyone would start one up from scratch. However, this article Catholic–Lutheran dialogue would make a suitable foundation for such a broadened scope. Thus proposing to broaden the scope of this article. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose A dialogue requires two parties, not all protestants denominations are in dialogue with the catholics. the lutherans clearly are, but you can't broaden it to include a whole group when some of that group aren't involved. Dysklyver  23:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This appears to have enough information to stand alone as a separate article. Perhaps a broader Catholic-Protestant article could be made: but if so, then the most appropriate way to do that would be almost certianly be by spinning off Catholic Church and ecumenism, not by refactoring this article.  And Lutheranism is not the only branch of Christianity that could fill an article with specific Roman Catholic discussion issues: for example, the Anglican Communion/Catholic relations, in which the apostolic succession/ordination issues are close enough that sometimes there is discussion of whether the priests in one denomination might already be validly ordained for the purposes of the other denomination, and related movement of some clergy between Anglican churches and the Roman Catholic Church due to the recent Anglican internal schisms.  (And also, isn't this proposal a re-run of  above?) --Closeapple (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And now that I look, there is indeed already an article named Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue. --Closeapple (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was not aware of this page move request when I posted the follow up request below. This would appear to a change of scope request rather than a true page move.  I would invite  to copy any relevant material from this article to use as a basis for a protestant ecumenical dialogue article, rather than overwrite this article. Copying within Wikipedia contains guidelines to properly reuse content to create new articles. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is enough material on Catholic-Lutheran dialog for an independent article.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 22 October 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus. The final tally was 7 oppose, and 4 support. Ernio48's was considered as oppose, as it was a conditional vote; of which the condition was not met by Ernio48 them-self nor by other editor. WP:FIXIT applies partially. — usernamekiran (talk)  01:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Catholic–Lutheran dialogue → Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue – This page had been moved based on three votes earlier just last month, two for and one against (See: Talk:Catholic–Lutheran dialogue), citing primarily consistency with other articles, specifically ecumenical articles. Yet many of these page moves were proposed within a short time frame, and also had little participation. Several users have expressed frustration with this process; for instance, a page move from "Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue" to "Anglican-Catholic dialog" was recently reversed. (See Talk:Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue) The original page move the Anglican dialog was approved with only two votes (See: Talk:Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue), similar to the original Lutheran move here. This suggests that among a larger set of editors, there is little consensus for a mass change.

I would argue the ecumenical articles are best served by consistently using the "Roman Catholic" convention. Numerous formal dialogs between the Vatican or regional bishops conferences, and Protestant, Orthodox, or other churches use "Roman Catholic" in the title of the dialogues or joint commissions. Numerous dialogs also exist between the Catholic Church, and other "Catholic Churches" (Polish National Catholic, Old Catholic, Anglo-Catholic). Several examples, with links to formal dialog documents are listed here: WP:Roman Catholic. I believe it offers no clarity to vary between "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" across the ecumenical series of articles. While the Lutherans do not specifically call themselves a "Catholic" church in the dialogue, it creates an inconsistency for some articles to use "Roman Catholic" and others to use "Catholic" as the participating party in union with the Pope.

On a procedural note, an admin specifically stated that a new page move request was the appropriate forum to introduce new evidence that was not considered in the prior page move (see closing note at: Move review/Log/2017 October). The prior move did not consider the formal dialog titles and consistency across the ecumenical series in light of "Anglican-Roman Catholic dialog" article title being reversed/upheld, which is the new information being introduced for consideration here. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Addenda: as the majority of documents produced during Catholic-Lutheran talks use the "Roman Catholic" convention, future expansion of this and related articles will be made easier if the this article's primary naming convention matches that of the documents that would be summarized and discussed in this article. A partial list of can now be found in the article: Catholic–Lutheran dialogue. I have no further comment on this matter. –Zfish118⋉talk 04:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the last discussion. The present title is more consistent with the main article Catholic Church and an increasing number of other sub articles. The "Roman" verbiage is unnecessary and is increasingly deprecated in Wikipedia article titles, as shown in RMs such as this, this, this, this, and this. There is no confusion as to what "Catholic" means in this article.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not convinced by the argument that "Roman Catholic" is being deprecated. Most of the page move requests linked here were made by CrusadeStudent/ or  within the past year or so, both of whom have expressed a strongly biased opinion against the use of "Roman Catholic" in any context. I believe both have been acting in good faith in making these proposals, but that their priority in pushing this issue does not match the majority of of editors.  Many passed with only a handful of participants, including a consistent small group of editors voting in favor.  In several proposals where there were opposing voices, the move was rejected, or even reversed.  This suggests at best a mixed consensus at this time.  Several editors have spoken in favor of continuing to use Roman Catholi in at least certain contexts in a related request for context(see: Wikipedia talk:Proposed naming_conventions (Catholic Church)).  There are perhaps fewer contexts where Roman Catholic is the best convention, but I see no evidence that there is strong consensus to eliminate it where it offers value, and I would argue that ecumenism is one such context. –Zfish118⋉talk 19:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I deliberately picked RMs from the last year or so, which explains that part of it. All of them passed with solid, clear consensus (or failed to be overturned despite substantial participation). It is true that there are "several" editors who have voiced disagreement with the decision, and a handful of cases where a move has been overturned, but the pattern is clear: "Roman" has been increasingly removed in article titles since the main article itself was moved. Speaking to this RM, I don't see the value in adding this verbiage; it's perfectly clear from the context what is meant by "Catholic".--Cúchullain t/ c 20:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Disregarding all other recurring arguments in these cases, please compare ultimately the coherent "Catholic" terminology (not "Roman Catholic") employed in the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Bishop Munib Younan (2016) (link to full text from the Wikipedia article). It was promulgated inside a Lutheran cathedral, in a Lutheran-majority country, and issued by the highest designated representative of the worldwide Lutheran denominations for the occation. However, on another note, I am also sceptical of that inconsistency should exist between Catholic–Lutheran dialogue and Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue. Shouldn't both article names pertain to the same criteria, more precisly the Catholic Church while taking into a account a global perspective on this issue? Why should terminology in a few documents issued by more or less third part individuals hold defining sway here? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't. Wikipedia articles are based on common use, consistency, and the WP:CRITERIA, not what format happens to be used in some documents. Especially, as here, where there is no risk of confusion.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The links I refer to are primarily official statements hosted on either the Vatican or US Bishop's websites. They refer to the formal names of dialogues and host commissions. These are not a few  obscure documents written by "third parties", but issued directly by the member parties to the dialog itself. –Zfish118⋉talk 12:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * However, even if we are to apply that critera, what document would be more definitive, recent, and authoritative than the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Bishop Munib Younan? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be based on prevailing formal use. While the 2017 statement does refer to "Catholic Christians" in a general sense, the document also refers to the progress made in the "Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue" (See ¶7,212, and Chapter 4). While it is certainly not incorrect to say that Lutherans and Catholics dialog, the formal title of the dialogue is rather unambiguously "Lutheran-Roman Catholic". –Zfish118⋉talk 13:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a descriptive title; it's constructed for use on Wikipedia. Those follow common use, more than what random lines from a few documents use.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep referring to these as "some random documents", but they are the products of formal committees meant to study ecumenical relations between various denominations. These committees give these dialogues a formal title, that majority of which are "Roman Catholic-Denom X dialogue".  I do not know what "common use" you refer to, since the vast majority of ecumenical dialogue documents refer to the "Roman Catholic Church" as a party.  "Catholic" alone is used, but alongside "Roman Catholic".  Both are at least equally common, so it would make sense to defer to the formal titles (which, again, are not some "random lines" in a document). –Zfish118⋉talk 16:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not what I said. I said you're picking seemingly random references from some documents that include "Roman" to support your argument that there's a "formal title" for the concept of Lutheran-Catholic dialog. In reality, this topic has no one established name, so we construct a neutral, descriptive title, and that should be based on common use in the main articles. You acknowledge that the same documents refer to "Catholic" without "Roman".--Cúchullain t/ c 18:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose there is no reason to have the Roman disambiguator in this case. I am sympathetic towards Zfish's opinion that Roman has sometimes been rooted out unnecessarily, but this is not such a case. We use the common name and strive for consistency. In relation to the Catholic Church that means that unless there is some need for a disambiguation, we use Catholic without modifiers. I supported the Anglican move because of Anglo-Catholics, but there is nothing here that would warrant a deviation from the current de facto Wikipedia convention of using Catholic to refer to the organization as a whole and Roman to sub-units or when disambiguation is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My argument is that there has not been sufficient participation to create such a new "de facto" convention. All of the examples shown here have passed by a majority of a small number of users, including primarily yourself, , and .  In the handful of proposals that attracted opposition, they have often not gone through.  While I appreciate that you are advocating for what you believe to be the best convention, it feels quite a bit like it a major change is being snuck through in poorly advertised and attended move proposals. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have consistently said that all pages on the Catholic naming dispute need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and that my preference is to have anything that refers to the organization as a whole match the title of Catholic Church unless there is a compelling reason, and that for sub-articles for issues involving local diocese, particular churches, etc. there is justification for the Roman in many cases. I'm hardly an anti-Roman zealot on this issue. I actually think that keeping it through the RM process is a good thing because it attracts outside users who are not part of the Christianity WikiProjects. Consensus from outside users in my observation of these discussions does almost always follow what I described above, and I think it is a good indicator of where project-wide consensus is on this topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The examples I picked were ones I knew about, primarily because I saw them and weighed in, which explains why I was involved. There are many others where I was not involved dating back years, notably including the main article, which was moved after a lengthy and well attended mediation request, as well as later discussions like this, and this, which had wide participation. The idea that this trend is only the result of a few low-participation moves is not accurate.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Support The original move was not publicized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. The original move should not have happened. Is this a discussion with the Armenian Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics and other denominations with that term, or is it with only one group? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the theology behind the term, but with the common name, which is Wikipedia's standard naming practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe Walter Gorlitz is asking whether there are discussions regarding the name of the dialog articles with those churches. –Zfish118⋉talk 15:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unclear, but they would follow the same naming convention as the parent article unless there was a strong reason otherwise. The Anglican case was unique because it did have a strong reason otherwise: namely the existence of Anglo-Catholics, a term commonly used in English. The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions and the churches within them are not commonly known as Catholic in English, and so we do not title them as such. That they claim to be catholic is not something Wikipedia considers in its naming conventions. The point of which is not to settle theological disputes but to help the reader quickly understand what is going on by using the most common and consistent name, with the amount of precision necessary to make it unambiguous. We have that with the current title, so there would not be a policy-based reason for a move, but only a theological one. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Specifically related titles would be things like Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965, Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Ecclesiastical differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The latter two had RMs that resulted in the current titles.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are yet two more examples passed with a small number of users. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, and as I said above, it reflects the consensus (achieved with a much greater participation than this RM will get) that came at Catholic Church here.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Support per Zfish118. tahc chat 20:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per brevity, understandibility, Cúchullain and Chicbyaccident's comments, and the use of the descriptor 'Roman' which is fading from Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for much the same reasons as Talk:Anglican–Roman_Catholic_dialogue. The original mediation which moved Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church noted that "Roman" was used in interfaith contexts.  Until this year, this terminology seems to have been accepted on Wikipedia for interfaith subjects, especially Protestant ones (which is the context in which the term was originally coined); Category:Catholic–Protestant ecumenism was created in January, and other articles which had been at their existing locations for many years were moved and created (I note the recent creation of Category:Catholic–Anglican ecumenism only a few days after the main article on that subject was agreed to be moved back to Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue) to match that.  I don't have the strongest feelings on this particular article, but I at least don't think there was any problem with where it was, and am concerned about the approach of creating a new 'Consistency' through a thousand article moves; so support it being moved back to where it was. TSP (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Cuchullain. — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Noting, Cuchullain, the solution is to rename Catholic Church to Roman Catholic Church.  There is a difference between catholic and Catholic, Catholic short for Catholic Church (a misnomer) short for Roman Catholic Church.  It is not possible to have a formal dialogue with the catholic church.  cf the Eastern Catholic Churches and also Independent Catholicism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is possible to have formal dialogue with the Catholic Church, and your Eastern Catholic example is one reason why this article should stay: the sui iuris churches are a part of the overall structure of the Catholic Church. Moving this to Roman Catholic could increase confusion with people falsely thinking the dialogue was with only the Latin Church. The ambiguous use of Roman to mean both the entirety of the Church as well as one specific sui iuris church is exactly why it should be avoided in circumstances such as this. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, I'm not sure, but I think you entirely miss my attempt to distinguish between the catholic church and the Catholic Church. Only some strongly entrenched members of the Catholic Church refuse to acknowledge a difference.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I get the distinction but the organization led by the Bishop of Rome is the primary topic for the term on the English Wikipedia, and Roman Catholic Church only adds ambiguity because that term can reasonably be understood to mean either the Latin Church or the Catholic Church, whereas this title is unambiguous. This RM is solely about Wikipedia's naming policies, not the distinction between Catholic and catholic. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose In dialogues, each participant should be listed under their actual name. The Lutherans self-identify as Lutherans and no belittling, limited epithet is latched unto that name. Turnaround is fair play: the Catholic Church has a right to its own name. Str1977 (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support only if you cover the dialogue between every Protestant denomination and the Catholic Church.Ernio48 (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not even being discussed here, so I'm assuming that this should be read as an oppose. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:Catholic–Lutheran dialogue


text:
Semantic change

Semantic change (also semantic shift, semantic progression, semantic development, or semantic drift) is a form of language change regarding the evolution of word usage—usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations, which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology, and semantics.

Examples in English

 * Awful – Literally "full of awe", originally meant "inspiring wonder (or fear)", hence "impressive". In contemporary usage, the word means "extremely bad".
 * Awesome – Literally "awe-inducing", originally meant "inspiring wonder (or fear)", hence "impressive". In contemporary usage, the word means "extremely good".
 * Terrible – Originally meant "inspiring terror", shifted to indicate anything spectacular, then to something spectacularly bad.
 * Terrific – Originally meant "inspiring terror", shifted to indicate anything spectacular, then to something spectacularly good.
 * Nice – Originally meant "foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless". from Old French nice (12c.) meaning "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish", from Latin nescius ("ignorant or unaware"). Literally "not-knowing", from ne- "not" (from PIE root *ne- "not") + stem of scire "to know" (compare with science). "The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj". [Weekley] -- from "timid, faint-hearted" (pre-1300); to "fussy, fastidious" (late 14c.); to "dainty, delicate" (c. 1400); to "precise, careful" (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to "agreeable, delightful" (1769); to "kind, thoughtful" (1830).
 * Naïf or Naïve – Initially meant "natural, primitive, or native" . From French naïf, literally "native", the masculine form of the French word, but used in English without reference to gender. As a noun, "natural, artless, naive person", first attested 1893, from French, where Old French naif also meant "native inhabitant; simpleton, natural fool".
 * Demagogue – Originally meant "a popular leader". It is from the Greek dēmagōgós "leader of the people", from dēmos "people" + agōgós "leading, guiding". Now the word has strong connotations of a politician who panders to emotions and prejudice.
 * Egregious – Originally described something that was remarkably good (as in Theorema Egregium). The word is from the Latin egregius "illustrious, select", literally, "standing out from the flock", which is from ex—"out of" + greg—(grex) "flock". Now it means something that is remarkably bad or flagrant.
 * Gay – Originally meant (13th century) "lighthearted", "joyous" or (14th century) "bright and showy", it also came to mean "happy"; it acquired connotations of immorality as early as 1637, either sexual e.g., gay woman "prostitute", gay man "womaniser", gay house "brothel", or otherwise, e.g., gay dog "over-indulgent man" and gay deceiver "deceitful and lecherous". In the United States by 1897 the expression gay cat referred to a hobo, especially a younger hobo in the company of an older one; by 1935, it was used in prison slang for a homosexual boy; and by 1951, and clipped to gay, referred to homosexuals. George Chauncey, in his book Gay New York, would put this shift as early as the late 19th century among a certain "in crowd", knowledgeable of gay night-life. In the modern day, it is most often used to refer to homosexuals, at first among themselves and then in society at large, with a neutral connotation; or as a derogatory synonym for "silly", "dumb", or "boring".
 * Guy – Guy Fawkes was the alleged leader of a plot to blow up the English Houses of Parliament on 5 November 1605. The day was made a holiday, Guy Fawkes Day, commemorated by parading and burning a ragged manikin of Fawkes, known as a Guy. This led to the use of the word guy as a term for any "person of grotesque appearance" and then by the late 1800s—especially in the United States—for "any man", as in, e.g., "Some guy called for you". Over the 20th century, guy has replaced fellow in the U.S., and, under the influence of American popular culture, has been gradually replacing fellow, bloke, chap and other such words throughout the rest of the English-speaking world. In the plural, it can refer to a mixture of genders (e.g., "Come on, you guys!" could be directed to a group of mixed gender instead of only men).

Evolution of types
A number of classification schemes have been suggested for semantic change.

Recent overviews have been presented by Blank and. Semantic change has attracted academic discussions since ancient times, although the first major works emerged in the 19th century with, , and. Studies beyond the analysis of single words have been started with the word-field analyses of, who claimed that every semantic change of a word would also affect all other words in a lexical field. His approach was later refined by. introduced Generative semantics. More recent works including pragmatic and cognitive theories are those in, Dirk Geeraerts, and.

A chronological list of typologies is presented below. Today, the most currently used typologies are those by and.

Typology by Reisig (1839)
Reisig's ideas for a classification were published posthumously. He resorts to classical rhetorics and distinguishes between
 * Synecdoche: shifts between part and whole
 * Metonymy: shifts between cause and effect
 * Metaphor

Typology by Paul (1880)

 * Generalization: enlargement of single senses of a word's meaning
 * Specialization on a specific part of the contents: reduction of single senses of a word's meaning
 * Transfer on a notion linked to the based notion in a spatial, temporal, or causal way

Typology by Darmesteter (1887)
The last two are defined as change between whole and part, which would today be rendered as synecdoche.
 * Metaphor
 * Metonymy
 * Narrowing of meaning
 * Widening of meaning

Typology by Bréal (1899)

 * Restriction of sense: change from a general to a special meaning
 * Enlargement of sense: change from a special to a general meaning
 * Metaphor
 * "Thickening" of sense: change from an abstract to a concrete meaning

Typology by Stern (1931)
This classification does not neatly distinguish between processes and forces/causes of semantic change.
 * Substitution: Change related to the change of an object, of the knowledge referring to the object, of the attitude toward the object, e.g., artillery "engines of war used to throw missiles" → "mounted guns", atom "inseparable smallest physical-chemical element" → "physical-chemical element consisting of electrons", scholasticism "philosophical system of the Middle Ages" → "servile adherence to the methods and teaching of schools"
 * Analogy: Change triggered by the change of an associated word, e.g., fast adj. "fixed and rapid" ← fast adv. "fixedly, rapidly"
 * Shortening: e.g., periodical ← periodical paper
 * Nomination: "the intentional naming of a referent, new or old, with a name that has not previously been used for it" (Stern 1931: 282), e.g., lion "brave man" ← "lion"
 * Regular transfer: a subconscious Nomination
 * Permutation: non-intentional shift of one referent to another due to a reinterpretation of a situation, e.g., bead "prayer" → "pearl in a rosary")
 * Adequation: Change in the attitude of a concept; distinction from substitution is unclear.

Typology by Bloomfield (1933)
The most widely accepted scheme in the English-speaking academic world is from :
 * Narrowing: Change from superordinate level to subordinate level. For example, skyline formerly referred to any horizon, but now in the US it has narrowed to a horizon decorated by skyscrapers.
 * Widening: There are many examples of specific brand names being used for the general product, such as with Kleenex. Such uses are known as generonyms: see genericization.
 * Metaphor: Change based on similarity of thing. For example, broadcast originally meant "to cast seeds out"; with the advent of radio and television, the word was extended to indicate the transmission of audio and video signals. Outside of agricultural circles, very few use broadcast in the earlier sense.
 * Metonymy: Change based on nearness in space or time, e.g., jaw "cheek" → "mandible".
 * Synecdoche: Change based on whole-part relation. The convention of using capital cities to represent countries or their governments is an example of this.
 * Hyperbole: Change from weaker to stronger meaning, e.g., kill "torment" → "slaughter"
 * Meiosis: Change from stronger to weaker meaning, e.g., astound "strike with thunder" → "surprise strongly".
 * Degeneration: e.g., knave "boy" → "servant" → "deceitful or despicable man"; awful "awe-inspiring" → "very bad".
 * Elevation: e.g., knight "boy" → "nobleman"; terrific "terrifying" → "astonishing" → "very good".

Typology by Ullmann (1957, 1962)
Ullmann distinguishes between nature and consequences of semantic change:
 * Nature of semantic change
 * Metaphor: change based on a similarity of senses
 * Metonymy: change based on a contiguity of senses
 * Folk-etymology: change based on a similarity of names
 * Ellipsis: change based on a contiguity of names
 * Consequences of semantic change
 * Widening of meaning: rise of quantity
 * Narrowing of meaning: loss of quantity
 * Amelioration of meaning: rise of quality
 * Pejoration of meaning: loss of quality

Typology by Blank (1999)
However, the categorization of has gained increasing acceptance:
 * Metaphor: Change based on similarity between concepts, e.g., mouse "rodent" → "computer device".
 * Metonymy: Change based on contiguity between concepts, e.g., horn "animal horn" → "musical instrument".
 * Synecdoche: A type of metonymy involving a part to whole relationship, e.g. "hands" from "all hands on deck" → "bodies"
 * Specialization of meaning: Downward shift in a taxonomy, e.g., corn "grain" → "wheat" (UK), → "maize" (US).
 * Generalization of meaning: Upward shift in a taxonomy, e.g., hoover "Hoover vacuum cleaner" → "any type of vacuum cleaner".
 * Cohyponymic transfer: Horizontal shift in a taxonomy, e.g., the confusion of mouse and rat in some dialects.
 * Antiphrasis: Change based on a contrastive aspect of the concepts, e.g., perfect lady in the sense of "prostitute".
 * Auto-antonymy: Change of a word's sense and concept to the complementary opposite, e.g., bad in the slang sense of "good".
 * Auto-converse: Lexical expression of a relationship by the two extremes of the respective relationship, e.g., take in the dialectal use as "give".
 * Ellipsis: Semantic change based on the contiguity of names, e.g., car "cart" → "automobile", due to the invention of the (motor) car.
 * Folk-etymology: Semantic change based on the similarity of names, e.g., French contredanse, orig. English country dance.

Blank considered it problematic to include amelioration and pejoration of meaning (as in Ullman) as well as strengthening and weakening of meaning (as in Bloomfield). According to Blank, these are not objectively classifiable phenomena; moreover, Blank has argued that all of the examples listed under these headings can be grouped under other phenomena, rendering the categories redundant.

Forces triggering change
Blank has tried to create a complete list of motivations for semantic change. They can be summarized as:
 * Linguistic forces
 * Psychological forces
 * Sociocultural forces
 * Cultural/encyclopedic forces

This list has been revised and slightly enlarged by :
 * Fuzziness (i.e., difficulties in classifying the referent or attributing the right word to the referent, thus mixing up designations)
 * Dominance of the prototype (i.e., fuzzy difference between superordinate and subordinate term due to the monopoly of the prototypical member of a category in the real world)
 * Social reasons (i.e., contact situation with "undemarcation" effects)
 * Institutional and non-institutional linguistic pre- and proscriptivism (i.e., legal and peer-group linguistic pre- and proscriptivism, aiming at "demarcation")
 * Flattery
 * Insult
 * Disguising language (i.e., "misnomers")
 * Taboo (i.e., taboo concepts)
 * Aesthetic-formal reasons (i.e., avoidance of words that are phonetically similar or identical to negatively associated words)
 * Communicative-formal reasons (i.e., abolition of the ambiguity of forms in context, keyword: "homonymic conflict and polysemic conflict")
 * Wordplay/punning
 * Excessive length of words
 * Morphological misinterpretation (keyword: "folk-etymology", creation of transparency by changes within a word)
 * Logical-formal reasons (keyword: "lexical regularization", creation of consociation)
 * Desire for plasticity (creation of a salient motivation of a name)
 * Anthropological salience of a concept (i.e., anthropologically given emotionality of a concept, "natural salience")
 * Culture-induced salience of a concept ("cultural importance")
 * Changes in the referents (i.e., changes in the world)
 * Worldview change (i.e., changes in the categorization of the world)
 * Prestige/fashion (based on the prestige of another language or variety, of certain word-formation patterns, or of certain semasiological centers of expansion)

The case of reappropriation
A specific case of semantic change is reappropriation, a cultural process by which a group reclaims words or artifacts that were previously used in a way disparaging of that group, for example like with the word queer. Other related processes include pejoration and amelioration.

Practical studies
Apart from many individual studies, etymological dictionaries are prominent reference books for finding out about semantic changes. A recent survey lists practical tools and online systems for investigating semantic change of words over time. WordEvolutionStudy is an academic platform that takes arbitrary words as input to generate summary views of their evolution based on Google Books ngram dataset and the Corpus of Historical American English.

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

title: Semantic change


text:
Ferenc Farkas

Ferenc Farkas (15 December 1905 – 10 October 2000) was a Hungarian composer.

Biography
Born into a musical family (his father, Aladár Farkas, was an Olympian and soldier who played the cimbalom and his mother played the piano) in Nagykanizsa; he began his musical studies in Budapest, at the Protestant Gymnasium (Grammar School) and later attended the Music Academy, where he studied composition with Leó Weiner and Albert Siklós.

After his graduation in 1927, he worked as a repetiteur and conductor at the Municipal Theatre of Budapest and collaborated with the Diaghilev Ballet. From 1929 to 1931, he attended Ottorino Respighi's masterclass at the Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia in Rome. The years he spent in Rome had a decisive influence on him. He became acquainted with Italian and Mediterranean culture to which he felt a deep attraction. About this he said: "My principal aim has always been to attain for myself a latin clarity and proportion.".

Farkas returned to Budapest in the autumn of 1931. As he could not find any other assignments, he played the piano in various theatre orchestras. In 1932 he met the director Paul Fejos for whom he composed several film scores, first in Hungary, then in Vienna and Copenhagen. This collaboration was to be for Farkas the beginning of an impressive series of “applied” music (music for around 75 films and 44 theatre plays and radio plays).

In the spring of 1934 he conducted research of his own into traditional Hungarian music by collecting folk songs in Somogy County: "When I got back from my travels abroad, it became clear to me that the work and research of Bartók and Kodály raised crucial problems that we as Hungarians, had to resolve ourselves."

From 1935 he taught at the Budapest City Music School. From 1941 to 1944 he was professor of composition and director at the Conservatory of Kolozsvár (today Cluj-Napoca in Romania) and he conducted the city's Opera Chorus. At the end of 1944, because of the war, he had to flee to Budapest, where he worked as the deputy conductor of the Royal Opera Chorus during the siege of the city.

In 1946, he was sent to Székesfehérvár where he founded and managed the Conservatory. He was nominated professor of composition at the Franz Liszt Music Academy of Budapest in 1949, a post he held until his retirement in 1975. As a professor he was to have his greatest influence in the second half of the century. Among his students were: György Kurtág, György Ligeti, László Kalmár, and Miklós Kocsár.

Works
"From the beginning, I have been involved in all areas of music; I have not wanted to create only a small corner of a room, full of atmosphere, with a personal and sophisticated taste, but spaces, large and small, arranged differently, pleasant to live in, with open windows".

Farkas's works include over seven hundred opuses. He composed in all genres, opera, ballet, musicals and operettas, orchestral music, concertos, chamber music and sacred music. His wide literary culture enabled him to set words to music in 13 languages, stemming from about 130 writers and poets both ancient and modern.

Main works
Most of the works mentioned below are accompanied by an external link referring to a single source: the official website of Ferenc Farkas (see "External Links") which provides a detailed description of the work and a musical extract.

Stage music

 * Az Ember tragédiája (The tragedy of man), incidental music for the play by Imre Madách (1935)
 * A Bűvös szekrény (The magic cupboard), opera (1942)
 * Furfangos diákok (The sly students), ballet (1949, rev.1956)
 * Csínom Palkó, popular romantic opera (1960)
 * Piroschka, musical comedy (1964)
 * Egy Úr Velencéből, Casanova (A gentleman from Venice, Casanova), opera (1979-1980)

Works for symphony orchestra

 *  Divertimento (1930)
 *  Preludio e fuga (1944-1947)
 *  Furfangos diákok (The sly students), Suite for orchestra (1949)
 *  Szimfonikus nyitány (Symphonic overture) (1952)
 * Planctus et consolationes (1965)
 * Funérailles, adaptation for orchestra of the piano work by Franz Liszt (1974)

Works for string orchestra

 * Musica pentatonica (1945)
 * Choreae hungaricae, 3 cycles of Hungarian dances from the 17th century (1961)
 * Piccola musica di concerto (1961)
 * all'ungaresca'' (1974)

Concertos

 * Concertino for piano and orchestra (1947)
 * Concertino for harpsichord and string orchestra or string quartet (1949)
 * Trittico concertato for violoncello and string orchestra (1964)
 * Concertino all'antica for baryton or violoncello or viola and string orchestra (1964)
 * Concertino rustico for Alphorn and string orchestra (1977)
 * Concertino for oboe and string orchestra (1983)
 * Concertino for trumpet and string orchestra (1984)

Chamber music

 * for violoncello or viola and piano (1926)
 * for violin, viola and violoncello (1929)
 * Serenade für Bläserquintett (1951)
 * Antiche danze ungheresi del 17.secolo / Early Hungarian dances from the 17th century for wind quintet (1959) (12 variants)
 * Old Hungarian Dances from the 17th Century (4 Movements) - Saxophone Quartet - Published 1991 EditionDarok
 * a due'' for viola and violoncello (1961)
 * Ballade for violoncello and piano (1963)
 * Quattro pezzi for double-bass and wind quintet (1966)
 * Lavottiana − Suite of themes by János Lavotta (1764-1820) - Wind Quintet in 5 Movements - 1968
 * / String quartet'' (1970-1972)
 * Contrafacta Hungarica for wind octet (1976)
 * La Cour du roi Matthias for clarinet, basson, horn and string quintet (1977)
 * Trio for violin, violoncello and piano (1979)
 * Sonate romantique for bassoon and piano (1982)
 * for oboe, clarinet and bassoon (1983)
 * Ricordanze for clarinet, violin, viola and violoncello (1984)
 * Three Burlesques for 2 clarinets, basset horn and 2 bass-clarinets (1992)

Works for instrumental solos

 * Sonata for violoncello (1932)
 * Correspondances for piano (1957)
 * Six Pièces brèves for guitar (1970)
 * Sonata for guitar (1979)
 * Exercitium tonale for guitar (1982)
 * Sonata for violin (1987)
 * Sonatina for harp

Masses

 * Missa secunda in honorem Sanctae Margaritae for mixed choir and organ or string orchestra (other version for choir'') (1964-1968)
 * Missa in honorem Sancti Andreae for mixed choir and orchestra (1968)
 * Requiem pro memoria M.  for mixed choir and orchestra (1992)

Cantatas, oratorios

 * Cantata lirica, cantata for mixed choir and orchestra, Hungarian text by Jenö Dsida, German translated by Anneliese Eulau-Felsenstein (1945)
 * Cantus Pannonicus, cantata for soprano solo, mixed choir and orchestra, text in Latin by Janus Pannonius (1959)
 * Ein Krippenspiel aus Köröshegy, Weihnachtskantate (Nativity play of Köröshegy, Christmas cantata) edited in English, German, French, Hungarian, for narrator, mixed or children's choir, organ and instrumental ensemble (6 instruments) or orchestra (1970)
 * Aspirationes principis, cantata for tenor and baritone solo and orchestra, text in Hungarian by Kelemen Mikes and Paul Ràday and in Latin by Francis II Rákóczi (1974-1975)
 * Omaggio a Pessoa, cantata for tenor solo, mixed choir and orchestra, text in Portuguese by Fernando Pessoa, Hungarian translated by Ernö Hàrs (1985)

Works for mixed choir

 * Alkony (Dusk), Hungarian text by Sándor Petőfi (1944)
 * Rose-madrigal, English, German and French version from a Hungarian text by Sándor Weöres (1947)
 * Az öröm illan (The joy escapes), Hungarian text by Árpád Tóth (1962)
 * Lupus fecit (1979)
 * Pensieri notturni, Italian text by Michelangelo Buonarroti (1982)
 * Hommage à Rilke, German text by Rainer Maria Rilke (1984)
 * Pater Noster (1993)
 * Ave Maria (1994)
 * Come away, English text by William Shakespeare (1995)
 * Ekkosang, Danish text by Otto Gelsted (1999)
 * Pataki diakdalok a 18. szazadbol, text in Latin and Hungarian

Works for male choir

 * Silence, French text by Charles Ferdinand Ramuz (1975)
 * débat du cœur et du corps'' (The debate of the heart and the body) for double male choir, 2 trumpets, 2 trombones, piano and timpani, French text by François Villon (1980)
 * Hajnal-nòta (Dawn song), Troubadour song from the 13th century, Text in Hungarian or
 * Vallon szerenàd (Walloon serenade), text in Hungarian or

Works for female choir or children’s choir

 * fractus'', 3 Hungarian gregorian melodies for unison female or children's choir, baritone solo and 3 guitars (1982)
 * Baszk dalok I / Euskal abestiak, 5 traditional songs, text in Basque and Hungarian (1986)
 * Magnificat for 3-part female or children's choir and organ (1994)

Songs

 * ábrándok'' (Dreams of Malaysia) for voice and piano, Hungarian text by Sándor Weöres German translated by Marcel Rubin and Otto Horn (1943)
 * basket / Gyümölcskosár'', cycle of 12 melodies (edited in Hungarian, German, French), text by Sándor Weöres for soprano and wind quintet (5 variants) (1946 – 1980)
 * optimae'', four songs based on old Hungarian sacred melodies from the 16th and 17th centuries for soprano or alto and piano or organ or string orchestra
 * canzoni dei trovatori'', 5 songs for voice and piano or guitar (1947)
 * from the “Twelfth night”'', cycle of 4 songs for soprano or alto and piano or harp, text by William Shakespeare (1954)
 * Lieder'' for voice and piano, German text by Anneliese Eulau-Felsenstein (1958)
 * chansons de Guillevic'', cycle of 3 songs for voice and piano, French text by Eugène Guillevic (1960)
 * Kelemen balladája'' (Ballade of Kelemen Kőmíves), popular Hungarian melody for voice and piano or orchestra (1960)
 * à Alpbach'', cycle of 4 melodies, German text by Paula von Preradovic (1968)
 * dallamok'' (Forgotten melodies), 4 songs for voice and piano, Hungarian texts by Benedek Virág, Dániel Berzsenyi, Mihály Babits and Endre Ady (1980)
 * Orpheus respiciens, cycle of 8 songs for voice and piano, texts in Hungarian, Italien, French, Spanish, German, Portuguese, English by Sándor Csoóri, Petrarca, Charles Baudelaire, Luís de Camões, Rainer Maria Rilke, Antonio Machado, Oscar Wilde and Gérard de Nerval (1993)

Film music

 * Sonnenstrahl, film by Paul Fejos (1933)
 * People of the Mountains (Emberek a havason), film by István Szőts award-winning at the Venice Biennale in 1942 (1942)
 * The Song of Rákóczi (1943)
 * The Land Is Ours (1951)
 * Baptism of Fire (1952)
 * Rakoczy's Lieutenant (1954)
 * Love Travels by Coach (1955)
 * Crime at Dawn (1960)
 * Egy magyar nábob (The last of the nabobs), film by Zoltán Várkonyi (1966)
 * Kárpáthy Zoltán (Zoltán Kárpáthy), film by Zoltán Várkonyi (1966)
 * Egri csillagok (Stars of Eger), film by Zoltán Várkonyi (1968)
 * Csínom Palkó, film by Márton Keleti and Gyula Mészáros (1973)

Complete catalogue
Complete catalogue of works 2011. Complete catalogue of works by Ferenc Farkas developed by Andràs Farkas, the son of the composer. This catalogue includes many musical samples.

Repertoire by instrument
Repertoire by instrument established from the complete catalogue of works by Andràs Farkas to facilitate the research. The listed instruments are: violin, viola, cello, bass, guitar, harp, dulcimer, flute, recorder, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn, Alphorn, trumpet, trombone, tuba, saxophone, tarogato, piano, harpsichord, organ, accordion.

title: Ferenc Farkas


text: User talk:24.119.152.51

title: User talk:24.119.152.51


text: User talk:70.68.185.170

title: User talk:70.68.185.170


text: User talk:69.14.249.226

title: User talk:69.14.249.226


text:
Air current

In meteorology, air currents are concentrated areas of winds. They are mainly due to differences in atmospheric pressure or temperature. They are divided into horizontal and vertical currents; both are present at mesoscale while horizontal ones dominate at synoptic scale. Air currents are not only found in the troposphere, but extend to the stratosphere and mesosphere.

Horizontal currents

A difference in air pressure causes an air displacement and generates the wind. The Coriolis Force deflects the air movement to the right in the northern hemisphere and the left in the southern one, which makes the winds parallel to the isobars on an elevation in pressure card. It's called the geostrophic wind.

Pressure differences depend, in turn, on the average temperature in the air column. As the sun does not heat the Earth evenly, there is a temperature difference between the poles and the equator, creating air masses with more or less homogeneous temperature with latitude. Differences in atmospheric pressure are also at the origin of the general atmospheric circulation while the air masses are separated by ribbons where temperature changes rapidly. These are the fronts. Along these areas, higher winds aloft form. These horizontal jets (jet streams) can reach speeds of several hundred kilometers per hour and can span thousands of kilometers in length, but can only have a few tens or hundreds of kilometers of width.

On the surface, the friction due to the terrain and other obstacles (buildings, trees, etc.) may contribute to a slowdown and/or a wind deflection. Thus, a more turbulent wind in the atmospheric boundary layer. This wind can be channeled through narrows, like valleys. The wind will also be raised along the slopes of the mountains to give local air currents.

Mechanically induced

In an air mass moving, vertical movements occur when there is convergence and divergence at different levels of the atmosphere. For example, when we are near the jet stream, winds increase when approaching its most intense region and decreases when it moves away. So there are areas where the air accumulates and must come down, while in other areas there is a loss and an updraft from lower layers. These upward or downward flows will be relatively diffused.

On the other hand, barriers such as mountains force air up or down, sometimes rapidly. As the barriers are very localized, these currents will affect very limited areas and therefore will form corridors.

Thermically induced

Thermals are caused by local differences in temperature, pressure, or impurity concentration in the vertical. Temperature differences can cause air currents because warmer air is less dense than cooler air, causing the warmer air to appear "lighter." Thus, if the warm air is under the cool air, air currents will form as they exchange places. Air currents are caused because of the uneven heating of Earth's surface.

title: Air current