Friday, October 5, 2007


 Spanish   French   Portuguese   Italian   Romanian 
Indo-European topics
The Romance languages (sometimes referred to as Romanic languages) are a branch of the Indo-European language family, comprising all the languages that descend from Latin, the language of the Roman Empire. They have more than 700 million native speakers worldwide, mainly in the Americas, Europe, and Africa, as well as in many smaller regions scattered through the world. All Romance languages descend from Vulgar Latin, the language of soldiers, settlers and merchants of the Empire, which was significantly different from the Classical Latin of Roman literati. Between 200 BC and AD 150, the expansion of the Empire, together with its administrative and educational policies, made Latin the dominant native language over an area spanning from the Iberian Peninsula to the Western coast of the Black Sea, and from the Maghreb to Britannia. During the Empire's decline and after its fragmentation and collapse in the 5th century, evolution of Latin within each local area accelerated; eventually the dialects diverged into myriad distinct varieties; some of which survived in modern forms. The overseas empires established by Spain, Portugal and France from the 15th century onward then spread their languages to the other continents—to such an extent that about 70% of all Romance speakers today live outside Europe.
Despite multiple influences from pre-Roman languages and from later invasions, the phonology, morphology, lexicon, and syntax of all Romance languages are predominantly evolutions of Latin. As a result, the group shares several linguistic features that set it apart from other Indo-European branches. In particular, with only one or two exceptions, Romance languages have lost the declension system of Classical Latin and, as a result, have SVO sentence structure and make extensive use of prepositions.

Name

History

Main article: Vulgar Latin Vulgar Latin
The political decline of the Roman Empire in the fifth century and the large-scale migrations of the period, notably the Germanic incursions, led to a fragmentation of the Latin-speaking world into several independent states. Central Europe and the Balkans were occupied by Germanic and Slavic tribes, Huns, and Turks, isolating Romania from the rest of Latin Europe. Latin also disappeared from southern Britain, which had been for a time part of the Empire. But the Germanic tribes that had entered Italy, France, and the Iberian Peninsula eventually adopted Latin and the remnants of Roman culture, and so Latin continued to be the dominant language there.

Fall of the Empire
See also: Medieval Latin
Between the fifth and tenth centuries, spoken Vulgar Latin underwent divergent evolution in the various parts of its domain, leading to innumerable distinct languages. This evolution is poorly documented, for the written language continued to be a Latin close to the Classical variant.

Latent incubation
Between the 10th and 13th centuries, some local vernaculars developed a written form and began to supplant Latin in many of its roles. In some countries, such as Portugal, this transition was expedited by force of law, whereas in other countries, such as Italy, the rise of the vernacular was the result of many prominent poets and writers adopting it as their written medium.

Recognition of the vernaculars
The invention of the press apparently slowed down the evolution of Romance languages from the 16th century on, and brought instead a tendency towards greater uniformity of standard languages within political boundaries, at the expense of other Romance languages or dialects less favored politically. In France, for instance, the Francien spoken in the region of Paris gradually spread to the entire country, while the Langue d'oc and Franco-Provençal of the south lost ground.

Uniformization and standardization
The most widely spoken Romance language today is Spanish, followed by Portuguese, French, Italian and Romanian, all of which are main and official national languages in more than one country. A few other languages have official status on a regional or otherwise limited level, for instance Friulian, Sardinian and Valdôtain in Italy; Romansh in Switzerland; Galician, Occitan Aranese and Catalan in Spain (the last of which is also the only official language in the small sovereign state of Andorra). French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Romanian are also official languages of the European Union. Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Romanian, and Catalan are the official languages of the Latin Union; French and Spanish are two of the six official languages of the United Nations.
Outside Europe, French, Spanish and Portuguese are spoken and enjoy official status in various countries that made up their respective colonial empires. French is an official language of Canada, Haiti, many countries in Africa, and some in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, as well as France's current overseas possession. Spanish is an official language of Mexico, much of South America, Central America and the Caribbean, and of Equatorial Guinea in Africa. Portuguese is the official language of Brazil, multiple countries in Africa and of East Timor. Although Italy also had some colonial possessions, its language did not remain official after the end of the colonial domination, resulting in Italian being spoken only as a minority or secondary language by immigrant communities in North and South America and Australia or African countries like Libya, Eritrea and Somalia. Romania did not establish a colonial empire, but the language spread outside of Europe due to emigration, notably in Western Asia; Romanian flourished in Israel, where it is spoken by some 5% of the total population as mother tongue,
The total native speakers of Romance languages is divided as follows (with their ranking within the languages of the world in brackets):
Source: MSN Encarta - Languages Spoken by More Than 10 Million People (number of Romance speakers estimated at 690 million speakers, number of Catalan language speakers estimated at 8 million)
The remaining Romance languages survive mostly as spoken languages for informal contact. National governments have historically viewed linguistic diversity as an economic, administrative or military liability, as well a potential source of separatist movements; therefore, they have generally fought to eliminate it—by extensively promoting the use of the official language, by restricting the use of the "other" languages in the media, by characterizing them as mere "dialects"—or worse.
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, however, increased sensitivity to the rights of minorities have allowed some of these languages to recover some of their prestige and lost rights. Yet, it is unclear whether these political changes will be enough to reverse the minority languages' decline.

Spanish 47% (5th)
Portuguese 26% (7th)
French 11% (11th)
Italian 9% (18th)
Romanian 4% (34th)
Catalan 1% (n/a)
others 2% Current status

Linguistic features
As members of the Indo-European (IE) family, Romance languages have a number of features that are shared with other members of this family, and in particular with English; but which set them apart from languages of other families, such as Arabic, Basque, Hungarian, or Georgian. These include:

Almost all their words are classified into four major classes — nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs — each with a specific set of possible syntactic roles.
Nouns, adjectives, determiners and some pronouns inflect according to grammatical number and grammatical gender.
Inflection is normally marked with suffixes.
A variety of grammatical distinctions are expressed with verbs, such as:

  • Person and number;
    Tense, mood, and aspect.
    Voice.
    They are verb-centered; meaning that the basic clause structure consists of a verb, expressing an action involving one or more nouns — the arguments of the verb — that play specific semantic roles in the action and specific syntactic roles in the clause.
    They are fusional, nominative-accusative languages. Features inherited from Indo-European
    The Romance languages share a number of features that were inherited from Classical Latin, and collectively set them apart from most other Indo-European languages.

    They have two grammatical numbers, singular and plural (no dual).
    In most languages, personal pronouns have different forms according to their grammatical function in a sentence (a remnant of the Latin case system); there is usually a form for the subject (inherited from the Latin nominative) another for the object (from the accusative or the dative), and a third set of personal pronouns used after prepositions or in stressed positions (see Prepositional pronoun and Disjunctive pronoun, for further information). Third person pronouns often have different forms for the direct object (accusative), the indirect object (dative), and the reflexive.
    Most are null-subject languages. French is a notable exception.
    Verbs have many conjugations, including in most languages:

    • A present tense, a preterite, an imperfect, a pluperfect and a future tense in the indicative mood, for statements of fact.
      Present and preterite subjunctive tenses, for hypothetical or uncertain conditions. Several languages (for example, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish) have also imperfect and pluperfect subjunctives.
      An imperative mood, for direct commands.
      Three non-finite forms: infinitive, gerund, and past participle.
      Distinct active and passive voices, as well as an impersonal passive voice.
      The main tense and mood distinctions that were made in classical Latin are generally still present in the modern Romance languages, though many are now expressed through compound rather than simple verbs. The passive voice, which was mostly made up of simple verbs in classical Latin, was completely replaced with compound forms.
      Several tenses, especially of the indicative mood, have been preserved with little change: Romance language Features inherited from Classical Latin
      Romance languages also have a number of features that are not shared with Classical Latin. Most of these features are thought to be inherited from Vulgar Latin. Even though the Romance languages are all derived from Latin, they are arguably much closer to each other than to their common ancestor, due to a core of common developments. The main difference is the loss of the case system of Classical Latin, an essential feature which allowed great freedom of word order, and has no counterpart in any Romance language except Romanian (though even Romanian preserved only five of Latin's seven noun cases). In this regard, the distance between any modern Romance language and Latin is comparable to that between Modern English and Old English. While speakers of French, Italian or Spanish, for example, can quickly learn to see through the phonological changes reflected in spelling differences, and thus recognize many Latin words, they will often fail to understand the meaning of Latin sentences.

      The distinctions of vowel length present in Classical Latin were lost in most Romance languages (an exception is Friulian), and partly replaced with "qualitative" contrasts like monophthong versus diphthong (Italian, Spanish; French to a lesser extent), or with vowel height contrasts (as in Portuguese and Catalan).
      There are definite and indefinite articles, derived from Latin demonstratives and the numeral unus ("one").
      There are only two grammatical genders, masculine and feminine. The neuter gender of Latin has been lost (mostly merging with the masculine). (Exceptions: Romanian, which retains neuter gender; Spanish, which has the neuter third person pronoun ello, the neuter demonstratives eso, esto, aquello, and the neuter article lo, all used for objects or some abstract notions; and Italian, which while not keeping the neuter gender intact, has residual traces of it represented by some words that switch gender between singular and plural, such as il dito (the finger), plural le dita, inherited from Latin digitum, plural digita).
      Apart from gender and number, nouns, adjectives and determiners are not inflected. Cases have generally been lost, though a trace of them survives in the personal pronouns. An exception is Romanian, which retains a combined genitive-dative case.
      Adjectives generally follow the noun they modify.
      Many Latin combining prefixes were incorporated in the lexicon as new roots and verb stems, e.g. Italian estrarre ("to extract") from Latin ex- ("out") and trahere ("to drag").
      Many Latin constructions involving nominalized verbal forms (e.g. the use of accusative plus infinitive in indirect discourse and the use of the ablative absolute) were dropped in favor of constructions with subordinate clauses in all Romance languages except Italian (for example, Latin tempore permittente > Italian tempo permettendo; L. hoc facto > I. fatto ciò).
      The normal clause structure is SVO, rather than SOV, and is much less flexible than in Latin.
      Due to sound changes which made it homophonous with the preterite, the Latin future indicative tense was dropped, and replaced with a periphrasis of the form infinitive + present tense of habēre ("to have"). With time, this structure was reanalysed as a new future tense.
      In a similar process, an entirely new tense conditional form was created.
      While the synthetic passive voice of classical Latin was abandoned in favour of periphrastic constructions, the active voice remained in use. However, several tenses have changed meaning, especially subjunctives. For example:

      • The Latin pluperfect indicative became a conditional in Catalan and Sicilian, and an imperfect subjunctive in Spanish.
        The Latin pluperfect subjunctive developed into an imperfect subjunctive in all languages except Romansh, where it became a conditional, and Romanian, where it became a pluperfect indicative.
        The Latin preterite subjunctive, together with the future perfect indicative, became a future subjunctive in Old Spanish, Portuguese, and Galician.
        The Latin imperfect subjunctive became a personal infinitive in Portuguese and Galician.
        Many Romance languages have two copular verbs, derived from the Latin stare (mostly used for "temporary state") and esse (mostly used for "essential attributes"). However, the distinction was eventually lost in some languages, notably French, which now have only the first copula. In French, stare and esse had become ester and estre by the late Middle Ages. Due to phonological development, there were the forms êter and être, which eventually merged to être. In Italian, the two verbs share the same past participle, stato. See Romance copula, for further information. Features inherited from Vulgar Latin
        The Romance languages also share a number of features that were not the result of common inheritance, but rather of various cultural diffusion processes in the Middle Ages — such as literary diffusion, commercial and military interactions, political domination, influence of the Catholic Church, and (especially in later times) conscious attempts to "purify" the languages by reference to Classical Latin. Some of those features have in fact spread to other non-Romance (and even non-Indo-European) languages, chiefly in Europe. Here are some of these "late origin" shared features:

        Most Romance languages have polite forms of address that change the person and/or number of 2nd person subjects (T-V distinction), such as the tu/vous contrast in French, the tu/Lei contrast in Italian, the tu/dumneavoastră (from dominus + vostre) in Romanian or the (or vos)/usted contrast in Spanish.
        They all have a large collection of learned Hellenisms and Latinisms, with prefixes, stems, and suffixes retained or reintroduced from Greek and Latin, and used to coin new words. Most of these are also used in English, e.g. tele-, poly-, meta-, pseudo-, dis-, ex-, post-, -scope, -logy, -tion.
        During the Renaissance, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and a few other Romance languages developed a new, progressive aspect that did not exist in Latin. In French, progressive constructions remain very limited, the imperfect aspect generally being preferred, as in Latin.
        Many Romance languages now have a verbal construction analogous to the present perfect of English. In some, it has taken the place of the old preterite (at least in the vernacular); in others, the two coexist with somewhat different meanings. Divergent features
        The vocabularies of Romance languages have undergone considerable change since their birth, by various phonological processes that were characteristic of each language. Those changes applied more or less systematically to all words, but were often conditioned by the sound context or morphological structure.
        Some languages have lost sounds from the original Latin words. French, in particular, has dropped all final vowels, and sometimes also the preceding consonant: thus Latin lupus and luna became Italian lupo and luna but French loup [lu] and lune [lyn]. Catalan, Occitan, many Northern Italian dialects, and Romanian (Daco-Romanian) lost the final vowels in most masculine nouns and adjectives, but retained them in the feminine. Other languages, including Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and the Southern dialects of Romanian have retained those vowels.
        Some languages have lost the final vowel -e from verbal infinitives, e.g. dīcere → Portuguese dizer ("to say"). Other common cases of final truncation are the verbal endings, e.g. Latin amāt → Italian ama ("he loves"), amābamamavo ("I loved"), amābatamava ("he loved"), amābatisamavate ("you (pl.) loved"), etc.
        Sounds have often been lost in the middle of words, too; e.g. Latin Luna → Galician and Portuguese Lua, crēdere → Spanish creer ("to believe").
        On the other hand, some languages have inserted many epenthetic vowels in certain contexts. For instance Spanish, Galician and Portuguese have generally inserted an e at the start of Latin words that began with s + consonant, such as sperōespero ("I hope"). French originally did the same, but then dropped the s: spatula → arch. espauleépaule ("shoulder"). In the case of Italian, a unique article, lo for the definite and uno for the indefinite, is used for masculine s + consonant words (sbaglio, "mistake"), as well as all masculine words beginning with z (zaino, "backpack").
        For more detailed descriptions, see the articles History of French, From Latin to Portuguese, Latin to Romanian sound changes, and Linguistic history of Spanish.

        Sound changes
        The position of the stressed syllable in a word generally varies from word to word in each Romance language, and often moves as the word is inflected. Sometimes the stress is lexically significant, e.g. Italian Papa [ˈpa.pa] ("Pope") and papà [pa.ˈpa] ("daddy"), or Spanish imperfect subjunctive cantara ("were he to sing") and future cantará ("he will sing"). However, the main function of Romance stress in appears to be a clue for speech segmentation — namely to help the listener identify the word boundaries in normal speech, where inter-word spaces are usually absent.
        In Romance languages, the stress is usually confined to one of the last three syllables of the word. That limit may be occasionally exceeded by some verbs with attached clitics, e.g. Italian mettiamocene [me.ˈtːja.mo.ʧe.ne] or Metintilu in Friulian ("let's put some of it in there"), Spanish entregándomelo [en.tre.ɣan.do.me.lo] ("delivering it to me") or Portuguese dávamo-vo-lo ['da.vɐ.mu.vu.lu] ("we were giving it to you"). Originally the stress was predominantly in the penultimate syllable, but that pattern has changed considerably in some languages. In French, for instance, the loss of final vowels has left the stress almost exclusively on the last syllable.

        Lexical stress

        Main articles: Romance plurals and La Spezia-Rimini Line Formation of plurals
        Vulgar Latin borrowed many words, often from Germanic languages that replaced words from Classical Latin during the Migration Period, even including common basic vocabulary. Notable examples are *blancus (white), which replaced Classical Latin albus in most major languages and dialects except for Romanian; *guerra (war), which replaced bellum; and words for the cardinal directions, where words similar to English north, south, east and west replaced the Classical Latin words borealis (or septentrionalis) (north), australis (or meridionalis) (south), occidentalis (west) and orientalis (east) everywhere (for standard usage). See History of French - The Franks.

        Borrowed words

        Derivations
        Some Romance languages use a version of Latin plus, others a version of magis.

        Plus-derived: Sardinian prusu, French plus /ply/, Italian più /pju/, Friulian plui,Venetina pi, Romansh. In Catalan pus /pus/ is exclusively used on negative statements in Mallorcan Catalan dialect, and "més" is the word mostly used.
        Magis-derived: Sardinian (mera), Galician and Portuguese (mais; mediaeval Galician-Portuguese had both words: mais and chus), Spanish (más), Catalan (més), Venetian (massa or masa, "too much") Occitan (mai), Romanian (mai), Italian (mai, used in constructions such as non... mai, meaning "never", or "Londra è la più grande città che io abbia mai visto" "London is the biggest city I have ever seen"). Words for "more"
        Although the Latin word for "nothing" is nihil, the common word for "nothing" became nudha in Sardinian, nada in Spanish and Portuguese, nada and ren in Galician, rien in French, res in Catalan, cosa and res in Aragonese, ren in Occitan, nimic in Romanian, and niente and nulla in Italian, gnente in Venetian, and nue and nuie in Friulian. Some argue that all three roots derive from different parts of a Latin phrase nullam rem natam ("no thing born"), an emphatic idiom for "nothing". Meanwhile, Italian and Venetian niente and gnente would seem to be more logically derived from Latin ne(c) entem ("no being").

        Words for "nothing"
        Romanian constructs the names of the numbers 11–19 by a regular pattern which could be translated as "one-over-ten", "two-over-ten", etc.. All the other Romance languages use a pattern like "one-ten", "two-ten", etc. for 11–15, and the pattern "ten-and-seven, "ten-and-eight", "ten-and-nine" for 17–19. For 16, however, they split into two groups: some use "six-ten", some use "ten-and-six":
        Classical Latin uses the "one-ten" pattern for 11–17 (ūndecim, duodecim, ..., septendecim), but then switches to "two-off-twenty" (duodēvigintī) and "one-off-twenty" (ūndēvigintī). For the sake of comparison, note that English and German use two special words derived from "one left over" and "two left over" for 11 and 12, then the pattern "three-ten", "four-ten", ..., "nine-ten" for 13–19.

        "Sixteen": Catalan and Occitan setze, French seize, Italian sedici, Venetian sédexe, Friulian sedis, Lombard sedas / sedes, Franco-Provençal sèze, Sardinian sédichi.
        "Ten and six": Portuguese dezasseis or dezesseis, Galician dezaseis, Spanish dieciséis, the Marchigiano dialect digissei.
        "Six over ten": Romanian șaisprezece (where spre derives from Latin super). The number 16
        The verbs derived from Latin habēre "to have", tenēre "to hold", and esse "to be" are used differently in the various Romance languages, to express possession, to construct perfect tenses, and to make existential statements ("there is"). If we use T for tenēre, H for habēre, and E for esse, we have the following distribution:
        For example:
        English: I have, I have done, there is
        Friulian: (jo) o ai, (jo) o ai fat, a 'nd è, al è (HHE)
        Venetian: (mi) go, (mi) go fat, ghe xe, ghi n'é (HHE)
        Lombard (Western): (mi) a gh-u, (mi) a u fai, al gh'è, a gh'è (HHE)
        Romanian: (eu) am, (eu) am făcut, este (or e) (HHE)
        Italian: (io) ho, (io) ho fatto, c'è (HHE)
        French: j'ai, j'ai fait, il y a (HHH)
        Catalan: (jo) tinc, (jo) he fet, hi ha (THH)
        Aragonese: (yo) tiengo (but (yo) he dialectally), (yo) he feito, bi ha (THH)
        Spanish: (yo) tengo, (yo) he hecho, hay (THH)
        Galician: (eu) teño, - , hai (T-H; Galician does not have a present perfect)
        Portuguese: (eu) tenho, (eu) tenho feito, in Portugal (TTH) / tem in Brazil (TTT)
        Ancient Galician-Portuguese used to employ the auxiliary H for permanent states, such as Eu hei um nome "I have a name" (i.e. for all my life), and T for non-permanent states Eu tenho um livro "I have a book" (i.e. perhaps not so tomorrow), but this construction is no longer used in modern Galician and Portuguese. Informal Brazilian Portuguese uses the T verb even in the existential sense, e.g. Tem água no copo "There is water in the glass". In most languages, the descendant of tenēre still has the sense of "to hold", as well, e.g. Italian tieni il libro, French tu tiens le livre, Catalan tens el llibre, Romanian ține cartea, Friulian Tu tu tegnis il libri "You're holding the book". In others, like Portuguese, this sense has been mostly lost, and a different verb is currently used for "to hold".

        HHE: Romanian, Italian
        HHH: Occitan, French.
        THH: Spanish, Catalan, Aragonese.
        TTH: European Portuguese.
        TTT: Brazilian Portuguese. To have and to hold
        Some languages use their equivalent of "have" as an auxiliary verb to form the perfect forms (e. g. French passé composé) of all verbs; others use "be" for some verbs and "have" for others.
        In the latter, the verbs which use "be" as an auxiliary are unaccusative verbs, that is, intransitive verbs that show motion not directly initiated by the subject or changes of state, such as "fall", "come", "become". All other verbs (intransitive unergative verbs and all transitive verbs) use "have". For example, in French, J'ai vu "I have seen" vs. Je suis tombé "I am fallen" ("I have fallen"). A similar dichotomy exists in the Germanic languages, which share the same Sprachbund; German and the Scandinavian languages use "have" and "be", while modern English uses "have" only.

        "Have" only: Standard Catalan, Spanish, Romanian, Sicilian.
        "Have" and "be": Occitan, French, Italian, some dialects of Catalan (although such usage is recessing in those). To have or to be
        Some languages (e.g. Spanish, Catalan, Occitan, Portuguese and written French and Italian) make a distinction between a preterite and a present perfect tense (cf. English I did vs. I have done). Others (spoken French, Italian and Galician) contain only one tense, which renders both meanings. French, Italian, and European Spanish use the compound past for this, while Sicilian and Latin American Spanish use the simple past.

        I did or I have done

        Main article: Latin Alphabet Writing systems
        All Romance languages are written with the "core" Latin alphabet of 22 letters — A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, V, X, Y, Z — subsequently modified and augmented in various ways. In particular, the letters K and W are rarely used in most Romance languages — mostly for unassimilated foreign names and words, as they were in late Latin.
        While most of the 22 basic Latin letters have maintained their phonetic value, for some of them it has diverged considerably; and the new letters added since the Middle Ages have been put to different uses in different scripts. Some letters, notably H and Q, have been variously combined in digraphs or trigraphs (see below) to represent phonetic phenomena not recorded in Latin, or to get around previously established spelling conventions.
        A characteristic feature of the writing systems of almost all Romance languages is that the Latin letters C and G — which originally always represented /k/ and /g/ respectively — represent other sounds when they come before E, I, and in some cases Y and Œ. This is due to a general palatalization of /k/ and /ɡ/ before front vowels like /i/ and /e/. This is believed to have occurred in the transition from Classical to Vulgar Latin. Since the written form of all the affected words was tied to the classical language, the shift was accommodated by a change in the pronunciation rules. However, the new sounds of C and G in those contexts differ from language to language.
        The spelling rules of most Romance languages are fairly complex, and subject to considerable regional variation. To a first approximation, the phonetic representation of non-combined letters can be summarized as follows:
        C: generally [k], but "softened" before E, I, or Y in most Romance languages — to [s] in French, Portuguese, Occitan, Catalan, and American Spanish; to [θ] in Peninsular Spanish and Galician; and to [ʧ] in Italian and Romanian.
        G: generally [ɡ] or [ɣ], but "softened" before E, I, or Y in most languages — to [ʒ] in French, Portuguese, Occitan and Catalan; to [x] or [h] in Spanish (according to dialect); and to [ʤ] in Italian and Romanian.
        H: silent in most languages, but represents [h] in Romanian and Gascon Occitan. Used in various digraphs (see below).
        J: represents [ʒ] in most languages; [x] or [h] in Spanish; [j] in several of Italy's languages, though it is normally replaced with I in native Italian words.
        S: normally represents [s] (either laminal or apical) at syllable onset, but usually [z] between vowels. Intervocalic s is, however, pronounced [s] in Spanish, Romanian, Galician and several varieties of Italian. In the syllable coda, it may have special allophonic pronunciations.
        W: used only in Walloon. Represents [v] in French, with the exception of words borrowed from English.
        X: at the beginning of words, represents [ks] (in some words [ɡz]) in French, [s] or [ks] in Spanish, and [ʃ] in Portuguese, Catalan, and Galician. In intervocalic position, represents [ks] in French, Portuguese, Spanish, and Romanian; [ɡz] in Catalan, French, and Romanian; [ɡs] in Galician and Spanish; [ʃ] in Catalan, Galician and Portuguese; [z] in Venetian, French and Portuguese; or [s] in French and Portuguese. Not used in Italian (except in borrowings), where it is replaced by s.
        Y: used in French and Spanish for the vowel [i], and also as a consonant, [j] (esp. in French), [ʝ], [ʒ] or [ʤ].
        Z: [z] in most languages; either [θ] or [s] in Galician and Spanish; either [ʣ] or [ʦ] in Italian.
        Otherwise, letters that are not combined as digraphs generally have the same sounds as in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), whose design was, in fact, greatly influenced by the Romance spelling systems.

        Letter values
        Since most Romance languages have more sounds than can be accommodated in the Roman Latin alphabet they all resort to the use of digraphs and trigraphs — combinations of two or three letters with a single sound value. The concept (but not the actual combinations) derives from Classical Latin; which used, for example, TH, PH, and CH when transliterating the Greek letters "θ", "ϕ" (later "φ"), and "χ" (These were once aspirated sounds in Greek before changing to corresponding fricatives and the <H> represented what sounded to the Romans like an /ʰ/ following /t/, /p/, and /k/ respectively. Some of the digraphs used in modern scripts are:
        CI: used in Italian and Romanian to represent /ʧ/ before A, O, or U.
        CH: used in Italian, Romanian and Sardinian to represent /k/ before E or I; /ʧ/ in Spanish and Galician; and /ʃ/ in most other languages.
        ÇH: used in Poitevin-Saintongeais for voiceless palatal fricative /ç/
        DD: used in Sicilian and Sardinian to represent the voiced retroflex plosive /ɖ/.
        DJ: used in Walloon for /ʤ/.
        GI: used in Italian and Romanian to represent /ʤ/ before A, O, or U.
        GH: used in Italian, Romanian and Sardinian to represent /ɡ/ before E or I, and in Galician for the voiceless pharyngeal fricative /ħ/ (not standard sound).
        GLI: used in Italian for /ʎ/.
        GN: used in French and Italian for /ɲ/, as in champignon or gnocchi.
        GU: used before E or I to represent /ɡ/ or /ɣ/ in all Romance languages except Italian and Romanian.
        LH: used in Portuguese and Occitan /ʎ/.
        LL: used in Spanish, Catalan, Galician, Norman and Dgèrnésiais, originally for /ʎ/ which has merged in some cases with /j/. Represents /l/ in French unless it follows I (i) when it represents /j/ (or /ʎ/ in some dialects). It's used in Occitan for a long /lː/
        ĿL: used in Catalan for a geminate consonant /lː/.
        NH: used in Portuguese and Occitan for /ɲ/, used in official Galician for /ŋ/ .
        NY: used in Catalan for /ɲ/.
        QU: represents [kw] in Italian; [k] in French and Spanish; [k] (before e or i) or [kw] (normally before a or o) in Portuguese and Catalan.
        RR: used between vowels in several languages to denote a trilled /r/ or a guttural R, instead of the flap /ɾ/.
        SC: used before E or I in Italian for /ʃ/, and in French and Spanish as as /s/ in words of certain etymology.
        SCI: used in Italian to represent /ʃ/ before A, O, or U.
        SH: used in Aranese Occitan for /ʃ/.
        SS: used in French, Portuguese, Occitan and Catalan for /s/ between vowels.
        TH: used in Jèrriais for /θ/ (as in English "thick"); used in Aranese for either /t/ or /ʧ/
        While the digraphs CH, PH, RH and TH were at one time used in many words of Greek origin, most languages have now replaced them with C/QU, F, R and T. Only French has kept these etymological spellings, which now represent /k/ or /ʃ/, /f/, /ʀ/ and /t/, respectively.

        Digraphs and trigraphs
        For most languages in this family, consonant length is no longer phonemically distinctive or present. The double consonants in French spelling are due to etymology. However, Italian, Sardinian and Sicilian do have long consonants like BB, CC, DD, etc., where the doubling indicates a short hold before the consonant is released, which often has lexical value: e.g. note /ˈnɔ.te/ ("notes") vs. notte /ˈnɔt.te/ ("night"). They may even occur at the beginning of words in Romanesco, Neapolitan and Sicilian, and are occasionally written, e.g. Sicilian cchiù (more), and ccà (here). In general, the letters B, R and Z are long at the start of a word. In Jèrriais, long consonants are marked with an apostrophe: S'S is a long /z/, SS'S is a long /s/, and T'T is a long /t/. In Catalan and Occitan exists a geminate /lː/ sound written ŀl (Catalan) or ll (Occitan), but it is usually pronounced as a simple sound in colloquial (and even some formal) speech in both languages.

        Gemination
        Diacritics common across Romance languages are the acute accent (á), the grave accent (à), the circumflex accent (â), the diaeresis mark (ü), and the tilde (ã). French spelling includes the etymological ligatures œ and (more rarely) æ. Romanian has a few diacritics of its own.
        An accent mark placed over a vowel generally denotes stress, height, or both. In Spanish, only stress is indicated, with an acute accent. Romanian â/î and ă are central vowels; stress is not marked in this language. Catalan and Occitan regularly mark stress with an acute accent on high vowels, and with a grave accent on low vowels in a similar but not identical way. Similarly, French é is a high-mid vowel and French è is a low-mid vowel, although in French stress is not indicated with diacritics. Italian marks stress with the grave accent, except on high e and o, which are sometimes marked with an acute accent. Galician marks both stress and height with an acute accent, due to the fact that only stressed vowels can be pronounced low. Portuguese marks stress with the acute accent, except for high a, e, o, which take a circumflex accent.
        The cedilla (ç), and the diacritical comma (ș and ț, in Romanian) are used to mark sound changes due to historical palatalizations.
        Homophones may be differentiated by a grave accent in Italian and French, by an acute accent in Spanish.

        Diacritics and special characters
        Most languages are written with a mixture of two distinct but phonetically identical variants or "cases" of the alphabet: majuscule ("uppercase" or "capital letters"), derived from Roman stone-carved letter shapes, and minuscule ("lowercase"), derived from Carolingian writing and Medieval quill pen handwriting which were later adapted by printers in the 15th and 16th centuries.
        In particular, all Romance languages presently capitalize (use uppercase for the first letter of) the following words: the first word of each complete sentence, most words in names of people, places, and organizations, and most words in titles of books. The Romance languages do not follow the German practice of capitalizing all nouns including common ones. Unlike English, the names of months (except in European Portuguese), days of the weeks, and derivatives of proper nouns are usually not capitalized: thus, in Italian one capitalizes Francia ("France") and Francesco ("Francis"), but not francese ("French") or francescano ("Franciscan"). However, each language has some exceptions to this general rule.

        Upper and lower case
        The table below provides a vocabulary comparison that illustrates a number of examples of sound shifts that have occurred between Latin and the main Romance languages, along with a selection of minority languages.

        Vocabulary comparison

        Main articles: Classification of Romance languages and List of Romance languages Classification and related languages
        Here are the main subfamiles that have been proposed within the various classification schemes for Romance languages:

        Italo-Western, the largest group;
        Eastern Romance, which includes the languages of Eastern Europe, such as Romanian;
        Southern Romance, which includes a few languages of southern Italy, such as Sardinian. Proposed subfamilies
        There are some languages that developed from a mixture of two established Romance languages. It is not always clear whether they should be classified as pidgins, creole languages, or mixed languages. See the main article, for full lists.

        Auxiliary and constructed languages

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Hiroyoshi TenzanHiroyoshi Tenzan
Hiroyoshi Yamamoto is a Japanese professional wrestler who currently works for New Japan Pro Wrestling, and is better known by his ring name Hiroyoshi Tenzan.

Career


  • Anaconda Vice

  • Anaconda Cross (Arm trap anaconda vice)

  • Diving headbutt

  • Moonsault

  • TTD — Tenzan Tombstone Driver (Scoop slam piledriver)

  • Original TTD (Cradle reverse piledriver)

  • Anaconda Slam (Anaconda vice takedown)

  • Mountain Bomb (Leg hook back body drop suplex)

  • Backdrop

  • Buffalo sleeper

  • Calf branding

  • Mongolian chop

  • Kneel kick





  • ChoTen Torpedo (Two man diving shoulder block)

  • CTC - ChoTen Crash (Running high knee, knuckle punch combination)

  • Shining Assault (Shining Kenka Kick / Lariat combination)




Finishing and signature moves
Anaconda Vice
Anaconda Cross (Arm trap anaconda vice)
Diving headbutt
Moonsault
TTD — Tenzan Tombstone Driver (Scoop slam piledriver)
Original TTD (Cradle reverse piledriver)
Anaconda Slam (Anaconda vice takedown)
Mountain Bomb (Leg hook back body drop suplex)
Backdrop
Buffalo sleeper
Calf branding
Mongolian chop
Kneel kick
With Masahiro Chono
ChoTen Torpedo (Two man diving shoulder block)
CTC - ChoTen Crash (Running high knee, knuckle punch combination)
Shining Assault (Shining Kenka Kick / Lariat combination)

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Cross lighting
For the Ku Klux Klan tradition, see Cross burning
The Fiery cross is the English language term for a piece of wood, such as a baton, that North Europeans, e.g. Scotsmen and Scandinavians used to send to rally people for things, for defence or rebellion (if beacons were not appropriate).

Scotland
In Scotland the "fiery cross", known as the Crann Tara was used as a declaration of war, which required all clan members to rally to the defence of the area. It is important to note that in Scotland it has absolutely no racist connotations. The practice is described in the novels and poetry of Sir Walter Scott. A small burning cross or charred piece of wood would be carried from town to town. The most recent known use there was in 1745, during the Jacobite Rising. Crann Tàra – "The gathering beam, a signal formally used on occasion of insult or impending danger, to summon a clan to arms. It was a piece of wood, half burnt and dipped in blood, in token of the revenge by fire and sword awaiting those clansmen who did not immediately answer the summons. It was passed from one permanently appointed messenger to another, and in this manner the alarm was spread across the largest districts in an incredibly short time. In 1745 the crann tàra traversed the wide district of Breadalbane, upwards of 30 miles in three hours." (Dwelly, E. 1973: 264). [1], the best part of a century before the foundation of the KKK. Although many of the members of the KKK were descended from immigrants from Scotland, there is no evidence to suggest that their ancestors brought this tradition with them to America. The name Crann Tara was used for a Scottish Gaelic current affairs programme on Grampian Television (ITV).
A similar practice existed in the Isle of Man.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

John Willis Clark
John Willis Clark (1833-1910), sometimes J.W. Clark, was an English academic and antiquarian.
Clark was born into a Cambridge University academic family, and a nephew of Prof. Robert Willis. He spent his life at the university, serving as Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Superintendent of the Museum of Zoology, and Registrary of the University. He was also Secretary of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society.

Monday, October 1, 2007


The Book of Job (איוב) is one of the books of the Hebrew Bible. Job is a didactic poem set in a prose framing device.
According to the Testament of Job, another name for Job is Jobab. Genesis 36:33 identifies a Jobab, as a descendant of Esau, a king of Edom.
The Book of Job has been called the most difficult book of the Bible. The numerous exegeses of the Book of Job are classic attempts to reconcile the co-existence of evil and God and address the problem of evil. Scholars are divided as to the origin, intent, and meaning of the book.

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua (Jesus Nave)
Judges
Ruth
1–2 Samuel
1–2 Kings
1–2 Chronicles
Ezra (see Esdras for other names)
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Minor prophets
Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom (of Solomon)
Ben Sira
Baruch, includes Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah)
Additions to Daniel
Additions to Esther
1 Esdras (see Esdras for other names)
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees (in appendix but not canonical)
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
2 Esdras
Jubilees
Enoch
1–3 Meqabyan
4 Baruch
Psalms 152–155
2 Baruch Narrative
Job's friends do not waver from their belief that God is right, and that anyone who has such poor fortune as Job is necessarily being punished for disobeying God's law. As the poem progresses Job's friends increasingly berate him for refusing to confess his sins, although they themselves are at a loss as to what sort of sins he has committed. The three friends continue to assume that Job was a sinner and therefore deserves all punishments. They also assume, in their view of theology, that God always rewards good and punishes evil, with no apparent exceptions allowed. There seems to be no room in their understanding of God for divine discretion and mystery in allowing and arranging suffering for purposes other than retribution. Jobs friends never use the name YHVH in the story, they refer God as El, Eloahh and Elohiym.

Speeches of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar
Job, convinced of his own innocence, maintains that his suffering cannot be accounted for by his few sins, and that there is no reason for God to punish him thus. However, he refuses to curse God's name.

Speeches of Job
Elihu, whose name means 'My God is He', takes a mediator's path, maintaining the sovereignty and righteousness and gracious mercy of God. Elihu strongly condemns the approach taken by the three friends, and argues that Job is misrepresenting God's righteousness and discrediting His loving character. Elihu says he spoke last because he is much younger than the other three friends, but says that age makes no difference when it comes to insights and wisdom. In his speech, Elihu argues for God's power, redemptive salvation and absolute rightness in all His conduct. God is mighty, yet just, and quick to warn and to forgive. Elihu takes a distinct view of the kind of repentance required by Job. Job's three friends claim that repentance requires Job to identify and renounce the sins that gave rise to his suffering. By contrast, Elihu stresses that repentance inextricably entails renouncing any moral authority or cosmological perspective, which is God's alone. Elihu therefore underscores the inherent arrogance in Job's desire to 'make his case' before God, which presupposes that Job possesses a superior moral standard that can be prevailed upon God. Apparently, Elihu acts in a prophetic role preparatory to the appearance of God. Elihu never mentions YHVH and after Elihu's speech ends with the last verse of Chapter 37, YHVH appears and in the second verse of Chapter 38, YHVH says, "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" YHVH also rebukes Job's three friends. Job never replies to Elihu's indictments and revelations of God's dealings with him through the ordeal.

Speech of Elihu
After several rounds of debate between Job and his friends, in a divine voice, described as coming from a "cloud" or "whirlwind", YHVH describes, in evocative and lyrical language, what the experience of being responsible for the world is like, and asks if Job has ever had the experiences that YHVH has had.
YHVH's answer underscores that Job shares the world with numerous powerful and remarkable creatures, creatures with lives and needs of their own, whom God must provide for, and the young of some hunger in a way that can only be satisfied by taking the lives of others. Does Job even have any experience of the world he lives in? Does he understand what it means to be responsible for such a world? Job admits that he does not.
YHVH's speech also emphasizes his sovereignty in creating and maintaining the world. The thrust is not merely that God has experiences that Job does not, but also that God is King over the world and is not necessarily subject to questions from his creatures, including men. He declines to answer any of Job's questions or challenges with anything except "I am the Lord." Job asks God for forgiveness.
In the epilogue, YHVH condemns Job's friends for their insistence on speaking wrongly of the LORD's motives and methods, commands them to make extensive animal sacrifices and instructs Job to pray for their forgiveness. Immediately thereafter YHVH restores Job to health, giving him double the riches he before possessed (including ten new children added to the ten who predeceased him). His new daughters are the most beautiful in the land, and are given inheritance while Job is still alive. Job is crowned with a holy life and with a happy death.

God's response
The term "the Satan" appears in the prose prologue of Job, with his usual connotation of "the adversary," as a distinct being. He is shown as one of the celestial beings before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of YHVH as to whence he had come, with the words: "from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it" (Job 1:7). Both the question and the answer, as well as the dialogue that ensues, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, as it were, a celestial "prosecutor," who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of YHVH, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering (Job 2:3-5). Satan challenges YHVH by saying that Job's belief is only built upon what material goods he is given, and that his faith will disappear as soon as they are taken from him. And YHVH accepts the challenge.
The introduction of "the adversary" occurs in the (very short) framing story alone: he is never alluded to in the (very long) central poem at all, although hades is mentioned in the central poem.
While many, from a Christian perspective, believe Satan to be the Devil, in the Book of Job he is presented as a worker for YHVH known as the "the satan" (ha-satan, 'the adversary'), not Satan as a personal name. He is the ultimate prosecutor for God.

Satan in the Book of Job
Job's wife is mentioned only once in the book of Job in Chapter 2. The extra-Biblical Testament of Job adds legendary details about her being named Sitis, who, the legend goes, sold her hair to Satan in exchange for food and money. In the end, she cursed God and died.
Job is said to have had at least four wives in the course of his life (four being from the tribe of Peleg) according to The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Job's wife
The first speaker to address Job, 'Eliphaz the Temanite', is likely identified in the Book of Genesis, chap. 36, verses eleven through twelve, in a genealogy: 'And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam and Kenaz. Now Timna was the concubine of Eliphaz, Esau's son, and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz. These the sons of Adah, Esau's wife.' This would probably identify the Eliphaz in the Book of Job as a descendant of Teman, and therefore designated as a 'Temanite', meaning 'a relative' or 'a descendant'; 'son of', or 'of the tribe of', rather than as coming from a place called Teman, which there probably was, and also was probably named after its founder, i.e. the original Teman, the son of Eliphaz mentioned in Genesis chapter 36. This would further identify 'Eliphaz the Temanite' in the Book of Job as an Edomite, of the descendants of Esau, Jacob's older brother.

Identities of Job's friends
Themes include:

What is the extent of God's power and omnipotence?
The futility of questioning God's actions
Job as a Type of Christ or Messiah
Suffering
Theodicy: The Book of Job for the first time entertains the possibility of questioning the morality or justice of God's actions. Themes
A great diversity of opinion exists as to the authorship of this book. From internal evidence, such as the similarity of sentiment and language to those in the Psalms and Proverbs (see Psalms 88 and 89), the prevalence of the idea of "wisdom," and the style and character of the composition, it is supposed by some to have been written in the time of King David and King Solomon. Some, however place it in around the time of the Babylonian exile; others have proposed various other theories with a consensus that it is a very early book.
The Talmud (Tractate Bava Basra 15a-b) maintains that the Book of Job was written by Moses, although the Sages dispute whether it was based on historical reality or intended as a parable. Although Moses' authorship is accepted as definitive , other opinions in the Talmud ascribe it to the period of before the First Temple, the time of the patriarch Jacob, or King Ahaserus. In contrast, secular examinations of the text more generally conclude that, though archaic features such as the "council in heaven" survive, and though the story of Job was familiar to Ezekiel (Chapter 14 verse 14), the present form of Job was fixed in the 4th century BC. Ezekiel places Job in comparison with other righteous figures such as Noah and "Dan-el". The story of Job apparently originated in the land of Edom, which has been retained as the background. Fragments of Job are found among the Dead Sea scrolls, and Job remains prominent in haggadic legends. The later Greek Testament of Job figures among the apocrypha. Secular scholars agree that the introductory and concluding sections of the book, the framing devices, were composed to set the central poem into a prose "folk-book," as the compilers of the Jewish Encyclopedia expressed it. In the prologue and epilogue, the name of God is the Tetragrammaton, a name that even the Edomites use. Scholars agree that the central poem is from another source.
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls is the Targum of Job 11Q10. Another example of text from the last chapter or epilogue of Job can be found in the book, The Dead Sea Scrolls a New Translation. He we are shown examples of how fragments of The Book of Job found among the scrolls differ from the traditional text. If the prologue and epilogue, were added to the central poem, then this would have happened before 100 BCE or the time attributed to the Dead Sea Scrolls

Book of Job Authorship
The Assyriologist and Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer in his 1959 book History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine "Firsts" in Recorded History (1956), provided a translation of a Sumerian text which Professor Kramer argued evinces a parallel with the Biblical story of Job. Professor Kramer drew an inference that the Hebrew version is in some way derived from a Sumerian predecessor.

Possible Sumerian source
In the edited form of Job that we have, various interpolations have been claimed to have been made in the text of the central poem. The most common such claims are of two kinds: the "parallel texts", which are parallel developments of the corresponding passages in the base text, and the speeches of Elihu (Chapters 32-37), which consist of a polemic against the ideas expressed elsewhere in the poem, and so are claimed to be interpretive interpolations. The speeches of Elihu (who, along with the 3 friends, is not mentioned in the prologue) are claimed to contradict the fundamental opinions expressed by the 'friendly accusers' in the central body of the poem, according to which it is impossible that the righteous should suffer, all pain being a punishment for some sin. Elihu, however, reveals that suffering may be decreed for the righteous as a protection against greater sin, for moral betterment and warning, and to elicit greater trust and dependence on a merciful, compassionate God in the midst of adversity.
Subjects of more contention among scholars are the identity of claimed corrections and revisions of Job's speeches, which are claimed to have been made for the purpose of harmonizing them with the orthodox doctrine of retribution. A prime example of such a claim is the translation of the last line Job speaks (42:6), which is extremely problematic in the Hebrew. Traditional translations have him say, "Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." This is consonant with the central body of the poem and Job's speeches, other mortal encounters with the divine in the Bible (Isaiah in Chapter 6, for example), and the fact that there would have been no restoration without Job's humble repentant acknowledgement of mortality faced with divinity in all its majesty and glory.

Later interpolations and additions
From Job 17:11-13, the Vulgate Latin quotation Post tenebras spero lucem ("After darkness I hope for light") or Post Tenebras Lux has been adopted as a motto for several organizations, mostly the Protestant Reformation.

Particular verses
Exegesis largely concerns the question, "Is misfortune always a divine punishment for something?" Job's three friends argued in the affirmative, stating that Job's misfortunes were proof that he had committed some sins for which he was being punished. His friends also advanced the converse position that good fortune is always a divine reward, and that if Job would renounce his supposed sins, he would immediately experience the return of good fortune.
In response, Job asserted that he was a righteous man, and that his misfortune was therefore not a punishment for anything. This raised the possibility that God acts in capricious ways, and Job's wife urged him to curse God, and die. Instead, Job responded with equanimity: "The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord." The climax of the book occurs when YHVH responds to Job, not with an explanation for Job's suffering but rather with a question: Where was Job when YHVH created the world?
YHVH's response itself may be read in a variety of ways. Some see it as an attempt to humble Job. Yet Job is comforted by God's appearance, and the fact that he 'saw YHVH and lived', suggesting that the author of the book was more concerned with whether or not God is present in people's lives, than with the question of whether or not God is just. Job chapter 28 rejects these efforts to fathom divine wisdom.
The framing story complicates the book further: in the introductory section YHVH, during a conversation with Satan, allows Satan to inflict misery on Job and kill his children. The appended conclusion has YHVH restoring Job to wealth, granting him new children, and possibly restoring his health, although this is more implied than explicitly stated. This may suggest that the faith of the perfect believer is rewarded. However, YHVH speaks directly to this question, condemns Job's friends, and says that Job is the only man who has faithfully represented the true nature of YHVH - that all his friends were wrong to say that faith and righteousness are rewarded. Only after Job's friends make a sacrifice to YHVH and are prayed for by afflicted Job does YHVH restore all Job's good fortune.

Exegesis

Main article: Testament of Job The Testament of Job
Throughout the Middle Ages, Job was portrayed , Job took off the boils from his body, and as soon as it left his hands, it turned into gold coins, which he handed to musicians.

Medieval views of Job
The Talmud occasionally discusses Job. Most traditional Torah scholarship has not doubted Job's existence. He was seen as a real and powerful figure. Some scholars of Orthodox Judaism maintain that Job was in fact one of three advisors that Pharaoh consulted, prior to taking action against the increasingly multiplying "Children of Israel" mentioned in the Book of Exodus during the time of Moses' birth. The episode is mentioned in the Talmud (Tractate Sotah): Balaam gives evil advice urging Pharaoh to kill the Hebrew male new-born babies; Jethro opposes Pharaoh and tells him not to harm the Hebrews at all, and Job keeps silent and does not reveal his mind even though he was personally opposed to Pharaoh's destructive plans. It is for his silence that God subsequently punishes him with his bitter afflictions. [2].
There is a minority view among Rabbinical scholars, for instance that of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, that says Job never existed (Midrash Genesis Rabbah LXVII, Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra 15a). In this view, Job was a literary creation by a prophet who used this form of writing to convey a divine message or parable. On the other hand, the Talmud (in Tractate Baba Batra 15a-16b) goes to great lengths trying to ascertain when Job actually lived, citing many opinions and interpretations by the leading sages. Job is further mentioned in the Talmud as follows [3]:
Two Talmudic traditions hold that Job either lived in the time of Abraham or of Jacob. Levi ben Laḥma held that Job lived in the time of Moses, by whom the Book of Job was written. Others argue that it was written by Job himself (see Job 19:23-24), or by Elihu, or Isaiah.
One midrashic view is that Job was the Pharaoh of Egypt during the time of Moses. Therefore there would be a justification for why Job was punished. Because he allowed the Israelite people to suffer and enslaved them, he deserved everything that happened to him (if one has the ability to prevent suffering, he should).
According to the Talmud, Job was seventy years old when the book started.

Job's resignation to his fate (in Tractate Pesachim 2b)
When Job was prosperous, anyone who associated with him even to buy from him or sell to him, was blessed (in Tractate Pesachim 112a)
Job's reward for being generous (in Tractate Megillah 28a)
King David, Job and Ezekiel described the Torah's length without putting a number to it (in Tractate Eruvin 21a) Source for Jewish Law
In most traditions of Jewish liturgy, the Book of Job is not read publicly in the manner of the Pentateuch, Prophets, or megillot. However, there are some Jews, particularly the Spanish-Portuguese, who do hold public reading of the Book of Job on the Ninth of Av fast (a day of mourning over the destruction of the First and Second Temples and other tragedies).
The cantillation signs for the large poetic section in the middle of Book of Job differ from those of most of the biblical books, using a system shared with it only by Psalms and Proverbs. A sample of how the cantillations are chanted is found below.
Many quotes from the book of Job are used throughout Jewish liturgy, especially at funerals and times of mourning.

Liturgical use
Maimonides, a twelfth century rabbi, discusses Job in his work Guide for the Perplexed. According to Maimonides (chs. 22-23), each of Job's friends represents famous, distinct schools of thought concerning God and divine providence.
Bildad, for example, portrays the standard Jewish view, as well as the Islamic Mu'tazili view, that righteousness is rewarded by God (Job 8:6-8), although one may have to be patient for the reward to come. Therefore, if Job is righteous, as he claims to be, God will reward him eventually.
Moreover, Job reflects the view of Aristotle, that God destroys the innocent and the wicked together (Job 9). If Job held this point of view, then he did not believe in divine providence, even if he did believe in God's existence.
According to Maimonides, the correct view of providence lies with Elihu, who teaches Job that one must examine his/her religion (Job 33). This view corresponds with the notion that "the only worthy religion in the world is an examined religion." A habit religion, such as that originally practiced by Job, is never enough. One has to look deep into the meaning of religion in order to fully appreciate it and make it a genuine part of one's life. Elihu believed in the concepts of divine providence, rewards to individuals, as well as punishments. He believed, according to Maimonides, that one has to practice religion in a rational way. The more one investigates religion, the more he/she will be rewarded or find it rewarding. In the beginning, Job was an unexamining, pious man, not a philosopher, and he didn't have providence. He was unwise, simply grateful for what he had. God, according to Elihu, did not single out Job for punishment, but rather abandoned him and let him be dealt with by natural, unfriendly forces.
Conversely, in more recent times, Russian existentialist philosopher Lev Shestov viewed Job as the embodiment of the battle between reason (which offers general and seemingly comforting explanations for complex events) and faith in a personal god, and one man's desperate cry for him. In fact, Shestov used the story of Job as a central signifier for his core philosophy (the vast critique of the history of Western philosophy, which he saw broadly as a monumental battle between Reason and Faith, Athens and Jerusalem, secular and religious outlook):
"The whole book is one uninterrupted contest between the 'cries' of the much-afflicted Job and the 'reflections' of his rational friends. The friends, as true thinkers, look not at Job but at the 'general.' Job, however, does not wish to hear about the 'general'; he knows that the general is deaf and dumb - and that it is impossible to speak with it. 'But I would speak to the Almighty, and I desire to argue my case with God' (13:3). The friends are horrified at Job's words: they are convinced that it is not possible to speak with God and that the Almighty is concerned about the firmness of His power and the unchangeability of His laws but not about the fate of the people created by Him. Perhaps they are convinced that in general God does not know any concerns but that He only rules. That is why they answer, 'You who tear yourself in your anger, shall the earth be forsaken for you or the rock be removed from its place?' (18:4). And, indeed, shall rocks really be removed from their place for the sake of Job? And shall necessity renounce its sacred rights? This would truly be the summit of human audacity, this would truly be a 'mutiny,' a 'revolt' of the single human personality against the eternal laws of the all-unity of being!" (Speculation and Apocalypse).

Philosophical approach
Nachmanides offers a mystical commentary on the Book of Job. According to the mystical approach, Job is being punished because he is a heretic. One reason why Job can be seen as a heretic is because in Chapter 3, he automatically assumed and was convinced that he did not sin and God therefore has no right to punish him. Another reason why Job can be viewed as a heretic is because he did not believe in reincarnation. He believes that once a person dies, it is all over for him/her, without any mention of an afterlife.
According to Job, who reflected the views of Aristotle, God gave the world over to astrology. This is evident in Job's lamentation, "Curse the day I was born on" (3:2) Job cursed his birthday because he believed that his birthday was bad luck, in the astrological sense. Given the context of the passage, it is more likely that this phrase refers to Job wishing he'd never been born at all.
According to Nachmanides, Job's children did not die in the beginning of the story, but rather were taken captive and then return from captivity by the end of the story.

Mystical approach
Christians accept the Book of Job as part of the Old Testament canon. The character of Job is also mentioned in the New Testament, as an example of perseverance in suffering (James 5:11).
There are several references to the Book of Job throughout the New Testament, especially the Epistles. Specifically:
Rev. 9:6 alludes to Job 3:21; compare 2 Thes. 2:8 to Job 4:9; 1 Cor. 3:19 quotes Job 5:13; Heb. 12:5, Jas. 1:12, and Rev. 3:19 all parallel Job 5:17 and Job 23:10; compare Jas. 4:14 to Job 7:6; compare Heb. 2:6 with Job 7:17; compare Heb. 12:26 with Job 9:6; Rom. 9:20 alludes to Job 9:32; Rom. 11:33 parallels Job 10:7; compare Acts 17:28 with Job 12:10; compare 1 Cor. 4:5 with Job 12:22; compare 1 Pet. 1:24 with Job 14:2; compare Lk. 19:22 with Job 15:6; Rom. 1:9 parallels Job 16:19; compare 1 John 3:2 with Job 19:26; Rev. 14:10, 19:15 parallel Job 21:20; both Rom. 11:34 and 1 Cor. 2:16 quote Isa. 40:13, which parallels Job 21:22; Mt. 25:42 alludes to Job 22:7; Jas. 4:6 and 1 Pet. 5:5 both quote Prov. 3:34, which parallels Job 22:29; compare Acts 1:7 with Job 24:1; Heb. 4:13 parallels Job 26:6; Mt. 16:26 alludes to Job 27:8; compare Jas. 1:5 with Job 32:8; 1 Jo. 1:9 alludes to Job 33:27-28; Jas. 5:4 alludes to Job 34:28; Rev. 16:21 alludes to Job 38:22-23; Mt. 6:26 alludes to Job 38:41; and finally, Rom. 11:35 quotes Job 41:11.

In Christianity
The Eastern Orthodox Church reads from Job during Holy Week.
Alexander Schmemann, "A Liturgical Explanation for the Days of Holy Week"

In Islam

Job's prophecy: 4:163, 6:84
Trial and patience: 21:83, 21:84, 38:41

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Deir Yassin massacreDeir Yassin massacre
This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version (protection log). Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. You may use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to ask for an administrator to make an edit for you.
Deir Yassin massacre refers to the killing of about 107 to 120
List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war
Milstein, Uri [1987] (1998). "Chapter 16: Deir Yassin", History of the War of Independence IV: Out of Crisis Came Decision (in Hebrew, English version translated and edited by Alan Sacks). Lanhan, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc., 343-396. ISBN 0-7618-1489-2. 
Morris, Benny (1989). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-33028-9. 
Morris, Benny (2003). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-81120-1; ISBN 0-521-00967-7 (pbk.). 
Morris, Benny (2005). "The Historiography of Deir Yassin". Journal of Israeli History 24 (1): 79-107. 
Katz, Shmuel (1973) Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine Shapolsky Pub; ISBN 0-933503-03-2
Gelber, Yoav (2006). Palestine 1948. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 1-84519-075-0
Sharif Kanaana and Nihad Zitawi, "Deir Yassin," Monograph No. 4, Destroyed Palestinian Villages Documentation Project (Bir Zeit: Documentation Center of Bir Zeit University, 1987), p. 55.
"There was no Massacre there" by Yerach Tal, in Ha'Aretz, 8 September 1991, page B3.
"Indeed there was a Massacre there" by Danny Rubinstein, in Ha'Aretz, 11 September 1991.
Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, O Jerusalem!, History Book Club, 1972, ISBN 0-671-66241-4, p303-314.
The Ghosts of Deir Yassin
Irgun - Essay by Prof. Yehuda Lapidot from the IZL (Irgun) site
"Remembering Deir Yassin" by James Zogby, Al-Ahram Weekly
"On Recent Hebrew and Israeli Sources for the Palestinian Exodus, 1947-49" (Database access required) by Nur-eldeen Masalha, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1, Special Issue: Palestine 1948 Autumn, 1988), pp. 121-137
www.us-israel.org - Essay by Mitchell Bard.
[4] - Essay by Paul Holmes
Zionist Organisation of America - Essay by Sid Zion.
PEACE Middle East Dialog Group
Webpage opposing the massacre theses
Compilation of sources and essays (PDF, 188 pages)

Saturday, September 29, 2007


Lieutenant Colonel William Pershing Benedict (d. August 31, 1974) was an American pilot from California. He wanted to join the U.S. Army Air Force for pilot training, but was rejected due to his modest education. Instead, he joined the Canadian Air Training Program and was licensed as a pilot in 1941. Subsequently, he was transferred to Great Britain, where he flew Spitfires and Hurricanes. During World War II, he fought from July 8, 1942 on in Northern Africa and over Italy. On December 15, 1942, he succeeded to transfer to the USAAF, where he flew Curtiss P-40s and later P-47 Thunderbolts. He returned to the U.S. on December 16, 1944.
Benedict is best known for having flown together with Lt. Col. Joseph O. Fletcher as his co-pilot a U.S. Air Force C-47 modified to have skis and wheels to the North Pole, where they became the first humans to land a plane on May 3, 1952 and (together with scientist Albert P. Crary) the first persons to set foot on the exact geographical North Pole.
Benedict left the USAF in 1962 and later worker as a firefighting pilot in California. He was killed while dropping fire retardant in the Ukiah area of California on August 31, 1974.

William P. Benedict Footnotes

Note 1: The original article in the Polar Times stated that Fletcher was the pilot, but in the Fall/Winter 1997 issue of the Polar Times, following a personal communication from Mr. Fletcher, a correction appeared stating that Benedict had been in charge of that flight. This is also confirmed by the interview Brian Shoemaker conducted with Fletcher in 1997 (link below).