Datasets:
anhtunguyen98
/
LLM-SWP

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
text
stringlengths
1
146k
At the end of the episode, a passage from the fourth section of the poem "Mayakovsky" (alluding to Vladimir Mayakovsky, a prominent poet and playwright of the Russian Futurist movement) is recited. In season 2, episode 12, "The Mountain King", Draper, visiting California on business, visits Anna Draper and finds the book he sent on her bookshelf. In season 2, episode 13, "Meditations in an Emergency", which is set at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the episode title itself is taken from O'Hara's book. References Category:1957 poetry books Category:American poetry collections Category:New York School poets Category:Grove Press books
Urge is a 2016 American thriller film directed by Aaron Kaufman, written by Jerry Stahl, and starring Justin Chatwin, Ashley Greene, Alexis Knapp, Bar Paly, Chris Geere, Nick Thune, Kea Ho, Danny Masterson, and Pierce Brosnan. The film was released on June 3, 2016, in a limited release and through video on demand by Lionsgate Premiere. Plot A weekend getaway takes a dangerous turn when a mysterious nightclub owner (Pierce Brosnan) introduces a group of friends to a new designer drug. Stripped of their inhibitions, they start living out their wildest fantasies - but what starts out as a fun night of partying quickly turns deadly, as the island paradise deteriorates into a tropical madhouse.
Cast Pierce Brosnan as The Man Ashley Greene as Theresa Justin Chatwin as Jason Brettner Alexis Knapp as Joey Danny Masterson as Neal Kea Ho as Xiomara Bar Paly as Denise Chris Geere as Vick Nick Thune as Danny Jeff Fahey as Gerald Alison Lohman as Mother Production On September 29, 2014, Pierce Brosnan joined the cast. On October 2, 2014, Ashley Greene joined the cast. On October 7, 2014, Danny Masterson joined the cast. On October 14, 2014, Alexis Knapp, Bar Paly, Chris Geere and Nick Thune joined the cast. On October 24, 2014, Justin Chatwin joined the cast.
Filming Principal photography began on October 6, 2014, and ended on November 14, 2014. Release The film was released on June 3, 2016, in a limited release and through video on demand by Lionsgate Premiere. The film was released on Blu-ray and DVD on September 6, 2016. Reception On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 0%, based on 5 reviews, with an average rating of 1.5/10. Christy Lemire of RogerEbert.com called the film "a movie that’s as empty and unlikable as the characters themselves" in her 1-star review Frank Scheck, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, while enjoying "a dapper Pierce Brosnan gleefully hamming it up as a devil-like figure" otherwise panned the film, saying "Audiences tempted to catch Urge in its limited theatrical release or on VOD would be well-advised to remember Nancy Reagan's famous advice: Just say no."
References External links Category:2016 films Category:2010s thriller films Category:American films Category:American thriller films Category:English-language films Category:Lions Gate Entertainment films Category:Films about God Category:2016 directorial debut films
Morganella may refer to: Surname Michel Morganella (born 17 May 1989), a Swiss footballer Michele Morganella (born 25 April 1986), an Italian footballer Taxonomic genus Morganella (bacterium), a genus of bacteria containing the single species Morganella morganii Morganella (fungus), a genus of puffball fungi in the family Agaricaceae Morganella (insect), a scale insect genus in the family Diaspididae Morganella (brachiopod), a Devonian period brachiopod in the family Araksalosiidae Specific epithet Phyllophaga morganella a species of New World scarab beetle in the family Melolonthidae. (See: Phyllophaga) See also Morganiella, a genus of small flies in the family Mycetophilidae
The phenomenon of macromolecular crowding alters the properties of molecules in a solution when high concentrations of macromolecules such as proteins are present. Such conditions occur routinely in living cells; for instance, the cytosol of Escherichia coli contains about 300– of macromolecules. Crowding occurs since these high concentrations of macromolecules reduce the volume of solvent available for other molecules in the solution, which has the result of increasing their effective concentrations. Crowding can promote formation of a biomolecular condensate by colloidal phase separation. This crowding effect can make molecules in cells behave in radically different ways than in test-tube assays.
Consequently, measurements of the properties of enzymes or processes in metabolism that are made in the laboratory (in vitro) in dilute solutions may be different by many orders of magnitude from the true values seen in living cells (in vivo). The study of biochemical processes under realistically crowded conditions is very important, since these conditions are a ubiquitous property of all cells and crowding may be essential for the efficient operation of metabolism. Indeed, in vitro studies showed that crowding greatly influences binding stability of proteins to DNA. Cause and effects The interior of cells is a crowded environment. For example, an Escherichia coli cell is only about 2 micrometres (μm) long and 0.5 μm in diameter, with a cell volume of 0.6 - 0.7 μm3.
However, E. coli can contain up to 4,288 different types of proteins, and about 1,000 of these types are produced at a high enough level to be easily detected. Added to this mix are various forms of RNA and the cell's DNA chromosome, giving a total concentration of macromolecules of between 300 and 400 mg/ml. In eukaryotes the cell's interior is further crowded by the protein filaments that make up the cytoskeleton, this meshwork divides the cytosol into a network of narrow pores. These high concentrations of macromolecules occupy a large proportion of the volume of the cell, which reduces the volume of solvent that is available for other macromolecules.
This excluded volume effect increases the effective concentration of macromolecules (increasing their chemical activity), which in turn alters the rates and equilibrium constants of their reactions. In particular this effect alters dissociation constants by favoring the association of macromolecules, such as when multiple proteins come together to form protein complexes, or when DNA-binding proteins bind to their targets in the genome. Crowding may also affect enzyme reactions involving small molecules if the reaction involves a large change in the shape of the enzyme. The size of the crowding effect depends on both the molecular mass and shape of the molecule involved, although mass seems to be the major factor – with the effect being stronger with larger molecules.
Notably, the size of the effect is non-linear, so macromolecules are much more strongly affected than are small molecules such as amino acids or simple sugars. Macromolecular crowding is therefore an effect exerted by large molecules on the properties of other large molecules. Importance Macromolecular crowding is an important effect in biochemistry and cell biology. For example, the increase in the strength of interactions between proteins and DNA produced by crowding may be of key importance in processes such as transcription and DNA replication. Crowding has also been suggested to be involved in processes as diverse as the aggregation of hemoglobin in sickle-cell disease, and the responses of cells to changes in their volume.
The importance of crowding in protein folding is of particular interest in biophysics. Here, the crowding effect can accelerate the folding process, since a compact folded protein will occupy less volume than an unfolded protein chain. However, crowding can reduce the yield of correctly folded protein by increasing protein aggregation. Crowding may also increase the effectiveness of chaperone proteins such as GroEL in the cell, which could counteract this reduction in folding efficiency. It has also been shown that macromolecular crowding affects protein-folding dynamics as well as overall protein shape where distinct conformational changes are accompanied by secondary structure alterations implying that crowding-induced shape changes may be important for protein function and malfunction in vivo.
A particularly striking example of the importance of crowding effects involves the crystallins that fill the interior of the lens. These proteins have to remain stable and in solution for the lens to be transparent; precipitation or aggregation of crystallins causes cataracts. Crystallins are present in the lens at extremely high concentrations, over 500 mg/ml, and at these levels crowding effects are very strong. The large crowding effect adds to the thermal stability of the crystallins, increasing their resistance to denaturation. This effect may partly explain the extraordinary resistance shown by the lens to damage caused by high temperatures. Study Due to macromolecular crowding, enzyme assays and biophysical measurements performed in dilute solution may fail to reflect the actual process and its kinetics taking place in the cytosol.
One approach to produce more accurate measurements would be to use highly concentrated extracts of cells, to try to maintain the cell contents in a more natural state. However, such extracts contain many kinds of biologically active molecules, which can interfere with the phenomena being studied. Consequently, crowding effects are mimicked in vitro by adding high concentrations of relatively inert molecules such as polyethylene glycol, ficoll, dextran, or serum albumin to experimental media. However, using such artificial crowding agents can be complicated, as these crowding molecules can sometimes interact in other ways with the process being examined, such as by binding weakly to one of the components.
Macromolecular crowding and protein folding A major importance of macromolecular crowding to biological systems stems from its effect on protein folding. The underlying physical mechanism by which macromolecular crowding helps to stabilize proteins in their folded state is often explained in terms of excluded volume - the volume inaccessible to the proteins due to their interaction with macromolecular crowders. This notion goes back to Asakura and Oosawa, who have described depletion forces induced by steric, hard-core, interactions. A hallmark of the mechanism inferred from the above is that the effect is completely a-thermal, and thus completely entropic. These ideas were also proposed to explain why small cosolutes, namely protective osmolytes, which are preferentially excluded from proteins, also shift the protein folding equilibrium towards the folded state.
However, it has been shown by various methods, both experimental and theoretical, that depletion forces are not always entropic in nature. Macromolecular crowding in regenerative medicine Satyam et al. from National University of Ireland, Galway (NUI Galway) proposed macromolecular crowding as means to create ECM-rich tissue equivalents. The principle of macromolecular crowding is derived from the notion that in vivo cells reside in a highly crowded/dense extracellular space and therefore the conversion of the de novo synthesised procollagen to collagen I is rapid. However, in the even substantially more dilute than body fluids (e.g., urine: 36–50 g/L; blood: 80 g/L) culture conditions (e.g., HAM F10 nutrient medium: 16.55 g/L; DMEM/ F12 medium: 16.78 g/L; DMEM high glucose and L-glutamine medium: 17.22 g/L), the rate limiting conversion of procollagen to collagen I is very slow.
It was confirmed that the addition of inert polydispersed macromolecules (presented as spherical objects of variable diameter) in the culture media will facilitate amplified production of ECM-rich living substitutes. Macromolecular crowding, by imitating native tissue localised density, can be utilised to effectively modulate in vitro microenvironments and ultimately produce ECM-rich cell substitutes, within hours rather than days or months in culture, without compromising fundamental cellular functions. See also Ideal solution Colligative properties References External links Category:Physical chemistry Category:Tissue engineering Category:Protein methods Category:Biophysics
Chingon is a band from Austin, Texas. Their sound is heavily influenced by Mexican rock, mariachi, ranchera, and Texan rock 'n roll music. History Chingon was formed by film director Robert Rodriguez to record songs for his 2003 film Once Upon a Time in Mexico. They contributed to Mexico and Mariachis, a compilation album to Rodriguez' Mariachi Trilogy, and released their debut album, Mexican Spaghetti Western, in 2007. The band's name comes from a Mexican slang term, chingón, loosely but closely enough meaning "badass" and/or "the shit". Chingon also contributed the song "Malagueña Salerosa" to Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill Volume 2 — which Rodriguez scored — and a live performance by the band was included on the film's DVD release.
They also contributed to the soundtrack for his next film, a collaboration with Tarantino, Grindhouse, doing a cover of the film's opening theme, re-titling it "Cherry's Dance of Death". Rodríguez plays guitar in the band. The band has also made an appearance on "George Buys a Vow", an episode of the US sitcom George Lopez. On December 12, 2015, Chingon performed as the house band for Lucha Underground during a Season Two taping. Rodriguez is an Executive Producer for the series and it airs on his network, El Rey Network. Band members Robert Rodriguez – guitar Alex Ruiz – vocals Mark del Castillo – guitar, vocals Rick del Castillo – guitar, vocals Albert Besteiro – bass guitar Carmelo Torres – percussion Mike Zeoli – drums When playing without Robert Rodriguez, the band is known as Del Castillo.
Guest artists include: Patricia Vonne (Rodriguez's sister co-wrote and performed on "Severina") Salma Hayek (performed "Siente Mi Amor") Tito Larriva (wrote and performed "Alacran y Pistolero") Nataly Pena Discography Albums Mexican Spaghetti Western (2004) Soundtrack appearances Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003) Mexico and Mariachis (2004) Kill Bill Volume 2 (2004) Grindhouse: Planet Terror (2007) Hell Ride (2008) Machete (2010) References External links Official website Category:Mexican rock music groups Category:Robert Rodriguez
The Tiger I (), a German heavy tank of World War II, operated from 1942 in Africa and Europe, usually in independent heavy tank battalions. Its late war designation was Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf. E. The early war variant was designated Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf. H1. Often, people refer to both of the variants as Tiger. The Tiger I gave the German Army its first armoured fighting vehicle that mounted the 8.8 cm KwK 36 gun (derived from the 8.8 cm Flak 36). 1,347 were built between August 1942 and August 1944. After August 1944, production of the Tiger I was phased out in favour of the Tiger II.
While the Tiger I has been called an outstanding design for its time, it has also been called over-engineered, using expensive materials and labour-intensive production methods. The Tiger was prone to certain types of track failures and breakdowns, and was limited in range by its high fuel consumption. It was expensive to maintain, but generally mechanically reliable. It was difficult to transport, and vulnerable to immobilisation when mud, ice, and snow froze between its overlapping and interleaved Schachtellaufwerk-pattern road wheels, often jamming them solid. This was a problem on the Eastern Front in the muddy rasputitsa season and during periods of extreme cold.
The tank was given its nickname "Tiger" by Ferdinand Porsche, and the Roman numeral was added after the later Tiger II entered production. The initial designation was Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung H (literally 'Armored Combat Wagon/Vehicle VI version H, abbreviated PzKpfw VI Ausf. H) where 'H' denoted Henschel as the designer/manufacturer. It was classified with ordnance inventory designation Sd.Kfz. 182. The tank was later re-designated as PzKpfw VI Ausf. E in March 1943, with ordnance inventory designation Sd.Kfz. 181. Today, only seven Tiger I tanks survive in museums and private collections worldwide. Tiger 131 (captured during the North Africa Campaign) at the UK's Tank Museum is the only example restored to running order.
Design history Earlier designs Henschel & Sohn began the development of a large tank design in January 1937 when the Waffenamt requested Henschel to develop a Durchbruchwagen ("breakthrough vehicle") in the 30–33 tonne range. Only one prototype hull was ever built and it was never fitted with a turret. The Durchbruchwagen I's general shape and suspension resembled the Panzer III, while the turret resembled the early Panzer IV C turret with the short-barrelled 7.5 cm L/24 cannon. Before Durchbruchwagen I was completed, a request was issued for a heavier 30-tonne class vehicle with thicker armour; this was the Durchbruchwagen II, which would have had 50 mm (2 in) of frontal armour and mounted a Panzer IV turret with a short-barrelled 7.5 cm L/24 gun.
Overall weight would have been 36 tonnes. Only one hull was built and no turret was fitted. Further development of the Durchbruchwagen was dropped in 1938 in favour of the larger and better-armoured VK 30.01 (H) and VK 36.01 (H) designs. Both the Durchbruchwagen I and II prototype hulls were used as test vehicles until 1941. Another attempt The VK 30.01 (H) medium tank and the VK 36.01 (H) heavy tank designs pioneered the use of the complex Schachtellaufwerk track suspension system of torsion bar-sprung, overlapped and interleaved main road wheels for tank use. This concept was already common on German half-tracks such as the Sd.Kfz.
7. The VK 30.01 (H) was intended to mount a low-velocity 7.5 cm L/24 infantry support gun, a 7.5 cm L/40 dual purpose anti-tank gun, or a 10.5 cm L/28 field gun in a Krupp turret. Overall weight was to be 33 tonnes. The armour was designed to be 50 mm on frontal surfaces and 30 mm on the side surfaces. Four prototype hulls were completed for testing. Two of these were later modified to build the "Sturer Emil" (12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/61) self-propelled anti-tank gun. The VK 36.01 (H) was intended to weigh 40 tonnes, with 100 mm (4 in) of armour on front surfaces, 80 mm on turret sides and 60 mm on the hull sides.
The VK 36.01 (H) was intended to carry a 7.5 cm L/24, or a 7.5 cm L/43, or a 7.5 cm L/70, or a 12.8 cm L/28 cannon in a Krupp turret that looked similar to an enlarged Panzer IV Ausf. C turret. The hull for one prototype was built, followed later by five more. The six turrets built were never fitted and were used as part of the Atlantic Wall. The VK 36.01 (H) project was discontinued in early 1942 in favour of the VK 45.01 project. Further improvements Combat experience against the French SOMUA S35 cavalry tank and Char B1 heavy tank, and the British Matilda II infantry tanks during the Battle of France in June 1940 showed that the German Army needed better armed and armoured tanks.
On 26 May 1941, Henschel and Ferdinand Porsche were asked to submit designs for a 45-tonne heavy tank, to be ready by June 1942. Porsche worked on an updated version of their VK 30.01 (P) Leopard tank prototype while Henschel worked on an improved VK 36.01 (H) tank. Henschel built two prototypes: a VK 45.01 (H) H1 with an 8.8 cm L/56 cannon, and a VK 45.01 (H) H2 with a 7.5 cm L/70 cannon. Final designs On 22 June 1941, Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union. The Germans were shocked to encounter Soviet T-34 medium and KV-1 heavy tanks, and, according to Henschel designer Erwin Aders: "There was great consternation when it was discovered that the Soviet tanks were superior to anything available to the Heer.".
Weight increase to 45 tonnes and an increase in gun calibre to 8.8 cm was ordered. The due date for the new prototypes was set for 20 April 1942, Adolf Hitler's 53rd birthday. Unlike the Panther tank, the designs did not incorporate sloped armour, an innovation taken from the T-34. Porsche and Henschel submitted prototype designs, each making use of the Krupp-designed turret. They were demonstrated at Rastenburg in front of Hitler. The Henschel design was accepted, mainly because the Porsche VK 4501 (P) prototype design used a troubled gasoline-electric hybrid power unit which needed large quantities of copper for manufacture of its electrical drivetrain components, a strategic war material of which Germany had limited supplies with acceptable electrical properties for such uses.
Production of the Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. H began in August 1942. Expecting an order for his tank, Porsche built 100 chassis. After the contract was awarded to Henschel, they were used for a new turretless, casemate-style tank destroyer; 91 hulls were converted into the Panzerjäger Tiger (P) in early 1943. The Tiger was still at the prototype stage when it was first hurried into service, and therefore changes both large and small were made throughout the production run. A redesigned turret with a lower cupola was the most significant change. To cut costs, the submersion capability and an external air-filtration system were dropped.
Design The Tiger differed from earlier German tanks principally in its design philosophy. Its predecessors balanced mobility, armour and firepower, and were sometimes outgunned by their opponents. While heavy, this tank was not slower than the best of its opponents. However, at over 50 tonnes dead weight, the suspension, gearboxes, and other such items had clearly reached their design limits and breakdowns were frequent if regular maintenance was not undertaken. Although the general design and layout were broadly similar to the previous medium tank, the Panzer IV, the Tiger weighed more than twice as much. This was due to its substantially thicker armour, the larger main gun, greater volume of fuel and ammunition storage, larger engine, and a more solidly built transmission and suspension.
Armour The Tiger I had frontal hull armour thick, frontal turret armour of and a thick gun mantlet. The Tiger had thick hull side plates and 80 mm armour on the side superstructure/sponsons, while turret sides and rear were 80 mm. The top and bottom armour was thick; from March 1944, the turret roof was thickened to . Armour plates were mostly flat, with interlocking construction. The armour joints were of high quality, being stepped and welded rather than riveted and were made of maraging steel. Gun The 56-calibre long 8.8 cm KwK 36 was chosen for the Tiger. A combination of a flat trajectory from the high muzzle velocity and precision from Leitz Turmzielfernrohr TZF 9b sight (later replaced by the monocular TZF 9c) made it very accurate.
In British wartime firing trials, five successive hits were scored on a target at a range of . Compared with the other contemporary German tank guns, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 had superior penetration to the 7.5 cm KwK 40 on the Sturmgeschütz III and Panzer IV but inferior to the 7.5 cm KwK 42 on the Panther tank under ranges of 2,500 metres. At greater ranges, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 was superior in penetration and accuracy. The ammunition for the Tiger had electrically fired primers. Four types of ammunition were available but not all were fully available; the PzGr 40 shell used tungsten, which was in short supply as the war progressed.
PzGr. 39 (armour-piercing, capped, ballistic cap) PzGr. 40 (armour-piercing, composite rigid) Hl. Gr. 39 (high explosive anti-tank) sch. Sprgr. Patr. L/4.5 (incendiary shrapnel) Engine and drive The rear of the tank held an engine compartment flanked by two separate rear compartments each containing a fuel tank and radiator. The Germans had not developed an adequate diesel engine, so a petrol (gasoline) powerplant had to be used instead. The original engine utilised was a 21.35-litre (1303 cu.in.) 12-cylinder Maybach HL210 P45 developing 485 kW (650 hp) at 3,000 rpm. Although a good engine, it was underpowered for the vehicle. From the 251st Tiger onwards, it was replaced by the upgraded HL 230 P45, a 23.095 litre (1409 cu.in.)
engine developing 521 kW (700 hp) at 3,000 rpm. The main difference between these engines was that the original Maybach HL 210 used an aluminium engine block while the Maybach HL 230 used a cast-iron engine block. The cast-iron block allowed for larger cylinders (and thus, greater displacement) which increased the power output to 521 kW (700 hp). The engine was in V-form, with two cylinder banks set at 60 degrees. An inertia starter was mounted on its right side, driven via chain gears through a port in the rear wall. The engine could be lifted out through a hatch on the rear hull roof.
In comparison to other V12 and various vee-form gasoline engines used for tanks, the eventual HL 230 engine was nearly four litres smaller in displacement than the Allied British Rolls-Royce Meteor V12 AFV powerplant, itself adapted from the RR Merlin but de-rated to 448 kW (600 hp) power output; and the American Ford-designed precursor V12 to its Ford GAA V-8 AFV engine of 18 litre displacement, which in its original V12 form would have had the same 27 litre displacement as the Meteor. The engine drove the front sprockets through a drivetrain connecting to a transmission in the front portion of the lower hull; the front sprockets had to be mounted relatively low as a result.
The Krupp-designed 11-tonne turret had a hydraulic motor whose pump was powered by mechanical drive from the engine. A full rotation took about a minute. Another new feature was the Maybach-Olvar hydraulically controlled semi-automatic pre-selector gearbox. The extreme weight of the tank also required a new steering system. Germany's Argus Motoren, where Hermann Klaue had invented a ring brake in 1940, supplied them for the Arado Ar 96 and also supplied the 55 cm disc. Klaue acknowledged in the patent application that he had merely improved on existing technology, that can be traced back to British designs dating to 1904.
It is unclear whether Klaue's patent ring brake was utilised in the Tiger brake design. The clutch-and-brake system, typical for lighter vehicles, was retained only for emergencies. Normally, steering depended on a double differential, Henschel's development of the British Merritt-Brown system first encountered in the Churchill tank. The vehicle had an eight-speed gearbox, and the steering offered two fixed radii of turns on each gear, thus the Tiger had sixteen different radii of turn. In first gear, at a speed of a few km/h, the minimal turning radius was . In neutral gear, the tracks could be turned in opposite directions, so the Tiger I pivoted in place.
There was a steering wheel instead of either a tiller — or, as most tanks had at that time, twin braking levers — making the Tiger I's steering system easy to use, and ahead of its time. Suspension The suspension used sixteen torsion bars, with eight suspension arms per side. To save space, the swing arms were leading on one side and trailing on the other. There were three road wheels (one of them double, closest to the track's centre) on each arm, in a so-called Schachtellaufwerk overlapping and interleaved arrangement, similar to that pioneered on German half-tracked military vehicles of the pre-World War II era, with the Tiger I being the first all-tracked German AFV built in quantity to use such a road wheel arrangement.
The wheels had a diameter of in the Schachtellaufwerk arrangement for the Tiger I's suspension, providing a high uniform distribution of the load onto the track, at the cost of increased maintenance. Removing an inner wheel that had lost its solid rubber tire (a common occurrence) required the removal of up to nine other wheels first. During the rainy period that brought on the autumn rasputitsa mud season and onwards into the winter conditions on the Eastern front, the roadwheels of a Schachtellaufwerk-equipped vehicle could also become packed with mud or snow that could then freeze. Presumably, German engineers, based on the experience of the half tracks, felt that the improvement in off-road performance, track and wheel life, mobility with wheels missing or damaged, plus additional protection from enemy fire was worth the maintenance difficulties of a complex system vulnerable to mud and ice.
This approach was carried on, in various forms, to the Panther and the non-interleaved wheel design for the Tiger II. Eventually, a new 80 cm diameter 'steel' wheel design, closely resembling those on the Tiger II, with an internally sprung steel-rim tire was substituted, and which like the Tiger II, were only overlapped and not interleaved. To support the considerable weight of the Tiger, the tracks were wide. To meet rail-freight size restrictions, the outermost roadwheel on each axle (16 total) could be unbolted from a flange and narrower wide 'transport' tracks (Verladeketten) installed. The track replacement and wheel removal took 30 minutes for each side of the tank.
However, in service, Tigers were frequently transported by rail with their combat tracks fitted, as long as the train crew knew there were no narrow tunnels or other obstructions on the route that would prevent an oversized load from passing, despite this practice being strictly forbidden. Fording system The Tiger tank's combat weight of 56 tons was often too heavy for small bridges which had 35 ton weight limits, so it was designed to ford bodies of water up to deep. This required unusual mechanisms for ventilation and cooling when underwater. At least 30 minutes of set-up time was required, with the turret and gun being locked in the forward position, and a large snorkel tube raised at the rear.
An inflatable doughnut-shaped ring sealed the turret ring. The two rear compartments (each containing a fuel tank, radiator and fans) were floodable. Only the first 495 units were fitted with this deep fording system; all later models were capable of fording water only two metres deep. However, this ability was found to be a limited practical value for its expensive cost and was removed from production lines in August 1943. Crew compartment The internal layout was typical of German tanks. Forward was an open crew compartment, with the driver and radio-operator seated at the front on either side of the gearbox.
Behind them the turret floor was surrounded by panels forming a continuous level surface. This helped the loader to retrieve the ammunition, which was mostly stowed above the tracks. Three men were seated in the turret; the loader to the right of the gun facing to the rear, the gunner to the left of the gun, and the commander behind him. There was also a folding seat on the right for the loader. The turret had a full circular floor and 157 cm headroom. Early versions of the Tiger I's turret included two pistol ports however one of these was replaced with a loader escape hatch and the other deleted from later designs.
Post-war testing by the Allies found the tank to be uncomfortable and spartan. This was in contrast to German crews who found them to be spacious and comfortable. Cost The main problem with the Tiger was that its production required considerable resources in terms of manpower and material, which led to it being expensive: the Tiger I cost over twice as much as a Panzer IV and four times as much as a StuG III assault gun. Partly because of their high cost, only 1,347 Tiger I and 492 Tiger II tanks were produced. The closest counterpart to the Tiger from the United States was the M26 Pershing (around 200 deployed to the European Theater of Operations (ETO) during the war) and the IS-2 from the USSR (about 3,800 built during the conflict).
From a technical point of view it was superior to its contemporaries, and despite the low number produced, shortages in qualified crew and the considerable fuel requirement in a context of ever shrinking resources, Tiger tanks had a large impact in the war with Tigers (including Tiger IIs) destroying at least 10,300 enemy tanks, and 11,380 AT guns and artillery pieces in WW2. This was achieved for the loss of 1,725 Tigers (including large numbers of operational and strategic losses, i.e. abandoned, broken down, etc.). Production history Production of the Tiger I began in August 1942 at the factory of Henschel und Sohn in Kassel, initially at a rate of 25 per month and peaking in April 1944 at 104 per month.
An official document of the time stated that the first Tiger I was completed in August 4. 1,355 had been built by August 1944, when production ceased. Deployed Tiger I's peaked at 671 on 1 July 1944. It took about twice as long to build a Tiger I as another German tank of the period. When the improved Tiger II began production in January 1944, the Tiger I was soon phased out. In 1943, Japan bought several specimens of German tank designs for study. A single Tiger I was apparently purchased, along with a Panther and two Panzer IIIs, but only the Panzer IIIs were actually delivered.
The undelivered Tiger was loaned to the German Wehrmacht by the Japanese government. Many modifications were introduced during the production run to improve automotive performance, firepower and protection. Simplification of the design was implemented, along with cuts due to raw material shortages. In 1942 alone, at least six revisions were made, starting with the removal of the Vorpanzer (frontal armour shield) from the pre-production models in April. In May, mudguards bolted onto the side of the pre-production run were added, while removable mudguards saw full incorporation in September. Smoke discharge canisters, three on each side of the turret, were added in August 1942.
In later years, similar changes and updates were added, such as the addition of Zimmerit (a non-magnetic anti-mine coating), in late 1943. Due to slow production rates at the factories, incorporation of the new modifications could take several months. The humorous and somewhat racy crew manual, the Tigerfibel, was the first of its kind for the German Army and its success resulted in more unorthodox manuals that attempted to emulate its style. By September 1943 at the latest, the Allies had information about the production of the Tiger tank. The resistance group around the later executed priest Heinrich Maier sent corresponding documents to the American Office of Strategic Services.
With the location sketches of the manufacturing facilities, the Allied bombers were given precise air strikes. Variants Among other variants of the Tiger, a citadel, heavily armoured self-propelled rocket projector, today commonly known as the Sturmtiger, was built. A tank recovery version of the Porsche Tiger I (Bergetiger), and one Porsche Tiger I, was issued to the 654th Heavy Tank Destroyer Battalion, which was equipped with the Ferdinand/Elefant. In Italy, a demolition carrier version of the Tiger I without a main gun was built by maintenance crews in an effort to find a way to clear minefields. It is often misidentified as a BergeTiger recovery vehicle.
As many as three may have been built. It carried a demolition charge on a small crane on the turret in place of the main gun. It was to move up to a minefield and drop the charge, back away, and then set the charge off to clear the minefield. There is no verification of any being used in combat. Another variant was the Fahrschulpanzer VI Tiger tanks (driving school Tiger tanks). These tanks were Tigers with modified engines to run on either compressed Towngas gas (Stadtgas System) or wood gas (Holzgas System). This was due to shortages in fuel supply.
They used a mixture of turreted and turretless hulls. They were used to train Tiger tank crews. They were not used in combat. Designations Hitler's order, dated 27 February 1944, abolished the designation Panzerkampfwagen VI and ratified Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. E, which was the official designation until the end of the war. For common use it was frequently shortened to Tiger. Combat history Gun and armour performance A report prepared by the Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 gave the calculated probability of perforation at range, on which various adversaries would be defeated reliably at a side angle of 30 degrees to the incoming round.
The Wa Pruef report estimated that the Tiger's 88 mm gun would be capable of penetrating the differential case of an American M4 Sherman from and the turret front from , but the Tiger's 88 mm gun would not penetrate the upper glacis plate at any range. The M4 Sherman's 75 mm gun would not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 100 m to achieve a side penetration against the 80 mm upper hull superstructure.
The Sherman's upgraded 76 mm gun might penetrate the Tiger's driver's front plate from 600 m, the nose from 400 m and the turret front from 700 m. The M3 90 mm cannon used as a towed anti-aircraft and anti-tank gun, and later mounted in the M36 tank destroyer and finally the late-war M26 Pershing, could penetrate the Tiger's front plate at a range of 1,000 m using standard ammunition, and from beyond 2,000 m when using HVAP. Soviet ground trial testing conducted in May 1943 determined that the 8.8 cm KwK 36 gun could pierce the T-34/76 frontal beam nose from 1500 m, and the front hull from 1500 m. A hit to the driver's hatch would force it to collapse inwards and break apart.
According to the WaPrüf 1 report, the Soviet T-34-85's upper glacis and turret front armour would be defeated between , while the T-34's 85 mm gun was estimated to penetrate the front of a Tiger between , however Soviet testing showed that the 85mm gun could penetrate from The 120 mm hull armour of the Soviet IS-2 model 1943 would be defeated between at the driver's front plate and nose. The IS-2's 122 mm gun could penetrate the Tiger's front armour from between . However, according to Steven Zaloga, the IS-2 and Tiger I could each knock the other out in normal combat distances below 1,000 m. At longer ranges, the performance of each respective tank against each other was dependent on the crew and the combat situation.
The British Churchill IV was vulnerable to the Tiger at between , its strongest point being the nose and its weakest the turret. According to an STT document dated April 1944, it was estimated that the British 17-pounder, as used on the Sherman Firefly, firing its normal APCBC ammunition, would penetrate the turret front and driver's visor plate of the Tiger out to . When engaging targets, Tiger crews were encouraged to angle the hull to the 10:30 or 1:30 clock position (45 degrees) relative to the target, an orientation referred to as the Mahlzeit Stellung. This would maximize the effective front hull armour to 180mm and side hull to 140mm, making the Tiger impervious to any Allied gun up to 152 mm.
The Tiger's lack of slope for its armour made angling the hull by manual means simple and effective, and unlike the lighter Panzer IV and Panther tanks, the Tiger's thick side armour gave a degree of confidence of immunity from flank attacks. The tank was also immune to Soviet anti-tank rifle fire to the sides and rear. Its large calibre 8.8 cm provided superior fragmentation and high explosive content over the 7.5 cm KwK 42 gun. Therefore, comparing the Tiger with the Panther, for supporting the infantry and destroying fortifications, the Tiger offered superior firepower. It was also key to dealing with towed anti-tank guns, according to German tank commander Otto Carius: First actions Eager to make use of the powerful new weapon, Hitler ordered the vehicle be pressed into service months earlier than had been planned.
A platoon of four Tigers went into action on 23 September 1942 near Leningrad. Operating in swampy, forested terrain, their movement was largely confined to roads and tracks, making defence against them far easier. Many of these early models were plagued by problems with the transmission, which had difficulty handling the great weight of the vehicle if pushed too hard. It took time for drivers to learn how to avoid overtaxing the engine and transmission, and many broke down. The most significant event from this engagement was that one of the Tigers became stuck in swampy ground and had to be abandoned.
Captured largely intact, it enabled the Soviets to study the design and prepare countermeasures. The 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion was deployed to the Don Front in the autumn of 1942, but arrived too late to participate in Operation Winter Storm, the attempt to relieve Stalingrad. It was subsequently engaged in heavy defensive fighting in the Rostov-on-Don and adjacent sectors in January and February 1943. In the North African Campaign, the Tiger I first saw action during the Tunisia Campaign on 1 December 1942 east of Tebourba when three Tigers attacked an olive grove 5 km west of Djedeida. The thick olive grove made visibility very limited and enemy tanks were engaged at close range.
The Tigers were hit by a number of M3 Lee tanks firing at a range of 80 to 100 metres. Two of the Lees were knocked out in this action. The Tiger tanks proved that they had excellent protection from enemy fire; this greatly increased the crew's trust in the quality of the armour. The first loss to an Allied gun was on 20 January 1943 near Robaa, when a battery of the British 72nd Anti-Tank Regiment knocked out a Tiger with their 6-pounder (57 mm) anti-tank guns. Seven Tigers were immobilised by mines during the failed attack on Béja during Operation Ochsenkopf at the end of February.
Later actions On July 1943, two heavy tank battalions (503rd and 505th) took part in Operation Citadel resulting in the Battle of Kursk with one battalion each on the northern (505th) and southern (503rd) flanks of the Kursk salient the operation was designed to encircle. However, the operation failed and the Germans were again put on the defensive. The resulting withdrawal led to the loss of many broken-down Tigers which were left unrecovered, battalions unable to do required maintenance or repairs. On 11 April 1945, a Tiger I destroyed three M4 Sherman tanks and an armoured car advancing on a road.
On 12 April 1945, a Tiger I (F02) destroyed two Comet tanks, one halftrack and one scout car. This Tiger I was destroyed by a Comet tank of A Squadron of the 3rd Royal Tank Regiment on the next day without infantry support. Mobility and reliability The tank's weight significantly limited its use of bridges. For this reason, the Tiger was built with water tight hatches and a snorkel device that allowed it to ford water obstacles four metres deep. The tank's weight also made driving through buildings risky, as the presence of a cellar could result in a sudden drop.
Another weakness was the slow traverse of the hydraulically operated turret. Due to reliability problems with the Maybach HL 210 TRM P45, which was delivered within the first production batch of 250 Tigers, performance for its maximum power output at high gear ratio could not be fulfilled. Though the Maybach engines had a maximum of 3,000 rpm, crews were told in the Tigerfibel not to exceed 2,600 rpm. The engine limitation was alleviated only by the adoption of the Maybach HL 230. The turret could also be traversed manually, but this option was rarely used, except for very small adjustments.
Early Tigers had a top speed of about over optimal terrain. This was not recommended for normal operation, and was discouraged in training. An engine governor was subsequently installed, capping the engine at 2,600 rpm and the Tiger's maximum speed to about . Tiger crews report that typical march speed off-road was 10 kilometers per hour (6 mph). However, medium tanks of the time, such as the Sherman or T-34, had on average a top speed of about . Thus, despite the Tiger being nearly twice as heavy, its speed was comparatively respectable. With the tank's very wide tracks, a design feature borrowed from the Soviet T-34, the Tiger had a lower ground pressure than many smaller tanks, such as the M4 Sherman.
Tiger I tanks needed a high degree of support. It required two or sometimes three of the standard German Sd.Kfz. 9 Famo heavy recovery half-track tractors to tow it. Tiger crews often resorted to using another Tiger to tow the damaged vehicle, but this was not recommended as it often caused overheating and engine breakdown. The low-mounted sprocket limited the obstacle clearance height. The tracks also had a tendency to override the rear sprocket, resulting in immobilisation. If a track overrode and jammed, two Tigers were normally needed to tow the tank. The jammed track was also a big problem itself, since due to high tension, it was often impossible to split the track by removing the track pins.
The track sometimes had to be blown apart with a small explosive charge. The average reliability of the Tiger tank in the second half of 1943 was similar to that of the Panther, 36%, compared to the 48% of the Panzer IV and the 65% of the StuG III. From May 1944 to March 1945, the reliability of the Tiger tank was as good as the Panzer IV. With an average of 70%, the Tiger's operational availability on the Western Front, was better than compared to 62% of Panthers. On the Eastern Front, 65% of Tigers were operationally available, compared to the 71% of Panzer IVs and 65% of Panthers.
Tactical organization Tigers were usually employed in separate heavy tank battalions (schwere Panzer-Abteilung) under army command. These battalions would be deployed to critical sectors, either for breakthrough operations or, more typically, counter-attacks. A few favoured divisions, such as the Grossdeutschland, and the 1st SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, 2nd SS Das Reich, and 3rd SS Totenkopf Panzergrenadier Divisions at Kursk, had a Tiger company in their tank regiments. The Grossdeutschland Division had its Tiger company increased to a battalion as the III Panzer Battalion of the Panzer Regiment Grossdeutschland. 3rd SS Totenkopf retained its Tiger I company through the entire war.
1st SS and 2nd SS had their Tiger companies taken away and incorporated into the 101st SS Tiger Battalion, which was part of 1st SS Panzer Corps. The Tiger was originally designed to be an offensive breakthrough weapon, but by the time it went into action, the military situation had changed dramatically, and its main use was on the defensive, as a mobile anti-tank and infantry gun support weapon. Tactically, this also meant moving the Tiger units constantly to parry breakthroughs, causing excessive mechanical wear. As a result, there are almost no instances where a Tiger battalion went into combat at anything close to full strength.
Against the Soviet and Western Allied production numbers, even a 10:1 kill ratio was not sufficient. These numbers must be set against the opportunity cost of the expensive Tiger. Every Tiger cost as much to build as four Sturmgeschütz III assault guns. Allied response British response The British had observed the gradual increase in German AFV armour and firepower since 1940 and had anticipated the need for more powerful anti-tank guns. Work on the 76.2 mm calibre Ordnance QF 17 pounder had begun in late 1940 and in 1942 100 early-production guns were rushed to North Africa to help counter the new Tiger threat.
The gun carriage had not yet been developed, and the guns were mounted on the carriages of 25-pounder gun/howitzers and were known by the code name "Pheasant". Efforts were hastened to get cruiser tanks armed with 17-pounder guns into operation. The A30 Challenger was already at the prototype stage in 1942, but this tank was relatively unprotected, having a front hull thickness of 64 mm, and in the end was fielded in only limited numbers (around 200 were ordered in 1943), though crews liked it for its high speed. The Sherman Firefly, armed with the 17-pounder, was a notable success even though it was only intended to be a stopgap design.
Fireflies were successfully used against Tigers; in one engagement, a single Firefly destroyed three Tigers in 12 minutes with five rounds. Over 2,000 Fireflies were built during the war. Five different 17-pounder-armed British designs saw combat during the war: the A30 Challenger, the A34 Comet (using the OQF 77mm HV variant), the Sherman Firefly, the 17pdr SP Achilles, and the 17pdr SP Archer self-propelled gun, while one more, the A41 Centurion, was about to enter service as the European war ended. In 1944 the British introduced an APDS round for the 17-pounder, which increased penetration performance considerably. Soviet response Initially, the Soviets responded to the Tiger I by restarting production of the 57 mm ZiS-2 anti-tank gun (production was stopped in 1941 in favour of cheaper and more versatile alternatives – e.g.
the ZiS-3 – as the gun's performance was excessive for early German armour). The ZiS-2 had better armour penetration than the 76 mm F-34 tank gun used by most Red Army tanks, or the ZiS-3 76 mm divisional cannon, but was still inadequate against Tigers. A small number of T-34s were again fitted with a tank version of the ZiS-2, the ZiS-4, but it could not fire an adequate high-explosive round, making it an unsuitable tank gun. Firing trials of the new 85 mm D-5T also had proved disappointing. Several captured German Tiger I tanks were shipped to Chelyabinsk, where they were subjected to 85 mm fire from various angles.
The 85 mm gun could not reliably penetrate the Tiger I's armour except at ranges within the lethal envelope of the Tiger I's own 88 mm gun. It was still initially used on the SU-85 self-propelled gun (based on a T-34 chassis) from August 1943. The production of KV heavy tanks armed with the 85 mm D-5T in an IS-85 turret was also started. There was a short production run of 148 KV-85 tanks, which were sent to the front beginning in September 1943 with production ending by December 1943. By early 1944, the T-34/85 appeared; this up-gunned T-34 matched the SU-85's firepower, but with the advantage of mounting the gun in a turret.
It also matched the firepower of the heavier IS-85 tank in a more cost effective package resulting in a repetition of the events which heralded the decline of KV-1 production. The IS was subsequently rearmed with the 122 mm D-25T, which with BR–471 AP rounds was capable of going through the Tiger's armour from 1,200 m, and with the improved BR–471B APHEBC rounds at over 2,000 m. The redundant SU-85 was replaced by the SU-100, mounting a 100 mm D-10 tank gun, that could penetrate 149 mm of vertical armour plate at 1,000 m. In May 1943, the Red Army deployed the SU-152, which was replaced in 1944 by the ISU-152.
These self-propelled guns both mounted the large, 152 mm howitzer-gun. The SU-152 was intended to be a close-support gun for use against German fortifications rather than armour; however, it shared among the later fielded ISU-152, the nickname Zveroboy ("beast killer"), for its rare ability to knock out German heavy tanks. The 152 mm armour-piercing shells weighed over and could penetrate a Tiger's frontal armour from about . Its high-explosive rounds were powerful enough to cause significant damage to a tank, occasionally ripping the turret off outright. However, the size and weight of the ammunition meant both vehicles had a low rate of fire, and each could carry only 20 rounds.
U.S. response The US Army hesitated to place 76 mm M1 guns in action even when they were already available, as combat through early 1944 indicated that the 75 mm M3 was more than adequate for handling the German tank threat. This conclusion was partly based on the correct estimate that Tigers would be encountered in relatively small numbers, and on the assumption that anti-tank gun-fire (as in Tunisia and Sicily) rather than tanks could knock them out. Operators – The main operator – 13 examples given by Germany – Used captured Tigers in the Saint Nazaire salient and the Allied offensive into Germany Survivors Tiger 131 On 21 April 1943, a Tiger I of the 504th German heavy tank battalion, with turret number 131, was captured on a hill called Djebel Djaffa in Tunisia.
A 6-pounder solid shot from a Churchill tank of the British 48th Royal Tank Regiment hit the Tiger's gun barrel and ricocheted into its turret ring, jamming its traverse and wounding the commander. The crew bailed out and the tank was captured. After repairs, the tank was sent to England for a thorough inspection. The captured tank was officially handed over to the Bovington Tank Museum by the British Ministry of Supply on 25 September 1951. In June 1990, the tank was removed from display at the museum and work began on its restoration. This was carried out both by the museum and the Army Base Repair Organisation and involved an almost complete disassembly of the tank.
The Maybach HL230 engine from the museum's Tiger II was installed (the Tiger's original Maybach HL210 had been sectioned for display), along with a modern fire-suppressant system in the engine compartment. In December 2003, Tiger 131 returned to the museum, restored and in running condition. This Tiger was used in the film Fury, the first time an original, fully mechanically operable Tiger I has appeared in a movie since World War II. Others Given the low number of just over 1,300 Tiger Is produced during World War II, very few survived the war and the subsequent post-war scrapping drives. Many large components have been salvaged over the years, but the discovery of a more or less and generally complete vehicle has so far eluded armour enthusiasts and tank collectors.
In addition to Tiger 131, six other Tiger I tanks survive as of April 2018 at these following locations: Musée des Blindés in Saumur, France. Indoor exhibit in good condition. Mid-production (1944) version with overlapping 'steel'-type roadwheels adopted from the Tiger II and fitted with the narrow transport tracks. This Tiger was part of the 2nd company of the SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 102 which fought in the Cauville sector and was later abandoned by her crew after a mechanical breakdown. She was recommissioned as Colmar with the 2nd squadron of the Free French 6th Cuirassier Regiment and joined the new unit in fighting all the way back to Germany.
Vimoutiers in Normandy, France. The renowned "Vimoutiers Tiger tank". Abandoned and then destroyed (to prevent enemy capture) by its German crew in August 1944. An outdoor monument in poor condition due to the effect of time and the elements (many original parts such as hatches and both rear exhaust pipes missing). Kubinka Tank Museum in Moscow, Russia. In good condition; displayed as an indoor exhibit (although the outermost row of four roadwheels are missing on this vehicle). Military-Historical Museum of Lenino-Snegiri in Russia. In very bad condition; displayed outdoors. This tank was a former firing-range target and has been badly shot-at and cut up (damage include broken running gear and multiple shell-holes on its armour).
Tiger 712 [Hull Number 250031] of the 501st Heavy Panzer Battalion is a part of the United States Army Armor & Cavalry Museum in Fort Benning, Georgia, the US. In good condition; formerly displayed outdoors, it has since been moved indoors. This vehicle appears to have had its left turret and upper-hull sides partially cut open (possibly for vehicle studies and analysis) during or after WWII but the cut openings have since been covered up by false metal plates. The German Panzer Museum in Munster now has a Tiger I on display. This tank was reconstructed by Mr. Hoebig in Germany using parts found in the Trun Scrapyard in Normandy and some other parts found in Kurland (in Latvia).
Tanks of comparable role, performance and era Soviet Iosif Stalin 2 United States M26 Pershing See also List of WWII Maybach engines Notes References Citations Bibliography External links Bovington Tank Museum Tiger and Restoration Tiger I Information Center – Comprehensive website about the Tiger I Article, "New German Heavy Tank" from U.S. Intelligence Bulletin, June 1943 "Under The Tiger's Skin" – June 1945 Popular Science Tiger survivors – PDF, Surviving Tiger Tanks Tiger and Tiger II sections from Handbook on German Military Forces Category:Heavy tanks of Germany Category:World War II heavy tanks Category:World War II tanks of Germany Category:History of the tank
Old Persian cuneiform is a semi-alphabetic cuneiform script that was the primary script for Old Persian. Texts written in this cuneiform have been found in Iran (Persepolis, Susa, Hamadan, Kharg Island), Armenia, Romania (Gherla), Turkey (Van Fortress), and along the Suez Canal. They were mostly inscriptions from the time period of Darius I, such as the DNa inscription, as well as his son, Xerxes I. Later kings down to Artaxerxes III used more recent forms of the language classified as "pre-Middle Persian". History Old Persian cuneiform is loosely inspired by the Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform; however, only one glyph is directly derived from it - l(a) (), from la ().
(la did not occur in native Old Persian words, but was found in Akkadian borrowings.) Scholars today mostly agree that the Old Persian script was invented by about 525 BC to provide monument inscriptions for the Achaemenid king Darius I, to be used at Behistun. While a few Old Persian texts seem to be inscribed during the reigns of Cyrus the Great (CMa, CMb, and CMc, all found at Pasargadae), the first Achaemenid emperor, or Arsames and Ariaramnes (AsH and AmH, both found at Hamadan), grandfather and great-grandfather of Darius I, all five, specially the later two, are generally agreed to have been later inscriptions.
Around the time period in which Old Persian was used, nearby languages included Elamite and Akkadian. One of the main differences between the writing systems of these languages is that Old Persian is a semi-alphabet while Elamite and Akkadian were syllabic. In addition, while Old Persian is written in a consistent semi-alphabetic system, Elamite and Akkadian used borrowings from other languages, creating mixed systems. Decipherment Much of the progress made in decipherment depended on the names of kings. Attempts at deciphering Old Persian cuneiform started in 1711 when some of Darius's inscriptions were published by Jean Chardin. In 1802, Friedrich Münter realized that recurring groups of characters must be the word for “king” (, now known to be pronounced xšāyaϑiya).
Georg Friedrich Grotefend extended this work by realizing a king's name is often followed by “great king, king of kings” and the name of the king's father. Grotefend made a major breakthrough when he noticed that one of the kings' father was not a king. In Persian history around the time period the inscriptions were expected to be made, there were only two instances where a ruler came to power without being a previous king's son. They were Darius the Great and Cyrus the Great, both of whom became emperor by revolt. The deciding factors between these two choices were the names of their fathers and sons.
Darius's father was Hystaspes and his son was Xerxes, while Cyrus' father was Cambyses I and his son was Cambyses II. Within the text, the father and son of the king had different groups of symbols for names so Grotefend assumed that the king must have been Darius. These connections allowed Grotefend to figure out the cuneiform characters that are part of Darius, Darius's father Hystaspes, and Darius's son Xerxes. Grotefend's contribution to Old Persian is unique in that he did not have comparisons between Old Persian and known languages, as opposed to the decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphics and the Rosetta Stone.
All his decipherments were done by comparing the texts with known history. More advances were made on Grotefend's work and by 1847, most of the symbols were correctly identified. Notable uses of Old Persian's decipherment include the decipherment of Elamite and Akkadian through the Behistun Inscription. Signs Most scholars consider the writing system to be an independent invention because it has no obvious connections with other writing systems at the time, such as Elamite, Akkadian, Hurrian, and Hittite cuneiforms. While Old Persian's basic strokes are similar to those found in cuneiform scripts, Old Persian texts were engraved on hard materials, so the engravers had to make cuts that imitated the forms easily made on clay tablets.
The signs are composed of horizontal, vertical, and angled wedges. There are four basic components and new signs are created by adding wedges to these basic components. These four basic components are two parallel wedges without angle, three parallel wedges without angle, one wedge without angle and an angled wedge, and two angled wedges. The script is written from left to right. The script encodes three vowels, a, i, u, and twenty-two consonants, k, x, g, c, ç, j, t, θ, d, p, f, b, n, m, y, v, r, l, s, z, š, and h. Old Persian contains two sets of consonants: those whose shape depends on the following vowel and those whose shape is independent of the following vowel.
The consonant symbols that depend on the following vowel act like the consonants in Devanagari. Vowel diacritics are added to these consonant symbols to change the inherent vowel or add length to the inherent vowel. However, the vowel symbols are usually still included so [di] would be written as [di] [i] even though [di] already implies the vowel. For the consonants whose shape does not depend on the following vowels, the vowel signs must be used after the consonant symbol. Compared to the Avestan alphabet Old Persian notably lacks voiced fricatives, but includes the sign ç (of uncertain pronunciation) and a sign for the non-native l. Notably, in common with the Brahmic scripts, there appears to be no distinction between a consonant followed by an a and a consonant followed by nothing.
logograms: Auramazdā: , , (genitive) xšāyaθiya "king": dahyāuš- "country": , baga- "god": būmiš- "earth": word divider: numerals: 1 , 2 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 40 , 60 , 120 Alphabetic properties Although based on a logo-syllabic prototype, all vowels but short /a/ are written and so the system is essentially an alphabet. There are three vowels, long and short. Initially, no distinction is made for length: a or ā, i or ī, u or ū.
However, as in the Brahmic scripts, short a is not written after a consonant: h or ha, hā, hi or hī, hu or hū. (Old Persian is not considered an abugida because vowels are represented as full letters.) Thirteen out of twenty-two consonants, such as h(a), are invariant, regardless of the following vowel (that is, they are alphabetic), while only six have a distinct form for each consonant-vowel combination (that is, they are syllabic), and among these, only d and m occur in three forms for all three vowels: d or da, dā, di or dī, du or dū. (k, g do not occur before i, and j, v do not occur before u, so these consonants only have two forms each.)
Sometimes medial long vowels are written with a y or v, as in Semitic: dī, dū. Diphthongs are written by mismatching consonant and vowel: dai, or sometimes, in cases where the consonant does not differentiate between vowels, by writing the consonant and both vowel components: cišpaiš (gen. of name Cišpi- 'Teispes'). In addition, three consonants, t, n, and r, are partially syllabic, having the same form before a and i, and a distinct form only before u: n or na, nā, ni or nī, nu or nū.
The effect is not unlike the English sound, which is typically written g before i or e, but j before other vowels (gem, jam), or the Castilian Spanish sound, which is written c before i or e and z before other vowels (cinco, zapato): it is more accurate to say that some of the Old Persian consonants are written by different letters depending on the following vowel, rather than classifying the script as syllabic. This situation had its origin in Assyrian cuneiform, where several syllabic distinctions had been lost and were often clarified with explicit vowels. However, in the case of Assyrian, the vowel was not always used, and was never used where not needed, so the system remained (logo-)syllabic.
For a while it was speculated that the alphabet could have had its origin in such a system, with a leveling of consonant signs a millennium earlier producing something like the Ugaritic alphabet, but today it is generally accepted that the Semitic alphabet arose from Egyptian hieroglyphs, where vowel notation was not important. (See Proto-Sinaitic script.) Unicode Old Persian cuneiform was added to the Unicode Standard in March 2005 with the release of version 4.1.
The Unicode block for Old Persian cuneiform is U+103A0–U+103DF and is in the Supplementary Multilingual Plane: Notes and references Sources Further reading External links Fonts Download "Kakoulookiam", Old Persian Cuneiform Font (Unicode) Download "Khosrau", Old Persian Cuneiform Font (Unicode) Download "Behistun", Old Persian Cuneiform Font (Unicode) Download Old Persian & Avestan Fonts Old Persian Cuneiform Unicode Test Page (install one of the above fonts and see this page) Unicode Problems (learn how to configure your browser) Texts Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions (Livius.org) Descriptions Omniglot article on Old Persian cuneiform Ancient scripts article on Old Persian cuneiform Old Persian cuneiform in contrast with Elamite and Late Babylonian cuneiform Category:Persian orthography Category:Old Persian language Category:Obsolete writing systems Category:Syllabary writing systems Category:Alphabets Category:Cuneiform Category:Persian scripts
A quotation is the repetition of a sentence, phrase, or passage from speech or text that someone has said or written. In oral speech, it is the representation of an utterance (i.e. of something that a speaker actually said) that is introduced by a quotative marker, such as a verb of saying. For example: John said: "I saw Mary today". Quotations in oral speech are also signaled by special prosody in addition to quotative markers. In written text, quotations are signaled by quotation marks. Quotations are also used to present well-known statement parts that are explicitly attributed by citation to their original source; such statements are marked with (punctuated with) quotation marks.
Quotations are often used as a literary device to represent someone's point of view. They are also widely used in spoken language when an interlocutor wishes to present a proposition that they have come to know via hearsay. As a literary device A quotation can also refer to the repeated use of units of any other form of expression, especially parts of artistic works: elements of a painting, scenes from a movie or sections from a musical composition. Reasons for using Quotations are used for a variety of reasons: to illuminate the meaning or to support the arguments of the work in which it is being quoted, to provide direct information about the work being quoted (whether in order to discuss it, positively or negatively), to pay homage to the original work or author, to make the user of the quotation seem well-read, and/or to comply with copyright law.
Quotations are also commonly printed as a means of inspiration and to invoke philosophical thoughts from the reader. Pragmatically speaking, quotations can also be used as language games (in the Wittgensteinian sense of the term) to manipulate social order and the structure of society. Common sources Famous quotations are frequently collected in books that are sometimes called quotation dictionaries or treasuries. Of these, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations, The Yale Book of Quotations and The Macmillan Book of Proverbs, Maxims, and Famous Phrases are considered among the most reliable and comprehensive sources.
Diaries and calendars often include quotations for entertainment or inspirational purposes, and small, dedicated sections in newspapers and weekly magazines—with recent quotations by leading personalities on current topics—have also become commonplace. Misquotations Many quotations are routinely incorrect or attributed to the wrong authors, and quotations from obscure or unknown writers are often attributed to far more famous writers. Examples of this are Winston Churchill, to whom many political quotations of uncertain origin are attributed, and Oscar Wilde, to whom anonymous humorous quotations are sometimes attributed. The Star Trek catchphrase "Beam me up, Scotty" did not appear in that form in the original series.