For decades, the television was the flagship of anyconsumer-electronics product line-up. In all the gadgets in the home,【M1】______the TV held the most prominent real estate in the living room, costthe most to buy, and carry the biggest brand mark. And for【M2】______consumer-electronics makers who manufactured them, selling TVs was a good business. As the bulky cathode-ray tube televisions of the past turned into the sleek, flat-screen televisions of today, another shift startedto occur. The price competition was merciful and unrelenting since【M3】______the televisions were hard to differentiate. Even so consumers were【M4】______buying more televisions than ever, TV makers struggled to turn a profit. Now, another shift is taking place, and it is threatening torob televisions their prominence—and value—in the home. With【M5】______more people streaming or downloading video as an alternation to【M6】______cable or satellite broadcast, more consumers are watching TV shows and movies on smartphones, tablets and laptops. The television, meanwhile, may become just another screen. "That's avery real possibility," says Paul Gagnon, the director of North 【M8】______American TV research for DisplaySearch, a market-research firmbased in Santa Clara, Calif. When televisions end up becoming【M8】______just another monitor, he says, " that is a low-profit, no-money business with just a handful of players." To stay ahead of changing viewing habits, television makersare pushing Web-connected televisions loading with applications.【M9】______Web TVs count for about a quarter of all new flat-panel televisions【M10】______this year, rising to about half of all shipments in three years, according to DisplaySearch.

The old man is very pleased to be told that his daughters and son-in-laws are going to see him tomorrow.

[此试题无题干]

用拆字先生的办法，望文生义，家最初显然和猪圈有关，而家的发展，当然是让它越来越不像猪圈。不过，我并不喜欢那些一尘不染的家庭。清洁过了头，家反而不像家。家是给人住的，因此，我想一切都应该以让人不感到别扭为度。过分用心了，人便变成了家的奴隶，整天替家当保姆，不值得。一个让人羡慕的家庭环境，所有的布置，都应该是以能促进家庭成员彼此之间的健康和谐为基本的前提。一个好的家居，要充满人情味，太干净，太讲究，人情味必打折扣。 有的人的家庭，喜欢收拾得仅供外宾参观似的，结果，作为家庭的主人，自己也成了无所适从的客人。

In the competitive model—the economy of many sellers each with a small share of the total market—the restraint on the private exercise of economic power was provided by other firms on the same side of the market. It was the eagerness of competitors to sell, not the complaints of buyers, that saved the latter from spoliation. It was assumed, no doubt accurately, that the nineteenth-century textile manufacturer who overcharged for his product would promptly lose his market to another manufacturer who did not. If all manufacturers found themselves in a position where they could exploit a strong demand, and mark up their prices accordingly, there would soon be an inflow of new competitors. The resulting increase in supply would bring prices and profits back to normal. As with the seller who was tempted to use his economic power against the customer, so with the buyer who was tempted to use it against his labor or suppliers, the man who paid less than the prevailing wage would lose his labor force to those who paid the worker his full (marginal) contribution to the earnings of the firm. In all cases the incentive to socially desirable behavior was provided by the competitor. It was to the same side of the market—the restraint of sellers by other sellers and of buyers by other buyers, in other words to competition—that economists came to look for the self-regulatory mechanisms of the economy. They also came to look to competition exclusively and in formal theory still do. The notion that there might be another regulatory mechanism in the economy had been almost completely excluded from economic thought. Thus, with the widespread disappearance of competition in its classical form and its replacement by the small group of firms if not in overt, at least in conventional or tacit, collusion, it was easy to suppose that since competition had disappeared, all effective restraint on private power had disappeared. Indeed, this conclusion was all but inevitable if no search was made for other restraints, and so complete was the preoccupation with competition that none was made. In fact, new restraints on private power did appear to replace competition. They were nurtured by the same process of concentration which impaired or destroyed competition. But they appeared not on the same side of the market but on the opposite side, not with competitors but with customers or suppliers. It will be convenient to have a name for this counterpart of competition and I shall call it countervailing power. To begin with a broad and somewhat too dogmatically stated proposition, private economic power is held in check by the countervailing power of those who are subject to it. The first begets the second. The long trend toward concentration of industrial enterprise in the hands of a relatively few firms has brought into existence not only strong sellers, as economists have supposed, but also strong buyers, a fact they have failed to see. The two develop together, not in precise step, but in such manner that there can be no doubt that the one is in response to the other.

Should museums charge for admission? Museums are expensive to run, with the costs of acquisitions, conservation, maintenance, staff salaries and special exhibitions all weighing heavily upon their budgets. But others think as a non-profit organization, museum should not charge for admissions since it can get government support. The following is an article about this issue. Read it carefully and write your response in about 300 words, in which you should: 1. summarize briefly the author's opinion on the issue; 2. give your comment. Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks. Britain's museums are in crisis. On the surface, things look good. Our galleries have benefited from years of expansion. But all over Britain, a darker reality is emerging in the wake of spending cuts. A survey has shown that since the spending review 58% of museums have suffered cuts, and a fifth have been hit by devastating cuts of 25%. On that measure, yes, 42% have not yet suffered cuts—but surely it's a policy of divide and rule, with councils, not central government, making the big decisions, and less fashionable venues taking the biggest hits (at least as far as I can see). But an overall climate of contraction will surely hit all museums and all aspects of what they do. And there is little chance of this improving in the near future. The worst option is for museums and public collections to start selling works to pay the bills. The recent sale of a Millais by one cash-strapped council is a terrible mistake, a betrayal of our cultural heritage. The best option, I am starting to think, may be to introduce admission fees. I spat out this notion earlier this week in the wake of the attack on two paintings recently in the National Gallery. The debate was taken up by the Telegraph. Obviously, attacks on art happen at museums that charge an entry fee as well as at free ones. But this is about much more than security. I remember the drab, uncared-for feeling of some of Britain's biggest museums in the 1980s and 90s. They seemed to be struggling now, with no big plans and no sense of splendor. Free museums with a supportive government are very different from free museums in a climate of austerity. Going to the Louvre or to American museums 20 years ago was like entering a different universe of cultural pride and enjoyment—these museums really wanted to thrill, and they did justice to their collections. So do ours—right now. Britons have realized how precious our great collections are. The world shares the passion, and if you visit the British Museum this summer the sheer crowd numbers startle. How about turning that popularity into money? We can't let recent progress in our galleries and museums be destroyed by a cost-cutting mentality that first freezes, then rolls back, everything that has been achieved. Charging for entry cannot be a taboo. I probably make more use of free entry than most people; there are obviously ways to make entrance fees egalitarian. Free entry for everyone under 20 and all students, membership schemes for the rest of us, something like the new National Art Pass for those who want to purchase annual overall access. I think free museums are a great British tradition, but I don't want these museums to decay. Charging for entry is a better remedy than selling paintings, closing galleries or sacking staff. Might it even give visitors a keener sense of the value of some of the greatest experiences it is possible to have?

美国的传统节日，有不少是我这个东方人从未经历过，甚至闻所未闻的。 刚到美国，我去一所成人学校读英语。一脚跨进教室，就见一位碧眼女郎飞步迎来，献上一张心形卡片，上面赫然写着：“我喜欢你!”我不禁愕然。纵然“一见钟情”，也没有如此神速的!岂料又有一位金发少女接踵而至，也递上一张心形卡片，上面也写着：“我喜欢你!”真是艳福非浅。来者不拒呢?还是谢绝为妙?正在考虑时，幸得救星到了。我的英语教师，来自台湾的陈女士翩翩而至，朗声笑道：“收下吧，不管谁送你，你都收下。今天是情人节，美国人在这一天互赠心形卡片以示友谊。”啊，我如释重负地笑了。

姚明今天已是一名优秀的球星，可当初他的追求目标却不是拿冠军、去NBA、当球星。他那玩命的训练，奋勇的拼搏，只是为了有一双合脚的鞋子，让全家人不再为他穿鞋而发愁。也许姚明如此简单的目标让人感到不可思议，但正是这看似简单的目标成就了他今天的辉煌。他认真实际地确定着自己人生每一阶段的追求目标。并不断地去实现它，超越它。回首人生旅途中那许许多多被人们抛弃的未竟事业和目标，我们再一次反思姚明：要想走路，先得拥有一双合脚的鞋子，还得一步步地走。

如果“义”代表一种伦理的人生态度，“利”代表一种功利的人生态度，那么，我所说的“情隋”便代表一种审美的人生态度。它主张率性而行，适情而止，每个人都保持自己的真性情。你不是你所信奉的教义，也不是你所占有的物品，你之为你仅在于你的真实“自我”。生命的意义不在于奉献或占有，而在创造，创造就是人的真性情的积极展开，是人在实现其本质力量时所获得的情感上的满足。

天上的云，真是姿态万千，变化无常。 它们有的像羽毛，轻轻地飘在空中；有的像鱼鳞，一片片整整齐齐地排列着；有的像羊群，来来去去；有的像一床大棉被，严严实实地盖住了天空；还有的像峰峦，像河流，像雄狮，像奔马……它们有时把天空点缀得很美丽，有时又把天空笼罩得很阴森。刚才还是白云朵朵，阳光灿烂；一霎间却又是乌云密布，大雨倾盆。 云就像是天气的“招牌”：天上挂什么云，就将出现什么样的天气。

Meaning in Literature In reading literary works, we are concerned with the 'meaning' of one literary piece or another. However, finding out what something really means is a difficult issue. There are three ways to tackle meaning in literature.I. Meaning is what is intended by【T1】______.【T1】______Apart from reading an author's work in question, readers need to1)read【T2】______ by the same author:【T2】______2)get familiar with【T3】______ at the time:【T3】______3)get to know【T4】______ and symbols of the time.【T4】______II. Meaning exists 'in' the text itself.1)some people's view: meaning is produced by the formal propertiesof the text like【T5】______, etc. 【T5】______2)speaker's view: meaning is created by both conventions ofmeaning and【T6】______.【T6】______Therefore, agreement on meaning could be created by【T7】______【T7】______and conventions of usage. But different time periods anddifferent【T8】______ perspectives could lead to different interpretations【T8】______of meaning in a text. III. Meaning is created by【T9】______.【T9】______1)meaning is【T10】______:【T10】______2)meaning is【T11】______:【T11】______3)meaning requires【T12】______:【T12】______- practicing【T13】______【T13】______- practicing【T14】______【T14】______- background research in【T15】______, etc.【T15】______

The following two excerpts are about overtime stresses of Chinese white-collar workers. From the excerpts, you can find that white-collar workers in China have to work overtime, willingly or unwillingly, due to acceleration of life pace and the ever-increasing working pressure. Write an article of NO LESS THAN 300 words, in which you should: 1. summarize work status of white-collar workers in China, and then, 2. express your opinion on how to keep a balance between a workaholic and a life pleasure pursuer.Excerpt 1 Overtime Is Norm for White-Collar Workers Working overtime has become routine for white-collar workers, with more than 60 percent of employees in a recent survey saying they have to work extra time on weekdays and 40 percent having to do so on the weekends. Nearly 14 percent said they only enjoyed half the weekends off in a month, while 3.4 percent said they had no day off in a month. Guangdong province, Beijing and Zhejiang province have the most employees working extra time from Monday to Friday, while Hong Kong, Shanghai and Jiangsu province have the highest average number of monthly overtime days. Huang Ruoshan, Zhaopin's senior career consultant, said working overtime is only prevalent in certain industries such as real estate, the Internet and finance. "Those industries are developing very rapidly, which demands employees work hard under pressure and work extra time," said Huang. "Take the e-commerce industry as an example: It actually demands that employees be available 24 hours a day seven days a week." In the Internet field, there is a term called "996", which means employees start at 9 am, finish around 9 pm and have to work on Saturday. Shen, 27, an employee of mobile phone company in Shenzhen, said it is normal to work extra time and he is willing to do that. "I barely have weekends. However, I am satisfied with my job, my colleagues and working environment. This industry is changing so fast, I am proud to say I am creating value in my position. "However, I know working overtime hurts my health. I even look older than my peers," added Shen. "So I am considering an early retirement when I have enough savings."Excerpt 2 Constant Overtime Stresses Chinese White-Collar Workers to Breaking Point China is facing an epidemic of overwork, to hear the state-controlled press and Chinese social media tell it. About 600,000 Chinese die each year from working too hard, according to the China Youth Daily. China Radio International in April reported a toll of 1,600 every day. "What's the point of working overtime so you can work to death?" asked one commentator on Weibo, lamenting that his boss told employees to spend more time on the job. The rising death rate comes as China's workforce appears to be getting the upper hand, with a shrinking labor pool able to demand higher wages and factory workers regularly going on strike. But the message hasn't gotten through to China's white-collar warriors. In exchange for starting salaries typically double blue-collar pay, they put in hours of overtime on top of eight-hour workdays, often in violation of Chinese labor law, according to Geoffrey Crothall, spokesman for Hong Kong-based labor-advocacy group the China Labour Bulletin. "China is still a rising economy, and people are still buying into that hardworking ethos," said Jeff Kingston, director of Asian Studies at the Tokyo branch campus of Temple University of Philadelphia.

Letty the old lady lived in a "Single Room Occupancy" hotel approved by the New York City welfare department and occupied by old losers, junkies, cockroaches and rats. Whenever she left her room—a tiny cubicle with a cot, a chair, a seven-year-old calendar and a window so filthy it blended with the unspeakable walls—she would pack all her valuables in two large shopping bags and carry them with her. If she didn't, everything would disappear when she left the hotel. Her "things" were also a burden. Everything she managed to possess was portable and had multiple uses. A shawl is more versatile than a sweater, and hats are no good at all, although she used to have lots of nice hats, she told me. The first day I saw Letty I had left my apartment in search of a "bag lady". I had seen these women round the city frequently, had spoken to a few. Sitting around the parks had taught me more about these city vagabonds. As a group, few were eligible for social security. They had always been flotsam and jetsam, floating from place to place and from job to job—waitress, short order cook, sales clerk, stock boy, maid, mechanic, porter—all those jobs held by faceless people. The "bag ladies" were a special breed. They looked and acted and dressed strangely in some of the most determinedly conformist areas of the city. They frequented Fourteen Street downtown, and the fancy shopping districts. They seemed to like crowds but remained alone. They held long conversations with themselves, with telephone poles, with unexpected cracks in the sidewalk. They hung around lunch counters and cafeterias, and could remain impervious to the rudeness of a determined waitress and sit for hours clutching a coffee cup full of cold memories. Letty was my representative bag lady. I picked her up on the corner of Fourteenth and Third Avenue. She had the most suspicious face I had encountered; her entire body, in fact, was pulled forward in one large question mark. She was carrying a double plain brown shopping bag and a larger white bag ordering you to vote for some obscure man for some obscure office and we began talking about whether or not she was an unpaid advertisement. I asked her if she would have lunch with me, and let me treat, as a matter of fact. After some hesitation and a few sharp glances over the top of her glasses, Letty the Bag Lady let me come into her life. We had lunch that day, the next, and later the next week. Being a bag lady was a full-time job. Take the problem of the hotels. You can't stay to long in any one of those welfare hotels, Letty told me, because the junkies figure out your routine, and when you get your checks, and you'll be robbed, even killed. So you have to move a lot. And every time you move, you have to make three trips to the welfare office to get them to approve the new place, even if it's just another cockroach-filled, rat-infested hole in the wall. During the last five years, Letty tried to move every two or three months. Most of our conversations took place standing in line. New York State had just changed the regulations governing Medicaid cards and Letty had to get a new card. That took two hours in line, one hour sitting in a large dank-smelling room, and two minutes with a social worker who never once looked up. Another time, her case worker at the welfare office sent Letty to try and get food stamps, and after standing in line for three hours she found out she didn't qualify because she didn't have cooking facilities in her room. "This is my social life,"she said. "I run around the city and stand in line. You stand in line to see one of them fancy movies and calling it art; I stand in line for medicine, for food, for glasses, for the cards to get pills, for the pills; I stand in line to see people who never see who I am; at the hotel, sometimes I even have to stand in line to go to the John. When I die there'll probably be a line to get through the gate, and when I get up to the front of the line, somebody will push it closed and say,' Sorry. Come back after lunch. ' These agencies, I figure they have to make it as hard for you to get help as they can, so only really strong people or really stubborn people like me can survive. " Letty would talk and talk; sometimes, she didn't seem to know I was even there. She never remembered my name, and would give a little start of surprise whenever I said hers, as if it had been a long time since anyone had said "Letty. " I don't think she thought of herself as a person, anymore; I think she had accepted the view that she was a welfare case, a Mediaid card, a nuisance in the bus depot in the winter time, a victim to any petty criminal, existing on about the same level as cockroaches.

阅读理解Cooperatbive competition. Competitive cooperation. Confused? Airline alliances have travellers scratching their heads over what''s going on in the skies. Some folks view alliances as a blessing to travellers, offering seamless travel, reduced fares and enhanced frequent-flyer benefits. Others see a conspiracy of big businesses, causing decreased competition, increased fares and fewer choices. Whatever your opinion, there''s no escaping airline alliances: the marketing hype is unrelenting, with each of the two mega-groupings, Oneworld and Star Alliance, promoting itself as the best choice for all travellers. And, even if you turn away from their ads, chances are they will figure in any of your travel plans. By the end of the year, Oneworld and Star Alliance will between them control more than 40% of the traffic in the sky. Some pundits predict that figure will be more like 75%in 10 years. 　　But why, after years of often ferocious competition, have airlines decided to band together? Let''s just say the timing is mutually convenient. North American airlines, having exhausted all means of earning customer loyalty at home, have been looking for ways to reach out to foreign flyers. Asian carriers are still hurting from the region-wide economic downturn that began two years ago ― just when some of the airlines were taking delivery of new aircraft. Alliances also allow carriers to cut costs and increase profits by pooling manpower resources on the ground (rather than each airline maintaining its own ground crew) and code-sharing ― the practice of two partners selling tickets and operating only one aircraft. 　　So alliances are terrific for airlines ― but are they good for the passenger? Absolutely, say the airlines: think of the lounges, the joint FFP (frequent flyer programme) benefits, the round-the-world fares, and the global service networks. Then there''s the promise of "seamless" travel: the ability to, say, travel trom Singapore to Rome to New York to Rio de Janiero, all on one ticket, without having to wait hours for connections or worry about your bags. Sounds utopian? Peter Buecking, Cathay Pacific''s director of sales and marketing, thinks that seamless travel is still evolving. "It''s fair to say that these links are only in their infancy. The key to seamlessness rests in infrastructure and information sharing. We''re working on this." Henry Ma, spokesperson for Star Alliance in Hong Kong, lists some of the other benefits for consum ers: "Global travellers have an easier time making connections and planning their itineraries." Ma claims alliances also assure passengers consistent service standards. 　　Critics of alliances say the much-touted benefits to the consumer are mostly pie in the sky, that alliances are all about reducing costs for the airlines, rationalizing services and running joint marketing programmes. Jeff Blyskal, associate editor of Consumer Reports magazine, says the promotional ballyhoo over alliances is much ado about nothing. "I don''t see much of a gain for consumers: alliances are just a marketing gimmick. And as far as seamless travel goes, I''ll believe it when I see it. Most airlines can''t even get their own connections under control, let alone coordinate with another airline." 　　Blyskal believes alliances will ultimately result in decreased flight choices and increased costs for consumers. Instead of two airlines competing and each operating a flight on the same route at 70% capacity, the allied pair will share the route and run one full flight. Since fewer seats will be available, passengers will be obliged to pay more for tickets. 　　The truth about alliances and their merits probably lies somewhere between the travel utopia presented by the players and the evil empires portrayed by their critics. And how much they affect you depends on what kind of traveller you are. 　　Those who''ve already made the elite grade in the FFP of a major airline stand to benefit the most when it joins an alliance: then they enjoy the FFP perks and advantages on any and all of the member carriers. For example, if you''re a Marco Polo Club "gold"member of Cathay Pacific''s Asia Miles FFP, you will automatically be treated as a valuable customer by all members of Oneworld, of which Cathay Pacific is a member ― even if you''ve never flown with them before. 　　For those who haven''t made the top grade in any FFP, alliances might be a way of simplifying the earning of frequent flyer miles. For example, I belong to United Airline''s Mileage Plus and generally fly less than 25,000 miles a year. But I earn miles with every flight I take on Star Alliance member ― All Nippon Airways and Thai Airways. 　　If you fly less than I do, you might be smarter to stay out of the FFP game altogether. Hunt for bargains when booking flights and you might be able to save enough to take that extra trip anyway. The only real benefit infrequent flyers can draw from an alliance is an inexpensive round-the-world fare. 　　The bottom line: for all the marketing hype, alliances aren''t all things to all people ― but everybody can get some benefit out of them.

阅读理解Uncle Geoff 　　My mother''s relations were very different form the Mitfords. Her brother, Uncle Geoff, who often came to stay at Swinbrook, was a small, spare man with thoughtful blue eyes and a rather silent manner. Compared to Uncle Tommy, he was an intellectual of the highest order, and indeed his satirical pen belied his mild demeanor. He spent most of his waking hours composing letters to The Times and other publications in which he outlined his own particular theory of the development of English history. In Uncle Geoff''s view, the greatness of England had risen and waned over the centuries in direct proportion to the use of natural manure in fertilizing the soil. The Black Death of 1348 was caused by gradual loss of the humus fertility found under forest trees. The rise of the Elizabethans two centuries later was attributable to the widespread use of sheep manure. 　　Many of Uncle Geoff''s letters-to-the-editor have fortunately been preserved in a privately printed volume called Writings of A Rebel. Of the collection, one letter best sums up his views on the relationship between manure and freedom. He wrote: 　　Collating old records shows that our greatness rises and falls with the living fertility of our soil. And now, many years of exhausted and chemically murdered soil, and of devitalized food from it, has softened our bodies and still worse, softened our national character. It is an actual fact that character is largely a product of the soil. Many years of murdered food from deadened soil has made us too tame. Chemicals have had their poisonous day. It is now the worm''s turn to reform the manhood of England. The only way to regain our punch, our character, our lost virtues, and with them the freedom natural to islanders, is to compost our land so as to allow moulds, bacteria and earthworms to remake living soil to nourish Englishmen''s bodies and spirits. 　　The law requiring pasteurization of milk in England was a particular target of Uncle Geoff''s. Fond of alliteration, he dubbed it "Murdered Milk Measure," and established the Liberty Restoration League, with headquarters at his house in London, for the specific purpose of organizing a counteroffensive. "Freedom not Doctordom" was the League''s proud slogan. A subsidiary, but nevertheless important, activity of the League was advocacy of a return to the " unsplit, slowly smoked fish" and bread made with "English stone-ground flour, yeast, milk, sea salt and raw cane-sugar."

阅读理解How do you summarize the party scene in Para. 6?

阅读理解The Historical Background of Social Psychology 　　While the roots of social psychology lie in the intellectual soil of the whole western tradition, its present flowering is recognized to be characteristically an American phenomenon. One reason for the striking upsurge of social psychology in the United States lies in the pragmatic tradition of this country. National emergencies and conditions of social disruption provide special incentive to invent new techniques, and to strike out boldly for solutions to practical social problems. Social psychology began to flourish soon after the First World War. This event, followed by the great depression of the 1930s, by the rise of Hitler, the genocide of Jews, race riots, the Second World War and the atomic threat, stimulated all branches of social science. A special challenge fell to social psychology. The question was asked: How is it possible to preserve the values of freedom and individual rights under condition of mounting social strain and regimentation? Can science help provide an answer? This challenging question led to a burst of creative effort that added much to our understanding of the phenomena of leadership, public opinion, rumor, propaganda, prejudice, attitude change, morale, communication, decision-making, race relations, and conflicts of war. 　　Reviewing the decade that followed World War Ⅱ, Cartwright [1961] speaks of the "excitement and optimism" of American social psychologists, and notes "the tremendous increase in the total number of people calling themselves social psychologists". Most of these, we may add, show little awareness of the history of their field. 　　Practical and humanitarian motives have always played an important part in the development of social psychology, not only in America but in other lands as well. Yet there have been discordant and dissenting voices, in the opinion of Herbert Spencer in England, of Ludwig Gumplowicz in Austria, and of William Graham Sumner in the United States, it is both futile and dangerous for man to attempt to steer or to speed social change. Social evolution, they argue, requires time and obeys laws beyond the control of man. The only practical service of social science is to warn man not to interfere with the course of nature (or society). But these authors are in a minority. Most social psychologists share with Comte an optimistic view of man''s chances to better his way of life. Has he not already improved his health via biological sciences? Why should he not better his social relationships via social sciences? For the past century this optimistic outlook has persisted in the face of slender accomplishment to date. Human relations seem stubbornly set. Wars have not been abolished, labor troubles have not abated, and racial tensions are still with us. Give us time and give us money for research, the optimists say.

阅读理解Hostility to Gypsies has existed almost from the time they first appeared in Europe in the 14th century. The origins of the Gypsies, with little written history, were shrouded in mystery. What is known now from clues in the various dialects of their language, Romany, is that they came from northern India to the Middle East a thousand years ago, working as minstrels and mercenaries, metalsmiths and servants. Europeans misnamed them Egyptians, soon shortened to Gypsies. A clan system, based mostly on their traditional crafts and geography, has made them a deeply fragmented and fractious people, only really unifying in the face of enmity from non-Gypsies, whom they call gadje. Today many Gypsy activists prefer to be called Roma, which comes from the Romany word for "man". But on my travels among them most still referred to themselves as Gypsies. 　　In Europe their persecution by the gadje began quickly, with the church seeing heresy in their fortune-telling and the state seeing anti-social behaviour in their nomadism. At various times they have been forbidden to wear their distinctive bright clothes, to speak their own language, to travel, to marry one another, or to ply their traditional crafts. In some countries they were reduced to slavery―it wasn''t until the mid-1800s that Gypsy slaves were freed in Romania. In more recent times the Gypsies were caught up in Nazi ethnic hysteria, and perhaps half a million perished in the Holocaust. Their horses have been shot and the wheels removed from their wagons, their names have been changed, their women have been sterilized, and their children have been forcibly given for adoption to non-Gypsy families. 　　But the Gypsies have confounded predictions of their disappearance as a distinct ethnic group, and their numbers have burgeoned. Today there are an estimated 8 to 12 million Gypsies scattered across Europe, making them the continent''s largest minority. The exact number is hard to pin down. Gypsies have regularly been undercounted, both by regimes anxious to downplay their profile and by Gypsies themselves, seeking to avoid bureaucracies. Attempting to remedy past inequities, activist groups may overcount. Hundreds of thousands more have emigrated to the Americas and elsewhere. With very few exceptions Gypsies have expressed no great desire for a country to call their own ― unlike the Jews, to whom the Gypsy experience is often compared. "Romanestan,'' said Ronald Lee, the Canadian Gypsy writer. "is where my two feet stand."