Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 December 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 13

Just a few quick questions about musical notation

I tried googleing but could not get to a simple and clear enough answer:

• 1. I only used before, for example, D to denote major and Dm to denote minor. What is d? Is it the same as D or Dm ?
• 2. Are B and H the same?
• 3. What exactly does a + sign mean after the name of a chord?

--131.188.3.20 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• 1) I'm pretty sure that d is the same as Dm.
• 2) From B major: Note that in German and most Central and Northern European languages, the pitch B is called "H" while B♭ is called "B".
• 3) "+" can mean one of two things. On its own (e.g., C+), it represents an augmented fifth chord (tonic, major 3rd, sharpened 5th - C, E, G# in the case of C), though this is also written Caug. Followed by a number, it means a major chord with an extra note added, the note indicated by the number (e.g., C+2 is C with an added 2nd - C,D,E,G). A lot of the notation can be found at Chord (music) and chord notation.

Grutness...wha? 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --131.188.3.21 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment on using upper vs. lower case letters for keys: There is a shorthand style used in certain publications, e.g. New Grove, where d = "D minor", and D = "D major". But sometimes people confuse the shorthand with the longhand, and come up with hybrid things like "His 3 symphonies were in the keys of d minor, F Major, and c minor" (it ought to read "... D minor, F major and C minor"). I spend a lot of my time here fixing things like that. But it pays ok so I'm not complaining. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Credit Default Swaps and Argentina

I'm writing a paper on Argentina's current debt situation, and I was told to check out its CDS as a way of measuring how confident investors are about Argentina's solvency. I would especially like to find a list of how its CDS rates compare with other countries'. So far all I've found is this list: http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14972951, which doesn't include Argentina and goes by the total amount of insured bonds rather than the relative cost of insuring credit from a particular country (I think this is called the CDS spread?). Where can I find such a comparison?

130.64.179.156 (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Where can I read latkes, latkes good to eat online?

I have the book but I can't seem to find it. I tried searching it on the internet but did not come up with anything. I would like to read the full story off the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltlbpv (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Latkes, Latkes, Good to Eat: A Chanukah Story appears to be a commercial, copyrighted children's book. I can't find any evidence exists in any legal e-book form from an internet search and looking at popular sites. As a children's book this isn't perhaps that surprising. Bear in mind even if it does exist it may not be cheaper then the physical book if that's the reason you prefer an e-book version. You won't of course receive any help on where to find a copyright infringing version of the book Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of it is visible on Google Books. 78.149.247.13 (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Inflation-adjusted data on GDP per capita

Where can I download the data for inflation-adjusted GDP per capita for the United States, Germany and the European Union for the last 50 or so years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.155.128 (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In which currency? DOR (HK) (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The OECD website has the best statistics resources of them all, and luckily for you, the countries you need are all in there. User:Krator (t c) 10:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Legislation passed by one house of Congress but not the other in current session?

Howdy. Where can I find a list of legislation passed either by the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate - but not both - during the current Congress? Thanks --70.169.186.78 (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Congressional Record? --Jayron32 05:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Try, for starters, http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov . Also http://www.thomas.gov (the Library of Congress), especially Bills, Resolutions and Roll-Call Votes. There are several other more-specific non-government (but free) sources I used and cited in Fairness Doctrine, Glass-Steagall Act and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, but unfortunately, it's long enough ago that I'd need to reinvestigate the exact links and what they offer. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Kind of an interesting question. The information is buried somewhere in the CR, but it won't be in one nice list (I don't think). It might be easiest to narrow it down. Start with all the bills, Bills the Senate passed, Bills the Housed passed, then subtract out the bills that were presented to the president (the idea being that if it doesn't pass both houses it can't get to the president). I don't know enough minutae about the House/Senate Rules, but both are available online and the presentment sections might give you some more ideas about how a bill could pass a branch of congress, but not get any further. I would guess there's some crazy scenario where a few bills pass both houses but die before presentment. Shadowjams (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

the german fatherland

what is the german fatherland? is it prussia? is it swabia? is it where vines grow on the rhein? is it where gulls fly over jutland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faulty (talk • contribs) 07:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an uneducated view here, but when I hear the phrase "German fatherland" I take it to mean Germany itself. Hence the fatherland of all Germans is Germany (in theory) no matter where they are; this would be the normal usage of "fatherland". - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Germany became a unified (well, somewhat) country only in 1871. Strive for a single, democratic, unified Germany had been a major theme amongst modernists since the French revolution, and the major item in the 1848 unrest. When the "unified" part was achieved with the Kaisereich, this patriotic sentiment carried over, and became a major theme among conservatives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the Latin 'Patria', which gave the French 'Patrie' and the English 'patriot', translates as 'fatherland'. It's a pretty widespread trope.

In interesting contrast: Mother Russia, Mother India...Rhinoracer (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as where the germanic peoples came from, the forerunners of modern Germans, then they came from modern coastal Scandanavia, pretty much both sides of the Øresund. There is a romantic notion that Gotland is the original Germanic (Gothic) homeland, but I don't think you could narrow it down to that small of a territory. So, depending on how you define "german" and "germany", the Germanic fatherland could be thought of as:

• Modern Germany exactly as it exists today
• The territory of the German Empire, which includes roughly modern Germany plus Prussia, Pomerellia, Alsace-Lorraine, and Silesia
• The territory of all German language-speaking peoples, so roughly the above plus Austria and the Sudetenland, OR the area known as Großdeutschland. This is what Hitler and the Third Reich defined as the Germany.
• The German-speaking areas of the Holy Roman Empire, roughly the HRE north of the Alps
• Coastal Scandanavia as I describe above.

Of course, it all depends on what your political reason is for defining a "homeland" or "motherland" or "fatherland" is. You generally fit your own definition to your political goals. --Jayron32 19:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

ah so the german fatherland must be greater still. is it bavaria? is it styria? is it where the marsi graze their cattle? is it where the iron of the mark reaches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faulty (talk • contribs) 05:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. As I stated, it depends on your political aims. Modern Germany is probably all you are going to get for a "German fatherland" or "homeland", given that the last person who tried to expand Germany's borders didn't go over so well. You could also claim the original "germanic" homeland of coastal Scandanavia, since that historical fact is unlikely to generate much in the way of controversy. --Jayron32 05:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as the Romans were concerned, their empire ended, and the barbarian Teutons, Huns, Goths, and Angles, began at the Rhine. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're quoting some sort of poetic source, Faulty, although I can't identify it off-hand. Another poetic source, the Deutschlandlied, refers to the German fatherland as stretching from the Meuse (in modern-day France) to the Memel (the river Neman in modern-day Lithuania), and from the Adige (in northern Italy) to the Belt (any of three or more straits between the European mainland, especially Jutland, and the island parts of Denmark). At no time during peacetime have all of these areas been controlled by the same state - the song is aspirational, and does not reflect the political reality at the time of its composition.

The definition of a fatherland is pretty much wholly subjective. It's possible to define the ethnic group you're examining (in this case, Germans) in different ways and get different possible ranges of possible 'fatherlands'. In linguistics, especially with reference to the Indo-European family of which the German languages form a part, the term Urheimat is used to refer to a putative original region where a particular kind of language was spoken.

In short, your question does not have a unique correct answer. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Odes (Horace)

Noticed that in Book 3 the ancient editor Porphyrion read the first six odes of this book as a single sequence, one unified by a common moral purpose. Is there a "single sequence" theme like this in any of the other books?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In my 1872 edition of The Odes and Epodes of Horace translated, etc, by Lord Lytton (presumably Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton, though possibly his son), Lytton (who by the way concurs with Porphyrion and "modern critics" on the above) says that Book IV Ode v "may be taken in connection with the preceding and Ode xiv." These three are 'In Praise of Drusus and the Race of the Neros' (about events in Augustus' military campaign in Transalpine Gaul, with Tiberius and Drusus under his command); 'To Augustus, That He Would Hasten his Return to Rome;' and 'To Augustus, After the Victories of Tiberius;' while the following Ode xv, 'To Augustus on the Restoration of Peace' is "the appropriate epilogue to the Fourth Book, of which the poems that celebrate the Roman victories under Drusus and Tiberius constitute the noblest portion." Their titles made these four easy to spot, there may be other less obvious sequences.

In the so-called Epodes, Epodes v and xvii constitute the two parts of an attack on the witch "Canidia". Again, there may be more obscure connections between other Epodes. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So, if I am understanding this correctly, there are 3 Odes of a single sequence related to Augustus' military campaign as you describe in Book IV. Book 4 Ode xv is an epilogue. IF you count the six "Roman odes" as 1 and the four you describe that have a common theme as 1 -THEN how many total Odes do you get for all the Books?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

How many Odes do you get with Books 1, 2, and 3 only - counting the "Roman odes" as 1 ode?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar enough with them to know IF the Lollius in Book 4 Ode 9 is the same as Marcus Lollius? The line there reads No, Lollius, no: a soul is yours - could be also the son of the article? The article is a person that was a friend of Augustus and a governor of Gaul.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Book 4 has to do with battles and victories under Drusus and Tiberius whom were under Augustus. Book 4 then would have a Roman military theme, which apparently is summed up in the epilogue Ode xv. Am I correct on this?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to address your questions in order:

1. The evident sequence within Book IV that Lytton decribes (in a rather convoluted way, not surprisingly - this is the man who gave us "It was a dark and stormy night, etc, etc, etc.") comprises 4 odes out of its total of 15, Nos. iv, v, xiv and xv; the first of these is about the actions of Augustus' military subordinates, and the other three are directly addressed to him.
2. The total numbers of odes in each of the 4 books respectively are I - xxxviii, II - xx, III - xxx and IV - xv. If one were to consider the 6 "Roman Odes" as 1 poem (as is widely accepted - Lytton says of III, i "The ode opens with a stanza which modern critics generally consider to be an introduction not only to the ode itself, but also to the five following - all six constituting, as it were, serial parts of one varied poem, written about the same time and for the same object . . . .") and the 4 "Augustan Odes" (my coinage) as one then this would revise to III - xxv and IV - xii (I'm sure you can do the rest of the maths), but I don't think the latter amalgamation would be particularly valid: each of the 4 were written separately at different times (the first 3 as events unfolded, the last rather later). I would also count the Book of Epodes, numbering xvii, since the descriptions 'odes' and 'epodes' post-dates Horace and the supposed distinction appears somewhat pedantic: as previously mentioned, this includes the sequence of v 'On the Witch Canidia' and xvii 'To Canidia - An Apology' (which is not sincere, but a disguised continuation of v's attack) - incidentally, to the latter is appended (un-numbered) 'Canidia's Reply', presumably by the woman herself, of whom Lytton writes "The scholiasts say that Canidia's real name was Cratidia, and that she was a Neapolitan perfume-vendor. That she was ever a mistress of Horace's is a conjecture founded upon no evidence . . . ."

[Addendum: on re-examination, 'Canidia's Reply' is clearly Horace's composition and merely the second portion of Epode xvii, not an actual rejoinder by the real woman.] 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Lytton clearly thinks that the Lollius of IV, ix was the Marcus Lollius of the article, rather than his son to whom the epistles were addressed, though he notes the contrary opinion of one Ritter - "Ritter maintains that Epistles ii and xviii, Lib I, are addressed to the Lollius of the ode; but most critics consider them to be addressed to his eldest son." Lytton suggest that either Lollius had been unjustly defamed - "His vindication has been, however, very ably attempted by Tate ('Vindiciae Lollianae'), and the evidence against him is generally considered to rest upon prejudiced and questionable authority - See Estrè, Hor. Pros." or that if Lollius was "rapacious and corrupt" then he successfully deceived his friend Horace as well as Augustus. I myself have no knowledge or opinion of these matters.
2. The other 11 odes of Book IV appear to be unrelated to the theme of the "4-ode mini-series". Lytton mentions the theory that Augustus himself had requested that the first three be published, and it would be natural for Horace to add what other odes he had written since his rather earlier Book III to make up a decent-sized work, and to round it off with a concluding fourth on the Augustan theme.

On a final note, remember that all Lytton's references to "modern critics" and the like, and his opinions, were first published in 1869. They may obviously have been superceded in the last 140 years! I myself have no particular knowledge of Horace beyond my possession of this particular volume (and a 40-year old memory of my Latin master reading us one of the odes omitted from most contemporary collections due to their obscenity), so you would be advised to canvass opinion more widely. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is great! Thanx for the detailed explanation. It helps alot, especially for one that has no knowledge on the subject. I'm not holding you to anything, but now the way I see it is

• Book 1 as 38. Book 2 as 20. Book 3 as 25, counting the "Roman Odes" as 1. For these 3 books this adds up to 83. Appparently Augustus requested Horace to publish these 83 making the final publication some number over 83, assuming he added Odes on the Augustan theme (counting perhaps as 1 additional Ode).

Agree on the count, but not the publication history. My assumption is that Horace's odes (and other works) would probably have been privately or/and publicly recited individually more or less as each was completed during his literary career, and may have circulated in written form to at least a circle of peers, friends and dedicatees, such as Augustus (I'm not aware of a commercial market for individual short written poems in Rome of the period, but I'm no expert and there may also have been one). He apparently compiled and published them as 3 books in about 731 A.U.C. (approx. 23 BCE) - not, of course, in the physical form of modern books; each would have comprised one or more scrolls. Subsequent to their publication, he continued writing the odd ode, but concentrated on other forms, particularly his Epistles. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Book 4 is another completely different issue, since it looks like 11 odes are unrelated. The 4 "Augustan Odes" (your coinage) counting as 1 Ode then makes this book 12.

Agreed. The post-731 odes included 3 (or 4) written and promulgated around 738-41 A.U.C. (15-13 BCE), indirectly or directly praising Augustine (the 2nd and 3rd (and 4th) being explicitly addressed to him), Augustine then asked that 'his' 3 (or 4) odes be published, and (presumably) in order to make up a publishable volume, Horace added the 11 other "non-Augustan" odes, perhaps plus the 4th "Augustan" ode which Lytton describes, though perhaps only figuratively, as "the appropriate epilogue to the Fourth Book," Book 4 was published in 741 A.U.C (13 BCE?), 10 years after the first 3. Note that the Epodes I mentioned were much earlier work, compiled and published around 724 A.U.C (30 BCE). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Lytton clearly thinks that the Lollius of IV, ix was the Marcus Lollius of the article. This then would mean that the two Lollian additional epistles of Horace (i.2 and 18) were addressed to him.

Yes and no: he agreed with the (then) critical majority that Ode = Father and Epistles = Son, while giving due acknowledgement to Ritter's opinion that both = Father, but he may have been wrong; the modern concensus, as far as I'm aware of it, is that the epistles were probably addressed to the son, while the ode praising Lollius (which was apparently written after Lollius' alleged transgressions were supposedly exposed) is argued about depending on one's interpretation of Lollius senior's character (good but maligned, or bad) and Horace's possibly mistaken reading of him.

Incidentally, I had little knowledge of Horace either, beyond owning The Odes and Epodes, but I enjoy and am good at textual research and analysis, which I used to do professionally. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This pretty well clears it up for me, unless others want to amplify on this.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope they do, as per my disclaimer above! - is there a real Classicist in the House? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanx again for the excellent follow-up. If others want to contribute to this, it is welcomed.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes copyright

Who owns the copyright of the original Sherlock Holmes novels and short stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle? --Lit Scholar (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930, any stories first published in his lifetime will now be in the public domain in the UK, and other countries with copyright terms of life plus 70 years. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you can find his works on-line at various places, see the links at the end of his article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For details about the Arthur Conan Doyle literary estate, see [1] and subsequent pages. For licensing info, see [2]. - Nunh-huh 11:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We have the "Island of Great Britain" ... so where is the "Island of Little Britain"?

NOTE: This question/discussion has moved from Talk:British Isles --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We have the Island of Great Britain ... so where is the Island of Little Britain?

Seems like a reasonable question, don't you think. The answer would most likely be the Island of Little Britain is the Island of Ireland ... do you folkes agree, or disagree?

Opinions ... please.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Little Britain - The Pretannic Islands stuffThe first references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia is all bullshit. Þjóðólfr (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Þjóðólfr,

Could you elaborate on your objection to the "Pretannic Islands" stuff?

Thank you in advance. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read this. Hayden120 (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Little Britain" is not an island. It is today a part of France. If this discussion is not related to improving the article, I suggest it be removed. Wikipedia is not a forum. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rannpháirtí.

Item (1): The "Wikipedia is not a forum." rationale does not apply in this case. The British Isles terminology is being contested. The term British is composed of two-parts, (i). Great Britain, and (ii). Little Britain.

Item (2): The Peninsula of Brittany (i.e., Peninsula of Little Britain) and the Island of Ireland (i.e., the Island of Little Britain) taken together, collectively make up Little Britain (i.e., Little Britain has two-parts, a Peninsula and an Island), in contrast Great Britain only has one part (i.e., the Island of Great Britain).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The British Isles is so-called because it is made up of around one thousand smaller islands, one of which is 'Great Britain', so called because it is the largest of these islands, and larger than the French Peninsula of Brittany. It is not, as you say, composed merely of two parts (even if you do lump two unrelated parts together as you did). The inhabitants of Great Britain spoke a similar if not identical language to those in Brittany when the Romans were here. Ireland is not called 'Little Britain' because it's called Ireland, and was inhabited by people who spoke a language that had probably already diverged sufficiently from the languages on the main island to be considered a separate language. This is what I've been told, anyway. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one. "Great Britain" is a term coined to describe an entity. Just because there is a "great" doesn't mean there has to be a "little"! The word "great" in this case could just as easily mean "excellent" as "the larger part of", and it has been suggested that that is the meaning held by most Britons in their national psyche. Joking aside, the island of Great Britain was historically divided into two parts: North Britain comprising Scotland, and South Britain comprising England and Wales. Great Britain is the name of the entire island. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed this is one of those Little Unanswered Questions, in the same vein as enquiring what your Little Uncle, who lived near the Little Lakes did during the Little War. OK, there was a little war. Cool.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a Little Civil War too - my great grandfather was in it! Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Britain! Britain! Britain! Adam Bishop (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, many centuries ago Great Britain was called great to distinguish it from Britanny in France. 78.147.45.132 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that country names had to be based on truth. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rannpháirtí.

Please do not summarily delete this section. I am in earnest in "fleshing-out" this discussion. I have watched your posting in the past, and I have never been un-civil with you. You and I hold different opinions on this issue. I would honestly like to discuss them with you. That is what TalkPages are for (to discuss matters relating to the Article and its improvement).

Island of Ireland as the Island of Mikra Britannia (Little Britain)

Little Britain - The Pretannic Islands stuffThe first references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia is all bullshit. (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Now Þjóðólfr has weighted-in, and provided a reference. Do you have something to add as well? Thank you in advance for anything that you might comment on, eh.

Sincerely ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the article on Protohistory of Ireland states:

"The 2nd century Alexandrian Greek writer Ptolemy, one of the most important geographers, mathematicians and astronomers in the ancient world, refers to Ireland in two of his works. In the astronomical treatise known as the Almagest he gives the latitudes of an island he calls Mikra Brettania (Μικρὰ Βρεττανία) or "Little Britain" (the south of the island at 58 degrees, the north at 61 degrees)."

This statement appears to be referenced from Philip Freeman, Ireland and the Classical World, University of Texas Press, 2001; it is corroborated from some online sources. Secondly, the article on Great Britain states:

"Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island of Great Britain as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany."

- referenced here - Denys Hay, The use of the term "Great Britain" in the Middle Ages, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 1955-56, pp.55-66 So, terms which are capable of translation as "Lesser" or "Little Britain" appear to have been used by different people at different periods for different areas - Ireland and Brittany. There is no evidence for any connection between the two uses, or of any collective use for the two places, and, at the time the term "Great Britain" came into use in the English language, its counterpart term clearly related to Brittany and not Ireland (as the Hay ref above makes clear). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Brittany and Britain are both Bretagne in French, so they definitely need their Grande. Alansplodge (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

'Little Britain' is the name of a street in the City of London; see [3]. It may be distinguished from the street 'Petty France' [4], which in the old days was notorious for queues of people waiting for their passports to be issued. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Medicare part D penalty

The article on Medicare part D states that "potential beneficiaries who did not enroll by the May 15 deadline (or within a given time frame after their initial eligibility date) incur[red] a late-enrollment penalty of 1% per month based on the average cost of the premium until their enrollment." What does this mean, exactly? Suppose I sign up after 5 years, and I would have paid an average of $40.00 per month if I had been enrolled. One percent of that is 40 cents a month. Does that then mean the 40 cents is tacked on to my premium for as long as I continue part D? That doesn't seem like much of a penalty. Or, since the premiums I avoided add up to $2400.00, of which 1% is $24.00, could it be that the penalty is $24.00 per month? That would be excessive. What are the facts? --Halcatalyst (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Similarities between ancient and modern Greek

How mutually intelligible are classical Attic Greek and modern Dimotiki Greek? That is, how comprehensible would a work by Plato or Sophocles, for example, be to a modern native speaker of Greek? 76.204.127.175 (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not very. It's sort of like the similarity between Italian and Latin, and not as far apart as Old and Modern English. Modern Greek is pronounced differently, and many words have different meanings, although they are generally spelled the same. I get the impression that modern Greeks like to think they speak the same language as the ancients, and it doesn't help that they are both called "Greek". Adam Bishop (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As an example, my Greek teacher told the following story against himself: he caught the plane to Athens and wanted to do some island hopping, so he went to Piraeus. He went to the harbour, and asked a likely-looking young man, in what he thought was perfect Greek, when the next ferry was. This young man fell about laughing and said in perfect English, "You're English, aren't you? Do you realise what you've just said? "No", said my teacher. The young man explained that what he had actually said was ancient Greek, which translated into modern Greek as "O slave! What hour sails the galley forth?" --TammyMoet (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There's some relevant information in Katharevousa. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Attic Greek is not really intelligible to the average man on the street. Although many words will be familiar, most people will fail to make a correct translation into modern Greek, especially if it is a literary text. You will have to go all the way to the Koine to find texts that are more or less understandable to the average modern Greek, chiefly because of the persistence of the Katharevousa in official usage until quite recently. In my experience however, the younger generation seems to be losing this affinity. Constantine ✍ 15:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I learnt Ancient Greek at school, but can remember very little of it except the alphabet. When I was in Cyprus, waiting for some colleagues, I talked (insofar as this was possible) with the bus driver and we recited our Greek alphabets. They were almost identical, except I pronounced the letters for m and n as mu and nu, and he pronounced them mee and nee. He didn't understand my Greek rendition of "I loosen the fetters", though. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated websites for intellectuals?

Apart from news websites such as the BBC, and of course the Reference desks of Wikipedia, what regulary updated websites would be of interest to intelligent educated people interested in both the arts and the sciences? An example is Arts and Letters Daily, aldaily dot com. 78.147.45.132 (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There are cultural sidekicks of the http://www.CBC.ca site that seem semi-independent of the "hard" news site at http://www.cbc.ca/arts/ and http://www.cbc.ca/entertainment/ Also look at the Village Voice and (less-frequently-updated) New York Review of Books —— Shakescene (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Also The Atlantic and Harper's Magazine. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "regularly updated" is a tricky one. Hourly? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Many good print periodicals count: the New Yorker and The Economist, to start with. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You might try Zompist, Bad Astronomer, Landover Baptist Church, and RationalWiki.Civic Cat (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ends, ways, and means, in the military etc

It is easy to do things when you already have a set of instructions or proceedures to follow. I'm interested in the case where you have to create such procedures yourself. The ability to do this distinguishes the billionaire from the average employee. As a potential model to use in business, what is the method used in the military to create a plan of action from considering the ends ways and means? Or non-military methods? 78.147.45.132 (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have practical experience of this, but innovation in the military tends to fall into one of two categories. One is where people believe that new ideas, technologies or opportunities are being developed, and want to make sure that the military takes advantage of them. The process of adopting the new ways is a long one of extensive studies, experiments, tests, reports, assesments etc. As example might be the adoption of cruise missile technology. The second is when someone, in the heat of the battle, finds either that the standard way of doing things isn't working, or doesn't cover the current circumstances, and improvises something on the spot. If the improviser survives then they probably pass it on to someone else, who may use it in similar circumstances. Eventually it may become accepted procedure, with or without an extensive set of studies, experiments, tests, reports, assesments etc. An example might be the replacement of squadron formation tactics with smaller-unit tactics by the RAF during the Battle of France and Battle of Britain. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was the situation where you have an objective, you have some resources, and you have to decide what to do. I presume there is an established procedure in the military for doing that? 78.147.45.132 (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about objectives and resources in military terms? "Here's a battalion of men, go capture that hill"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I am, although the situation may be more complicated than that. 92.24.140.90 (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

At least in Sweden, when I was in the military, there was a method.

I forgot the name but it was something along the lines of the ”evaluation and decision-making process”. It was used at battalion level and higher and at some units at lower levels. At the top of the list is ”immediate action”: what do I have to do NOW? That might be to gather intelligence, raise the state of readyness or to regroup.

Then, what you do is to run trough a list of aspects: The unit’s task, terrain, the enemy, timeframes, weather, supply situation etc. For each aspect you come to one or more conclusions, on the weather you might e.g. conclude ”Air landings by parachute will be possible from 17.00 tomorrow”.

When you’re finished you generate some alternatives: e.g. attack here ore there, surprise attack with what I have now or wait for reinforcements? You choose one alternative using a decision matrix.

Finally you write a few concise sentences that contain the most important points of the battle plan. This is used as a basis for staff and subunit commanders to do their detailed planning. Sjö (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats very interesting. The articles Operations order, Five paragraph order, and Fragplan have some relevance, but I don't think they describe in detail how you create them. 78.144.207.126 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Incestuos marriage in old Europe

Was Hitler's mother married to her uncle? Was it permitted in old Europe to marry your niece or nephew? I know royalty did, of course, but ordinary people?--85.226.44.238 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Old Europe"? Hitler lived about 65 years ago, that's hardly "Old Europe"... Pre-industrial revolution, it was very common to marry relatives since most people would never travel further than, perhaps, the next village, so everyone they knew would probably be related to them. Uncle/niece and Aunt/nephew marriages were illegal in a lot of places, but I don't think they were banned everywhere. As for Hitler, his father Alois's, ancestry is disputed but our article on his mother, Klara Hitler, says: "Either her grandfather Johann Nepomuk Hiedler or his brother were also likely Alois' biological father. Moreover, Johann was her future husband's stepuncle. Even after they were married Klara still called her husband "Uncle"." --Tango (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In some Protestant countries, people went by the prohibitions in the Book of Leviticus, chapter 18, and a man marrying his niece was not in that list. However, such marriages were never allowed in England. AnonMoos (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, old Europe, before the 20th-century - I am a european myself. Hitler died 65 years ago, but his parents was married in the 19th-century, and I assume the law allowing them to marry was older than that, so I meant ca. "19th-century-18th-century". By relatives, I mean people closely related than cousins (to marry cousins was more or less allowed, I think, in most countries?), such as Uncle/niece and Aunt/nephew. Can anyone tell me in which countries this was allowed before the 20th-century? Particularly in the 17th-century-19th-century. I know it was not in England, nor was it in Sweden - the poet Agatha Lovisa de la Myle seem to have married her nephew in 1750, but although they lived in Swedish Finland, they were likely married in Latvia. I would be gratefull. --85.226.44.238 (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that AnonMoos is correct; ages ago, I seem to remember idly browsing a Book of Common Prayer (as one does) and noting that marriages between first cousins are acceptable. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean; first cousins are not on the Leviticus 18 prohibitions list, and after the Protestant reformation, first cousin marriage was generally allowed in Common Law legal jurisdictions (influenced by the legal traditions of England) until the 19th century, when Lewis Henry Morgan and others started campaigning to ban such marriages. Such bans passed in a number of states of the U.S. (but not of course in England itself). AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For reference, see cousin marriage. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In which countires were Uncle/niece and Aunt/nephew- mariages allowed? --85.226.44.238 (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

North Pole

Why is the North Pole's ice missing from most maps? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 22:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Because, unlike Antarctica, the north polar region is open water topped by an ice cap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternate explanation: Santa gives all the good little cartographers "presents" to keep his neighborhood secret. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget Superman's little shack just down the road, the Fortress of Solitude. He doesn't spend much time there, though; the noise level from Santa's Workshop can approach the level of a 747 taking off - even to someone without super-hearing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of issues. First, if you're talking about world maps, most of them are produced using projections designed with most attention to the latitudes where most people live. Mercator projection maps cannot represent the North or South Pole at all; Gall-Peters projection maps represent it as a line; still other projections represent it as a series of separated points. If the polar regions are to be shown in something resembling their proper form, it has to be done by a separate inset map (in a different projection, perhaps a conic projection), and the mapmakers may not choose to take up space on the sheet for that. Antarctica at least is a continental land mass, so they may want to include an inset showing it in one piece, but the Arctic Ocean isn't, so they're more likely not to provide an inset showing it (and indeeed, I don't remember ever seeing a world map that had one).

In any decent world atlas, on the other hand, I would expect to see a map showing the Arctic Ocean as well as a page showing Antarctica.

Then, the question specifically referred to the polar ice cap. Most maps show features whose position is permanent. While it's true that the North Pole is under ice all the time or nearly so, the boundaries of the ice cap vary considerably from one season to the next, and also from one year to the next even considering only the same season. (That's part of why the search for Franklin's lost expedition was so difficult: a strait might be ice-covered even in the summer one year, even when it was open water the previous year. And people generally didn't realize that.) So any representation of the ice on maps would necessarily be approximate, whereas mapmakers like things that are definite.

That said, I've certainly seen maps that do show the ice cap; but I think the original poster is right that most of them don't.

--Anonymous, 21:09 UTC, December 14, 2009.