Humanities desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 9 >

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.

May 8

Subsidies instead of tariffs

In theory, would the US trade-protectionist policy represented by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff have been more successful if it had taken the form of export subsidies rather than import tariffs? Neon Merlin 05:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Global demand was slumping badly, and any action against other countries' exports to America was bound to result in retaliation. In addition, protectionism drives up the price of goods in the "protected" market, raising the cost of living. Very good article in The Economist this week about how reducing import duties in India created an industrial and export boom. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on gender of internet use

Moved follow-up question to own section

Why would men use the internet more than women? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence seems to show there's not a great deal of difference between the genders[1][2] but looking at various studies[3][4]

Technology is traditionally seen as a male sphere, and the internet fits in that sphere (although studies show girls are very interested in the internet).
Women are slightly less competent with computers and more anxious about it.
Women's lower usage may be explained by socioeconomic differences rather than gender (being able to afford internet is one obvious thing; women tend to have lower incomes)

Men are more likely to use the internet to find out about new technology and for masculine interests such as sport; while women use it more for social contact.[5] --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic inheritance jurisprudence and will

According to Islamic inheritance jurisprudence, sons inherit twice as much as daughters inherit. What if a person wants to disinherit their son (because he is a drug addict or alcoholic) and leave all their money to their daughter(s)? Would their will break Shariah law? Can a person disinherit their son in, let's say, Iran? Surtsicna (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Islamic Sharia, one third of one's wealth can be given freely. Two thirds are under obligatory inheritance laws. But one can transfer all one's wealth before death to disinherit one's child. For the Islamic Laws of Inheritance, see [6]. --Omidinist (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting the hair during sickness

I have the impression, that in the 18th- and 19th century and before, it was common to cut of the hair of especially women during a long term illness and bed comfinement. It seems that this was simply something which was done in this situation, whithout much discussion, something considered natural. Has someone here ever heard of a specific reason to this custom? After all, in those days it was considered controversial with a woman with short hair - I even think it was common to cut of the hair of female criminals as a punishement. --Aciram (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could just be basic hygiene. It's not easy to wash long hair when you're bedridden. --Tango (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this before too, and had assumed it followed the same (bad) logic as bloodletting, ie getting "toxins" out of the body. TastyCakes (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As recently as 1901 there was belief among doctors that a sick person might become bald when they recovered if their hair was not cut when they were sick. See [7]. In Maryland, U.S.A, circa 1902 there was a superstition that bad luck would follow the cutting of hair during illness. In 1904, the Journal of the American Medical Association said that after fevers the hair was likely to fall out. An article discouraged the cutting off of the hair in anticipation of this expected hair loss. A 1977 book, apparently a reprint of an 1870's book, said that the hair "especially when thick and long, should in sickness be cut only with great caution, and under supervision of a physician." It was seen as a useful head covering. It seems like a magical notion, like cutting off the hair to get rid of sickness per "The Catholic World, 1874 or to transfer the illness, with the hair, to a tree, per Britannica (1911). Hair outside the head is no longer a living part of the body, so all seems superstition. The sensible parts seem to be on the one hand that the hair can keep the head warm, so keep it, or that it may fall out anyway in illness, as in modern radiation and chemotherapy for cancer, so some people go ahead and cut it off to avoid it coming out in clumps. Edison (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it was thought that the hair would fall of from sickness and never come back if you did't cut it first. That was interesting! Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the 18th and 19th centuries, women wore elaborate hairstyles, not suitable for bed confinement, and long hair loose was not proper to be seen by anyone other than closest family. The expression "let your hair down" means to abandon propriety, for this reason.

On a practical note, I can attest from personal experience that long hair, rubbing on a pillow for weeks at a time, becomes a tangled mess that HAS to be cut, as it is impossible to untangle. Fifteen years ago my grandmother was taken to a nursing home for a short-term recovery from surgery, and they cut her hair short (without asking) on the grounds that it's "easier to manage". It is still recommended in some quarters to trim the ends to make hair grow longer. It does not work.125.63.158.83 (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Urdu a Semitic language?

WP can't seem to provide the answer to this.

And if it isn't, then why does it use that character system that it does?--No Worth In You (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on Urdu says in the very first sentence, "Central Indo-Aryan language". And it probably uses the Arabic alphabet for the same reason that Turkish did till the reforms of the 20s - historic cultural imperialism. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Semitic language has a highly-specific method of forming words from abstract three-consonant roots. By contrast, Urdu is a language closely related to Hindi, but with a number of loanwords of ultimate Arabic origin, and written with a form of the Arabic alphabet. That doesn't make Urdu a Semitic language any more than many French loanwords and being written with the Latin alphabet make English a Romance language... AnonMoos (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese, on the other hand, is a Semitic language which uses the Latin alphabet (i.e. the common Western-european one). There is no necessary relation between the affinities of a language and the script(s) used to write it --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idly I wonder what fraction of users of the Latin alphabet (as their primary script) use it for non-IE languages. —Tamfang (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persian and Pashto also use Arabic script, but they are both Indo-European languages. Malay used to use it, too, but it's a Malayo-Polynesian language. Turkish is an Ural-Altaic language. Kurdish also uses it, to the best of my knowledge, and that is related to Turkish. Just because a language uses a certain script doesn't make it related to the origin of that script. Hebrew doesn't use it, and it is related to Arabic, however, Somali isn't.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somali is, though not closely: they're in different branches of Afro-Asiatic. --ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish is an Iranian language. (See also Kurdish alphabet.) — Add Swahili to the list of non-Semitic languages formerly written in Arabic script. —Tamfang (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]