Humanities desk
< January 14	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 16 >

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.

January 15

Should I be able to sing in a Tenor voice?

I am male and 22 and I have recently joined a Gospel choir. In the choir there are Soprano, Alto and Tenor parts (only sometimes Bass parts). I find it really hard to hit the high tenor notes - all of the other males in the choir are a few years younger than me and handle the high tenor parts better. When I used to think of a tenor I would imagine Pavarotti singing very low and never realised how high he could sing (I have since found out that his high notes were one of the things that made him famous). Anyway, as I will have to be singing tenor apart from the very few songs that have a bass part arranged I need to work out how to do this. One of the voice coaches took me outside for some one-on-one and with his instruction I managed to just about hit the note in a falsetto 'head-voice' (whatever that actually means) - which was how he advised me to get that high - but I'm not sure how to do it on my own. Is a 'normal range' tenor something your average young man should be able to attain? --Joe^Talk_Work 05:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different people have different ranges. It is unreasonable to expect any given man to be able to hit high tenor notes or low bass ones. I am an experienced (though untrained) singer, and have never managed to hit a note above tenor G#, even in falsetto. I believe that with some training I could learn to get higher, but if a choir required me to sing tenor parts regularly I would leave the choir. --ColinFine (talk)

I'm a baritone, and that gives me a natural range of something like F bass to G tenor. I do not beleive that any amount of training will vary that a great deal - it's just how my vocal tract works. However, in common with many bass/baritone singers, I can switch to a "child-like" true falsetto, and quite easily reach a D in the mezzo-sprano range - a top D for a tenor. A guy I sing with can go considerably higher - something like a soprano G. However, you wouldn't really sing in a choir or performing serious work with this type of falsetto voice - it's not powerful enough and doesn't sound right. Colin has given the right answer - if you're a bass, find bass music to sing. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're more of a baritone than a tenor maybe. Why could you not transpose these notes an octave? It would give the choir more depth than they have at the moment. But if they want high tenors in that choir, you may just have to find another choir. (BTW I speak as an alto tenor, which is quite rare in a female voice, but came in useful in all-female choirs when some bottom was needed!) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One further comment - I'm surprised that there is no bass part in the choir. The basses typically sing the root of the chord in the harmony - without a bass line, the harmony would sound very empty. --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, you may find that you become a tenor as you get older. That happened to me. When I joined the church choir at age 15, I sang bass, and continued to sing bass for 10 years; I couldn't go above middle C without switching into falsetto. At some point, a choir director asked me to sing tenor to help out because there weren't enough tenors, and I realized I was comfortable there. By the time I was 30 I always sang tenor in choirs. Now I can sing up to a G without falsetto, and I can't hit low Gs and Fs like I could when I was teenager (unless I have a cold, in which case I can get down to a D or even lower). And I've had no training; my voice just drifted up. +An gr 14:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your answers - I did not expect so many good answers so quickly! The main issue is that there is not always a bass bart. The ratio of male to female is roughly 1:2, maybe a bit more on the female side. Because of there being less males the arrangements are usually for just alto/soprano/tenor as I think the males are more (or maybe equally) comfortable with tenor as with bass. I only joined this week and I think it would be awkward for just me to sing bass while all the other males do tenor, and it may be that they can't do bass just as I can't do tenor. Next session we will be doing a song with a bass part so that will be better, hopefully. I do usually transpose it just an octave lower as TammyMoet suggested but when I did that at the practice one of the voice coaches said 'it sounds like someone's doing a bass part' so apparently it's not OK for me to do that on my own. I'm just relieved to hear that I shouldn't necessarily be able to hit a high tenor note right now. Thanks for all your suggestions/information/tips, I will see how next session goes! Cheers, Joe^Talk_Work 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience most choirs are desperate to get enough tenors, so I doubt if it's true that males are, in general, more comfortable with tenor than bass. I suspect, rather, that the arrangements you have are SAT because they're not expecting to get many males, and there are often some women who can sing tenor. --ColinFine (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Maenius

While I can find Gaius Maenius as a Roman statesman and general and consul, I can not find him as a dictator as it shows in the List of Roman dictators. Was he really a dictator? Does he have some additional names or known by a different name? Is there at least a couple of good sources to verify he was in fact a real dictator and in the years 320 BC and 314 BC? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maenius, Gaius (late C4 BC), was a consul in 338 BC who, in commemoration of his victory over the Latin and Antiate forces, fixed the beaks of captured enemy ships to the speakers' platform in the forum, which was thenceforth known as Rostra ('beaks'). The balcony (Maenianum) of the Basilica Porcia and the Columna Maenia, a column attached to the Comitia, also commemorate his work in remodelling the Roman forum. He was censor in 318 and dictator in 314. Hazel, J. (2001). Who's Who in the Roman world. p. 181. OCLC 44652641

—eric 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caius Maenius (Livy IX.26), Antiacticus...—eric 22:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, had to run out for a bit, for Maenius dictator quaestionibus exercendis 320 is from Livy and others, i see dictator 314 in a few short bios, but can't find a text.—eric 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "Caius"[sic] is an incorrect form in Latin; due to various reasons connected with the history of the Roman alphabet originally borrowed from Etruscan, the name Gaius was abbreviated as "C." in inscriptions etc., but the name in real Latin was Gaius, not Caius. (As opposed to the name of Gonville and Caius college, where "Caius" is a pseudo-Latin fancy spelling "Keyes".) -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in the article of Tiberius Coruncanius it does not say he was dictator in 246 BC as it is listed in List of Roman dictators. Nor is Gaius Duilius confirmed in the article as dictator in 231 BC nor Marcus Livius Salinator for 207 BC. What would be the reason for this and can these also be confirmed in a good source as being a dictator in those times? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You saw: Roman_Dictator#Other dictatorates?—eric 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, didn't see this before. Overlooked it when I read the Roman dictator article before. Thanks for pointing it out. So, perhaps the articles don't mention they were a dictator since it was a mundane position?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see they all became dictators because of comitiorum habendorum causa (for summoning the comitia for elections). I'm getting a better handle on all this now. Thanks for your help.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ideas

i came across a word or phrase several months ago, but do not remember it, only its meaning.

it suggested that by having different laws and different cultures in the world providing different ways of addressing problems provided the best way for the world to solve their problems.

in other words, given a problem, the japanese may have an inherently better approach to optimizing the solution because of their cultural background, language, alphabet, religious beliefs, etc., whereas for the next problem, the united states may have an advantage because of their social structureor language expressions.

can you provide clues for this word or phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.179.244 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiculturalism?--Wetman (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heterogeneity, Diversity, or Pluralism? 78.147.233.120 (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In economics it may be Comparative advantage or Gains from trade. 78.147.229.52 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social theory? ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth Indiction in the month of April in the year 6589.

The Alexiad mentions this date in Book 2, chapter 10. A note says it corresponds to a modern date of 1st. April 1081 AD. What calendar does the 6589 date come from? And what happened at year 1? Thanks 78.147.233.120 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Byzantine calendar. The answer to your second question is "the creation of the world". Deor (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also indiction (and good luck making any sense out of it). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography question

I am looking for the name of an inhospitable place with following criteria.

1.A noted  explorer literally saw oil covering the ground here.

2.148 years later. a refinery was built, a pipeline was in place, and oil began to flow. Eventually, this ambitious project was abandoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.69.80 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be just about any one of the many tar pits in the world. The key is that it was abandoned - but why? For example, most drilling around Los Angeles (and the La Brea Tar Pits) was abandoned because the city grew in size. If you know why it was abandoned, you have a better chance of narrowing down which tar pit it is referring to. -- kainaw ™ 15:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and I've only met one person who considered the climate of Los Angeles to be "inhospitable." He grew up on Kwajalein Atoll. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "inhospitable" could have to do with wild animals or unhappy natives, though neither really applies to LA. Woogee (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these questions come from? We get about one a week, it would be much easier to answer them if we had some context. --Tango (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have assumed they are a regular quiz feature of some newspaper or magazine. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should start charging. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

patent law

What are the requirements for a patent? If I make modifications do they have to be improvements or just serve some arbitrary purpose? In other words would an embellishment to make something look pretty or to identify it be patentable? 71.100.14.125 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

It must provide some sort of functionality or use. An example often used is a patent application to add brown spots to tobacco leaves for cigars. It makes the cigars look more expensive. The patent application was rejected because it didn't provide a tangible benefit. -- kainaw ™ 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is untrue because there is a type of patent, in the US anyway, called a design patent. (The regular sort of patent is called a utility patent.) You can file for a design patent on your pretty embellishment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that patent law is different in different countries. Look at the patent office website for the territory concerned for more info - for example www.uspto.gov for US applicable info.

Remembering that we don't give legal advice, Comet Tuttle merely meant to inform you the existence of this kind of patent, and not to imply that your improvement would qualify for it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Comet Tuttle points out, there are two types of patents in U.S. patent law. The one we normally mean by "patent" is a utility patent, which covers how an invention functions. A utility patent has nothing to do with the aesthetics, and it must serve a "useful purpose", broadly defined. So an embellishment or an arbitrary purpose would not be patentable in this sense. A design patent is something different—sort of a cross between a copyright and a trademark, that happens to look like a patent. It is for purely ornamental aspects of inventions. So you could patent your embellishment and arbitrary purpose invention under this. Note that this costs money and so filing these things willy-nilly is kind of pointless. In any specific case, it is recommended that you contract with a dedicated patent lawyer, who will know very well whether something has a good chance of being accepted by the patent office, and will know how to write it up properly. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In actuality, there are three types of patents in the US. They are Design, Utility, and Plant patents. Note that a plant patent is actually a patent on a new type of plant, for botanists. It has always seemed strange to me that there are a specific type of patent for this sort of thing. You should also keep in mind that there are other forms of intellectual property protection, such as trademarks. Finally, I would suggest you look at "Patent It Yourself" by Attrny David Pressman. It is both a great read and very informative. CoolMike (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burma election

Will the Burmese general election, 2010 bring any change in Burma? Will it end the rule of military junta? And if elections are allowed in Burma, then why Burma is called a dictatorship? --Qoklp (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk cannot foresee the future, and is not a forum for discussion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two questions: As it says at the top of the page, "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events." The last question: See the Show election article (which could do with a lot of expansion in the way of examples). Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer the first question: Yes, it will bring change. Every activity brings change. Will it bring substantial change? That's a different question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Cyclone Nargis. ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll take the opposite view of Mr Bugs. The so-called election will be a sham; the opposition will not be allowed to campaign effectively; and the results will be rigged in favor of the ruling ~~thugs~~ ~~junta~~ ~~dictatorship~~ regime. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

snow

What do you call the effect of falling snow from tall trees and buildings82.46.88.158 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor avalanche. :) What do you mean by "effect"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's called "snow falling from tall trees and buildings"--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

slumping.--Wetman (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

snow blanket? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dachlawine" (literally "roof avalanche") in Austria. Rimush (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A roof slide. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roof-alanche. I don't think Dachlawine will catch on. ;) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"..we are learning new words like “tree-alanche” and “roof-alanche”." quoted in a campus newspaper is a rare usage of roof-alanche found on searching the web. In contrast "dachlawine" warning signs are commonly seen in Kitzbühel. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of powder snow, blowing snow? ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese and white

Stale

– very crummy sourcing, not a WP:RS

What does the second row mean. I know this site is very wrong. Which groups of asian-white causes moth white male and asian female couple. They said whiter/vietnamese is least likely to intermarry but somebody said vietnamese/white do intermarry alot. What I want is individual groups. Plus the ratio on that site is wrong. Since the site we had and isteve.com is 3.08 and I have 3.04, the asiannation.org have something very different. Do white husband and asian wife come by Vietnamese, it definietely comes by Pilipino and Chinese. Somebody could give me a better source, that one is VERY BAD.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section on that page that discusses how to read the table. There's also a link at the bottom of the table that goes into more detail about the alleged methodology in compiling the numbers. The second row, then, is supposed to indicate how many males who self-identify as "Indian" have married women who self-identified as non-Indian but Asian. By the way, questions posted on the Reference Desk about "people of race X marrying people of race Y" tend to get few responses and even provoke arguments because many of the Reference Desk regulars were taught that "race" is a false construct without a scientific basis (see Race (classification of human beings) for more). Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that opinion expressed here frequently, and it's an idealistic, naive belief that does not square with real world reality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you offer some support for your assertion that real world reality does not conform to the studies cited by many in earlier discussions showing how divorced the concept of race is from genetics? I'd say that these questions get few responses because, particularly after so many similar are asked, they set off people's 'troll' radars. In addition, they are unanswerable without knowing the criteria the OP is using for assigning people to a race. For example, I am unclear from the question asked here whether they consider Vietnamese people 'Asian'. 86.178.229.168 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where Is Malamute Located?

Where is malamute?174.3.106.27 (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name is derived from the name of a tribe of upper western Alaska, according to our article. --NorwegianBlue^talk 22:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malemiut or Malemiutun is one of the dialects of the Iñupiaq language spoken by the Iñupiat in Alaska.[1] --Cam (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page linked by the OP says, "Native to Siberia, the Husky was brought to Alaska by fur traders in Malamute for arctic races because of their great speed," which seems to treat "Malamute" as a place name. That's probably just a mistake, but it may a muddled way of saying "the region inhabited by the Malamute people." Deor (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gene patents

On what grounds are gene patents granted, a unique sequence of nucleotides or the function a particular sequence of nucleotides performs? 71.100.14.125 (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Are we talking United States here? The laws on this would vary considerably, I imagine, between juridsdictions. Perhaps the real question is whether they should be granted, as they seem to be more of a discovery than an invention. See gene patents and Biological patent. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they should be is not for the ref desk to decide, although the links you posted might lead to some discussion on the ethics of the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. ;-P --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Gene patents "A gene patent is a patent on a specific gene sequence, its usage, and often its chemical composition. Other gene patents claim processes." I suggest going right back to the references (if any) cited. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So sequence, usage, chemical composition and/or processes. I see lots of flexibility here. How about who can hold a patent? I mean, I can see here an opportunity for God and if not Him how about good ole Mother Nature. 71.100.14.125 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

That depends on whether you adhere to Creationism/ Intelligent Design/ Pastafarianism or Evolution. Or perhaps Capitalism! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gene patents are pretty tricky (in the U.S.)—they are always about functionality in some way, but can be linked to actual sequences. So you can say, "I patent the sequence GACTAC on said gene for use in breast cancer risk detection, and so anyone who tries to look for that sequence for the purpose of assessing breast cancer risk has to pay me money." Which gets into strange legal and philosophical ground, indeed. It is one of the reasons gene patents are so controversial—there are patents on sequences that are in your own DNA, right this minute, to the point that if you looked at your own DNA, you'd be violating patents. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have any such process patent claims been challenged and tested in court? Realistically, if they've patented the process, how could you look at your own DNA for that purpose without using that process? Unless you came up with a different process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that legal systems around the world strive to get squeaky clean because they have never gotten beyond squeaky. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case I alluded to is working through the courts currently. It is legally tricky. In the case cited in the article (relating to Myriad Genetics' patenting of BRCA1 and BRCA2), the patent is for the using the genes themselves in any sort of diagnostic fashion. So yes, you'd have to pay them if you looked at your own genes, even with a process not described in the patent. Who knows how the court could rule—it could easily say, "your genes are your property and nobody can keep you from looking at them," and it could just as easily say, "your genes are not your property in this sense, they are part of the natural world." (Or they could say something else entirely, I am sure!) There are ways of constructing pretty good legal arguments for both sides of the issue. It is one of the trickier intellectual property questions of the day, very popular in university IP and ethics courses. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So there has been no final ruling on it or other such cases yet, which is what I should have asked. Again, you can't really "look at" your own DNA without some sophisticated and expensive equipment of some kind. As to who owns your body, that's also a slippery issue. Libertarians would argue that you should be able to do anything to yourself that you feel like. Laws say differently. It could also come down to a "fair use" argument: You can look at your own DNA without violating patent, but no one else can, unless they pay a royalty for the process. It will be an interesting case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true you can't look without tools, but the patent isn't on using specific tools, it's on using the genes themselves. Basically, you may or may not have a certain sequence of nucleotides in each of your somatic cells. That sequence may determine whether you (or your kids) are at a very increased risk of breast cancer. But according to the patent, if you want to know if you have that sequence, you have to fork over a few thousand dollars to this company. It's tricky, because we wrap up so much our identity in the concept of our genes, and we're not paying for the "looking" service itself (which has its own costs, patents, etc.), but for the concept of looking at our genes for a risk factor. I suspect the courts will uphold the patents, because they are generally conservative on patenting issues, in the sense that they usually say, "if it isn't banned by the constitution or something, then it's up to congress to legislate on this subject if they care about it," which occasionally congress has in fact done (though not often). (Relatedly, see Moore v. Regents of the University of California—the classic "you don't own your body parts" case.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the genes for a specific purpose; i.e. for a process to examine them? Practically speaking, how could the average citizen "look at" his DNA? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite as hard as one might think to sequence your own DNA. I haven't done it (I'm no scientist), but progress in the DIY Biology movement (unfortunately just a sad little stubby article) makes me think it's actually not too far distant. If you have the right tools (some chemicals, a centrifuge, etc.), you can actually do this kind of thing in your kitchen. There are people out there doing this right now—they all happen to have done biology as undergraduates, but that's pretty much the only requirement. The "average citizen" can't, at the moment, but keep in mind that patents are in force for 14 years or so, and we're talking about a legal precedent that goes further than the immediate moment. I suspect sequencing one's own DNA for risk factors will become about as common in the next 30 years as the home pregnancy test is now (something that could only have been done by specialists in labs until the late 1970s). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. So the company that gets that patent might demand a royalty from a company that devises a way to analyze your own DNA. And by then this particular patent might be expired, but there could be others. But it's not just about who owns your body - it's about big bucks. As the saying goes, when investigating motives, "Follow the money." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]