Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 October 30

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.

October 30

Piano music

Hello everyone. I'm looking for some good showpieces of piano music (pre-1900). These should be the kind you play at parties, not too long (at the most about 5-7 minutes) but a nice demonstration of skill. I'd like to specifically exclude the Solfegietto (CPE Bach), Fur Elise (Beeth.), Rondo Alla Turca (Mozart), Moonlight Sonata (Beeth.), Sonata in C Major (Mozart), as I've played these (I might have forgotten some). If possible this should be a sad-ish song. Thanks so much. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Schumann's Toccata in C was said (by Schumann) to be the hardest piano piece ever written. Over here [1] it says "The opening passages are right hand breakers, the stretches are uncomfortable and relentless, and unless you have tried playing this piece, you can't imagine the pain", so I don't know if I should recommend it - also, although romantic, it's quite energetic, not sad; but I really like the way it sounds (enough to buy two recordings of it). Something substantially easier and distinctly sad (moonlight sonata reminded me of it) might be Satie's Gymnopedies. 81.131.60.13 (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you're looking for Chopin's works, or maybe Liszt. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing related to the question but I do actually wonder why you wold like a sadish song at a partyGeneral Rommel (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Sadder" than Satie's Gymopedies are his Trois Gnossiennes. I once played #2 at a party. Not sure I'd call them "showpieces", but they are certainly beautiful in that unique Satie kind of way. Another idea that comes to mind is Ravel's Pavane pour une infante défunte. Pfly (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Debussy's Clair de lune from Suite bergamasque. Or one of Brahms's Intermezzos or Rhapsodies. Or Rachmaninoff's Prelude in G minor if you can manage it (I can't); but there are other, easier ones. Rachmaninoff couldn't play "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" without imbuing it with Russian melancholy, so almost anything by him fits the "sad-ish" bill. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't help but add another I just remembered. Edvard Grieg, Lyric Pieces, Op. 54, No. 4, Notturno. We seem to have an ogg file of it. Let's see if I can place it here correctly. Pfly (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The dying words of Caius Gracchus, Roman Tribune, and his imitation of a Greek heroine: to whom does C. Gracchus allude?

Caius Gracchus, Roman Tribune, in the version of his death in which his dying words were, putatively, something to the effect of "I have often had occasion in which to dip my quill", is imitating a Greek heroine. But which one, and in which myth? This is not related to the dramatization of the death of C. Gracchus that one may find in an Italian opera. This information is seemingly so obscure that it is not available on the Internet. Perhaps there is a most learned and excellent editor, some paragon amongst humanity, who knows this fact and to whom I would most graciously impart my gratitude. RJHacker (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It might help if we knew where you got this from. (Plutarch, for example, does not record any last words for Gaius.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. These words were transmitted to me orally by a university professor of Classics. Where he learned it is unknown, but the information is almost certainly veracious and true ultimately to some primary source in antiquity. Also, indeed, Plutarch and Livy only record the events of C. Gracchus's death and not any last words, but if any famous author had a direct quotation concerning the dying words obviously available with a simple Internet search, I would not have turned to the infinite collective wisdom of Wikipedia. RJHacker (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

True, but on the other hand, all the sources for this period of Roman history are well-known, often-translated, and available online. Apparently no one was around to witness Gaius' last words (except the slave who killed him and then killed himself, so that's no help). Could you ask the professor? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to directly pry any more information from the professor because this question was asked as an extra-credit opportunity available to the first person to find the source for the words, or to explain which Greek heroine in which myth Gracchus imitates by this version of his dying words. Due to the apparent difficulty in locating the words and myth, the reward grows. I first submitted the dying words of C. Gracchus from an Italian drama, as found in The London literary gazette and journal of belles lettres, arts, sciences, etc, but he stated explicitly that these are not the words I'm looking for: "In questo dono / Ti riconosco, o madre. In questo colpo / Riconosci tu il figlio": "In this gift I recognize you, O mother. In this strike you recognize the child." Thus, in response to 87.81.230.195 below, I think that the words from the French play are an instance of poetic license, but as Adam Bishop aptly states, all the primary sources from this period are translated and available online, and so I was probably wrong in my assumption that the words come directly from a primary source. The professor, however, said (verbatim), "We have Caius Gracchus's last words."RJHacker (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I could be missing some context, but I would more naturally read riconosci tu il figlio as being in the imperative mood: "recognize your child". It could be indicative if it means "you, rather than someone else, recognize the child", but that seems a little unlikely. --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That is probably true; the translation I gave was merely from Google Translate, as I do not know Italian. The point was that it was a dramatic version of the words and not the ones being sought in connection to this unspecified Greek heroine. RJHacker (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC) RJHacker (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that the attributed words come not from an actual classical source but from the play Caïus Gracchus by the French dramatist and poet Joseph Chénier? If so they might be put down to poetic licence. Forgive me for not reading through the linked playscript myself - my French is a little rusty! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

[Addendum] *Spoiler Alert* Gracchus is killed/dies at the very end of the play (p 56) with the words:

"J'épargne du sang. Dieux protecteurs du Tibre, Voici mon dernier vœu; que le Peuple soit libre."

Il expire.

However, he makes a lengthy speech on the preceding page which might contain words that translate to the sense looked for - I myself can't, frankly, tell. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it may be the case that these attributed words come from a non-classical source, as I respond above.RJHacker (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, they're also not his dying words in the play Caius Gracchus: A tragedy in five acts by the Irish poet and playwright James Sheridan Knowles, whose text is - here - (don't be fooled by it's being only the first of three works in the volume illustrated). In this drama Caius' last words (on p 58 of the first work in the volume) are

"Nothing, love, nothing.-- Rome! O Rome!"

[A dagger drops from beneath his robe.-- He falls dead . . . .]

Again, however, they might occur somewhere earlier in the play. I must say that, given the circumstances of Gracchus' death, the sought-for quote does not seem very appropriate as his last words. I wonder how many other operas, plays, poems or novels there are about the man? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A thought: if your professor is certain that the information (about Gracchus' supposed last words and/or a related Greek myth) is not to be found on the internet, perhaps it's only mentioned in some single document about which he has direct knowledge or even control. Could it be, say, in an unpublished thesis to be found only on the shelves of your own college library? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is, I warrant, a distinct possibility. However, the professor never affirmed that it was unlocatable on the internet; in fact, he implicitly assumed that it would be easily found. The sought account of Gracchus's death in which he alludes perhaps to some story he remembers from childhood, or in which he finds some congruency between his situation and that of the sought Greek heroine, could be interpreted as an attempt at a revealing psychological narrative, like the "Rosebud" scene in Citizen Kane. Even if that is an invalid supposition, with the little I know about these subjects, it still feels, upon finding the obscurity of the account, like a more modern fabrication, especially since there is no primary historical source. It could be in a regularly published book. RJHacker (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And he definitely meant Caius, rather than Tiberius? (Tiberius was murdered more dramatically, at least...maybe he had some final words.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The possibility of the Caius being mistaken for Tiberius is probably remote, although if brother Tiberius does speak any words anywhere like the ones being sought, it would be a better answer than I could expect to be directed to. However, I have (e-)pursued this avenue and ended equally defeated. I explicitly state in an email sent to the professor, in multiple instances, C. Gracchus or Caius Gracchus as the subject: "'Cujo Gracco, by Stesso', after which are the quoted final words of Caius Gracchus in Italian...'" The professor's email response: "You're not quite at the end of the trail. We have what are supposed to be his ultima verba--I'll not give you too many clues--where would the fun be in that?". The next day, the professor, upon hearing of the failure of every student to locate the last words of Gaius Gracchus (explicitly stated that next day), orally spoke what the words are (to reiterate from above: something to the effect of "I have often had occasion in which to dip my quill"). Now, the task is to find the source and the Greek heroine allusion. RJHacker (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, another thought. Perhaps your professor is referring not to Gracchus' last spoken, dying words, but to the last words he wrote, for which the suggested words seem rather more apt. Are any of his written works preserved? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought "dip my quill" alluded to dipping his dagger into his body. It seems unusually calm and literate for someone killing themselves: my guess is that it's fiction. The internet says that one of his staff was killed by pens shortly before his death. Roman pens were made of metal, as I think they were for scratching messages on wax or clay tablets. 92.24.178.96 (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This might have been so obvious that I didn't think to consider it--written as opposed to spoken. I suppose that I might have conflated the two in regard to ancient texts. Excellent point, although I think I vaguely (untrustworthily) remember the context being the actual death, and the words being spoken. Regardless, I think I shall direct the venerable professor to this page, and maybe I'll get some pity-points, and perhaps we'll have the ultimate elucidation of this subject (for posterity and the good of humanity etc.) RJHacker (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Gracchi didn't leave any written records though. I imagine it might have been hard for Caius to leave a pithy written statement before his death, since he was being chased through the streets at the time! Livy and Plutarch don't say anything about it either, as far as I can tell. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Longest gap between serving as governor in the U.S.?

Jerry Brown is currently running for governor of California, a position he previously held from 1975 to 1983. If he is elected, he will be returning to the governorship after 28 years away from the position. Has anyone else had a longer period between stints as governor of a state in the United States? (And if not, who holds the current record?) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You could visit the website of the National Governors Association at http://www.nga.org, although it doesn't seem to have the trivia section it once used to. You could still use it to check specific governors or classes of governors. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Cecil Underwood served as governor of West Virginia from 1957-1961 and then again from 1997-2001, making a period of 36 years between his governorships. --GreatManTheory (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Blame my aging memory: I knew that a governor of West Virginia had had a long interruption between two terms, but when I checked Arch A. Moore, Jr., the eight-year gap didn't seem so remarkable in comparison to Jerry Brown's (or several other governors'), and I didn't realize/recall that my memory of a significantly longer gap was of Underwood's. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, GreatManTheory. 36 years is quite a gap. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

US state secession

Is it possible for a state to secede from the Union? It didn't seem to have worked in the civil war but can it be done today.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

After the Civil War, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White (1869) that a state cannot unilaterally secede from the Union. A state theoretically could secede with the consent of the other states, through a national referendum, or via a successful revolution. Don't hold your breath. —Kevin Myers 05:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's one of those tricky issues that sort of falls between the cracks. legally, no, a state cannot secede from the union on its own under federal law. However, a state that wanted to secede would obviously claim that federal law no longer holds any jurisdiction in it sovereign lands, and then you have a bit of a puzzler which can't be resolved in courts. that would require a military solution if the state decided to be stubborn about it. You have an even odder occurrence if a region decides to secede from a state: there's nothing in federal or state law that would prevent a region from seceding from a state, but there's no real provision for what that region then becomes (technically I suppose it would devolve to an unincorporated territory like Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands). so, if someone wanted to play tricky politics, an entire state could technically secede from itself (abandoning its statehood to become a mere territory), and then as a mere territory give up its association with the union and claim independence. But politics usually doesn't get that crazy. --Ludwigs2 06:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say that United States territories are under federal jurisdiction, their lands federal lands, so could not legally "give up association". But Unincorporated territories of the United States are different. Either way though, US states have sovereignty over their territory, excepting powers transferred to the federal government under the Constitution. To me that suggests that if a part of a state tried to secede from its state, the state would consider it an act of rebellion. There is a precedent, albeit differing in some ways: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. The Cherokee were seeking to "secede" from the state of Georgia. When the attempt to do so via Congress failed, they took it to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the Cherokee. So, yes, it is "possible for a state to secede from the Union". The likelihood of such an act being successful is about zero percent. Even in the pre-Civil War era, a single state had no hope of seceding successfully. There's a famous saying I can't quite recall to the effect of--that 11 states out of 33 was the perfect number to ensure war. Had there been fewer, perhaps the first 7 to secede, the attempt would have quickly been suppressed. Had there been more, if Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri, say, seceded, increasing the number to 14, the chance of (semi-)peaceful separation would have been reasonably high. In short, a single state has no hope of seceding sucessfully, but perhaps 30 states together could manage it. Even then it would be technically illegal. Pfly (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The clause "no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress" would seem to rule out most forms of secession from a state while remaining within the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

When Ludwigs says, "... a state that wanted to secede would obviously claim that federal law no longer holds any jurisdiction in it sovereign lands..." that is a definition of the Theory of Nullification. The article points to the Nullification Crisis, arguably the first real possibility of secession. Andrew Jackson promptly used force to squash any rebellious attitude. State attorneys general can fight a federal law in the Supreme Court, a current example being the fihgt against the healthcare bill. The Supreme court, though, ruled that its rulings are final and cannot be ignored in Cooper v. Aaron, there fore nullifying the theory of nullification. schyler (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

When a territory or a frontier area such as Kentucky or Tennessee became a state, there was no requirement that "the other states vote to approve it" was there? Wasn't a majority vote of congress in 1792 all that was required for the county of Kentucky to become a state, or for the territory that was Tennessee to become a state in 1796? A Joint Resolution of the Senate and House made Texas a state in 1845. It sounds like a simple majority in the House and Senate should be as effective in letting a state secede as in letting it into the union. The Senate has the ability to filibuster, so 60 votes for secession might be needed in the Senate. Edison (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would be so simple. The issue would be that the residents of the state are U.S. citizens and their rights should be upheld by the federal government. We'd have no relevant treaties with the "new country". So the executive branch would seem to have no restrictions on how it reacted to the secession, up to and including military action, except to the degree that Congress can actually limit such action (see War Powers Act). Wnt (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas were exceptions to the way most states were created. Kentucky actually passed directly from Virginia's territory to statehood. For Tennessee the process was a bit more complicated. The government was struggling over how new states were to be created and admitted to the Union. The Enabling Act of 1802 established a basic process mostly followed from then on, but was binding only for Ohio's statehood--beyond that Congress could do as it pleased. Texas, of course, was a sovereign nation. The somewhat messy process of gained statehood is described at Texas Annexation. There's info on the general process at U.S. state#Admission into the union. That page points out that the Constitution is quite vague on the matter. Congress could have required all existing states to approve a new state if it wanted. And anyway, doesn't Congressional voting count as "other states voting to approve"? How else would it be done? Anyway, due to the Constitution's vagueness there was never a single, mandatory procedure for creating/approving new states. As with secession, the nation dealt with the issues as they came up, making processes up as best it could--meaning complicated, messy, sometimes illogical processes. Various articles of potential interest at Category:United States federal territory and statehood legislation. Pfly (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The unique case of West Virginia's secession from the seceded state of Virginia, i.e. its remaining in or returning to the Union, makes for an interesting read. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No one can has cited a reliable source that more that a majority vote in the Senate and House is needed at the Federal level for a state to secede, accompanied logically by a majority vote in the state in question. And perhaps the agreement of the President by not vetoeing the legislation? Isn't it plausible that these four events would suffice? Thus Hawaii, Texas, Alaska etc could become sovereign and independent states. It is a normal phenomenon for sovereign states, such as the original 13 states, to join or leave an association of such. Are there examples in history of sovereign states forming an association, and later leaving it, without the necessity of winning a Civil War, or of some foreign power defeating the union of states? Syria, for instance, in 1961 seceded from the United Arab Republic and became once again a sovereign state. Nassar, unlike Lincoln, did not send in troops to put down the rebellion. Egypt went on calling itself the "United Arab Republic" until 1971. Is there some plan for France, Belgium, Greece and the UK etc to attack Germany if it tries to secede from the EU? Edison (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the EU considered a "normal phenomenon"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Consitution requires "the approval of Congress" on admission, which would imply a simple majority; so one might surmise that a simple majority could also suffice for de-admission, along with, obviously the approval of the state itself. If it ever actually comes to that, though, it probably won't be so simple, and either the courts will have to step in or the Constitution will require amending, or both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Was some Constitutional amendment required for states to join? Why would one be required for them to leave? Is the US a monster like The Blob or The Borg in that its manifest destiny is to assimilate territories and states, with no provision for separation? Edison (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No amendment was needed for the admission of states because the process was already covered in the Constitution. Secession is not covered, nor even mentioned. That's not the same thing as saying states absolutely can't secede. There just isn't a process established for it. When the Constitution covers a subject insufficiently, it can spell trouble. Like when W.H. Harrison died and no one was sure whether John Tyler was the "real" President or merely the "acting" President. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The article U.S. state does a pretty good job of summarizing things, including the handful of exceptions that have occurred in place of the normal admission process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. Texas v. White has that "consent of the States" comment. But it wasn't the Supreme Court's job to say how secession might legally be carried out, since that was not part of the case at hand, right? So the comment about consent of the States seems almost an irrelevant aside. Lincoln supposedly thought an amendment to the Constitution might allow a state to leave the Union (or perhaps more precisely, for the Union to leave a state).

This book seems to have some ideas on the general subject: Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession. The author points out two peaceful secessions between 1900 and 1990: Norway (see Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905) and Iceland (we don't seem to have a page specifically on it, but see Kingdom of Iceland and related pages). The book describes four peaceful secessions since 1990: Macedonia from Yugoslavia (1991), Estonia and Latvia from the USSR (1991), and Slovakia from the Czech and Slovak Republic (1993). Plus the almost completely peaceful dissolving of the federal union of the USSR in 1991, resulting in 12 new sovereign states, formerly joined in union. There's also the example of Quebec and its "second peaceful attempt at secession" in 1995, which is useful as an example of how such a thing might be carried out. See Quebec independence referendum, 1995.

Anyway, that book addresses the specific case of secession in the US and constitutional law starting on page 221, but I have to run and don't have time to read it right now. Pfly (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Which buildings are the Singapore Airlines headquarters?

I know that Singapore Airlines's headquarters are on the property of Changi Airport.

Based on the following links:

• File:SIA Boeing 747-400, Star Alliance livery, SIN.jpg
• This map shows that SATS Airfreight Terminal 5 is between Airline House and the runway
• If the airfreight terminal is low enough that Airline House would be visible, then it should be possible to get a photo of it from the runway.
• Google Maps view of Airline House, overhead
• Mentions a neon lighting project from 2000 - there is neon lighting at the top of the building
• File:Cathay_Pacific,_Boeing_747-400,_SIN.jpg shows a CIAS Cargo Centre in front of one of the buildings
• Here's another Flickr view: http://www.flickr.com/photos/86974734@N00/5113525102/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Can anyone tell which building(s) is/are "Airline House"? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

About a sweater bearing motto "Nine out of ten" & a rose

Hello. A friend of mine (who previously has had a bad experience abroad with a sybilline motto on a T-shirt...) should like to know what the big white motto "Nine out of ten" on his iron-grey sweater is about before sporting it in the street. I tried to look into WP, but the amount of possibilities is puzzling, one of the archives even giving (9 Sept 2009) : "Nine times out of ten, it's the wind in the leaves, but one time out of ten it's a lion"...There is also a (white ?) rose button in in the middle of a circle...It's a very thick pure wool garment, restricting its use to winter time in high latitudes, & the roman ciphers maybe indicate also some kind of cultural origine. No brand found...Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers Yes, I blundered while writing its title, it should be File:Nine out of ten sweater , sorry ) Arapaima (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The bad experience may come from peoples shock at the awful design. Where did he get it from? 92.15.2.231 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be much easier to narrow down the possibilities (e.g. a military unit, an academic class) with some indication of where and when the picture was taken (even better of whom). If it's just a friend modelling the jacket, information as to its provenance (a holiday trip, a clothing shop, etc.) would help. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the brain-scraping. That not-hand-made sweater, with the inscription wooven into the thick wool fabric (not added afterwards) has been bought for 1 euro on a flee-market in France, and has no brand, only the usual "pure lamb wool" tag. I thought it might have belonged to some huge north-american fraternity boy - or to a big british (the white rose-bud makes one think of York...or is it Lancaster ? ) sport supporter...Anyway, it doesn't seem to call for immediate assault on the wearer, doesn't it ? This is to set my friend's mind at ease : winter is coming, & he'd like to wear the sweater outdoors without fearing to be kicked into the ass, or clubbed on his neck's nape on some Saturday night. Thanks again Arapaima (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Aerial Bombardment

Hello! We were wondering if you could answer something we have been talking about over dinner for the last couple of days. Last night we had a delightful loin of pork cooked with sweetcorn, pineapple and an egg cracked on top, and we just couldn't work it out. This article [2] is from the year 1999 - but despite our best researches, we couldn't find out if this has actually taken place. Has this taken place? Is it still taking place? Four trees seem to have sprung up from our garden in the last couple of days - not little shoots, but entire saplings! Is it possible that the trees were planted by aerial bombardment? And if so, how did they end up in our garden? Any help you have would be most gratefully received. Many thanks, Artie and Wanda (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't work out why on earth you'd ruin a lovely pork loin and trimmings by cracking an egg over it. Sorry, but is there any reason why you introduced your question about reforestation with that culinary detail? Is it even remotely connected to the core question? I'm getting older and seem to be more easily confused than I once was. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The trees were most likely to have grown from seed and were growing before you suddenly noticed them. Have a look at where they enter the soil: if they are firm and there is no bare or loose earth then they very likely grew from seed. The seed had been dispersed by wind or birds and may have been dormant in the earth for years. Can you identify the species? 92.15.2.231 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I was cooking my pork on an outdoor barbecue, I wouldn't want a tree lobbed in the middle of it. It's an interesting idea. But, I'm wondering about the part of the article that says "The tree cones are pointed and designed to bury themselves in the ground at the same depth as if they had been planted by hand." How does the system take into account the different softness of the ground, usually depending on moisture level? HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, the effort and indolence of the hole-diggers remains a constant as does the force of a mechanical long drop and burying, and so the depth would vary correlatively with the softness of the soil in both systems. RJHacker (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

They may have been in a bio-degradeable packaging, javelin shaped at the end, but with a collar or flange to stop them going in more than the required depth. 92.24.186.230 (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The majority of all seeds fail to germinate.Some will just fail to land correctly.Hotclaws (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't find a reference at the moment, but one Scottish landowner in the 19th Century (possibly David Murray, 3rd Earl of Mansfield, the employer of David Douglas of Douglas fir fame), used to plant his estate by blasting cones out of a cannon. Alansplodge (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The history of patents -- as an incentive to skilled immigration?

My Question: Can you find any reliable scholarship to support the claim that an early goal of United States patent law was to incentivize skilled immigration?

Significance of my question: I always assumed that the main purpose of patent law is to incentive people to invent things. But now I have read a statement by professor Eben Moglen that the original purpose of patent law in 18th Century United States was to provide "an incentive to skilled immigration."

Professor Moglen's point is significant because he believes that people are irrepressibly inventive -- i.e., while a jurisdiction with a patent system might incentivize people to immigrate there, it won't incentivize people living in that jurisdiction to invent any more than they would have without the patent laws. But I don't consider his ipse dixit to be reliable, since he runs the Software Freedom Law Center and has a horse in the race.

Thanks. 128.59.179.236 (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not an argument I've seen before, and doesn't at all strike me as something I've seen Jefferson (the founder of the 18th century American patent clause and laws) ever make. Jefferson's intentions were certainly about creating local incentives, but I've never seen him having written anything that implied that there was a connection to immigration. Looking at some of Jefferson's writing on immigration, it is clear that he wanted skilled labor to immigrate, but I'm just not seeing the connection between that and the patent laws in Jefferson's own writings. I would be interested in seeing exactly what Moglen bases this assessment on. I suspect the case is a bit weaker than he is claiming — if it was a consideration, it certainly wasn't the original purpose or the primary goal. (Moglen might not be talking about Jefferson, of course, but Jefferson is pretty much regarded as the 18th century American thinker on patent clauses, so his views are pretty important.)

On the latter point, it's certainly the case that Jefferson thought that patent laws would encourage people to invent more than they would, or at least share the fruits of it, without said laws. The standard story of Jefferson's thinking on this is that he went from being a skeptic to a true believer in patents after he saw exactly how much patent laws seemed to increase innovation. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of an awesome question though. If anyone would have had such a radical idea it'd have been Jefferson. I don't have access to any kind of library database at the moment, so I can't do much, but I think the more relevant fact to your question is how Jefferson (and whoever else you care about in writing the first patent statute... which goes way beyond Jefferson) treated foreign patents. In fact even today, timing for foreign patents is critical, in a much more important way than copyright could ever be. The technicality of patents is almost bizarre in the context of IP development, even today. So if you're interested in what Jefferson thought then you'd be really interested in what Jefferson thought about King George's Patents (for playing cards... I might add). Shadowjams (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Flesch–Kincaid readability test

Is there a maximum grade level for the Flesch–Kincaid readability test, and if so, what is it? I have to write a lot of information with very few sentences, so I just produced a 226-word, 4-sentence paragraph that Microsoft Word rates at 26.8 grade level. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, by the way, if I'm getting very close to the maximum; I just combined all four sentences into one by using semicolons, and the grade level only went up to 26.9. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The MSWord equation treats the semicolon as a period, which is why the value hardly changed. If you make those semicolons into commas, you will see the grade jump dramatically. (The sentence is now non-grammatical, but that is not a consideration in the Flesch-Kincaid readability test.)

To answer your question: There cannot be a theoretical maximum, unless there were some limit on the number of words in a sentence (which, at least in theory, I don't think there is). Just FYI, a sentence consisting of 86 repetitions of the word "farararararararararararararararararar" yields a grade level of 197.2. By contrast, an 87-word sentence consisting of repetitions of "I love you, I love you, ..." , has a grade of 30.1. 128.59.179.236 (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, your question was answerable simply by looking at the equation and applying the rules for evaluating limits at infinity for rational functions. Although the variables in the Flesch-Kincaid equation do not technically have a "degree," the ratios do approach infinity. 128.59.179.236 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember applying this test to a lot of sentences, some years ago when I was working as a technical writer for a governmental entity that required a 7th-grade maximum for their instructional manuals (forgive me for not naming them). Here is a sentence from one of Milton Babbitt's famously obtuse essays ("The structure and function of musical theory", from Perspectives on Contemporary Music Theory): "The issue of 'science' does not intrude itself directly upon the occasion of the performance of a musical work, at least a non-electronically produced work, since – as has been said – there is at least a question as to whether the question as to whether musical composition is to be regarded as a science or not is indeed really a question; but there is no doubt that the question as to whether musical discourse or – more precisely – the theory of music should be subject to the methodological criteria of scientific method and the attendant scientific language is a one of whether it 'should be' or 'must be,' but the factual one that it is, not because of the nature of musical theory, but because of the nature and scope of scientific method and language, whose domain of application is such that if it is not extensible to musical theory, then musical theory is not a theory in any sense in which the term has ever been employed." I get 35.2. I remember trying the test on passages from Proust and James Joyce, and getting scores in the sixties, but can no longer remember the passages I picked. 128's answer as to the theoretical maximum should be right. Antandrus (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, try applying the test to the candidates at Longest_English_sentence! :) 128.59.179.236 (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Charlemagne's tablecloth

Watching QI, they mentioned Charlemagne's tablecloth, made, it is said, of one of my favourite minerals - asbestos. Is there any reliable source for this story, and even better, is the tablecloth still extant - perhaps forming part of the regalia of some Ruritanian duchy? DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The oldest source I can find for this is in Robert Jameson's A System of Mineralogy, volume 2 (1816), p. 154, which says "We are told that the Emperor Charlemagne had a table-cloth of amianthus, which he used to throw into the fire after dinner..." He doesn't say where he got the story from, but in Ophiolite concept and the evolution of geological thought Yildirim Dilek and Sally Newcomb say that the story is also told of Charles V, although not specifying which Charles V. Another writer refers to "a thriving trade in fraudulent relics and magical textiles such as the apocryphal tablecloth of Charlemagne" – see Rachel Maines, in Asbestos and fire: technological trade-offs and the body at risk (2005), p. 30. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting stuff. I'd love an asbestos tablecloth, whether Carolingian, Ruritanian or just from Marks and Sparks. It really is wonderful stuff. DuncanHill (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or does QI often claim apocryphal stuff as fact? I've never seen it but we get questions like this on the RD all the time...Adam Bishop (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You do know, Duncan, don't you, that asbestos is extraordinarily toxic and that an asbestos tablecloth would be virtually a death sentence for everyone at your table. Not straight away, but eventually. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So long as they refrain from cutting or drilling it they shouldn't lose too many years. The sort of people I entertain are too well-mannered to start hacking away at the table decorations. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A pity Lucrezia Borgia never owned one. Imagine the people she could have rubbed out at just one banquet!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Technically false (do inaccuracies count between <small> tags?) - the article says "Disease is very unlikely to result from a single, high-level exposure". She'd get asbestosis but her guests wouldn't, unless they kept coming back. 213.122.2.84 (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering the reputation of the Borgias, it would not have been wise to have refused an invasion issued by Lucrezia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Because refusing an invasion by anyone is just simply rude. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible that western Europeans could have gotten hold of such an artifact, as these were well known from ancient times in more central regions. Dioscorides speaks of asbestos handkerchiefs as a curiosity, and Pliny the Elder described such tablecloths.[3]

The asbestos tablecloth isn't mentioned by either of Charlemagne's two early biographers, Einhard and Notker the Stammerer, and I wouldn't treat any other source as being really authoritative on Charlemagne's home-life. On the other hand the unauthoritative medieval sources on Charlemagne are almost beyond counting, so it would be a difficult job to prove which of them first came up with this story. Antiquary (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not at all a simple matter to weave asbestos fiber into fabric such as a table cloth. It sounds more like some 19th century science popularizer, knowing that asbestos does not burn, fabricated this story of a King worried about getting his tablecloth clean (more likely he would just tell his servants to scrub a cotton or linen tablecloth until it was clean, assuming they could not figure out this duty by themselves). Another similar apocryphal story is of a lumberjack who somehow got asbestos socks, and who would just throw them into the stove when they got dirty. I doubt that asbestos is woven that easily into wearable fabric or into an elegant tablecloth. 20th century asbestos fabric, as used in firefighter's suits, was very lumpy and inelegant. If I were the King, I would have chosen linen for an elegant tablecloth, and left it to the laundress to get it clean. Edison (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's about worrying how to clean the tablecloth, rather it's a case of "I am so powerful that my tablecloth does not burn", with a side order of the idea of fire as cleansing in a religious sense (c.f. hell). DuncanHill (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

According to this source the Egyptians used asbestos as funeral dresses for kings. It doesn't say if the asbestos was interwoven with other fabric or not. Jack forbes (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

By pure chance I stumbled on this book: Nicola Fletcher - "Charlemagne's Tablecloth", in a used bookshop today, and remembered this question, so I browsed through it and read the relevant pages. The book includes a special postscriptum where the author tries to verify the story of the asbestos table cloth. She mentions the references to asbestos in ancient sources (the ones already mentioned above), furthermore she mentions Einhard and Notker (also mentioned above) and confirms that the table cloth is not mentioned there. In the end she asks a professor in the history of the era of Charlemagne (I forgot his name), and he states that it is a pure fabrication, made in the late medieval times or in the 17th or 18th century, as part of the vast number of apocryphical myths and legends connected to the name of Charlemagne that flourished in that period. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Saddhiyama, good work. DuncanHill (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)