Humanities desk
< April 9	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 11 >

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.

April 10

What am I?

If my position on God is that I will find out when I die and until then I dont really care, what does that make me? A hellbound reprobate is definitely not the answer I am looking for, in case any of you are wondering ;) --Thanks, Hadseys 00:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An apathetic agnostic. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Apatheism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to this depends on what you mean by "don't really care". The issue here is the perceived relationship between the way one lives one's life and what happens after death; not caring what the after-death state-of-existence is can lead to any number of philosophical approaches. Good-natured hedonists, hard-core existentialists, and self-abnegating Buddhist monks all start from the presumption that after-death existence is both unknowable and not a matter for speculation, but beyond that they don't have a lot in common. --Ludwigs2 06:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My vote...."apathetic agnostic". You did ask "what am I".190.56.14.159 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

or "I don't know and I don't care"! Well you did ask...--TammyMoet (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's also the punch line to the question, "I can't tell if your problem is ignorance or apathy!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question. I don't know whether you knew that, but I do care. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Yeh, it should have read, "What is your problem? Ignorance? Or apathy?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

old joke: a reporter ask a citizen, "Sir, tell me what you think about the problem of ignorance and apathy in America!" The citizen frowns at him and says, "Humph! I don't know, and I don't care!"--Ludwigs2 01:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, wouldn't it be more accurate to say "if there is a God, I will find out when I die" rather than that you will find out regardless? Kansan (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A follower of Epicurus and Lucretius. Good for you, seriously.63.17.55.142 (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Another question please. If religion as a concept had never been developed by mankind, i.e. we were totally ignorant of scripture and religious tales and belief in a deity, would religion still occur to us as a natural thought process? I don't think it would seeing as it isnt a phemonena that occurs in any other part of the animal kingdom but it would be interesting to hear differing perspectives --Thanks, Hadseys 00:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those items you describe were a product of the thinking that led to religion being developed. So since it already happened that way, the answer has to be, "Yes." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the concept of religion was developed when governments couldn't control their unruly populations so they preyed on their fear of death. Religion to me always seems to have been used as a political weapon which is why it says, if your good and follow the commandments, which incidentally happen to what the majority of governments didnt want their population doing, you'll go to heaven but if you dont you'll go to hell.

That's a common hard-atheist assumption but I've never seen any proof of it. In fact, the evidence I have seen is that religion predates organized government by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of years. The Neanderthals had religion. Just because governments use religion to control subjects doesn't mean they created it: they also use testosterone to control subjects, and they sure didn't create that either. --NellieBly (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as at least partly looking at the concept of "the god(s) of the gaps". One role religion played historically was to explain things not otherwise explainable in mankind's early days. Now that we have scientific explanations for many of these things, the OP's question makes a lot of sense. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP has some confusion, and that your comments make more sense. I would think there are some wikipedia articles that would explain things in depth. Starting with Religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humans seem to generate what we might call unorganized or weakly organized religions somewhat spontaneously. By default, human brains are hard-wired to make meaning out of the world. "Simple" religions are explanations of weather patterns, food patterns, etc. I don't think it makes much sense to say that governments invented religion to control their populace — it's a bit more organic than that. Many governments use religious belief to cement their power, but they rarely invent the religious belief outright, and the ability of governments to forcibly alter (or stamp out) religious beliefs has been quite limited. Some governments have created religions from nothing (e.g. the cult of personality in North Korea), but it doesn't look to me a whole lot like "regular" human religions, even those with strong state elements (like, say, Catholicism).--Mr.98 (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that it's natural for people to try to exercise control over their environments - we're socially organized tool users, after all - and primitive religion is often just about that: trying to create a social relationship with someone who is powerful enough to influence environmental factors (such as weather, game animals, disease, victory over rivals, etc.) that man can't control on his own. Offer up a pure white ram in a pleasing ceremony, and add in some prayers for good crops and healthy herds; who wouldn't be moved by that? Religion has grown up a bit, of course, and now generally reaches for idealistic abstractions like peace and universal love, but apply the right kind of pressure and most people will will revert back to that kind of divine wheedling. Nothing quite like an epidemic, a terrorist attack, a sinking ship or malfunctioning aircraft or what have you to put people in a "Hey there God, remember me?" frame of mind. --Ludwigs2 05:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Alansplodge (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. When you're in the dark the mind tends to conjure up visions, just as when you're surrounded by a world you don't understand one must make up an explanation.190.56.14.159 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that there's nothing wrong about wanting explanations for things. We all cling to our stories about the reasons things happen, the way the world works. We all cling to various myths about how that knowledge comes to us. To admit as much is not the cede the ability to say, "some factual claims about the world seem better based than others," or to say, "some beliefs are more useful than others," or anything like that. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the obvious pagan/supersititious basis of it, people still tend to anthropomorphize natural phenomena. I expect there has always been a degree of "comfort" in the notion that "things happen for a reason" rather than being merely random. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think some people have difficulty with the idea that we don't otherwise know the the First Cause in cosmogony. The other day, some Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door. When I told them I was an atheist, the talkative one used what must have been his atheist line: the universe is proven to have a beginning so there has to be an intelligent designer responsible for it. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to print out the next section for reference if they show up again. That is, inform them that there is no such word as "Jehovah". If you really want to get their attention, though, when they give the "intelligent design" spiel, ask them, "If there is intelligent design, then how did YOU get here?" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out that a cyclic model might disagree with his first clause and that pretty much ended the conversation. They were nice enough though and my dog is always happy to have visitors. Although I think he prefers Mormons. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with intelligent design is that, depending on how you look at it, it's self-refuting. To have an intelligent designer, some people (i.e. Richard Dawkins) would argue that something needed to have created the designer, and something created the designer's designer, and so on, so you get an infinite regress anyways. In my Problems in Philosophy class we have a biblical literalist, and I endlessly toy with him (I'm a strong agnostic) when he tries to use that argument. There is a way around the infinite regress problem of intelligent design, but he still hasn't figured it out, and I don't think he will anytime soon. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My general approach to intelligent design proponents is to point out that the theory of intelligent design - read according to its letter - is actually very close to various schools of Indian and Chinese philosophy (a nameless, formless essence or principle that 'dreams' or 'structures' or 'gives birth to' all of material reality). The very coolest ID people love that, and see it as a measure of the unity of all faiths; most ID people, though, just get miffed that I would suggest the designer is not "their" designer. Useful litmus test, if nothing else. --Ludwigs2 22:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I attempt to answer the OP. All indigenous religions have an interplay of bad and good in various ways. The Christian faith is a revealed truth that see that differently, and hence could not be reached unaided, as history has shown. Other faiths, not indigenous, also show the same, such as Islam. MacOfJesus (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish pronunciation of YHWH

I've noticed that there are two principal ways that the tetragrammation is romanized for pronunciation by non-Hebrew readers, namely, Yahweh and Yehova. Which is more commonly used by Jewish persons in the United States? Would a Jewish person who prefers one also consider the other correct? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the article Tetragrammaton explains, Jews never pronounce the word. When reading the word, they replace it with "Adonai," meaning "My Lord," or with other words depending on the context. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm pretty sure that, depending on orthodoxy, a Jewish person wouldn't speak the tetragrammaton. If they were to pronounce it, they would probably use whatever language they spoke natively to pronounce it; i.e. in Modern American English "Yahweh" would likely suffice. However, according to Tetragrammaton#Pronunciation, "Observant Jews write down but do not pronounce the Tetragrammaton, because it is considered too sacred to be used for common activities." The same article and section also states earlier "The authentic, historically correct pronunciation is not known" In other words a) No one knows how the original authors of the bible intended YHWH to be pronounced b) "Observent" jews don't pronounce it at all and c) Less observant jews would just pronounce it how it is pronounced in their native language. If you really wanted to be specific, you could pronounce it as the phrase "I am" is pronounced in Hebrew, as YHWH is supposed to literally mean "I am". --Jayron32 04:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is in the Tetragrammaton article somewhere, but as I understand it, observant Orthodox Jews pronounce יהוה "Adonai" only in prayer and in Bible reading. In everyday contexts, even "Adonai" is too holy to pronounce, so it gets replaced by other things, notably "Hashem" ("the name"). —Angr (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

72.128.95.0 -- As others have stated, neither form is at all commonly used by traditional-minded Jews in the United States or elsewhere. All that the text of the Bible as we have it contains is the basic consonantal framework YHWH, supplemented by certain later-added notations (the "niqqud") which indicate either where the Masoretes intended YHWH to be pronounced out loud as Adonai in Bible recitation, or where they intended YHWH to be pronounced out loud as Elohim in Bible recitation. These are cases of "Q're perpetuum". If you want to know the gory technical details, you can consult the images Image:Tetragrammaton-related-Masoretic-vowel-points.png and Image:Qre-perpetuum.png (though they might have somewhat limited value if you don't have some familiarity with the Hebrew alphabet). The pronunciation "Yahweh" is a speculatively reconstructed linguistic form first proposed by Gesenius, while "Jehovah" is an outright blunder and mistaken error, created by Christians with a limited knowledge of Hebrew, who naively combined the consonants YHWH with the niqqud in a way which was never intended by the Masoretes, and which ignorantly violates the basic principles of Q're Perpetuum. AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The English name Jesus is equivalent to the Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Joshua).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's more directly equivalent to the shortened form of the Hebrew name, Yešuaʕ, rather than to the original longer form Yəhošuaʕ. Not too sure how this directly relates to the OP's original question, however... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, my point is that using an accurately reconstructed form of the name is not important. (Using a recognizable form of the name is important.) My comment of 02:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC) was a direct response to the last sentence in your message of 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC). If that message was a direct response to the original question, it should have been indented by one increment from the left margin.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength -- However different modern English [dʒiːzəs] may seem from Hebrew Yəhošuaʕ (or rather Yəhošuʕ, since the "a" vowel would not have been part of the pronunciation of the word in Biblical times), one comes from the other by means of a sequence of natural linguistic sound changes and adaptations of the word from one language to another using the closest available equivalents in the borrowing language. The article Jesus (name) which you yourself linked to explains much of this: the shortening of Yəhošuʕ to Yešuʕ within Hebrew, the borrowing from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek, the borrowing from Greek into Latin, the phonological evolution from Latin into medieval French, the borrowing from medieval French into medieval English, and the phonological evolution from medieval English into modern English. The end result of over 2,500 years of language change and 3 or 4 language transfers is that Yəhošuʕ becomes [dʒiːzəs].

By strong contrast, the form "Jehovah" was produced from YHWH and Q're Perpetuum niqqud all in one sudden step sometime in the late medieval or renaissance period (born like Athena from the head of Zeus, as it were) by people who were no means secure in their knowledge of Hebrew, and definitely not secure in their knowledge of the scribal conventions used by the Masoretes in annotating their version of the Biblical text. Unfortunately, "Jehovah" was created by an outright mistaken blunder, so it was nonsense in 1550 (or whenever), and it remains nonsense today... AnonMoos (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, regardless of the history of the development of the name in the form Jehovah, that is the form of the name most familiar to speakers of the English language today. If you are rejecting that form of the name because you believe it to have been misformed, then you have even more reason to reject English words which are actually misnomers.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can be as fond of "Jehovah" as you like, but when you compare a form which was abruptly conjured into existence by a mistaken blunder ("Jehovah") with a form which evolved incrementally by a series of small natural changes over 2,500 years ("Jesus"), then your attempted analogy between the two is completely useless and non-explanatory. Furthermore, the prominence of "Jehovah" has actually been somewhat on the decline over the last century or so -- its flagrant and blatant overuse in the American Standard Version (which had "Jehovah" many hundreds of times where the KJV only used it seven times, four of those in place names), and professional Hebrew scholars' knowledge that it was mistaken, ended up creating a certain degree of backlash (or perhaps resistance, if you think "backlash" is too dramatic). The RSV did not continue the ASV policy on "Jehovah", and by the 1960's the Jerusalem Bible used "Yahweh"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's kind of cute when some people change "Asparagus" into "Sparrow-grass", and you can have a little chuckle over it, but it would seem to me that such misnomers should be rigorously avoided in the case of the original name of God in a religious tradition whose variants and offshoots are taken seriously by about two billion people. AnonMoos (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are my replies to some of your points.

Popularity is irrelevant (http://www.multilingualbible.com/matthew/7-13.htm).
Seminary training is irrelevant (http://www.multilingualbible.com/romans/10-2.htm).
Publishing trends are irrelevant (http://www.multilingualbible.com/2_timothy/4-3.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, facts and truth are quite relevant, and the fact is that "Jehovah" originated in a simple mistake (a misunderstanding of the conventions of Q're Perpetuum). And you were the one who appealed to the criterion of popularity ("most familiar"), so you should probably try to work on your consistency a bit more... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Familarity is important for communication, but popularity is not important for deciding what is true. Also, the name Jehovah has different forms in different languages (for example, Esperanto Jehovo, French Jéhovah, German Jehova, Italian Geova, Latin Iehova, Portuguese Jeová, and Spanish Jehová), and it most likely would have different forms in different languages even if we could be absolutely certain of the original form in Hebrew. There is additional information at Pronouncing the Divine Name of Jehovah God "In Hebrew… | PronouncingTheName on Xanga.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- I didn't appeal in the slightest degree to the RSV or the Jerusalem Bible to establish the truth of the mistaken origin of "Jehovah". Rather, I explained some of the linguistic and textual details involved (something which you seem to know quite a bit less about than I do). I only mentioned the RSV and the Jerusalem Bible after you invoked the criterion of popularity in your post of "23:22, 11 April 2011" (in complete flagrant and blatant contradiction to your post of "02:22, 12 April 2011", in which you denigrated the criterion of popularity). And the original pronunciation of YHWH can't be reconstructed with absolute certainty, but as with all forms of linguistic reconstruction where useful information is available, it is nevertheless true that some things are quite a bit more likely than other things -- such as [yahwe] being quite a bit more likely than [yəhowa]. So I really don't know what the point of all this huffing and puffing and flailing around on your part is supposed to be. As for the forms in other languages, no one doubts that "Jehovah" was the leading Christian (but never Jewish!) expanded form of the basic consonantal Tetragrammaton YHWH during the 16th through 19th centuries, and that this has left a certain residue of influence down to the current day. However, since at least the early 19th century, Christian Hebraists have been aware that Jehovah originated as an error (something which Jewish scholars have always known), and for this reason there's been some tendency (in works influenced by mainstream scholarship) over the last century or so to turn away from "Jehovah" to other alternatives -- whether back to kurios/"LORD" (as with the RSV compared to the ASV), or (especially during the last 50 years or more) to replace it with "Yahweh" (as in the Jerusalem Bible)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned familiarity (not the same as popularity) in my post of 23:22, 11 April 2011. At 19:40, 12 April 2011, I posted this clarification: "Familarity is important for communication, but popularity is not important for deciding what is true." There is no Biblical requirement to adhere to any human rules regarding Q're Perpetuum.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dude -- you're perfectly free to ignore the added Masoretic niqqud if you want (in which case you're left with basic consonantal YHWH), but if you do choose to pay attention to the niqqud marks, then they should be interpreted in the manner in which they were originally intended (because anything else doesn't make too much sense). "Jehovah" was created by taking into account the niqqud marks (NOT by ignoring them altogether) and mistakenly incorrectly erroneously blunderingly interpreting them in a way that was never intended, and therefore coming up with a result which is unfortunately complete and utter nonsense from the point of view of Hebrew linguistics. AnonMoos (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What they taught us in Sunday School many years ago was that people in those days placed a great deal of mystical importance on names. So when Moses asked God what His name was, he might have been trying to "get something" on God. God's answer was a non-answer. Instead of saying His name, He said, "I am that I am", and followed it up with "I am". Or at least that's how the RSV expresses it. The point being that those who insisted on trying to make an actual name out of YHWH along with the vowel points did not understand what God was up to with that answer. It was a polite way of telling Moses that He wasn't going to tell him what His actual name is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that YHWH is basically MYOB? --Ludwigs2 08:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs -- That explanation could apply to Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh in Exodus 3:14, and the form Ehyeh derives from a consonantal root H-Y-Y which is a variant of the root H-W-Y which is behind YHWH. However, there's little doubt that YHWH originally had some specific pronunciation... AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

art reproduction

What does the "smoldering torch" in the margin of an engraving signify? What is the history behind the use of a "smoldering torch" to code a reproduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe1128 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I don't know. When your art history instructor assigned you the reading in the textbook and/or covered this in lecture, what did they say? When you get these questions as a homework assignment, these are "are you paying attention" questions. You really shouldn't have to ask anyone for help, if, of course, you were paying attention. You may want to read {{DYOH}} as well. It will be enlightening. --Jayron32 04:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this topic, but will point out that the 'passing the torch' metaphor for extending knowledge across generations is very old (goes at least back to the story of Prometheus), and it would not at all surprise me to see it used symbolically by someone reproducing an older engraving for newer audiences. However, quoting me on this without double-checking in the reading is risky - if I'm wrong nothing happens to me, but you get an F. Aint life grand? --Ludwigs2 05:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input; however, the question arises from a high school instructor's comment made to me many decades ago. I recently purchased a reproduction in Paris with the symbol on its margin. I did not realize that questions raised on Wikipedia were subject to evaluation by the on-line "experts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe1128 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's your bad luck that you put your questions in a style resembling that of exam questions. —Tamfang (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that the style of an exam question can take numerous forms, it is neither bad luck nor anyone's fault that there maybe some similarity in this instance. In the meantime rather than make unhelpful comments about an ill-judged accusation, perhaps someone could actually have a go at answering the question? 213.120.209.249 (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, AGF much? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image of the icon or mark in question may help.

Could it simply be the trademark of the company that produced the prints? APL (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is my recollection that the mark in the margin is produced by the print maker, not the artist. It is related to the sequence of the reproduction or the printing designation as being a "first edition". My recollections are based on comments made in high school back in the early 1950s. I will be returning to Paris in September and will stop at the Louvre shop where I purchased the print as I have not been able to acquire suck knowledge here in the U.S. Thank you for your interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.111.103 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional city starting with Q?

I'm trying to come up with an example of a fictional city for every letter in the alphabet - more in the vein of fantastic/sci-fi/creative cities rather than just generic American Anytown cities - and I've got one for everything but Q. (X is Xanadu.) Can anybody think of one? It can be from anything - novels, movies, TV shows, cartoons, comics - as long as it's fictional. Ideally I'm looking for images and illustrations too. I've ruled out the Discworld's Quirm for that reason, and Family Guy's Quahog because it's an Anytown. 123.243.54.85 (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read it, but have you checked The Discworld Mapp for images of Quirm? And why could you not use Quahog? There's lots of good images availible for areas of town; its not much different than Springfield, or South Park, in that way, and unlike Springfield it has a real location (Rhode Island). --Jayron32 06:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Discworld has TV series and films set in it. I've not seen Soul Music (TV series), but the novel it is named after has action in Quirm, IIRC. --Jayron32 06:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Quivira? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you tried looking in Category:Fictional populated places? --Jayron32 06:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

or Category:Fictional_countries_in_other_worlds. I'd lean towards shadowy realm of Quarmall in the old Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories. I think those probably were illustrated (they were mostly pulp serials, which were usually heavy on color). --Ludwigs2 06:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies so far, but I should clarify that I'm looking for fictional cities only, not countries or regions. "Fictional populated places" was a good subcategory I hadn't seen yet (I'd only seen "fictional city-states") but, alas, no entries under Q. The reason I am reluctant to use Quahog is because (like Springfield and South Park) it's fictional but not fantastic, if you get what I mean; it will look very dull sandwiched between Port Blacksand and Rapture. Quirm was unfortunately created solely to fill the Discworld's role of a dull and boring place, so that's a last resort too - images from the animated series are very difficult to find and the only other one I can dig up is of the floral clock. 123.243.54.85 (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes but Leonard of Quirm was a fascinating character... --TammyMoet (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this will meet your requirements (for much the same reason as Quahog), but I'll mention that Jules Verne's "Une fantaisie du docteur Ox" is set in the fictional town of Quiquendone. Deor (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Q Continuum from star trek? Though it isn't exactly a city. There are a few alien cities also mentioned in star trek startying with Q, for example "Quin'lat", I don't think it's shown on screen though 82.43.90.38 (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has to be "Qua".190.56.14.159 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qo'noS is the Klingon name for their capital city (although is also the name of the planet). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qwghlm is one of my favorites- unfortunately it's an island. From Cryptonomicon and The Baroque Cycle. Staecker (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider the city of Ul Qoma in China Miéville's novel The City and the City, presuming that the "Ul" is merely the definite article in the (fictional) Arabic-related(?) language of that city. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195) 90.197.66.111 (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xanadu is not fictional, it's an indirect transliteration of Shangdu, in modern-day Inner Mongolia in the People's Republic of China. If your criterion includes real cities used in fiction, then any number of other cities in China would suffice. I would suggest Qingdao, a nicely romantic German city on the east coast of China with excellent beaches. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qward was the antimatter world/home/universe of the main evil doers in the very early Green Lantern comics. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 20:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cubic equation

Does anyone see a cubic equation in File:Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze, MMA-NYC, 1851.jpg? Been looking for some time now and can't find one. Albacore (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about a mathematical formula, evidence of cubism, or something else ? StuRat (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the ice!190.56.107.174 (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are some roughly cube-shaped pieces of ice. Is this a "cubic equation" ? StuRat (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a mathematition, but it seems that a cubic equation does not have to involve cubes.190.56.107.174 (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. A cubic equation describes a curve, not a cube, if they meant this in the mathematical sense. StuRat (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but an equation itself is not a curve, or a cube, or a camel, but simply a collection of symbols. If they'd meant a curve, wouldn't they have said so? One does not normally refer to a parabola-shaped object as a "quadratic equation". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can see just about anything one looks for. there is a loose, general cubic-curve feel to the picture - up the front paddles and prow of the ship, a downward cusp through Washington's body, then an upward energy through the flagpole again - but I don't know if that qualifies as an 'equation' and I don't know if it was intended to be explicitly cubic or was merely a framing tactic to place the visual emphasis on George. --Ludwigs2 21:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe the OP was expecting to see something like

ax^{3}+bx^{2}+cx+d=0

painted in small letters somewhere. —Angr (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what led Albacore to expect to find a cubic equation in that picture in the first place. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps albacore was instructed to find one.190.56.107.174 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you expect them to look for a tuna in each painting ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

By "cubic" I mean x to the third power (x³) and it's curves. Albacore (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most will accept that definition of cubic, but what did you mean by equation? To me, equation means something containing an equals sign. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Albacore means what is more usually referred to as a "cubic function", but they do come with equal signs - e.g. $y=ax^{3}+bx^{2}+cx+d$ . --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stringed instruments

1) I believe the double bass is sometimes called the bass. However, the term "double" implies that there was once a "single bass". Was there, or perhaps was this another name for the cello ?

2) I see there was also an octobass. Was there a quartobass ?

3) Are higher pitched violins sometimes called "first violins", and lower pitched called "second violins" ? (I'm familiar with the more common "first" = "primary" and "second" = "secondary", but seem to have heard it used to differentiate by pitch, as well.) StuRat (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #1: This is covered at Double_bass#Terminology. The name comes from the fact that the bass is tuned to a full octave below a cello. Regarding #2: There are a lot of strange instruments outthere. The octobass I assume gets its name from being 3 octaves below a cello (1/2 and 1/2 and 1/2 again). Presumably, one could build the intermediate instrument, and perhaps someone has, but the octobass is so weird anyways... Regarding #3: The relationship between "first" and "second" violin in an orchestra is the same as the difference between "lead guitar" and "rhythm guitar" in a rock band. That is, they are exactly the same instrument, but written with different roles in mind. The first violin, by tradition, is given the trickier "lead" parts, while the second violin is traditionally given the more mundane, "background" parts. The lower pitched member of the violin family is called a Viola. --Jayron32 23:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) So the "single bass" is the cello ?

2) I don't follow the math. A double bass is 2× what ? An octobass is 8× what ? StuRat (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With 2), the wavelength - see octave. (Or put it another way, half the frequency.) I think that implies a "yes" answer to "1", but I don't know exactly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in a related article. If you read the wikipedia article on the Violone, an instrument related to both cellos and double basses, there is a description of a "bass violin" as " usually a 4-string member of the violin family, often slightly larger-bodied than the 'cello, and often tuned with each string a whole step lower than the cello (lowest string is B flat)." So the single bass was NOT the cello, but a seperate (though similar) instrument which falls in range between a double bass and a cello. Perhaps because its range would be overlap both instruments, and thus it was somewhat superfluous, it disappeared from the standard repetoire, and left the double bass behind, leaving us the anomaly of having a double bass without a single bass. --Jayron32 14:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Are these all the instruments in the violin family and do I have them in the proper order from treble to bass ? :

Violin
Viola
Viol
Cello
Violone
Double bass
Octobass

StuRat (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're restricting to the classical Western family of instruments? I'm not sure how well defined that group is. There are other very similar instruments, like the kobyz. Staecker (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, your ordering has some errors. First of all, the "violone" is an italian term meaning "Medium-to-large sized stringed instrument" and applies to a whole range of bowed, stringed instruments which may or may not be strictly part of the violin family. Secondly, the viol describes a different family of instruments entirely; which are fretted instruments (the violin family are all fretless) and which often have 6 strings (instead of the standard 4 in the violin family. The better order would probably be:

Violin Family	Viol Family
violin	treble viol
viola	alto viol
	tenor viol
cello	bass viol
bass violin (obsolete)
double bass	contrabass viol
octobass

The term "violone" seems to refer to any number of these instruments from either family, usually from the "cello" size or larger. --Jayron32 16:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The double bass is in some respects alien to the violin family and perhaps closer to the viol family; in that it typically has a flat back and sloping shoulders, and is tuned in fourths, not fifths. --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the classic joke, "What's the difference between a violin and a viola? The viola burns longer." -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]