Humanities desk
< May 23	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 25 >

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

May 24

Latin

How many people speak Latin as first language? --Latin learner (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nullis? (Though I've probably got the declension wrong...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

32 Wikipedia contributors claim to be native speakers of Latin, the credibility of which has been disputed. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 09:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The contemporary Latin article says it is "a language native to no people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this article by linguist Ken Miner which distinguishes "speakers-from-birth" from "native speakers" (see pages 27 to 30). "Native speakers" learned their language "not mainly from [their] parents or the equivalent, but from slightly older other children in a living speech-community." In this distinction, a child learning Latin from their parents today would be a "speaker-from-birth", but not a "native speaker." --Cam (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that anyone learns latin form "slightly older other children in a living speech-community". The only "living speech-community" that uses latin is the Vatican... not known for having children running around. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although, looking through the list of Wikipedians claiming to be native speakers, quite a few seem to be catholics as well, which still, I think, uses Latin on occasion. Presumably if they were born into a family that uses Latin on occasion even in a religious context, they have grown up around the language for most of their lives. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the last 2 respondents: The Vatican does use Latin, but I think now only when issuing papal encyclicals etc, whose names are always from the first couple of words in the Latin version. They get issued in Latin and every other major and many minor language. Latin is not the lingua Franca of anyone at the Vatican, so even if they were all married with kids, they still wouldn't pick it up. Since the change in the early 1960s to saying the Mass in the vernacular, there must be thousands of priests now who do not know a single word of Latin, or no more than the general person would know from legal expressions or phrases or terms that other languages have borrowed. In fact, the legal profession would use Latin on a more regular basis than the Vatican does, these days. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 16:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People do learn to speak Latin, but generally they have to get together in a special colloquium to find other people to talk to. I can't remember what it's called (Convocatio Latina? Something like that). You should ask Iustinus (talk · contribs) about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to Rome, you will see that the confessional booths give a list of languages on a sign with lights next to them. When a priest enters the booth to hear confessions, the lights of the languages he knows will illuminate. One of the languages is Latin. The CIA World Fact Book[1] lists Latin as a language of the Holy See. If you speak Latin to today's Romans, they can generally understand what you are saying and cabbies can get you to where you need to go. The Italian version of the Latin article claims "Diverse scuole di oggi parlano latino (Schola Nova nel Belgio, Vivarium Novum in Italia)."[2] The Latin textbooks, Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata are used by native speakers of several different languages because they are written entirely in Latin, even the copyright information. So Latin is actively used by some today.

As an attorney, I cannot say that the legal profession uses Latin on a more regular basis than the Vatican. The vast majority of attorneys and judges did not learn Latin and have no idea what I am talking about it when I use it, although ancient words and phrases usually carry a certain gravitas with them and judges often pretend to know as long as you don't force them to reveal the depth of their scienter (Latin lawyer jokes are the worst kind). It was common for educated individuals to know and study Latin up until the early part of the 20th century. The New Latin article even mentions a biography of George Washington written entirely in Latin. Latin for "no one" is more commonly nemo or nullus.[3] [4] Gx872op (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody must listen to YLE Radio 1's Nuntii Latini [5] news broadcast in Latin. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of civilians on trains during the Anglo-Boer War

I found a quote by an attorney in Pretoria in the middle of 1900 stating that if he were captured he would be 'made a Prisoner of War, may be taken from my home and compelled to personally accompany Railway Trains - and in addition therto will have to pay a heavy fine as well as compensation for the damage caused'. I find this point really interesting, as I've not been able to find evidence of civilians being forced to 'accompany' trains (presumably to prevent the Boers from blowing them up?) or having to foot the bill of damage done to the railway in their locality. I was just wondering if you had heard about this, and could direct me to (or possesses) any sources that might give further details relating to this surely highly controversial issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.12 (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page says it was done in the movie Breaker Morant. Searching for "human.shields boer.war" finds a bit more. --Sean 15:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote in The Great Boer War, "it is really inexplicable that the British authorities did not employ the means used by all armies under such circumstances--which is to place hostages upon the trains.". This guy claims that General Roberts "ordered that Boer civilians would [sic] be carried on any train moving through a known area of resistance, but this taking of hostages was soon forbidden by Prime Minister Chamberlain on the logic that any Afrikaner man the army could find to put on a train had already refused to join the commandos, and thus the commandos would view him as a traitor, not a comrade, eliminating the value of his safety as a deterrent." Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectuals without formal education

Please name some intellectuals who do/did not have formal education. --DHOD 1234 (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "intellectual" and "formal education"? Charlemagne and could be considered an intellectual for his day, and did not have much in the way of a formal education. For a more modern example: Thomas Paine left school at 13. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am talking about intellectuals and writers within the last 100 years. Please name such people who do/did not have university education. --DHOD 1234 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list of autodidacts which names many. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hoffer is an interesting example. Herostratus (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Vidal.76.218.9.50 (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various computer people such as Steve Jobs.AerobicFox (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jobs had some university education, although he dropped out and never completed his studies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could Steve Jobs really be defined as an intellectual? I see him more as an enterpriser/entrepeneur. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the Troops

I saw today President Obama was at Buckingham Palace and he reviewed the troops with Prince Philip. While watching I was wondering where this tradition originated - maybe the reference desk crew have an idea?

Also is it taken seriously? For example, could Obama have told a soldier to stop slouching or drop and give him twenty? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that since President Obama is the Head of services as well as Head of State of an allied power, if he had pointed out some deficiency in a soldier it would have been taken very seriously. I imagine he would have to report it to the senior British officer present rather than telling the soldier to drop and give him twenty himself. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point - he would have to respect the ally's chain of command. Still if he were to notice something, maybe a soldier left their rifle's safety off, would he be expected to comment? Or would he not say anything to avoid a faux pas? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not having been in the military himself, I rather doubt Obama would find anything wrong during an inspection as he would only have a rudimentary idea of what he was looking for. Googlemeister (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troop review redirects to Military parade which has a short history section that unfortunately doesn't cover the OPs questions. But obviously the tradition of the troop review goes way back in history. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspecting the guard of honour (the honor guard in the US) was first used by Charles II after his restoration to the British throne. When a regiment previously loyal to Oliver Cromwell presented its allegiance to the king, Charles studied the face of every soldier lined up looking for any signs of disloyalty. When he was convinced that they were in fact loyal, he accepted them as an escort. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure he did not just use the possibility to scrutinise the loyalty of the troops through an already established tradition? What I mean is that I would think that the inspection of a troop of soldiers by a head of state would be older than even the time of Charles II. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I suspect it started as a way of actually verifying that they were fit for battle, and making corrections where needed. This was probably back when kingdoms were tiny and the king could literally check out every soldier, and where the king also served as a military leader. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the troops was a meaningful and important practice when the quality of the troops was in doubt, such as when a leader hired some prince to furnish a stated number of mercenaries (Britain, using Hessians against the United States in the 1770's) Trained troops will likely be better able to create a military impression when marching past a review stand. A review traditionally would also be needed of the weapons troops carried, since US militia forces often had rifles or muskets in bad condition or of inappropriate types. In battle, regulars were more likely to hold their ground, or to charge against a strong defense than an upstart army of untrained forces. Per "Ark of Empire: The American Frontier 1784-1803, by Dale van Every (1963), in the history of the US military after the Revolution and before the Constitution, General Harmar led poorly trained US troops against the Native Americans in Ohio, and the poorly drilled troops turned and ran for their lives at the first war whoop. A few years later General Mad Anthony Wayne drilled his troops for months, despite criticism that he was just afraid to take them into battle. In the Battle of Fallen Timbers, the Native Americans attacked, and expected a repeat performance, but after the first exchange, the well drilled soldiers fixed bayonets and advanced, as one would have expected Redcoats or Hessians to do, winning the battle. I would expect that Washington, Cornwallis, Lee, or other experienced generals could have evaluated what their troops were capable of from a formal review. If at the onset of the Libyan Civil War, such reviews were held of Qadaffi's Libyan Army and of the anti-Qadaffi volunteers, a good military leader might have made accurate predictions of what would happen when one of the forces faced the other in combat. Even political leader such as Obama who has not served in the military could note the difference between trained soldiers and a ragtag mob in review, but I expect a marching band carrying wooden rifles would still impress. Certainly leadership and tactics as well as logistics also determine the outcome of a battle. Edison (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing an allied head of state to review the troops is obviously an act of courtesy, cementing the alliance. I wonder how far back that is documented. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of us are at cross-purposes here. President Obama wasn't reviewing the troops but was inspecting the guard of honour provided in his honour. Similarly Queen Elizabeth could not go to the USA and review Obama's troops but she could be accorded the honour of inspecting the honor guard. Reviewing the troops doesn't equal inspecting a guard of honour. As has been mentioned, reviewing of the troops goes back a long way--the Chinese and Roman emperors carried out troop reviews. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fashionably late

Who decided that it was fashionable rather then just obnoxious to be late to an event? What is the historical background? Googlemeister (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. Of course we got the well-known Jim Morrison lyrics from the song "Twentieth Century Fox" (no article) establishing 1966 as a sort of terminus post quem for the usage of the term in popular culture, but it would be interesting to see how much further back it can be traced. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why would you introduce an esoteric Latin phrase, linking to it, only to misuse it yourself? I've never seen it in print or on the Internet, yet reading about it (for the first time) by following your link, it's clear you just misused it... (you meant ante or one of the other phrases on the page). The mind boggles... 188.156.250.194 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When trying to establish a chronology or date an event they are quite nice terms to know. Unfortunately from a slip of the mind I copy pasted the wrong bolded word from the lede of the article. I am sorry if I forced you to learn something new. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I am sorry if I forced you to learn something new." Damn straight - apology accepted. 188.156.63.247 (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Didn't you know it's fashionable to season one's conversation with the occasional exoticism, but also that always getting such phrases exactly correct is a sign of a show-off, or worse, a pedant? It's therefore appropriate to be "fashionably incorrect" (an excuse I intend to use forthwith with great frequency). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saddhiyama's latinism is very, very common, contrary to the snobbishly anti-intellectual assertions above. Anyone who has read a few pages of, for example, Shakespeare scholarship is familiar with the "terminus" usage. Yes, Sadd's typo gave the wrong one, but otherwise it's just obnoxious to contest the use of the latinism.76.218.9.50 (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very, very common, ha! The New York Times has never once used it in the history of ever. Contrary to your implication, I am not "snobbishly anti-intellectual", but a straight-up rube. The suggestion that "a few pages of Shakespearean scholarship" are not esoteric is ridiculous. I bet you're one of the people who just breaks out in Greek typeface whenever you can, even for common words like monarch and philosophy. Talk about obnoxious... 188.156.63.247 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only certain kinds of events to which one can safely arrive late. Arrive at the movies late and you risk upsetting those fellow patrons who bothered to get there on time, and whose feet you will now trample in your attempt to push past to get to your seat. Arrive at many kinds of concerts/opera/live theatre late, and you won't be allowed in at all, or at least not till a "suitable break in the performance", which may not be till intermission or the end of Act I. Arrive late at the airport, bus stop or train station, and your plane/bus/train may have left without you. Arrive at a wedding or funeral late, and you may miss the important bits. It's really only private parties that "fashionably late" refers to, and I think it came about as a courtesy to the hosts, to allow them that extra bit of time to get the cooking finished and the place looking perfect before the first guests arrive, because there always seems to be a last-minute rush no matter how well prepared and organised you may think you are. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Perhaps. I think it's more likely that the Important People emphasise their status by coming late, knowing that nobody will dare criticise, and that everybody can see them make an entrance; and then everybody copies them. --ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "fashionably late" is certainly quite venerable. The earliest example I found in a hasty Google Books search is this one from 1811, and there are many others from the nineteenth century. With regard to why being (not excessively) late has been regarded as fashionable, I can only guess that it has something to do with it's being thought unseemly for the languorous well-bred to show too much eagerness or alacrity in any endeavor, or perhaps it's merely a polite recognition that a host or hostess isn't always on time with his or her preparations. Deor (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ambitious character of Almeria Turnbull, who is both" fashionable late" and overdressed for the "family party" she's arriving at in Maria Edgeworth's novel shows that "fashionably late" was ambiguous even then. "Prompt as a duchess" was an approving phrase that was dinned into one's ears years ago.--Wetman (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a tradition since at least the Roman clientela system, that powerful people could show their power by letting their dependees wait for them. I suspect the tradition has been kept in Europe during the age of feudalism, and was at least in practice during the age of absolutism. Of course at that time it was also applied by the aristocracy as part of their parlour politics. This could have transferred to social gatherings, where the people on the upper rungs of the hierarchy could show their power towards the lesser rungs by being "fashionably late". --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Louis XVIII of France said; "La ponctualité est la politesse des rois" ("punctuality is the courtesy of kings"). Our own dear Queen (God bless her) never keeps anyone waiting. Alansplodge (talk)

"Hurry up and wait" falls into the category of being "fashionably late". As for when such notions originated, probably Paleolithic man pondered the same question. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of an old Russian tradition. When a family was going away for an extended period, after they finished busily packing and loading the carriages and checking all the children were accounted for etc etc, they would then all sit together in silence for a minute before departing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. How often is a family in a rush to get going, and a hundred miles later realize that they forgot something. A quiet, reflective moment before leaving might help that problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannes Film Festival

How are films chosen to be presented at the Cannes Film Festival? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the official page on preselection and selection — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Who decides which of the submitted films actually get shown? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of different strands with different methods for selection. The festival's organisers choose those for the main competition and Un Certain Regard, based on an open submission process: they have one selection panel for French films, and one for foreign films, each with assitants and advisors. I can't find the 2011 panels, but the 2008 list is here[6] and some members have been on the panel for several years. The International Critic's Week selections are made by the French Syndicate of Cinema Critics. The Director's Fortnight has its own selection procedure: the French Directors Guild appoints an artistic director, currently Frederic Boyer.[7][8] And many films are shown outside the auspices of the festival by anybody who hires a screening room or cinema. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Boulevard

Any word on when and whether London Boulevard will be released in the US? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly billing

I notice that there is no article on monthly billing. Why not? I want to know: who invented it? Why do we still use it? And maybe this belongs under "language", but anyway, why do we call it a "month" after the moon, when it has nothing to do with the moon, and has little or no real meaning outside of finance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.69.103 (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A month has no meaning outside of finance ? It's a widely used unit of time, in many different cultures. It was originally the length of a cycle of the moon, but that gave us approximately 13 months in a year, which was messy, as you can't divide them easily into 4 seasons, etc. So, months were adjusted to be longer, so now we only have 12 in a year. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't a cycle of the moon (27.3 days), nor did it lead to 13 months. The ancients weren't measuring time by something as difficult to observe and universalize as a revolution of the moon (which would involve, to be precise, fairly rare occultations of fixed stars). Rather, they used moon PHASES -- the basis of almost all lunar calendars -- which are far easier to universalize: i.e., it was the SUN-moon cycle (about 29.5 days), which would create about 12.4 months if there were no intercalations (which there usually were). So the "month" length is a simple rounding of the sun-moon cycle, surely one of the earliest celestial phenomena noticed by early human beings (much simpler, to a very primitive mind, than the yearly cycle, which takes much longer to pin down than "full moon, full moon, full moon" does). The concept of a "week," on the other hand, is inexplicable except as numerology.76.218.9.50 (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is, what are months used for? Other than that our language all but requires us to use them to specify dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.69.103 (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To break the year into more manageable parts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... more manageable for what purpose? For example, our watches show hours and minutes, but those don't seem to be the "real" time units in our modern world; the "real" time unit is the 15-minute block. We do scheduling as though our clocks simply numbered these blocks from 00 to 95, even though that is not what they in fact do. But we behave as though they did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.237.147 (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a normal human tendency to consider things in smaller chunks. It's also a more human measurement. "Let's meet on Tuesday May the 24th" somehow sounds better than "Let's meet on Year Date 2011.144", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the "real" time unit is the 15-minute block...really? I never heard of this before. Pfly (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks the OP has spent too much of his life in meetings, and needs a vacation. For maybe a month. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original poster, I support your (implied) assertion that there should be a monthly billing article. Go ahead and create it. See Wikipedia:Your First Article. Before you write it up, be sure that, as mentioned in my link, you have some references and that you establish that the topic is notable in the article, else it'll get deleted. I think the question of "why" is interesting and the above speculation is just speculation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP will also have to create an account before he can start a new article. Pais (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]