Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 December 20

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.

December 20

How would anyone know if they are a beneficiary in a will?

I am not asking for any legal advice. But a curious legal question came to my mind. If you are listed as a beneficiary in someone's will, how would you even know that that's the case? Where, when, and how would you ever receive that information? This is the hypothetical example that came to mind. Let's say we have an elderly parent (who is a widow/er). The parent has only one child, who is alive. The parent hates the child and leaves him/her absolutely nothing in the will. All of the assets of the parent's estate are willed to, let's just say, the American Cancer Society. Let's also say that the assets are $1 million. So, how would the American Cancer Society ever know about this? So, let's say the parent dies. The unscrupulous child goes through the parent's papers, finds the will, and immediately destroys it (and subsequently states that no will exists). Now, all of the assets (the $1 million) will go to the child, as the next of kin. The American Cancer Society has no idea that they are the beneficiary of the will. So, they are not going to raise any questions or red flags. The child will get away with a $1 million fraud, no? Am I missing something? So how do problems like this get prevented? This question refers to the USA, by the way. Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:218B:AF5E:F560:98C6 (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

See Probate for our general article: it's the duty of the executors to inform the beneficiaries of a will and ensure they receive their legacies. In a case of intestacy, the courts will appoint an administrator to distribute the estate. In the case you mention, the child would indeed have successfully defrauded the charity - if the testatrix had taken professional advice in drafting the will, and (a) named a trustworthy executor (such as a lawyer, or an official of the charity) and (b) deposited the will with a trustworthy entity (such as a lawyer), rather than leaving it among her personal effects, her wishes would not have been frustrated. Tevildo (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That just begs another question though - how does the lawyer or the executor (with whom the will has been entrusted) know that the person has died? In general, how do hospitals, emergency services, undertakers, etc go about informing the various people who need to know? For example - suppose a life insurance policy exists but the person who is to benefit from it doesn't know it exists to make a claim? I could imagine that they'd be able to find family members and inform them - but lawyers, insurers?? SteveBaker (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is why, when you make out a will or contract an insurance policy, you should advise a (trustworthy) next-of-kin or friend where the will and other important papers can be found. There have indeed been many cases of unclaimed life insurance payments because no one informed the insurer that the policy holder had died. See Estate planning. --Xuxl (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out that, in some jurisdictions (particularly in Louisiana, which derives much of its legal system from the French codes), the parent would not have been entitled to completely disinherit the child - see Freedom of disposition. Tevildo (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting and informative article. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Wow, how very sad. And, yet, sobering. Rest in peace, Mr. Bell and the others. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In my hypothetical example above, would that child be guilty of any crime? Let's amend the hypothetical so that the child did not destroy the will. He simply finds it in a desk drawer and leaves it there, without telling anyone of its existence. (In other words, he is passive and does not actively destroy the will.) Would that constitute any sort of crime? On the one hand, it seems like some form of fraud (i.e., he is "knowingly" taking money that belongs to someone else). On the other hand, I cannot imagine that the child has any legal duty to go searching for any potential wills in existence and then notifying authorities of the results of his search. Is there any criminal activity here? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine how we could give a solid answer without having more details, and in that situation, a solid answer would amount to legal advice, which we can't give here. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What more details do you think would be necessary here? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What jurisdiction you're referring to for starters. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned USA in the original question. Do you mean which specific state in the USA? I can't imagine much difference from one state to another. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Criminal law does differ very considerably between the different US states. The child will undoubtedly have committed fraud, and the charity will have a civil case against him (if they can prove the facts), but whether he's committed a crime, and what that crime will be called, will depend on jurisdiction. See Theft#United States. He hasn't committed larceny at common law, as he's not physically dispossessed ("asported", to use the technical term) anyone of anything. Beyond that, we'd need to go into the specific legislative provisions of the state in question. Tevildo (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This is getting off topic. But any decent lawyer (in a civil or a criminal case) would be able to get the child/defendant "off" on these facts. The child has no legal obligation to go hunting for a will that might or might not exist. If he does find it, I doubt he has any legal obligation to "report" that finding to anyone at all. Needless to say, he can simply assert "I never saw that will. It was mixed in with a bunch of papers and I never bothered to read them all" or "I didn't know what it was or if it was an important paper, so I just threw it back in the desk with all the other papers". As a matter of fact, his best defense would be: "If I really wanted to do something wrong or illegal, I would have and could have easily destroyed that will, but obviously I did not do so. This proves good faith that I genuinely believed that I was the beneficiary." I can't see him being found liable either civilly or criminally. Now, it might be the case that the real beneficiary (the American Cancer Society) can seek to get the money back through some legal mechanism. But, I think, it would be easy to argue that the child didn't do anything wrong or illegal. Or, better stated, it would be virtually impossible to prove that he did so. Nonetheless, an interesting hypothetical. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

But that's another problem with your hypothetical. Beyond lacking any jurisdictional information more specific than "US", the details you've provided are very limited. While this affects the original question (about whether a crime had been committed), it also affects the seperate question of whether any case could be successfully pursued.

How was the will later discovered? How careful was the child when handling the will in the first place? For example, if the will was discovered by a third party after that and handed over to a lawyer or the charity, then the child later claims they never saw the will when asked about it, and whoever is pursuing this get lucky and find the child's fingerprints all over the will in places you'd expect if they read it, it's much more likely the child will have problems in court if it comes down to that. (This actually happening is not particularly likely, but that's a seperate issue.)

Even if the child tries to belatedly claim may be they did see it, but they didn't realise what it was since they just skimmed it, they've still hurt their chances. And if it turns out the child is a lawyer and one of the pages says "Last will and testament" in fairly big writing, they may have even more problems. If they then try to argue "I was so traumatised by by parent's death I wasn't thinking straight" only for there to be several witnesses who say they were told by the defendant that the defendant was happy the parent dies and they did indeed seem to be happy, it seems far from a slam dunk that they will get off. (Again a lawyer will have to be pretty stupid to let all that happen but that's a different issue. Well except in so much as they could try and use that to help, but it's not exactly the best defence.)

All this, particularly in a civil case.

If you want to get even more extreme, if they openly told several people about their intention to defraud the charity, and these people are willing to testify against, well if I was a lawyer (and I'm not at all), I definitely wouldn't be advising them that any decent lawyer would be able to get them off.

Ditto for that matter if it turns out someone else had gone through the paper a few hours before the child and seen perhaps a life insurance policy, then the will, then info on a safety deposit box which the child had never heard of; and somehow the child managed to claim the life insurance and investigate the safety deposit box, (or even add a few more documents above and below all of which were dealt with by the child) but yet somehow the child says they never saw the will or didn't think it mattered.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Roman City/Province-names; Etymology

I've been trying to translate and interpret the meaning of the names of many Roman cities and Provinces, but I've met with only moderate success. I've used Latin translators/dictionaries and I've checked lots of Wiki articles on specific cities/provinces and looked for 'etymology' etc. but its hard to use dictionaries, because the names often are not written exactly as words were normally pronounced and written in Latin, and articles often lack information on the origins and meaning of the names.

I would have liked to maybe find a site dedicated to Etymology of Roman place-names. I haven't found any. Got any clues that could help ?

2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:C53D:8CBC:A967:377E (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see some examples. And keep in mind that place names are not necessarily easy to trace. They could be from local names established before Latin became the standard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Examples of what exactly ? Of what I struggle to find info on ?

Well. Probably more than half of all Roman place-names end with "cum," "ium," "num" or simply "um". "Cum" translates to many things in English, but none that makes any sense in these cases. But of course, many place-names will use abbreviations of longer words, often two words, that will combine to make one name.

"-nensis" is another much used word. I've managed to translate it to "of/from". for example; "Gallia Narbonensis" means "Gauls of Narbon."

"iae" is another three letters that is sometimes at the end of names. I know not its meaning.

Those are all usually endings to the names. The first part/word of the names is even harder to find out, with little info on Eytomology... sometimes also because the names stem from times before the Empire. Most of them probably do to varying degree.

Here's a few translations, most of them not really that helpful, with a few exceptions. :

Africanum/Africum = Africa

Castra/Castri/Castrum = Castle

Cum = Under command/at head of ????

Desertum = Desert

Galli = Gauls (Gallia)

Internum = Internal

Legionis = Legion

Lugdunum = Lyon

Mare/Maritimae = Coast & Litus = Shore

nensis = from/of  ?????

Nova = New

Ours = Nostrum

Sol/Solis = Sun

Vallum = Walls / Ramparts

I certainly would have liked to understand "cum" / "um" 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:C53D:8CBC:A967:377E (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Latin is an inflected language; the endings of Latin nouns changes based on the grammatical function of the word in a sentence (taking into account the number and gender of the word. I suspect that's the reason you're finding so many with similar endings; the number of endings for Latin nouns is pretty limited. Some of the cities' names are of foreign origin. ("Cum" by the way is most often encountered as the word meaning "with", or in its enclitic form (attached to the end of a word) meaning the same thing.- Nunh-huh 18:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A well-known example of a name ending in -cum is Eboracum, the Roman name for York - our article discusses the etymology of the name: in particular the "-um" suffix seems to arise from Latinisation of an earlier name, such as "Iburakon". This is fairly clearly related to the Norse name Jórvík (still preserved in name of the Jorvik Centre), and indeed "York" itself. The similarity to Latin "cum" = "with" is just a coincidence: in general I don't think you can take -cum as a suffix that carries a particular meaning. Likewise with endings like -ium and -iae: as Nunh-huh says, these are just typical grammatical endings of Latin words. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you need to learn more about how Latin noun morphology works before you can understand word endings. Try reading Latin declension, which explains how nouns are formed in Latin, particularly the word endings which have no meaning other than expressing the grammatical function of the word. It's complicated, especially if you're not used to languages as heavily inflected as Latin, but I'm afraid it's necessary background before you can get anywhere analysing Latin placenames.

"-um" is the typical ending of a neuter noun of the second declension in the nominative case, i.e. the form the word takes when it's the subject of the sentence. If the word ends in "-cum" or "-num", the "c" or "n" are not part of the ending, but part of the stem of the word.

To take one of your examples, Gallia Narbonensis, "Gallia" is the Latin for the country of Gaul. "Narbonensis" is "Narbon-", the city of Narbo (which forms its oblique case endings with an -n-, hence its modern name, Narbonne), plus "-ensis", a common Latin suffix meaning something like "belonging to (a place)". (So you were nearly right, but the suffix is "-ensis", not "-nensis" - the "n" belongs to the first part of the word.) The English ending "-ese", as in Japanese or Portuguese, is its linguistic descendant. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Similarly, the Latin name for the Canada goose is Branta canadensis—the second word literally means "Canadian". (Our "-ian" here, of course, has the same meaning as "-ese". See demonym for such formations in English.) Incidentally the first word Branta is not the classical Latin word for goose; that's Anser and it's used for a different type of geese. According to my Random House dictionary, Branta actually derives from Icelandic. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to answer me, all of you ;) 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:C53D:8CBC:A967:377E (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over your examples:

• Africanum/Africum = Africa

Did you really find a name containing Africum? There was a province of Africa (roughly Tunisia), and the derivative adjective is Afric-an-a/us/um (depending on the gender of the head noun).

• Castra/Castri/Castrum = Castle

castrum = castle, castra = castles, castri = of (the) castle

• Desertum = Desert

'uninhabited'; the modern English usage of desert for a sandy region is quite recent.

• Legionis = Legion

of (the) legion.

• Lugdunum = Lyon

a dun (hill fort; a Celtic word) named for the god Lug

• Nova = New

also novum or novus or novi or novae, depending on the gender and number of the noun

• Ours = Nostrum

also nostra or noster or nostrae or nostri ...

• Sol/Solis = Sun

solis = 'of the sun'; did you really find Sol on its own?

—Tamfang (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I found 'Sun' translated to both 'Sol' and 'Solis' on this translator : http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/english/sun

The region/province you refer to when you speak of Tunisia is Cartagho, of course. It is in Africa indeed, but the Romans already then knew the African continent by more or less the same name as we do. Many Roman maps refer to the vast area south of its African provinces as "Desertum Africanum" or "Africum." I would very much lean towards them meaning the "deserts of Africa", but if you prefer "uninhabitated Africa," so be it. I won't argue.

Anyway, I just checked the same translator to which I gave you a link, and it translates to Africanum, Africum and several more variants, probably bending of the word; Africa, African, 'of Africa' and whatever.. 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:ECBB:2701:B38A:DDFA (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant, did you find the word Sol (rather than Solis) or Africum in an ancient place-name? I'm less interested in trying to explain the translations that Kevin Mahoney's homemade dictionary server may give for an English word. —Tamfang (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you bloody clever-clogs who learnt Latin... Romanes eunt domus! Pete "studied Italian instead" AU --Shirt58 (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Cooking temperature

• A cooking thread at the Humanities Desk? Is this what God intended? Contact Basemetal here 14:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If an item should be cooked at 180 fan but you're also cooking a chicken at 160 fan, how much more cooking time should you add to the 180 degree product? --Andrew 16:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"Fan"? Anyway, I would think you should cook them at the preferred temperature, which means you should cook them separately, unless you have two ovens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I presume our OP means 'Fahrenheit'. SteveBaker (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That is an absolutely dreadful assumption, especially since it's already explained below, posted before you did. Do pay attention. 82.8.32.177 (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the 160 is F. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC) It appears to be Celsius after all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody would ever cook a chicken at that low a temperature. Have you ever tried cooking a chicken? That sounds about right for the meat temperature on the inside though. 82.8.32.177 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

160 F internal temp as discussed below. I expect if you cooked it at 160 C, you'd end up with a large cinder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The OP clearly wasn't asking about internal temperature. Don't be obtuse. It's fine to make a mistake when answering questions, just admit it. Don't fudge about it. You do indeed cook a chicken at 160C (usually bit higher really), until it reaches an internal temperature of 70C or so. Fgf10 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not at all clear what the OP was talking about, with that peculiar term "fan" thrown in there. As for you, Mr. Obtuse: "You've got it wrong" would be quite sufficient. You don't have to be a jerk about it. Yes, it appears to be Celsius, as to what temp to pre-heat the oven. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To any English speaker, the question was completely obvious, without any 'peculiar terms'. I can't help it you speak American, can I? Fgf10 (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I speak English. Don't be obtuse. Try another angle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fan. Don't you have those in the colonies? I'd normally just do the average at 170 and keep an eye on it, bit shorter for the 160 product and bit longer for the 180. Not hard and fast rules. Definitely no need for separate oven when the difference is that small. I'd normally cook at chicken at 180 anyway, 20 minutes per pound plus 15ish minutes (if it's a decent size and quality). Fgf10 (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what you're cooking. Some things take time to cook - and that time can be varied by altering the temperature - other things have to reach some internal temperature in order to cook - and as soon as they reach that temperature, they're done. If the thing that needs to be cooked at 180F needs to do so in order to reach an internal temperature that's above 160F - then no amount of additional time will allow it to cook with your chicken at 160F. But it it's something that just needs more time at 160F and less at 180F - then the answer is different.

Incidentally, 160F is not hot enough to cook chicken. To safely cook a chicken, the internal temperature (measured in the thickest part of the meat - but not touching a bone) is 165F.

So we need to know what you're cooking with your chicken or we can't answer your question. SteveBaker (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)The answer will depend on the other item. If it's not meat, then you might get away with just cooking for perhaps 25% longer, but any advice we give might be dangerous because we don't know what you are cooking. Dbfirs 16:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

180 fan will be 180 degrees Celsius, cooked in a fan-assisted oven. No Fahrenheit cooking over this side of the pond.--Phil Holmes (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

So "180 fan" is a Britishism for what you just said? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's English for it yes, as I mentioned above, don't know what you call it in the US. My answer obviously also assumes Celcius, since I don't live in the States. Fgf10 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I made the same mistake on this side of the pond, and assumed Fahrenheit here in the UK since that's the first temperature scale I learnt here (many years ago). I can also think in Centigrade, but need to concentrate harder to interpret it, and still sometimes mentally convert to Fahrenheit to know how hot it feels. Dbfirs 21:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as per google, chicken is supposed to be in the 160s F or about 75 C. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That is the internal temperature for it to be cooked. Good luck getting a decent roast chicken by setting your oven temperature to that. Two very different things. Fgf10 (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In Bugs' defence, this page from the (US) Food Safety and Inspection Service does say that it's _safe_ to cook chicken at 165°F. Whether it would taste very nice after prolonged roasting at that temperature is another matter. Tevildo (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course you can cook chicken that low, usually bits of it sous-vide, but not in an oven. You know, it's quite sad that it seems the state of average cooking knowledge has dropped so far that people don't even know how to roast a chicken. Oh well, I've got bread baking in the oven, so must dash off. Fgf10 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You can cook chicken perfectly well at lower temperatures, you just cook it for longer. If you cook it for 6 hours in a slow cooker, the meat falls off the bones. A bit like pulled pork. Yum! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

For the OP, roast chicken cooked at 170 fan. Fgf10 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

1) In the US, we just would say "Cook in a convection oven at 180°" (which would mean F, unless otherwise specified).

2) Note that you need to cook at a higher temp than what you want as the interior temp. Or, more precisely, "It would take an infinite amount of time for the internal temp to match the external temp." (Excluding infrared and microwave technology, which can heat the food more than the surrounding air.) So, to speed things up, you use a higher external temp.

3) 160°C and 180°C are 320°F and 356°F, respectively, so those temps might work to get the interior temp to a safe level (165°F for chicken) fairly quickly.

4) Now cooking two things in an oven together that require different temps is always tricky, whether it's a convection oven or not. It's not always possible to get good results this way. But, the way I would handle it would be to turn the temp up after removing the lower temp item, then carefully monitor the higher temp item using an internal thermometer, etc., to check for doneness. However, if the higher temp item needs a shorter time period, this may not work.

5) An additional concern, with a convection oven, is that too many items cooked at once will block airflow, leading to uneven cooking. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, unless you want to cook both at 170, which should be fine given that it's not much difference and your thermostat may not be completely accurate anyway, not very many extra minutes. 5 should be fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Does it make sense to say Abrahamic religions pray to the same god?

If you don't believe god exists, does it make sense to say it's the same god? --Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure... An atheist can believe that others all talk to the same imaginary friend ... without personally thinking that the imaginary friend is in any way real. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask, I suppose. There are certainly those zealous enough to get all up in your face for "offending" them and whatever religion they believe in. I for one say such distinctions are irrelevant. They come from the same source... all these Abrahamic religions branched out from the same starting point. So it can't be wrong to say it's the same God. I say the same as you. Krikkert7 (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• It is a very common statement, especially when promoting interfaith dialog. Generally speaking, Christians will usually say that Jews worship the same god as them, and Muslims say that both Christians and Jews worship the same god as them (they have an explicit acknowledgement of this in their religion in the form of the People of the Book)... although naturally individuals vary, and some people take a harder line. Going in the other direction and accepting later religions is rarer but does happen when people are trying to establish interfaith dialog or encourage peaceful coexistence. Some people have extended this even further; eg. at some points in Islamic history, declaring that Brahman and Allah are one and the same has been used as a justification for accepting Hindus as Dhimmi. During eras of religious conflict, on the other hand, you tend to see people arguing that the other religion is worshiping a false god. --Aquillion (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Aquillion omits to mention that many Christians also believe that Muslims worship the same God as they do. Lumen Gentium, a statement of faith for Roman Catholics arising out of the Second Vatican Council in 1964 declares "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind" (Chapter II: "The People of God"). Pope Francis reaffirmed recently that "...we are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by". [1]. Of course, there are major differences and Christians are divided on how far these can be overlooked. Our Interfaith dialogue article has more details. Alansplodge (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Many Christians also do not believe it's the same God. That's why they'll use the word "Allah", to imply that it's not the "real" God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is pointless, because al-Lah is Arabic for "the God" and Arabic-speaking Christians of all denominations use it to mean God. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This last statement is yet another example of the Etymological fallacy. Contact Basemetal here 11:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that it is also factually incorrect. Allah (الله) is a contraction of al-Ilah (الإله) which does mean "the god" but there is no Arabic word "Lah" (له) meaning god. So Allah does not mean "the god". It is the contraction of a phrase that does mean "the god" but "Allah" is the name of one specific god that one may or may not identify with some other god, e.g. the God of Christianity, etc. Some people do, some people don't. Even those who do use the same word do not necessarily identify the concepts. Incidentally, in Malaysia Christians have been forbidden by Islamic courts to use "Allah" to refer to the Christian God, which is something that they had done for a hundred years at least. Contact Basemetal here 11:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That certain religions "branched out from the same starting point" is not a definitive reason to say that adherents to those religions worship the same god. Over time, concepts of their respective deities may have grown so far apart that they are no longer recognizable as the same god. As an anology, take languages. Linguists agree that English and Russian "branched out from the same starting point". That does not mean however that today they are essentially the same language, or even that they are mutually intelligible or grammatically similar. That said, I am not denying that a good case can be made that Christians and Muslims pray to the same deity, but I think it is more complicated than that. It depends on what exactly is meant by "the same god". - Lindert (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If it is doubtful, as I think it is, that any representative sampling of (choose one) {Christians | Muslims | Jews} worship the same god, then it would be incredible to say that they all do.

On the other hand, I am reminded of Bertrand Russell's story of his imprisonment for his pacifist writings towards the end of WWI:

"I was much cheered on my arrival by the warder at the gate, who had to take particulars about me. He asked my religion, and I replied ‘agnostic’. He asked how to spell it, and remarked with a sigh: ‘Well, there are many religions, but I suppose they all worship the same God.’ This remark kept me cheerful for about a week."

• Russell, Bertrand (2009) [1958]. Egner, Robert E. (ed.). Bertrand Russell's Best. London: Routledge. p. 31. ISBN 9780415473583., from his Portraits From Memory -- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If the three Abrahamic religions are considered monotheistic, is the fact that the Christian deity is a Trinity an essential distinction? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

To answer the OP's original question: No that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Such an atheist would be himself in need of psychiatric attention. If they're imaginary then they're not real so in what sense could they be "the same"? All you could say is that the believers of those religions believe (or not) or have agreed as a matter of courtesy (or haven't) that it is the same god, in other words that "it is the same god" is a political or theological statement of their respective religions. Even if you studied the characteristics of those gods at length and concluded that they have indistinguishable features (which is hardly the case of course, or we would not be talking of three different religion) you still (as an atheist) would have no grounds for affirming they're "the same".

Regarding Deborah's observation: The answer to your question would be "yes and no". You seem to be asking from the point of view of a believer of one of those religions. (Note the OP's question was from the point of view of the atheist.) Since we're talking about three different religions clearly the way they describe God will be different, since if it wasn't we would not be talking about three different religion but about the same religion. Where the descriptions are different a believer of one of those religions has one of two choices: either they take the position that those different descriptions are so fundamentally different that members of one or both of the other religions can't possibly believe in the one true God but have been misled in fact to believe in "someone/something else" that masquerades as the one true God but can't possibly be Him (the reasons for that can be human stupidity, evil, Satan, the second law of thermodynamics, or whatever). Or they can take the position that much of those different descriptions is erroneous (again for various reasons) but not enough to say that the other religions do not believe in the same God. I believe in practice Muslim attitudes towards Jews and towards Christians (and the doctrine of the Trinity) and Jewish attitudes towards Muslims and Christians fall mostly in the second category even though the Trinity tends to cause more problems to Jews than does Muslim theology. Similarly most Christians (leaving aside early centuries Gnostics, Marcionists, etc. who thought the God of the Jews was actually a different and evil god) take that position towards Jews. Towards Muslims however I believe, while most Christians take the second attitude, a sizable minority hold that the god of Islam has characteristics that make it too much more like "the other guy" and thus adopt the first attitude. Maybe something a bit like what the Gnostics and Marcionists thought of the Jews.

Contact Basemetal here 10:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone cite this recent NPR story on the topic: [[2]] Llamabr (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Further to Basemetal's note above, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27970565 and https://www.rt.com/news/167968-malaysia-allah-god-ban/. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia is not exactly a haven for free speech. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It is like asking if China and England have the same dragons. You don't need to believe in dragons to check if both cultures have similar sources for the belief. So yes I would say it makes sense, even if you don't believe in God. Really it is a matter of semantics. HighInBC 17:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That would only say that those two cultures have the same concept of "dragon". But to religious people "God" is not just a concept. It is a unique person. So for two religions to affirm that their God is "the same" goes beyond saying that their concept of God is the same. It requires a positive dogmatic statement. Since such a statement is not simply the outcome of a logical argument it has to be meaningless to an atheist. All that an atheist can observe is that those two religions have the statement "our God is the same" in their theology. From the religious point of view it is emphatically not just a matter of semantics. Contact Basemetal here 19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Listen, Basemetal, of course God(s) are just concepts. They are an *idea*. There has never been any sign of them, and there's never been anything that points toward any person or entity ever having possessed the powers that any Gods from any pantheon supposedly do/did. So they're ideas. All things in our minds are simply ideas until they are carried out/confirmed/proven etc. Krikkert7 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• STOP... It is one thing to neutrally state the fact that X group believes Y to be true... but we cross over the line into potential personal attack zone once we start criticizing those beliefs. Besides we have gotten away from the original question (which has been sufficiently answered). I think it best to end the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I never criticized any beliefs. I pointed out that it is an *idea*. If you read it again, you'll see I didn't attack anyone or anything. I guess you're right though, that the Q has been answered and it's time to draw the line. Fair enough. I bow to your wisdom ;) Krikkert7 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to throw into the pot a note that the concept that all believers worship the same God is a key precept of the Freemasons. I think that's relevant to the discussion, albeit not directly to the original question; the original question asked whether it made sense for someone who doesn't believe in God, whereas the Masons do, and this is presumably why it makes sense for them. --Trovatore (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

-
Doesn't "monotheist" mean there is only one god? If there is only one god, undoubtedly it's the one they all worship, since there is no other god? Akseli9 (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A possible view is that the people who believe as you do worship the one God, whereas the others do not worship any god at all, but either a figment of their imaginations, or some other sort of entity that is not a god (say, an idol or a demon). That's what makes the Masonic view non-trivial; they do not say that. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that India is the only true democracy in the world. The other countries claim to be democracies, but they're all flawed or corrupt in non-trivial ways. You believe that the USA is the only true democracy. Alice believes that France is the only true democracy. Surely India, USA, and France are not the same country, even though you, me, and Alice are all mono-democratists. --2001:4898:80E8:B:0:0:0:404 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether belief in democracy is a good analogy for belief in God, but you are entitled to your belief. Do you really think that Indian democracy is not flawed or corrupt in non-trivial ways? Personally, I'm with Churchill: "it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" Our article People of the Book contains some views. Dbfirs 01:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Lawyer-client confidentiality and privilege

I asked a question above about how someone will ever know if they are a beneficiary to a will. This made me think of another tangentially related question. A lawyer has a duty to his client to keep all of their communications private and confidential. What happens when that client dies? Does the confidentiality rule still apply? Or is it then inapplicable? Same question for doctors and the confidentiality of medical records. Same question for schools/colleges and the confidentiality of educational records. Are these matters still held to be confidential after the person dies? Or does their death render moot the confidentiality and privacy of the information? I am asking about the status of this issue in the USA. Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume that this would vary from state to state; if I'm wrong, the best way to start is demonstrating that I'm wrong. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The attorney-client privilege survives the client's death, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998). You may read the opinion here.

As for medical and doctor-patient information, see Opinion 5.051 (Confidentiality of Medical Information Postmortem) of the American Medical Association (December 2000); and Health Information of Deceased Individuals from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (explaining that the HIPAA Privacy Rule protects individually identifiable health information (see protected health information) for 50 years following the date of death of the decedent).

As for education records - as for "education records" (as defined by FERPA) as applied to a deceased student: the general rule is that "the FERPA rights of eligible students lapse or expire upon the death of the student." See this 2008 letter from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development and this 2000 letter from the Oregon Attorney General's office.

FERPA and HIPAA are federal acts, so states may have some additional laws, which may or may not be "preempted" under the federal acts. Neutrality^talk 22:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

So, here is a question with regard to FERPA. If a person is alive (example: Barak Obama) and I call up their college and request that person's college transcript, the college will tell me "no". But, if that person is dead (example: Ronald Reagan), the college will tell me "yes"? Is that correct? 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Under FERPA, a college would not be legally barred from giving you the "education records" (20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)) of the dead person. But federal law would not require them to give up the information, either. (And even if it did require them, there is no private right of action to enforce the right, see Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002)). The college or university can create its own policies on the matter. One exception if a state law (e.g., an open records law applicable to state universities) came into play. Neutrality^talk 03:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes some sort of sense, I guess. So if a college wanted to, they could have the policy "we will release the transcripts of any deceased alumni to anyone who requests them". And that is perfectly legal? 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Under federal law (FERPA), yes, it is perfectly legal. For public state universities, a state law might either prohibit release (if it has some stringent privacy provision) or mandate release (under a broad open-records law). But otherwise it is up to the administration. You can see some of the array of different approaches:

U of Florida: "Records of deceased students ... will be released only to the executor or executrix of the student's estate or to the student's next of kin, upon submission of appropriate documentation."

Columbia U: "The Office of the University Registrar will evaluate each request for the release of a transcript or other academic records of a deceased student on the individual merits of that request and reserves the right to deny the request in whole or to release only part of the academic records that are requested. The Office of the University Registrar does not release academic records of deceased students to the news media or for research purposes...The closest living next-of-kin may submit a written request [with documentation] .... If there is no living next-of-kin, academic records may be requested by the executor of the estate or holder of power of attorney for the deceased [with documentation."

Ithaca College: "The transcript of a deceased student may be released to a spouse, parent, the executor of the estate, a surviving child, or pursuant to a court order or subpoena, upon written request to the Office of the Registrar."

U of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: "FERPA’s protection of personally identifiable information in a student’s education records ends at the time of a student’s death. As a courtesy to the families of recently deceased students who were enrolled at the time of death, the University generally will not release information from their education records for one year without the consent of the deceased student’s next-of-kin...Unless it has information to the contrary, 75 years after the date the records were first created, the University will presume that the student is deceased. Thereafter the student's education records will be open."

Northwestern U: "FERPA rights cease upon death. However, it is the policy of Northwestern University that no records of deceased students be released to third parties after the date of death, unless specifically authorized by the executor of the deceased's estate or by the next of kin."

Catholic U of America: "When the former student is deceased, the policy at CUA (which is set by the Provost) is that education records will not be released until 50 years after the person's death."

Neutrality^talk 19:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's crazy. I never gave it any thought until this discussion just now. I never realized that a college had such great liberty with my confidential records once I am deceased. As a practical matter, I think that the alumni in general would "revolt" (for lack of a better word) if the college administration just willy-nilly started handing out photocopies of any decedent's transcripts just because some yahoo wanted to see it. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Fallacies of 4+ terms

The fallacy of four terms article notes that syllogisms must always have three terms, so anything with four or more is fallacious. Example:

Major premise: All fish have bones.

Minor premise: All goldfish are fish.

Conclusion: All humans have bones.

Of course this is a formal fallacy, because the premises say nothing about humans. But what about this?

Major premise: All fish have bones.

First minor premise: All goldfish are fish.

Second minor premise: All humans are goldfish.

Conclusion: All humans have bones.

I don't understand why this is a formal fallacy. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't. It's a perfectly valid first-figure syllogism (Barbara); the second minor premise happens to be false, but that doesn't invalidate the logic. Tevildo (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but the intro to fallacy of four terms says that this is "the formal fallacy that occurs when a syllogism has four (or more) terms rather than the requisite three". How would you suggest amending it? Perhaps "...occurs when a two-premise syllogism has..."? Or perhaps "...syllogism has too many terms, a situation typically appearing in a two-premise syllogism that has four terms, rather than the requisite three"? Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been a long time since Logic 101, but the way I read it is that you aren't limited on the number of terms, as such; it's just that they have to have connections. That's why the first example fails and the second one works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The fallacy of four terms applies to categorical syllogisms in standard form, with two premises and a conclusion. Your second argument is not strictly a syllogism, since it has three premises and a conclusion. Your argument is two syllogisms stuck together, to form a valid argument. The way to fix it is to more clearly define 'syllogism'. Our article says "two or more" premises, but doesn't cite any source for that claim, and as far as I know, is false. Or, simply to say that the fallacy of four terms applies to categorical syllogisms. Llamabr (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A trivial fix for the second example is to break it into two 'standard' three-term syllogisms:

1. All goldfish are fish/All humans are goldfish/Therefore all humans are fish.
2. All fish have bones/All humans are fish (see syllogism #1)/Therefore all humans have bones.

I think that's the way the formal chain of reasoning is supposed to be maintained - the four clause version requires an additional implied/implicit reasoning step (If every B is an A and every C is a B therefore every C is an A)...which goes beyond the formulaic form of a syllogism. SteveBaker (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the premise that all fish have bones is also false, as sharks are fish and have cartilage rather than bones. StuRat (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Right. The issue is not the truth value of the statements, each of which has an implied "If" in front of it - it's whether it's a valid logical construct. Substitute "wings" for "bones", then substitute "clams" for "goldfish", then "pigs" for "humans" and you have nothing but false premises leading to a false conclusion; but they still make a valid logical construct. Or maybe you knew that. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Then pigs might fly. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. However, when discussing logic errors, it seems unwise to toss in false premises, as that just clouds the issue. (It's a non sequitor, but the literary type, not the logic type). StuRat (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Literary types would know to spell it "sequitur", but mere computer programmers can be forgiven. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

See also Polysyllogism, especially the "Sorites" section. Deor (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Population of towns with MD medical school programs

Our article on Hanover, New Hampshire says that the census population was 11,260 in 2010. Does that include Dartmouth students, or are students not included in the census? Are there any towns that are smaller by population, and that also have a school with an MD medical school program? Llamabr (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The census date is in early April if I remember rightly, and it's definitely during the schoolyear, so the schedule wouldn't exclude students. You're supposed to record yourself as being present wherever you are on that date, unless of course you're travelling out of town. This includes university students who live elsewhere: they're counted in the university town (or wherever they maintain during-the-schoolyear residence) and not in whatever place they legally reside, unless of course those two are the same. This negates the effect of double-counting people with multiple residencies, although without being as efficient as the population without double counting solution. (Side note: some population-based legal definitions have an adjustment to exclude non-local college students and prisoners; see Ohio Revised Code §703.01 (B), which specifies that municipal status doesn't count students and prisoners from out-of-town). Therefore, I expect that most Dartmouth students are included, but presumably some live in adjacent towns and communities even farther away. As far as towns: are you just talking New England towns, or all places with the legal status of "town", or all settlements whatsoever? Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the census background. I'm wondering about medical schools that grant the MD degree, anywhere in the US. Is Hanover the smallest? Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Need the history of the Haines & Sons Tobacco Manufacturing Company, in Abbottstown, Pennsylvania

Does anyone know any history of the Haines & Sons Tobacco Manufacturing Company, in Abbottstown, Pennsylvania around 1890 through 1940?I have some old tobacco advertising clocks that have their paper label on them. I'd love to learn more about this company and their history in the tobacco business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.194.224 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You could consult Adams County History, a publication of the local historical society, but it's understandably not held by many institutions, and (assuming that the WHOIS information for your IP address is accurate) the closest one to you is in Davenport, Iowa. County histories being ubiquitous, there's a History of Cumberland and Adams counties, Pennsylvania. Containing history of the counties, their townships, towns, villages, schools, churches, industries, etc.; Portraits of early settlers and prominent men; Biographies; History of Pennsylvania, statistical and miscellaneous matter, etc., etc., and at least volume II is online, but it was published in 1886, so I suppose it probably doesn't mention anything. Your best choice is probably to contact the Adams County Historical Society in nearby Gettysburg. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Slavic City names - their meaning (Etymology)

Hey, I've been trying to figure out the meaning of Slavic City/Town-names.

In order to do that, I've been doing a lot of research, but it's hard as I am a speaker of a Germanic language, which is very different. I've met with little success. I am especially trying to understand those in western Slavic nations/kingdoms.

Languages will differ a little across the different countries, of course, but generally speaking I've been able to interpret some; like "Slava" means glory (as in the city of Bratislava, meaning 'Braslav's Glory'). "Grad" means 'city' and 'Castle' in old Slavic. Used in several city names, such as in Belgrad to mention one, which means "White City." Newer versions of the word includes hrad, grod, gorod etc. That's just to mention two.

But I could do with some help interpreting some more words (which is at the end of the names) that I have been unable to solve myself. It may be that some of these are simply suffixes without any real meaning though, which may in some cases explain why I struggle so to find its meanings. But they have in common that they are frequently used, which is what makes it important and interesting to find out their meaning.

The words are as follows:

• -wice
• -vice
• -ice
• -nica/ica
• -nik
• -awa/wy/wa/ow
• -zin/cin

If some of you happen to speak a Slavic tongue, then obviously that would be of great help. 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:C53D:8CBC:A967:377E (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you right away that –awa/wy/wa are unlikely to be meaningful elements; the –a is a feminine ending, the –y is a plural ending. –ow, on another hand, is often a genitive plural ending ('of the ——s'). — Also, have a look at Bratislava#Etymology. It's easy to be misled. —Tamfang (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Verily. When I was a kid, whenever I read the word "misled", I thought it was the past tense of the verb "to misle", and I pronounced it accordingly. True story. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

And you kept wondering: who's "Miss Sled"? Contact Basemetal here 09:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

misle rhymes with isle, right? —Tamfang (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can pronounce non-existent words any damn way you please, and nobody can ever say you're wrong.  :) But I always rhymed it with eyes'll, as in "Her eyes'll see right through you". Or "Her lies'll be her downfall". Or "Her thighs'll be very busy tonight". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Rhyming with wikt:reprisal, wikt:despisal? Contact Basemetal here 17:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Tamfang, since I asked this question I've been able to learn that Warszawa means "Warz's city" and Krakow means "Krak's city", which could lead me to think wa/ow etc. were different dialects or different languages of different times that all meant city/town. But in truth I have found little to back that up. I have found no proof that these suffixes mean anything... so it may be that you're right after all. They may just have been added to the end to give it a more typical place-name. Many place-names end this way. Take 'Transylvania' f.instance, coming from Roman, trans mean travel/across and sylva/silva meaning forest in Latin, which translates to "Place beyond the Forest." The last three letters 'nia' means nothing.

By the way; the link you gave me. It claims that 'Bratislava' means "Braslav's City," But that is wrong. I have confirmed from various sources that the name means "Braslav's Glory," and that 'Slava' is the Slovak word for 'Glory'. The Slovak word for city is 'mesto'. But I remain in the dark on whether the other suffixes I listed has a meaning. Still trying to find out, but failing. 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:ECBB:2701:B38A:DDFA (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can point you to the German articles de:Namen auf -ow, de:Ortsnamen auf -witz and de:-itz. They are (if of Slavic origin) suffixes that have a possessive or appellative function (similar to English -ing). So, Warszawa would be "Warz's", Krakow "Krak's", with "city" only implied. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Wrongfilter. This is really helpful, even if I have to use a translator. :) They definitely help me understand some of these suffixes. I'll keep at it :) 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:ECBB:2701:B38A:DDFA (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What struck me about Bratislava#Etymology was that the current form Bratislava is anhistorical, apparently coined relatively recently from a misunderstanding or mis-copying. — As for Transylvania, my guess is that it went trans sylvam ('beyond the woods') → [provincia] Transylvana (with the adjectival suffix –an–) → Transylvania (with –ia to make a country-noun out of the adjective). —Tamfang (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, slava means "glory", so "Braslav's Glory" would be Braslavova Slava, not Bratislava. The "words" you're specifically asking about are suffixes which modify the meaning of words but do not have meaning on their own (like English "-ness", "-ity" or "-ing"). For example:

• -ov, -ów (masculine) or -ova, -owa (feminie) are possesive suffixes; in place names they indicate that the place once belonged to a given person: Kraków "Krak's (town)", Warszawa < Warszowa "Warsz's (village)";
• -(ov)ic, -(ow)ic, -(ow)icz, etc. (plural -(ov)ice, -(ow)ice, -(ow)icze) are patronymic suffixes; in place names they may indicate that the place once belonged to descendants or heirs of a given person: Mysłowice "(place of the) sons of Mysław", Budějovice < Budivojovice "(place of the) sons of Budivoj";
• -nik is an agent suffix (borrowed from Russian into English, it has produced words like "beatnik"); in place names it usually doesn't mean much, it just modifies the base noun: Prudnik < Prądnik < prąd "current".

— Kpalion^(talk) 23:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)