Humanities desk
< February 7	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 9 >

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.

February 8

What's the longest municipal bus route? Longest one under $3?

I know of a mundane municipal bus route that goes to a different metro area (still the same metro area in a loose sense). It's 60 road and 50 air miles one way and some trips are scheduled at 2:20 long (despite being an express). What can beat that? Is it at least a record for the price or miles per dollar? ($2.50, 24 miles per dollar). I know how longer municipal buses are often more like $5. 205.197.242.149 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance in a twin city, like Minneapolis-St. Paul ? That would be the logical place for long bus routes, unless each twin has it's own system and they don't cooperate. Then I suppose there are cities that are just huge, like Los Angeles, New York City, and Toronto (I limited my list to the US and Canada, since you used dollars). StuRat (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis and St. Paul are adjacent and are part of the same "Metro Area" (along with various suburbs). A more promising example could be Dallas and Fort Worth, two pretty large cities that are at least an hour away from each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google says they're 35 minutes. Google also says DC is only 40 miles from Baltimore, Houston to the sea is 51 miles, Chicago to Wisconsin is only 53 miles, the Golden Gate Bridge is only 56.3 miles from San Jose (the far end of the bay), and the enormous LA metro area is barely 60 miles from Downtown LA to the far end (all car miles). 205.197.242.149 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto isn't really that big...the extended metro area is, and there is separate transit system for that, but it's run by the province, not any one city. For Toronto itself, here is a list of the longest transit routes - the longest is about 54 km, round trip. I don't think you can cross the whole city on one bus though. You can ride the entire subway system for one fare (easy enough since there are only 2 main lines). TTC fare is currently $3. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's still run by a government though, and doesn't leave the extended metro. But maybe you can't go 96-97 km around Toronto on one bus either. (or 193 km round trip). 205.197.242.149 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Toronto, first, even after the amalgamation of 1998 the city is only about 25 miles (40 km) wide. The TTC's single $3 fare covers any distance within the city plus the airport just outside, but does not extend any further, and as Adam says, there aren't any single routes that long anyway. The "separate transit system run by the province", GO Transit, does not use a flat fare and primarily consists of buses that run express (via freeways) for part of their route, so it isn't the "mundane municipal buses" that the original poster asked about. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us which one you're already familiar with so that we don't give you information you already have? Dismas|^(talk) 02:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The city with the Pro Football Hall of Fame has a bus that drives on I-77 for 60 miles. It goes to Cleveland. They also have a shorter one to Akron. If my city was as run down as Canton but had the PFHoF I might make it cheap for 3 million out-of-towners to go spend money there too. 205.197.242.149 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If length is determined by time on the bus, then places with terrible traffic would be high on the list. Before they installed dedicated bus lanes, most routes in Jakarta would take several hours to go from one end to the other. Even now it can be like that in Yogyakarta, where I live. And if you're looking into price... tickets for both cities' busses are less than 50 cents. I'd expect similar stories to be found in many developing nations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't surprise me if developing countries come out on top whether you count time or distance. $3 (I presume we're talking about USD) may seem a moderate or even low fare in a number of developed countries. $3 would often be less than the maximum fare possible in developing countries. So all you really need to do is find a route that is long enough and fits whatever other requirements the OP imposed. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

205.197.242.149, bear in mind that some municipalities are vastly bigger than others, due to different approaches to municipal government from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some cities in China are huge on anybody's standards; Chongqing has an area of 31,816 square miles, the size of South Carolina. You also ought to consider the local government areas of Australia, which aren't exactly comparable to anything in the USA, although roughly analogous to the towns of New England. The Shire of East Pilbara is the size of Norway, and while it's a sparsely populated chunk of outback that probably wouldn't have long-distance bus routes from town to town, you'd need to check into other massive LGAs. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question made me think of the Crimean Trolleybus and similar, but I have no idea whether it has characteristics more like a "mundane municipal bus" or is more like a long-distance bus that happens to use electric power. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Maps, the 388 bus between Santa Cruz, Rio de Janeiro and Centro, Rio de Janeiro takes about four and a half hours and costs R$3 (it would be long, but I'm not 100% convinced on that duration).[1] Hack (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, the Southern California Rapid Transit District ran a local bus service from downtown L.A. to Riverside (60 miles by shortest road route, and I'm sure the actual bus route significantly longer), and if you were traveling Greyhound but didn't buy your ticket booked all the way through in advance, then due to arcane legal restrictions Greyhound was not allowed to sell you a ticket for an LA to Riverside journey, so you were shunted off to this bus. That happened to me once, and I vowed never again... AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement of complete literary works

What official standard(s) exist(s) for measuring the complete literary works of a writer? (I am including both prose and poetry, as well as both non-fiction and fiction.) For example, is the number of typographical characters, or the number of words, or the number of lines important?
—Wavelength (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of words would be the usual measure of total output, though I haven't seen it used much. A word of poetry would normally be considered to be of much greater value than a word in a novel, since the best poets might have spent hours choosing it. Dbfirs 08:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books published.
Sleigh (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement of complete musical works

What official standard(s) exist(s) for measuring the complete musical works of a composer? For example, is the number of notes, or the number of musical measures (bars), or the number of pages important?
—Wavelength (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this where Opus number comes in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but opera vary in length. I don't think there is an accepted measure of musical output. Perhaps just hours, but this will vary with performance preferences. Dbfirs 08:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Catalogues of classical compositions#Opus numbers for some reasons why opus numbers will not do. Fwiw, I've never heard of any standard way of "measuring" the complete works of a composer. They're simply listed in various catalogues. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are Christmas and Easter the two most important holidays in Christianity?

Are Christmas and Easter the two most important holidays in Christianity? Although I have heard people say that they celebrate Christmas and Easter with their families, I am not sure if they are the only holidays that are significant. Also, what does it really mean when one says that they only celebrate Christmas and Easter, and not Reformation Day or All Saints' Day or the day of your patron saint or Martin Luther's birthday? Are all those other holidays less worthy or significant? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Sunday has to do with resurrection, which is a core belief of Christianity. Christmas is a way of honoring Jesus' birth. I couldn't even tell you when Martin Luther's birthday is, and I'm a Protestant who never heard of Reformation Day until now. All Saints' Day is the day after Halloween, and is no big deal. Anything to do with "saints" in general is going to be confined to denominations which regard sainthood as important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Friday, Ascension Day and Pentecost are the other major theologically important holidays but are not celebrated as Easter and Christmas. Rmhermen (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, and of course all three are tied directly to the Resurrection. Good Friday is a day off in some companies, and not necessarily those that have any religious connection. And these all have directly to do with Jesus. Holidays to do with "saints" are relatively marginalized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on where you live. In Latin American countries, a patron saint's day is considered more important than one's own birthday. So, while Americans would celebrate their birthdays, a person from somewhere in Latin America would celebrate the patron saint's day. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints' Day is the day after Halloween, Bugs? I'd prefer to say that Halloween is the day before All Saints' Day. That is, after all, the origin of the name. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That works too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King's birthday is, of course, approximately the same day as Martin Luther King Day, which you probably remember as that holiday a couple of weeks ago. (The actual day is January 15). All Saints' Day isn't a big deal in North American, but it is a holiday in France and presumably other parts of Europe. In France it also marks the end of a mid-term school holiday. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther's birthday (Nov 10, 1483). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! That guy. Yeah he's important too, I guess... Adam Bishop (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "C & E Christians" would suggest that they are the two most important. A C&E Christian is a term for people who only attend church services on Christmas and Easter but not at any other time of the year. Dismas|^(talk) 08:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a kid in 1950s southern England the only holidays my dad got (apart from two weeks' holiday and weekends) were Christmas Day, Boxing Day and Good Friday. Easter Day, being a Sunday, was not an extra but we did celebrate it at church and home. Easter Day was the most important religious festival. Thincat (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your memory is a little faulty User:Thincat; the Bank Holidays Act 1871 gave us Easter Monday; Whit Monday; the first Monday in August and Boxing Day (Christmas Day and Good Friday were already customary holidays and not included). If your dad was required to work on any of those days, he would have been entitled to time off "in lieu". Alansplodge (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. I suppose it's my memory. That's the problem when you start forgetting your memory is faulty! Thincat (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moi aussi! Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Christmas's popularity as a holiday has waxed and waned. It's generally not quite as big a deal outside the Anglosphere; also notably the Orthodox churches still use the Julian calendar for liturgical purposes, meaning they celebrate it on a different date. Its modern popularity is in large part due to its rise as a secular holiday. As our Christmas article states, the Puritans in both England and New England banned its celebration for some time, as they regarded it as a "Popish" holiday. Easter on the other hand has pretty much always been a significant Christian holiday, as it centers around the resurrection of Christ, which is a central Christian belief. --71.104.75.148 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many Protestants (but not Anglicans or Lutherans) rejected the idea of the traditional liturgical year in which the pattern of Christ's life is followed by a calender of liturgical feasts and fasts. Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists and others therefore did not celebrate Christmas, and Easter and Pentecost were regarded as just normal Sundays. This view has softened during the 20th century, but my mother can remember when Christmas Day was a normal working day in Presbyterian dominated Scotland. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for the rejection of the liturgical year by Presbyterians? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I remember visiting a United Church of Christ church and talking with one of the members. I mentioned the word "Advent", and the guy had a confused expression on his face for a moment and replaced "Advent" with "Christmas". Well, Advent is not really Christmas, but it seems that congregationalists don't really do advent either.71.79.234.132 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deuteronomy 18:10. "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch." See also Christmas controversy and linked articles. Tevildo (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is Deuteronomy 18:10 related to the liturgical year? I mean, the liturgical year is very Christ-centered, so what does that have to do with "pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch." Can you list the denomination that uses Deut.18:10 as a criticism of the liturgical year? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Banned Christmas for a basic summary of the objections. Alansplodge (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget what 71.104.75.148 has said: many Protestants have objected to practices purely because they're advocated by the Catholic Church. Lots of stuff that's seemingly neutral (see Adiaphora#Puritanism) has been deemed significant by some churches, with certain uses rejected because the Catholics do it. This is how the clergyman's clothing becomes important, for example, as "clerical vestments" have been rejected: a dress code involving the cassock and other vestments has been seen as eeeeevil, but apparently a dress code requiring suit and tie is perfectly all right. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was more carefully thought through than that. In Catholic theology, traditions can be justified on the grounds that they have been done that way since the days of the Early Church, a position that the Protestant Reformers rejected; for them, Scriptural authority was the only arbiter of right practice. On the issue of vestments, John Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Religion was able to quote Biblical passages saying that plain dress was appropriate and flamboyant clothing was to be avoided (I can't find it now, but it's in there somewhere; Book IV I think). Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So... to sum up the previous answers: Christmas and Easter are important holidays for many Christians, but not all Christians. Exactly how important they are depends on which denomination of Christianity you are talking about, as well as the cultural background of the individual Christian (or quasi-Christian) you are talking to. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While there have been many Christians who did not celebrate Christmas, I would like to see a cite for the suggestion that there are or were mainstream Christian groups that did not celebrate Easter. John M Baker (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see the discussion in Easter. John M Baker (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Easter: Non-observing Christian groups has the details. Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another economics question

No monsters or demons involved this time :-)

Opportunity benefit doesn't exist, but opportunity cost does. What I remember from high-school economics would suggest that they're closely related terms (and this seems to be corroborated by a quick Google search), that the opportunity benefit is the utility you gain by doing whatever has the opportunity cost. In other words, If we're talking about the opportunity cost of making 100 extra barrels of wine, I'm guessing that the opportunity benefit would include the additional money I make from selling 100 extra barrels of wine. Am I remembering rightly? And if so, would O benefit be a good redirect to O cost? Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "opportunity benefit" does come up from time to time in this context, but seems to me to be much rarer than "opportunity cost". As you'll see from our article, the idea of opportunity cost generally arises in the context of making a choice from one of several mutually exclusive options, and the particular example you give isn't really a choice of this kind. In your example you have some grapes, and can make wine with them or not, so there's no element of choice between two mutually exclusive options - if you don't make the wine, you've still got the grapes. Suppose, however, that you are in the business of selling a range of grape products: you have some grapes, and you can choose either to make them into wine or into grape jelly. Here the choice that you make does incur an opportunity cost: if you make wine, you give up the benefits of making jelly, and vice versa. The opportunity cost is the benefit foregone from the choice not made. In the same way, you might say that the opportunity benefit is the benefit gained from the choice made. Within this framework, you'll notice that the opportunity cost is understood as arising from the path not chosen, which the opportunity benefit arises from the path actively chosen. In the example you mention you seem to want to attribute both opportunity cost and opportunity benefit as arising from the same path; this doesn't seem right to me.

For discussion of cases where there are more than two options to choose from, and for more details, please see our article on opportunity cost. Although it's a rare phrase, I don't see any harm in directing opportunity benefit to this article, so long as a suitable explanatory sentence is added. RomanSpa (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch and German

How mutually understandable are Dutch and German? Is it like the difference between Spanish and Portuguese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.189 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-native speaker here. I have studied German for years, and I speak and understand it very well, to the point where native speakers have wondered how I speak German so well. But I don't speak or understand any spoken Dutch. The intonation is far too different - it has been claimed that Dutch sounds like "German with a hot potato in your mouth". I believe this, not to so much extent, but enough to make spoken Dutch unintelligible to me, even though I understand spoken German. Written Dutch is easier to understand through written German, although there are significant differences - Dutch seems a more vowel-oriented language than German. As my native Finnish is very vowel-oriented, you would think this wouldn't be a problem - but as both German and Dutch are foreign languages to me, I would have had to learn Dutch separately, and as I haven't, it is more difficult for me to understand.

The situation is the same with Swedish and Danish. The written languages are closely related, but while Swedish is spoken with an intonation very close to Finnish, Danish is again spoken "with a hot potato in your mouth".

Now can a native speaker of either German or Dutch answer this question? JIP | Talk 19:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until that happens, I once overheard a German and a Flemish speaker (it's basically a Dutch dialect) in Antwerp having a conversation about how many words their languages had in common. However they were speaking to each other in English, which suggests that they aren't mutually intelligible; not easily at any rate. Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with JIP: my reasonable skill in German lets me understand a fair bit of written Dutch, but the pronunciation is so different that I can scarcely make out a word of written Dutch. A friend from the Maastricht area tells me that he speaks a dialect of Dutch that is more or less mutually intelligible with the adjacent Low German, but his wife (from Groningen) speaks a more standard Dutch that is not. Neither my English nor my High German enables me to understand either of their dialects, nor did I have much luck with the Low German of Bremen. (I can understand, and be understood in, spoken German in Dortmund and Berlin, for example.) So my answer would be: there are some forms of German that are mutually intelligible with some forms of Dutch, but in general the two languages are quite distinct. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native Dutch speaker. I agree with the comments above that the pronunciation is very different which can make understanding our eastern neighbours difficult. However, with a little exposure, you get used to it, and because in terms of vocabulary and syntax Dutch and German are 90% the same, a Dutch speaker can learn to 'Germanize' his Dutch and be understood reasonably well by a German speaker. I find it quite easy to understand most spoken or written German, and I don't think it's due to the few German lessons I've had in secondary school. I think it's primarily a matter of getting used to the pronunciation; I find a number of Dutch dialects harder to understand than German. I can't really compare Dutch and German to Spanish and Portuguese, because I don't speak the latter two, but from the little I do know about them, I suspect that the differences between Dutch and German are larger. - Lindert (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a request for assistance at the German reference desk. Here's what was said:

Extended content

Intonation is different indeed and if you have no training you will not understand it. However, if you see it written, there is a chance that you can guess/derive some meaning. Even Austrian or Swiss - if spoken rapidly - no/very little chance. GEEZER… nil nisi bene 00:09, 9. Feb. 2015 (CET)

For most Germans I would say, if you haven't learnt it, Dutch is nearly not understandable. There are different German accents and a few of them are somewhat, only somewhat a bit close to Dutch, but most are not. Surely you can start "hearing into it" for example when you are in the Netherlands and maybe after some time you begin understanding more and more. However, after a holiday I made in NL, I could understand some bits and pieces, a few words, but not enough to understand whole sentences of every day language; also not after more than a week. I agree that the saying with the hot potato is rather fitting. To test reading, I just tried reading a Dutch news website and it is clearly better understandable than the spoken stuff, but it's still much guessing and parts still stay not-understandable for me.When I hear Dutch it somehow reminds me of Middle High German, e.g. as it is used in poems by Walther von der Vogelweide - and I don't really understand those either. ;-)It however seems to be different the other way around: I experienced several cases where the Dutch could understand and speak German rather well - at least way better than I "speak" Dutch. Once I showed that I really tried understanding them, they were able to speak German to a degree, which was well understandable. Maybe that's because German as a language is more important: Many Dutch learn it in school (while we usually don't learn Dutch). --88.130.127.250 00:23, 9. Feb. 2015 (CET)

(BK) [Nyttend's comment — perhaps the same as our (ec), for edit conflict?] Not that easy to answer. "Not a language, but a throat disease", is a typical German attitude towards Dutch. But there is that "dialectal continuum", which means that dialect speakers near the Dutch border won't have such a hard time understanding Dutch. For non-dialect speakers, however, it's different. There is no immediate chance of communication between speakers of "Hochdeutsch" and Dutch, as is between Spanish and Portuguese, or even Italian and Spanish, for that matter. But then, there is also little chance that a speaker of Hochdeutsch will be able to follow a conversation in Low German, either. A German speaker can easily learn Dutch, obviously, and vice versa, but it takes a little effort. Written Dutch is easier. It helps if you know the basics of Dutch spelling conventions and have a working knowledge of French, which has had some considerable influence on Dutch. Dumbox (Diskussion) 00:24, 9. Feb. 2015 (CET)

It also depends whether the German dialect speaker lives north or south of the Benrather Linie. Dialects spoken north of the en:Benrath line are closer to Dutch than those spoken south of it. One of my parents was born north of the Benrath line, so i learned a little en:Low German. So during my first visit to the Netherlands i was able to understand most of written Dutch, including a patient information leaflet of some OTC medicine. My travelmate knew only high German and Swabian dialect and was almost unable to understand written Dutch. --Rôtkæppchen₆₈ 01:19, 9. Feb. 2015 (CET)

Hopefully this is helpful. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This question properly belongs on the language desk, but anyway: I am a native speaker of Bavarian and Standard German, and obviously a second-language speaker of English (however, spoken English is much harder than written English for me), and moreover, I'm well-versed in linguistics. I've never properly studied Dutch because it is so similar to German, and once you understand some basics and crucial differences, it looks very familiar, about as familiar as Low German, which is quite similar. (I've got hardly any experience with spoken Low German, though.) Figuring out written Dutch is fairly easy with some practice, especially when the subject is already familiar. I've read Beekes's introduction to Indo-European studies in both English and Dutch, and I read the English translation first, but when I could later only find the Dutch version, I ended up reading it again in the original. Under less ideal circumstances, however, I struggle more. When I visited the Netherlands, I found that following spoken Dutch is much, much harder, however, despite all my previous knowledge. It was very much dependent on circumstances (context and non-verbal cues helped a real lot); sometimes I could follow and then I lost the thread again. So the languages are definitely not mutually intelligible.

With my native Bavarian competence, and linguistic knowledge, Swiss German was considerably easier to get, but also uneven: "Standard" Swiss German (based on the dialect of Zurich and surroundings) on TV I could manage, but Berne dialect was too foreign, and even with Zurich dialect (or something close) rapid, fluent speech (Swiss people can talk quite rapidly!) proved impossible to follow. That's not what I call "mutually intelligible". Just yesterday I saw a video clip where Michelle Hunziker was interviewed in Swiss German, and she answered in something that sounded like Bernese with her native Italian accent, and I could half understand it, but not perfectly, only stretches and parts, just enough to get the gist of what was said. That is, intelligibility is still quite poor, despite my previous exposure.

To sum up, even Swiss German and Standard German are definitely not mutually intelligible, spontaneously, without considerable, extensive preparation (which is equivalent to studying the language, so doesn't count as "instant", as implied by the concept), and Dutch is even more different, so, absolutely not mutually intelligible with Standard German in any meaningful sense. I reject any claims to the contrary as bunk, and am confident well-designed experiments would show this instantly. See also Mutual intelligibility, where such claims are rightly heavily qualified ("partial" or even "limited" intelligibility, to my mind, isn't real intelligibility in the sense of what is required to support a claim that two idioms are not different languages). (Note that mutual intelligibility is heavily affected by divergent vocabulary: if two languages are identical or nearly identical in pronunciation and grammar but have radically different lexicon, they will end up completely mutually unintelligible.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Native German speaker here. Lindert states above that he as a native Dutch speaker can understand most spoken or written German. I as a native High German speaker without exposure to Dutch can understand only very little spoken Dutch, wheras written Dutch is mostly understandable on a basic level. The mutual intelligibility may be asymmetric. For spoken Dutch I would assume about 10% comprehensibility to a native German speaker from central Germany, far too low to understand it. It is - in my opinion - two steps away. Dutch and Low German are mutually intelligible at a say 50% level and so are Low German and High German at a 50% level. So a Low German speaker would be needed in a conversation as an interlocutor. A typical Dutch or German speaker is also competent in his local dialect. The local dialect spoken around Cleves (Germany) is closer to standard Dutch than half of the Dutch dialects itself, so in Cleves (Germany) the mutual intelligibility rises to 100%. Roughly spoken northwestern German dialects are closer to Dutch than standard German, wheras southeastern German dialects differ even more from Dutch than standard German does. Hence speakers of northwestern German dialects can profit from their dialect in understanding Dutch. There must be a line in northwestern Germany where the mutual intelligibility of the Dutch and German dialects increases to over 50%, say the line Cologne-Bremen or wherever. --91.50.21.59 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another native German speaker here: I second the previous poster: I can usually guess mz way through written Dutch, but spoken Dutch is much more difficult. I've had the experience however that when I have time to get used to the "strange" pronounciation of Dutch (say be listening to a Dutch conversation for half an hour or so) I will at some point start to understand what is being said. I've had some exposure through family to Low German (Platt) though. 86.189.252.45 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

‘Sun’ and ‘Stars’ and ‘Planets’ mythology

Does anyone know any mythological stories for the entitled quoted words, and relative iconic figures? -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Hundreds. Where to start? The Sun in culture. Category:Astronomical myths. List of lunar deities. The mythology section in most wikipedia articles about constellations. Pleiades in folklore and literature. 184.147.116.102 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is gonna be a big headache to read... I have to come back to this... I'll read the ones you stated... Thank you. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Apollo, Ra. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys know anything about the (a) 'pyramid' and the three 'suns' story? One at the right, one at the top and one at the left? Any mythology and or any story? -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

That doesn't appear to be a proper story so much as a Theosophical/New Age concept. The oldest I can find the concept appear in Manly Palmer Hall's Secret Teachings of All Ages, based on his interpretation of some alchemical teachings, possibly influenced somewhat by the [[Pythagorean astronomical system|Pythagorean idea that the sun merely only reflects the light from some other light source that we can't see for some reason].

As for actual connection to the pyramids, I'm mostly seeing it in New age literature that appears to have just made it up, such as Voyages of the Pyramid Builders by Robert M. Schoch, which claims that Pyramids appear around the world not because it's the easiest way to stack a bunch of rocks without them falling over for a long time, but because some advanced culture taught all those (coincidentally mostly non-white) cultures how to build pyramids. Of course, then there's the question of who taught that advanced culture. All of this goes back to Ignatius Donelly.

I~~'m flipping through~~ searched Wouter Hanegraaff's Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esoterism and J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology but ~~haven't found anything yet.~~ didn't find anything relevant.

It could maybe be a part of Mesoamerican mythology, but my initial search makes me doubt that. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: I've not found anything either. Have you seen Stargate (1996)? It shows three Moons in the movie. though they defined being in another another planet/galaxy, they created, what I said about the sun/moon, a symbolic icon, the last code for the gate to open... I have not found anything in Stargate_(device) either. I can't recall where I got the three suns from, it will definitely be a pseudoscience (mixed with planet nibiru (as I've seen images of three suns with it...) if no one can find out... Anyways thank you for your help

-- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

St. Valentine's Day in Saudi Arabia

This month's edition of Helsingin Sanomat monthly supplement says that celebrating St. Valentine's Day is strictly forbidden in Saudi Arabia, and can lead to punishments of over a decade in prison and several hundred lashes of the whip. Does someone know if this is actually true? If so, what is the reasoning behind it? The article only says that a group of men celebrating St. Valentine's Day with a group of women were punished. Do women get a punishment too for this? JIP | Talk 19:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Saudi Arabian Mutaween (Arabic: مطوعين), or Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (i.e., the religious police) prohibits the practice of any religion other than Islam" according to our Christianity in Saudi Arabia article. Although Valantine's Day may not be anything to do with religion in the West, the commemoration of "a widely recognized third-century Roman saint " might not go down too well. Also the strict rules about how men and women associate, as BBC News - Saudis clamp down on valentines points out. According to the Daily Mail, the heavy punishments meted out for an illegal Valentine's party in 2014 were for "charges of illicit seclusion with unrelated women, dancing and drinking" [2]. Alansplodge (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this we call an ally? Oy. So why are not Christians routinely arrested when they visit Saudi Arabia? Or maybe they are? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibiting a practice is different from prohibiting practicioners. According to Christianity in Saudi Arabia, there are at least several hundred thousand Christians, including a million Roman Catholics. Zero churches, and the "small number" of Christians congregate online. Some sketchy counting, maybe. Also see Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite bizarre on the counting...Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Bugs' question a little more directly: Christians (or Westerners generally – I'm the latter but certainly not the former) are generally given advice before going to Saudi Arabia (by whoever's sending them, or by their Foreign Office) about how to behave and not behave in public. The Mutaween will not generally intrude into the private residences or premises of western infidels in search of transgressions, but will likely take action if any non-Islamic practices (like being drunk, visibly wearing a cross/crucifix, being too immodestly dressed if female, etc., etc.) are exhibited in public.

Ironically, a lot of these behaviours are practiced by well-off Saudi Arabians as well, in private. If you (a Westerner) visit the home or office of a prominent Saudi citizen/Prince/businessman/-woman, you may well be offered alcoholic drink and see women in "immodest" 'western' dress. Many Saudis of this class (i.e. Royalty and the other rich) are educated in Western schools/Universities and own property in the West, where they live (and shop) for significant portions of the year. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the relevance of St Valentine to the Saudis. Saints are out - Saudi Wahhabism rules out any saint's day, Christian or Muslim, as idolatry. Most Western residents live in compounds where they are safely segregated from the locals, and the religious police are more concerned with siddiqi (moonshine) than the romantic festivals of the foreigners. If this sort of thing leaked into the local community, I can imagine severe consequences, but I'd like to see concrete examples before I could believe it happened. This seems to be relevant, and tells a slightly different tale. The Huffpost has picked up on a normal over-reaction, but few European or American ex-pats are so badly briefed as to be affected. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gather from the comments above that there is a major distinction between public and private behavior. Of course a family is likely to be less formal within the confines of their home. And it explains why women reporters are typically shown in a headscarf, which is simply "public decency" and not necessarily signifying Muslim. I expect the reason Valentine's Day would be publicly banned is for being associated with hedonism, as it's certainly not treated like a religious holiday at this point in western culture. I imagine they might ban St. Patrick's Day for the same general reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Guardian angel' and 'Watcher (angel)'

Peeps, what is the difference between the entitled quoted words? The words figurative meanings seem to be the same; they both seem to perform the same kind of work. But only the watcher angels went an extra length and some became the so called fallen angels, fathered Nephilim... The 'watcher angels', they still do exist like the 'guardian angels', right? Just the words are stated indifferently in religious denominations…? Am I correct? -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

A guardian angel is an angel assigned to watch after a particular person, though there's debate as to whether a person has multiple angels, or if one angel might be looking after the same person. "Watcher angel" (both words) could be used colloquially to refer to a guardian angel, while a type of angel known as a Watcher is a completely different type of figure. According to the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees (both only accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church), and some derived sources, these were the angels who fathered the Nephilim. The Book of Enoch describes the watchers as falling from grace because of their lust for mortal women (being immortal, they have no need to reproduce), and for teaching humanity secrets they were not meant to know (mostly magical, but also how to make weapons of war). Belief in one type of angel does not necessary entail belief in the other, and they are entirely different concepts. Many commentators, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant, would argue that the books of Enoch and Jubilees are just fiction meant to elaborate on a cryptic part of Genesis 6 while parodying other religions' stories of demigods. Some (more likely Protestant) do accept the Watchers interpretation of Genesis 6 (while still rejecting Enoch), believing that the angels ended up alongside Satan in Hell. A few Jewish sources (such as certain readings of Enoch and the derived 3 Enoch) seem to imply that only the worst offenders were permanently damned, while the rest resumed their old posts in heaven. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification Ian.thomson. Regards. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved

This much we know: "The angels who guard you when you drive / Usually retire at 65." --Burma-Shave. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]