Humanities desk
< December 31	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 2 >

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.

January 1

new brunswick place names

why are several of new brunswick's place names -ton (ending in (-)ton)?174.3.125.23 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does 'Washington' end in '-ton'? It's short for 'town', and comes from old english 'tun' (with a long 'u', which became a 'ow' sound in modern english, but at the end of place names became shortened to 'ton'). It's not just New Brunswick, these place names are all over the English speaking world. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See 'tun, ton' in List of generic forms in place names in the United Kingdom and Ireland --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it didn't originally mean "a town" in the modern sense; just a house, farm or enclosure. Some of the "-ton" names have a complicated origin; Moncton in New Brunswick was named after Lieutenant-General Robert Monckton, whose surname was derived from one of several places in Britain called Monkton, possibly Monkton, Kent, whose name means "farmstead of the monks" in the Old English language - it was Munccetun in AD 960. [1]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruyton XI Towns is probably the best example of the original meaning. Tevildo (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did European Christian families eat the best foods only on big holidays?

In contemporary Chinese society, I am well aware that many Chinese families during the mid-twentieth century had to buy food with coupons or stamps. Meat was scarce and expensive, so it's rational to preserve meat for Chinese New Year. Chinese New Year was a special time of the year for family reunions and a great feast. I am wondering if European Christian families have a similar tradition, where people eat the best foods on big holidays (Christmas, Easter, New Year's Day, etc.)? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For commoners, probably yes. See Roast goose, for example. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about the past or the present? The title asks about the past and the body asks about current practice. Turkey and goose would be the answers, though, yeah. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 10 Tevet 5775 05:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of a time period in European history when food would be scarce and expensive due to economy, politics, or natural forces, and how that might affect what people ate - or whether or not they would preserve food for the big holidays. Also, you need to explain how turkey and goose are somehow more special than typical everyday food. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkeys were not a common food in Europe, during the old days, considering the fact that they originated in the Americas. Goose was also not a common food, as it was mainly reserved for selling to richer people. These days, people have a larger dinner, similar to a normal Sunday dinner, but bigger, at Christmas, followed by some sort of pudding. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict with KageTora] Bear in mind that meat was historically scarce and expensive in Europe, too. Part of it is traditional: if your ancestors have all seen something as prestigious, and you and your spouse grew up seeing it as prestigious, you'll see it as prestigious and teach your children to think likewise. Conversely, if the tradition gets forgotten by whatever means, it might not get restored; nobody talks about eating roast geese here in the USA, and I remember being confused and somewhat disgusted upon encountering the concept for the first time, when first I read "The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle". Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. Well, I've never had or made a goose, but making a turkey is a HUGE production if you want it turn out right. Three days of brining, buttering and olive oil on and under the skin, stuffing, a good marinade, monitoring the bird for the three and a half to five and a half hours of cooking. What I just described is the difference between delicious fall-off-the-bone meat and shoe leather, as well as phenomenal gravy. This is because they're such large animals, need a lot of preparation, and can feed many people (or a family over two to three days depending on how American the appetite). They also tend to be pricey. I think that suckling pig is another meal in this realm. Now I'm hungry.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 10 Tevet 5775 06:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, did European Christians ever eat the best foods on holidays or not? So far, I've only seen a few dishes. Were the meat dishes made some preserved meats or fresh meats? Were there several meat dishes on the table or only one meat dish on the table? How big was a family gathering? Why only Christmas dinners? Was that more important than Easter or New Year's day? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which period of history you are interested in, but certainly in medieval times special dishes were reserved for feasts: the Boar's Head Carol is testament to this. I found this site and this site explaining the class differences in menus. Our article on it is Medieval cuisine, by the way. And in our Christmas Dinner article you will find sections on various European countries menus.

As for your other questions, Christmas was a special time for feasting because of the Yule celebrations which were subsumed into the 12 Days of Christmas. Many of the pagan rituals of Yule became the Christmas rituals of medieval Britain - the Lord of Misrule being one such. There were similar occasions throughout the year: All Hallows Day being one, Easter being another. If you notice from the linked article, there is such a thing as Christian feast days, and these were days when special dishes were consumed in honour of a particular saint as part of their patronal feast. As for the question "was Christmas more important than New Year's Day", well in Scotland until very recently, no it wasn't and this apparently was because of the influence of the Kirk which forbade excessive celebration of religious festivals so the people made Hogmanay the time that they celebrated to excess. In my memory, the Christmas holidays weren't public holidays in Scotland but New Year's Day was. They weren't brought into line until about 30 years ago. (My source for the reason for Hogmanay is a programme I saw on the BBC not long ago, and I'll see if I can find it for the reference.) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Calvinist churches, including the Church of Scotland, rejected the concept of the Liturgical year in which Christians follow the Gospel story through different seasons each year. Therefore, Christmas Day was no different to any other day for them. "Noncontinental Reformed Protestants continued to avoid celebrating feast days until the twentieth century" according to our article on the five Evangelical feasts, which are nowadays observed. According to our Christmas in Scotland article, "A 1640 Act of the Parliament of Scotland abolished the "Yule vacation and all observation thereof in time coming"...Christmas Day only became a public holiday in 1958, and Boxing Day in 1974." However, before the 1560 Scottish Reformation, they celebrated Christmas every bit as enthusiastically as their English neighbours. Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely, European Christians (and Europeans generally) eat the best, most special, most expensive foods at Christmas. Just like Chinese New Year, except different dishes, of course. Historically, both preserved meats and fresh meats. Today, sausages and bacon are often cooked with the turkey. For a feast, in Europe, the idea is that there should be one big spectacular meat dish as well as a huge variety of other dishes. How big was a family gathering? Depends on how big the family is and how far away members live, so any size, from one person to dozens. Easter is another special time, particularly important in Greece. Again there would be a feast. In Greece they slaughter a lamb or a goat and they bake bread with coloured eggs in it. In parts of France, they have an Easter pie, which is a pork pie including eggs. In England, eating lamb is traditional, or chicken. We have hot cross buns, Easter eggs and still sometimes simnel cake. Which is the biggest feast, Easter or Christmas? Christmas in most countries nowadays, but definitely Easter in Greece. With few exceptions, everyone celebrates both. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on Yule somehow took me to Christmas ham, which said (citation still needed) that the dish was used as a test for sincere conversion to Christianity. A Marrano would abstain from it, because it was pork, and pork came from an animal that had cloven hooves but did not ruminate. Meanwhile, Gentile Christians had no problems eating it, probably because they never had the abstention in the first place. If this fact is true, then I can see how Christians distanced themselves from Jewish customs. Ironically, the New Testament doesn't seem to imply that the Old Testament way of life should be completely banned, or that pork should be avoided. In that case, maintaining Jewish customs somehow became more than just optional; it seemed to become unnecessary. Still, if Jesus had been a faithful Jew himself, then he would not abolish Jewish customs, would he? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the preceding season of Advent is a fast, which used to be observed in a similar way to Lent by avoiding meat, eggs, sugar and spices. So people used to go overboard a bit once the restrictions were lifted. Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read that the Advent fast or Nativity fast (Orthodox branch) was 40 days long. I'm not sure where the 40 days came from for Advent/Nativity. I think it would make more sense to have the 40 days prior to Easter. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lent is the forty days before Easter. Rmhermen (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically 47 days, minus the Sundays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Nativity Fast of Eastern Orthodoxy is 40 days prior to Christmas day. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People can of course observe both Lent and Advent. Further to what Alan says above, people would have been preparing the Christmas or Easter feast while fasting. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Median height of world population?

What is the median height of all humans currently alive, considering both sexes together, and counting children at their current size, not the height they are estimated to reach? (The table in Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world only gives average values for individual countries and sexes, and considers only adults.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt whether we will be able to find a published source for this because it's not a statistic that is commonly calculated. To get an accurate estimate, one would need to use the population pyramid for each country or region, and find out the average height of each age range. The mean might be easier to calculate. If you want to do your own rough estimate, you could use this pyramid together with world estimates of average height for each age range. Dbfirs 21:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we could theoretically measure everyone, by the time we were done, the children would have grown and forced us to start over. If everyone self-reported, tabulating the results would still take time. Time to build up, time to break down. We'd be turn, turn, turning like Sisyphus, all for constantly outdated info. Some things are best left unknown. But I'll guess 3 feet, 7 inches. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the vale will change noticably over small timescales, but I'd be happy with a value from a few years ago. ;-)

Are there world estimates for each age range available? The table lists only country estimates, sometimes for the whole adult population. I'd be happy with a rough "back of the envelope" estimate. Since almost all countries listed have average woman height below 1,70m, the median of all humans is almost certainly below 1,70 m, but probably quite a bit lower - maybe 1,60m? An estimate of the average height instead of median would also be interesting if it's easier to find (for adults it probably makes little difference, but the addition of children will decrease the mean more than the median).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think 3 feet, 7 inches (1,10m-ish) is far too low; the majority of the world population is over 20 according to the world population pyramid linked above.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not much more than 30% of the population will still have some growing to come, so children will make only a small difference to the median, perhaps as little as three or four inches, because including them will drag the adult median only about 15% on the almost-normal curve of adult population heights. As you mention, the mean will be dragged down considerably more (though not as much as 60 cm) because of the skewing. My guess would be a median of 5 foot 6 inches for adults, and perhaps 5 foot 2 inches (1.57 m) for the whole world including children (or perhaps an inch less for both figures). Dbfirs 21:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it wasn't a very good guess. Also overestimated the rate of elder shrinkage and number of undiscovered Pygmies. Stats and hangovers don't mix. I'll go with four feet, now that I'm feeling a bit better. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the WHO growth charts - you could use their middle lines to make estimates for the heights of under-19s and combine with Dbfirs's pyramid.184.147.116.58 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of entering those into a spreadsheet to combine with world population ratios to estimate the mean height, but those WHO figures are for Canada which has taller children than the world average. Are there similar world figures? If not, then I'll just accept InedibleHulk's estimate of four feet (or just over) for the mean height. The skewing makes the median significantly higher than the mean. Dbfirs 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly easier: are there any estimates of the number of people over, say, 1.8 m? —Tamfang (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the answers so far! I'll still be happy if someone can find more concrete data to narrow down an answer to this question... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]