Humanities desk
< January 6	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 8 >

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 7

Why did Roosevelt support Taft in 1908?

Why did President Roosevelt, a progressive, support a conservative like Taft in 1908 for president? Wasn't it obvious for TR before the election that Taft would not continue progressive reforms after the election? Or was their friendship the only reason? --62.153.225.50 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt had expected Taft to follow his lead, and when he didn't he formed the Bull Moose Party ticket to run against him. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't quite that simple. To say that Taft wasn't progressive isn't exactly right. Taft had many progressive issues: he was public supporter of the reforms of Booker T. Washington, he carried on Roosevelt's Trust busting programs, etc. Part of the issue was the influence of OTHER more conservative Republicans in his cabinet, which wielded some power and pushed the administration in directions that Taft lacked the political willpower or skill to stop. Personally, he was as progressive in his political viewpoints as Roosevelt. But he didn't have the political skill of Roosevelt, and when the conservative wing under people like Philander C. Knox and Nelson W. Aldrich began to assert their control over policy, Taft basically let them. It wasn't his personal views (which were close to Roosevelt's, which is why he was Roosevelt's protege and chosen successor) it was his political skill that led him to be abandoned by Roosevelt and the progressive Republicans. It is important to note that Taft wasn't a politician per se. He was a jurist first, and knew more about running a courtroom than running an administration. Those failings and lack of political skill are why he was driven out of the Presidency after only 1 term, but also later named to the Supreme Court. He was still a very well respected jurist, and knew the law more than he knew politics. He's the only person to have very served in both realms, and was far more successful (and respected) as a Supreme Court justice than as President. --Jayron 32 00:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It counts entirely as OR, but my 11th grade US History II teacher in high school spent a good three months on McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft (I wrote my senior thesis on Wilson's responsibility for WWII) and he kept emphasizing Roosevelt's growing resentment for Taft, whom Roosevelt saw as a rebellious protege, for Roosevelt's attempt at a third term. I don't disagree with Jayron's facts, if I would place the emphasis differently. Glenn Beck spent quite some time on these presidencies when he was on Fox. The material was available on YouTube but was taken down at some point. I am not sure if it's available there or elsewhere now, but it was pretty accurate and comprehensive. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Tafts political problem was that he didn't hold necessarily strong convictions. He tended to be easily swayed by those around him: When he kept company with Roosevelt, he was an ardent progressive. When he was around Knox, he became an ardent conservative. Which isn't to say his beliefs (in either direction) weren't earnest, or that he deliberately changed his opinion for his own political gain. He just seemed to have that personality that tended to find earnest agreement with whoever had his ear. Once Roosevelt didn't have that ear, he found he couldn't count on him anymore, and cut him loose. He wasn't a terrible person (and as noted in many biographies, was a damned good judge). He just wasn't a great president. --Jayron 32 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The recent PBS series on the Roosevelts squares pretty well with Jayron's description. Something to consider: If TR had won the presidency in 1912, we probably would have gone to war in Europe even sooner. He was constantly badgering Wilson for not doing anything, even calling him "yellow" i.e. cowardly. (Politicians weren't especially polite in those days.) Fittingly, perhaps, Teddy's taste for war soured after one of his own sons died in combat.

My university history teacher talked about how Taft really didn't like being president. He was never small, but he gained dozens more pounds while in office, an obvious example of relying on "comfort food" in times of stress. He lost most of that extra poundage after he was out of office and then began serving on the Supreme Court. And I do recall the teacher opining that Taft wasn't really that far out of sync with TR philosophically, but he lacked the iron will that TR used to keep the cabinet grunts in line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Taft needed a great deal of support, or else the platform on which he stood was likely to collapse. StuRat (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Kabbalah or Qabalah

Which one is correct? Kabbalah or Qabalah. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Read the article Kabbalah or even Cabala - it seems it depends on context. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word originates in Hebrew, which uses a different writing system to the one we use. To write it in English, you have to use the letters of the Latin alphabet as used in English to approximate the sound of the Hebrew word, and that can be done in different ways. See Romanization of Hebrew. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russell.mo -- Which one is correct, "Koran" or "Quran"? (Not to mention "Cabbala" and "Coran".) The problem is the same in both cases... AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation of Kabbalah is closer to the original than Qabalah, so I would suggest you use the K spelling. Ariel. (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What does that even mean? It's not clear that English has a usual sound associated with the bare letter "q", but to the extent there is one, it's /k/, so no difference on that basis between the two spellings.

You're probably mapping the letter "q" to the /kw/ cluster, but that's an error. English doesn't associate the letter "q" to that sound. It associates the digraph "qu" to that sound. --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to the problem that there is no single standard of transliteration or transcription from many non-latin-alphabet languages into English. You run into the same problem with Cyrillic names (-ski / -sky or -ov / -off / -of, etc.), the spelling of tsar / czar, or the various ways Muammar Gaddafi's name has been spelled, or really transliterations from many other writing systems. The Quran/Koran issue noted above as well. When we borrow a word from a language which uses the same alphabet we do in English, it is quite common to take it as-is, or perhaps drop a few diacritical marks from the original at most. When taking a word writing in another script into English, the process of transliteration can be tricky, and there isn't often an agreed upon standard. So the answer to the correct official, single spelling for Kabbalah is "good luck with that". Kabbalah seems to be the most common, but many other spellings are also accepted to varying degrees. None are "more correct", as there isn't any universal standard. --Jayron 32 00:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused by these answers. Unless my blindness has progressed, the Hebrew word starts with the letter qoph. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

It certainly does. It doesn't mean that the transcription/transliteration of the term which starts with the English letter "Q" is universally accepted. The existence of that fact does not force the behavior of thousands of writers to simultaneously agree. --Jayron 32 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, spelling the name of the Hebrew letter as qoph is itself a Romanisation of Hebrew. But think of it this way. In the Latin alphabet, the letter c can stand for a number of different sounds - in English /k/ and /s/, in Italian /k/ and /ch/, in Castilian Spanish /k/ and /th/, for example. If you're going to try and render a word with a c in it into Hebrew, do you simply decide to map one Hebrew letter to it and explain that this letter can have a variety of sound values depending on language and context, or do you choose the Hebrew letter that most closely corresponds to the sound the letter stands for in the particular word? --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have to use 'kabbalah' since this word is universally known... I also thought 'Koran' was a modified version of 'Qur'an'. The actual book. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Since Arabic doesn't have any of those Roman alphabet letters, that just doesn't make sense. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)) [reply]

Aren't /q/ and /k/ separate phonemes in classical Hebrew and Arabic? (For those unfamiliar, the /q/ sound is further back in the throat, in the same way that English "k" is further back than "ch", with /q/ even further back than "k". English, at least, has a habit of respecting original spellings based on sound distinctions (hors d'oeuvres) even if we don't have the relevant sound or distinction in English. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're distinct phonemes in classical Hebrew and Arabic (though not in Modern Hebrew, for most speakers). And for purposes where this matters, there are transliterations which preserve the difference. But for many English speakers who simply want to refer to the foreign item, name, or concept, they will never encounter the distinction in practice, so little is served by making the distinction, and so they often don't bother to do so. What English does with words from other languages which use Roman script, is not relevant. --ColinFine (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if this helps. There is no real equivalent in Hebrew to the "q" sound we're familiar with in English. Like there is no "th". But there are approximations. When I hear Israelis talk about The Queen, I typically hear them say "Ze Kveen". The Q/K may be a closer approximation than the Th/Z, but it is still an approximation. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller -- You're talking about approximating a [kw] sequence with a [kv] sequence, but in modern Arabic and earlier Hebrew ق ק is/was a completely separate (and phonemically distinct) consonant sound from ك כ. In "standard" modern Arabic, qaf tends to be a voiceless uvular stop, but that's not necessarily the same sound the consonant would have had in old Hebrew. If the Semitic k-q contrast is connected with the early Semitic opposition between "unemphatic" and "emphatic" consonants, then it's possible that qoph in old Hebrew would have been a glottalized (ejective) voiceless velar stop... AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if the queen was a horse, a blanket would still be a blanket. There's no need for confusing ifs and buts here. The fact is that way people pronounce qoph is similar to both q and k, hence the confusion. --Dweller (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice -- nothing in your comment of "12:46, 9 January 2015" had any relevance to the question of how ק was pronounced in old Hebrew (back when it was not simply pronounced [k], as it is today in just about every tradition except the Yemeni)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

God, Animal, Fruit and a Baby

"This animal story is similar to what is found in Germanic paganism, a prayer to the bigger god Odin is mentioned in stanzas chapter 2 of the ‘Völsunga saga’ where King Rerir prays for a child. His prayer is answered by Frigg, wife of Odin, who sends him an apple, which is dropped on his lap by Frigg's servant in the form of a crow while Rerir is sitting on a mound. Rerir's wife eats the apple and is then pregnant with the hero Völsung." This story dates back to ______ and is from the Norse _____________ (Mythology/Religion), similar stories can be found in ________________________________ which dates back to ________________________________ , e.g., ________________________________.

Can someone help me fill up the blanks please? I'm looking for similar stories quoted above regarding God, animal, fruit and baby. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The Völsunga saga was written down in the 13th century from oral material going back to the 5th century. See Rerir for the story you mention. Off the top of my head, two other folktales where eating a fruit results in a child are the Italian Pome and Peel and the Hindu story of Jarasandha, whose father cut the fruit in two with unexpected results. However, neither involves a bird. Taknaran (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through thanks. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Taknaran: Hello! Any idea when Jarasandha birth or story occurred? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think anybody does, but check out our articles Mahabharata and Magadha to get some context. Material in the latter implies that it would have been somewhere between 1200 BC and 600 BC, unless entirely fictional. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

What does "damsel dark" signify in "There is a Tavern Town"?

I ran across the origin for the children's song "Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes", the late 19th century folk tune "There is a Tavern in the Town". Despite being pretty upbeat, it's apparently about longing and hopeless love.

Lyrics are pretty straightforward folk "bluesy", but there is a term that puzzles me:

"He left me for a damsel dark, damsel dark, Each Friday night they used to spark, used to spark, And now my love who once was true to me Takes this dark damsel on his knee."

What does a "damsel dark/dark damsel" mean in this case?

Peter ^Isotalo 16:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but this google ngram confirms that "dark damsel" peaked in usage during the late 19th century [1]. I'd be tempted to think it just means a young lady of dark complexion and/or hair, similar to the phrase "tall, dark and handsome" for men. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Ngram tip. So basically a concept of a female "sheik" for straight men?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word dark did not necessarily imply any ethnic difference or even dark skin. It could also mean "having dark hair" or "having a morally problematic or troubled background". There is some ambiguity to the lyrics. Marco polo (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just think about the The Dark Knight (film)--Noopolo (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the prohibition, for example, from the Mishnah Torah, against going out alone after dark: Similarly, he should not go out alone at night, unless he has a set time to go out for his studies. All of these (restrictions are instituted) because of (possible) suspicion (of immorality). -- 18:45, 7 January 2015 Medeis

You're all over thinking this. It means a girl with dark hair - perhaps a Gypsy. Gypsies were a favourite in 18th and 19th century folk songs see The Gypsy Maiden, The Whistling Gypsy and many more. That's it. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it means a girl with dark hair. Also, dark is rhymed with spark. If it had been a damsel fair, a different rhyme would have been needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it would have had the advantage of fewer allegorical interpretations :-) Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said, isn't it? Dark(er) hair and/or dark(er) complexion. A Romani girl is a decent guess. It is my understanding that variations in we would now group as "white" skin tone used to be more worthy of comment, and certainly some Romani have darker skin than some people of the people of Trinity College. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please accept my apologies. I was rather taken aback by the Batman analogy. Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much oblige for the input, everyone.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is obvious significance in "dark". The speaker is expressing a mood of dejection. Certainly the interpretation of dark hair is an open possibility. But it is also understandable that animosity is felt toward a rival. "Damsel dark" aptly conveys a feeling of dread toward a "damsel" regardless of hair color. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]