Humanities desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

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

May 13

10 years in Iliad and 10 years in Titanomachy

Since the 10 years of the Trojan War is improbably long, and the 10 years also make Helen's conversation with Priam about the Achaeans out of place, perhaps Homer or some later bard decided to say it was 10 years as an echo to the 10 year war between the Titans and the Greek Gods in the Titanomachy? Like the poetic tradition of 40 days and nights, and 40 years in the desert? Exactly how many places in the Iliad and Odyssey is it said that the war lasted 10 years? Does the word for 10 in ancient Greek fit the meter? Thanks, Rich64.134.30.233 (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 years is long, but there have been longer sieges, up to 22 years: [1]. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there no children, not even pregnancies, of the female captives of the Achaean attackers, like of Briseis and Chryseis, or Patroclus's captive? To me that indicates the war hadn't been going on that long.Rich64.134.30.233 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the Iliad is a literary artwork, and at least quasi-fictional, it might be because "Homer" (to use the conventional shorthand for the multi-author multi-century oral tradition that led up to the written version) simply chose not to portray any such offspring (as well as a great many other matters). It certainly wasn't a documentary, and "he" was not obliged to be comprehensive. To quote from the lede of that article:

"The Iliad is set during the Trojan War, the ten-year siege of the city of Troy by a coalition of Greek states, but focuses on a quarrel between King Agamemnon and the warrior Achilles lasting a few weeks during the last year of the war." [My italics.]

In historical terms, such offspring might have been of little status (if not slaves) and therefore not important enough to be remembered over half a millenium. We know comparatively little about the preoccupations of the Archaic Greeks in the 8th(?) century BCE, and they likely knew little about those of the Mycenaean Greeks in the 13th(?) century BCE. (There's a reason the interval is called a "Dark Age".) Also, the versions we now have can only be traced back to many centuries after the narrative's original transcriptions, so a good deal may have been lost, changed and added that we can never know about. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and one thing that might have been changed is the duration, from as little, possibly, as a few weeks, to 10 years. And, if Briseis, for example, had been pregnant by Achilles, I bet he would have cared about the offspring a lot. Beyond the point about children, or at least pregnancy, and also the point about Helen's conversation with Priam, there is also 1.) the request by the Greeks for the return of Helen and the stolen treasures, and 2.) the duel between Meneleus and Paris. These last two points, as well, indicate the war was near its beginning.-Rich144.35.45.51 (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Various people have interpreted 10 years to mean "10 annual military campaigning seasons", artistically enhanced to a continuous 10-year siege in the epic tradition. The meter used was standard epic Hexameter / Dactylic hexameter into which almost any word of ancient Greek can fit, unless it has a sequence of three short syllables, or a short syllable between two long syllables (though there were some fixes and workarounds for such cases). For the ancient Greeks, the war of the Titans was a shadowy background near the beginning of their mythology, while the Iliad was a detailed struggle between vividly-described personalities, so I'm not too sure what the connection is... AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but if some people have interpreted it as 10 annual military campaigning seasons in order to make it less improbable, then surely other people have suggested it was shorter than 10 years, to make it less improbable. One thing about 10 annual military campaigning seasons is that would probably mean numerous travels back and forth to Greece in hundreds of ships, a chancy trip that is a major part of both Iliad and Odyssey stories, making it more improbable. As for the connection between the Titomachys 10 years and the Iliad's 10 years, since Homer was describing the heroes as much stronger, more godlike and more closely descended from greek gods and nymphs than the people of Homer's generation, and he described Zeus and Athena and other gods vividly, then all the more reason to insert a parallel in the time period.Rich64.134.30.233 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A deliberate parallel, or merely a stock phrase meaning (in that culture) a lengthy period, just as the use of 40 (days, years, whatever) in Jewish culture meant "a long time" rather than being intended as an accurate count? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been either one of those, back then. Stock phrases, cliches, are new at the beginning.Rich144.35.45.51 (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aki's affidavits

I am trying to find a collection of 12 affidavits (totaling 64 pages) involving an opium license bribery scandal during the reign of King Kalākaua. It involved a Chinese resident named Tong Kee, alias Aki, Junius Kaae, and the king himself. Ralph S. Kuykendall mentions it here as something that George W. Merrill submitted to the US Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard on May 31, 1887.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map help

Can someone help me figure out where the Haugh House was located on the Battle of Cross Keys battlefield? See 38°21′5″N 78°49′27″W / 38.35139°N 78.82417°W / 38.35139; -78.82417 for the house (use Acme Mapper topo maps mode) and File:Battle of Cross Keys map.png. I think it's just west of the Confederate lines marked "B", but the map doesn't show the Port Republic Road, and I can't be sure. Nyttend (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The National Register of Historic Places Registration Form - Haugh House has at "Section 10. Geographical Data" some map coordinates if that helps. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are the UTM coords for the site (all nominations must have those), and there's a map on the final PDF page. That's how I got the coordinates I gave above and how I knew where to go to get the photo in the article's infobox. But where on the battlefield is it? I'm having trouble overlaying the linked map onto the current topography. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay Nyttend, but I've now had time to look at the maps properly. The points that I can positively tie in are:

1) The Cross Keys T-junction and church, marked "1264" on the Acme topo map.

2) The point where the road from Cross Keys to Port Republic crosses the stream or creek, marked "156" on the Acme map.

Using these for orientation, the obvious dog-leg in the road shown on the battlefield sketch then matches the less obvious double bend where the Battle Monument now stands.

I strongly suspect that the two rectangles shown on the sketch to the right of the Port Republic road (between "meadow" and "field") represent Haugh House and the "outbuilding" mentioned in the nomination text.

On the Acme map, the hill marked "1228" just NW of Haugh House is (I believe) the hill shown at the left-hand end of line "A" on the sketch.

The Y-shaped stream shown on the right side of the sketch, has (I think) been misplaced to the N of its actual location. Note that the battlefield sketch is marked "drawn from memory"

Hope this helps somewhat. Alansplodge (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government - what do they do?

How does government generally get involved with industries? Other than fund big projects, brief politicians, write laws and look good? I can't find any articles which explain it in layman terms. 82.132.246.13 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with Industrial policy. SpinningSpark 11:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is policy their main business? Because from what I've seen, policy isn't rigid and industry doesn't necessarily follow it. It seems to more be a set of guidelines or thinking or the way a country wants to be perceived by other nations. 2A02:C7D:B95C:F400:97C:6425:9E17:DA5 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government can provide the necessary requirements to run a business, including:

1) Physical infrastructure, like roads, airports, seaports, etc.

2) Provide utilities, like electricity, gas, water, sewage lines, etc. Some of these may be provided by regulated private industry (usually the first two).

3) Provide an educated workforce. Primary education is the absolute minimum, but secondary education, college, trade school, and continuing education is even better.

4) Provide certainty in tax rates and regulatory structure. That is, the laws shouldn't change constantly, particularly with each new government/administration.

5) Provide intellectual property support. That is, the ability to get patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc., and to defend them when infringed upon.

6) Provide a consistent trade policy.

7) A controversial one is to bail out failing businesses. Pure capitalism would require that such businesses be allowed to fail. Also, subsidies, including tax breaks, fall into the same category as violations of pure capitalism, and can violate trade pacts, as well.

8) Help defend businesses against attacks by individuals and other nations (such as cyber attacks). Physical security can also be provided by police and fire departments.

9) Even out the business cycle. This can prevent alternating boom and bust cycles which are bad for business, by lowering taxes and borrowing money to pay for things like infrastructure improvements during recessions (government is good at this) and then raising taxes to pay off the debt during booms (government is dismal at this). Note that this is somewhat at odds with with consistent tax rates. StuRat (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The state is the source of uncertainty in policy (#4 and #6), and the driver of the "business cycle" (#9). —Tamfang (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought physical infrastructure is provided by state owned or funded companies (not necessarily government itself), or regulated industry. Education I thought is also provided by state owned or funded organisations or local government bodies but not necessarily central government. Regulation by regulators who may be central government funded but are independent from them. My point is that it seems that government funds these activities but doesn't necessarily get involved with them. Or am I completely wrong? 82.132.231.84 (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you write to some companies and ask them whether they'd rather have their headquarters in an OECD country, or in Somalia? AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia's literacy rate, child mortality, telephone service all improved after its rulers fell. I keep thinking some foundation ought to offer to take refugees from Somalia to North Korea, and see how many bites they get. —Tamfang (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will vary greatly in detail depending on which particular country (and era) you're talking about, but it would be a rare government that provided funds without keeping a good deal of control over how those funds are used. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is a bit different in the US, where, for historic reasons, states have more power than provinces typically do in other nations. But, collectively, the federal, state/provincial and local governments tend to accomplish the same things, however they divvy it up between them. As for whether the government agency does the job directly, hires private contractors, or merely regulates private companies, the result is the same, the government ensures that it gets done, unlike, say, providing car wash services, which the government hopefully has no involvement in. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The US government is a major buyer and user of cars, almost all of which are procured by GSA. Keeping them washed is a big and expensive deal. -Arch dude (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I would hope they would just give the employees each an allowance to get their government-issued car washed, and not set up a Department of Car Washing with a massive bureaucracy. For pool vehicles, the maintenance staff can hose them down and call it good. StuRat (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying is the process whereby business can influence industry in the UK and (I suspect) other places. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe commercial control without so much legal or technical control? For example, I've read in the papers of cases where government appears to be ripped off by private contractors because they're not an educated customer about the services or products they are buying. 82.132.231.84 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot depends on which government you are talking about... the US? UK? France? Venezuela? China? How Government has involvement in businesses is not the same in every nation. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the government is also a very major customer. A company that sells to the government must adhere to a lot of complex regulations, or the government procurement agencies are not permitted to buy. This is most obvious (to me at least) in the defence industries, where the government is essentially the only customer. the effects are pervasive, becasue they filter down to subcontractors. -Arch dude (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. I think defence is the exception and not the rule, just because there's obvious sensitivity issues in defence, and so most governments would want to exert tighter control over it. 82.132.233.147 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not just defense. For example, civilian agencies spend hundreds of millions on software development. The contracting companies must follow some strange rules. For example, a non-hourly employee working on such a project is not permitted to work more than 40 hours per week on ANY project, not just the government project. -Arch dude (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bread, cheese, and milk and food combinations

In storybooks, I keep seeing illustrations of simple meals that consist mostly of a little piece of bread and a little piece of cheese or some kind of yellow stuff (butter or cheese?). Then, I recall that in Madeline, the little girls would say, "We love our bread. We love our butter. But most of all, we love each other," in a French accent. So, French people ate bread and butter together. What about bread paired with oil or bread paired with cheese or bread paired with wine or cheese paired with wine? (By the way, is wine typically paired with cheese or with bread?) Does anybody know what is paired with what and the food combo origins? Indians have paneer (cheese). I think it is eaten with bread. In the Far East, there is no dairy farming. But there is tofu, which is like cheese in terms of production and texture. So, a typical meal somewhere in Fairy-Tale Western or Northern Europe (maybe the Middle Ages to the early modern age) consists of just bread and cheese/butter or porridge? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Ploughman's lunch Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Spread. Compare with Broodbeleg. --Askedonty (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes French is more concise than English: a-slice-of-bread-and-butter is une tartine. Alansplodge (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{refnec}} You probably mean "une tartine de beurre", Alan. --Askedonty (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I do, but I've only ever heard it in reference to butter. However, I defer to your superior knowledge. Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well correct, as I've been fortunate enough along the years to be granted there many cultural (as well as gastronomic) guided tours, even in tartufferie (the French have quite a number of double entendre relating Moliere's play "Tartuffe" to the various possible alternative distortions to the normal usage of tarts, so beware of honey, butter, and whipped creams taken out of their context, anyway it seems that the French shortcut for slice-of-bread comes somehow from their not fearing the tart). --Askedonty (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In English, buttered bread is common. Technically this will apply to bread which isn't sliced, but in modern contexts it's most commonly is used to refer to sliced bread. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Bread and cheese was a staple diet of Lower Class workers" Elizabethan Food. Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems surprising that people who were so poor could afford cheese. Perhaps cheese was far less expensive then, since the cost is mostly labor, and labor was also dirt cheap then. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that until the industrial revolution, most of the lower class worked as agricultural laborers (serfs and peasants)... they milked their own cows (or sheep or goats) and made their own cheese. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did the average peasant have the skills to make cheese ? One wrong step, and it's just rotten milk. StuRat (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such basic skills are easily taught. Only fancy cheeses require complicated processes. Cheese was made by most "peasant farmers" (or more often by their wives) within living memory. Dbfirs 19:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See fresh cheese and whey cheese; it's not complicated unless you're trying to preserve it for storage or shipment. Matt Deres (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles aren't as good as they should be, but we have Staple food, Butter#History, Bread in culture. We even have a stub on a 2009 book, Cheese: A Global History. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Agricultural Labourers' Standard of Living in Lincolnshire, 1790-1840: Social Protest and Public Order by T L RICHARDSON, says "twothirds of total household expenditure (for agricultural labourers in 1790) was allocated to food and drink, and about ninety-three per cent of this outlay was spent on bread, meat, cheese, and butter" (p. 3). A table on p. 4 shows that a pound of cheese cost about the same as a quarten (4 lb) loaf of bread. Alansplodge (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about alcohol (I think, probably, ale)? Was it very cheap, or was it not much consumed, or does it not count as 'drink'? Hayttom (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In mountain communities in Switzerland and France, fondue was originally a working class meal for using up stale bread and old cheese. --Jayron 32 01:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sports coordinations

Do the American Red Cross and the United States Olympic Committee work together on projects?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone can dig up something, but failing that, you can simply email either or both of them, and ask. What exactly were you expecting them to have common cause to work together on? Eliyohub (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was hoping they work together on sports safety issues.2604:2000:7113:9D00:18B9:8A5:B682:3FBE (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find anything US specific, but it seems that their international parent organisations have done: International Olympic Committee joins Red Cross Red Crescent partners in pledge (2 December 2011). Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

literate tribes

Are there examples of tribes that reached literacy? It seems like literacy is a phenomenon restricted to civilizations, but I don’t know what’s stopping a tribe from designing its own writing system. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 22:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing systems that were developed from scratch (or almost so), such as Egyptian hieroglyphs, Sumerian cuneiform, Chinese characters, Mayan glyphs etc., were developed in the context of states with economic bureaucracies, and were too complex to be directly used by less organized civilizations. However, after syllabaries and consonantal alphabets developed in the 2nd millennium B.C., and then full alphabets probably around 850 B.C., it then became possible for tribes to use writing, whether by directly borrowing or by stimulus diffusion... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Mesopotamian proto-writing appear first in private contracts, rather than in bureaucracy? —Tamfang (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tokens and token-envelopes were probably mainly developed by traders (though whether their trading was "private" might be a difficult question to answer), but the transition to linguistic writing seems to have occurred mainly in a context of supervision of economic activities, as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the history of Canadian aboriginal syllabics. By the way, the idea of of "tribes" being by definition uncivilised is described in Ancient Society: anthropology has moved on since 1877. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These syllabics are nonsense created by protestant missionaries, and should be discounted entirely. μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being discounted, they have been adapted into official use in the North. From Inuktitut syllabics: "In 1976, the Language Commission of the Inuit Cultural Institute made it the co-official script for the Inuit languages, along with the Latin script." Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a much more recent example, see the Vai syllabary of Liberia. Its origins are disputed; if I remember rightly, the traditional story is that the creator saw it in a dream (although the article doesn't mention that idea), but as you can see in the article, there's also some evidence that the one of the early Pioneers was a man familiar with Sequoyah's Cherokee syllabary and that his contact with the Vai led him to suggest at least the idea of a syllabary. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pahawh Hmong is another script invented by a prophet. —Tamfang (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon_Caryatid -- you're the only one in the thread who mentioned being "uncivilized" (a somewhat different concept to "civilization"). In any case, anthropology has the typology of band, tribe, chiefdom, and state, and it seems pretty clear that a society has to be at least at the incipient state level of organization to invent writing from scratch. Tribes did not meaningfully start using writing until the original complex logographic writing systems (hieroglyphics, cuneiform) had been boiled down into simpler systems (syllabaries, alphabets) more suitable for their use. The Cherokee syllabary is a classic example of "stimulus diffusion", rather than inventing writing from scratch (as the early civilizations did). AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't see the two terms as so very different, but if you prefer, I will reword myself: "the idea of of "tribes" being by definition not part of civilisation is based on very old-fashioned anthropology". Secondly, I did not interpret the OP as seeking information only on inventing writing from scratch (although it appears that all other responders did, so I may have interpreted the question too broadly). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have never heard of Sequoyah?? μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But surely Mr Sequoyah was familiar with writing in English before his great undertaking? Similarly the invention of Ogham script in 1st century Ireland is thought to have been influenced by written Latin. Devising a script without prior knowledge of any other is a different ballgame. Alansplodge (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jiahu symbols, ca. 6600BCE might be useful. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about Rongorongo - from Easter Island? Wymspen (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Jiahu symbols" article itself says "most doubt that the markings represent systematic writing". To be systematic writing, a given visual marking has to correspond to a specific word, sound, or sequence of sounds in a specific language. If it has an abstract symbolic meaning without any particular linguistic realization, then it can't be "writing" in the most meaningful sense of that word. AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have History of writing. Loraof (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Vinča symbols did not (so far as we can, so far, tell) equate to "literacy" as such, but it's an interesting phenomenon not unrelated to the concept. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you just read the article on Sequoyah, Alansplodge, and suggest that AnonMoos, who has placed his comment above mine while trying to refute me, desperately needs to do so. Sequoyah was totally illiterate in English and the Roman alphabet. At first he tried to design an ideographic system, with a symbol for each word. Finally, he hit on a syllabary, with one symbol per possible syllable. Yet the Cherokee language has an extremely simple phonology, and he could have easily adopted a short alphabet, which one assumes he would have done, had he understood the true nature of alphabetic writing.

To say that his accomplishment was mere "stimulus diffusion" (a fringe term) is disingenuous. Had he adopted an alphabet from the get go, that would be one thing. But his action was not borrowing, as the Greeks did when they re-used the Phoenecian alphabet with a few modifications. Sequoyah's invention stood on its own, and was not in any way like the spread of a clothing fashion. Nor was it the artificial creation of trained linguists intent on creating a secret code that handicaps written communication between First Nations peoples and users of the Roman Alphabet. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Stimulus diffusion" doesn't seem to be covered very well on Wikipedia, but it's pretty well explained in Guns, Germs, and Steel etc. Sequoyah didn't know how to read before he invented his syllabary, but he saw reading and writing going on around him. All available evidence is that societies organized at the level of tribes or chiefdoms don't invent linguistic writing systems if they don't have the "stimulus" of seeing writing being used... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Stimulus diffusion" is hardly a "fringe term" - it appears in Merriam Webster, and it is covered in our (not great) more general article on trans-cultural diffusion. And Sequoyah's syllabery is indeed a perfect example. As AnonMoos pointed out, the distinction linguists make between true inventions of writing and stimulus diffusion is based on whether the culture in question had any prior awareness of the concept of writing - the fact that Sequoyah wasn't actually literate in any other language, or aware of the specifics of how English writing works, isn't relevant. Our article on the history of writing specifically mentions Sequoyah and highlights this distinction. It's accurate to say that the Cherokee "designed their own writing system," but it's certainly not true that the Cherokee "reached literacy" themselves in any linguistically meaningful sense. As the history of writing article points out, we only know of two cultures that have certainly done so, and neither would qualify as "tribal" under any reasonable definition. But I would second Wymspen's suggestion of Rongorongo as a possibility - although there's a good chance it's just another example of stimulus diffusion itself. -Elmer Clark (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syllabaries have been invented more often than alphabets. Has anyone other than the Greeks invented full alphabets? Was the creator of hangul aware of European alphabetic writing? (Conversely, has anyone made a syllabary for a fantasy language?) It's kinda weird that the alphabet exists because of what the Semites did not notate. —Tamfang (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tamfang -- the ancient Egyptian writing system basically completely ignored vowels, so hieroglyphs with an associated phonological value were monoconsonantal, biconsonantal, triconsonantal etc. It's been remarked many times by modern scholars that if the Egyptian scribes had just focused on the existing monoconsonantal signs in their writing system, then they could have immediately created a consonantal alphabet. The Egyptians themselves never took this step, but the Canaanites did, reinterpreting Egyptian hieroglyphs through the "acrophonic principle" (i.e. a sign would write the consonant sound which began the Semitic word for the object denoted by the glyph). So the Semitic word for house was approximately *baytu, and the Egyptian "house" hieroglyphic

(which had the biconsonantal value pr in Egyptian) was repurposed as a letter with the sound-value [b] in Semitic. The Semitic consonantal alphabet followed pretty much from the vowellessness of Egyptian orthography (and the fact that words never began with vowels in the relevant Semitic dialects, so that vowels could not be objects of acrophony).

On another question, the inventors of Korean Hangul were certainly aware of some form of Indic-derived script.AnonMoos (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as we know, writing was definitively only invented twice, in Mesopotamia and in Mesoamerica as these are the only two times when one writing system grew up in a time and place where the inhabitants had no prior contact with writing before. Several writing systems may have developed independently from the Sumerian one, but those civilizations all had prior contact with a writing system, and even if they didn't adapt it into their own, they at least learned of writing as a concept and didn't invent it on their own. Rongorongo is controversial because the only examples of it come after the Rapa Nui had contact with writing systems. --Jayron 32 14:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdays nine months after their parents

Is it common for children's birthdays to be around nine months after one of their parent's birthdays? I just started imagining that possibility today. In my family, two of my parent's children including myself have birthdays around nine months after one of my parents. Mine is just under nine months after my father and one of my siblings have a birthday exactly nine months after my mother. I know I can't tell from my family alone as it is way too small of the sample size. Thousands of people would be needed in order to reliably determine that if it's statistically true or not really. Planet Star 23:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we take "about" to mean "within a week plus or minus" then with two parents, (neglecting overlap) we have a 4 in 52 chance if birthdays are uniform random and uncorrelated. So if you ask a large random sample of folks, expect about 1 in 13 to meet this criterion. There are a large number of complicating factors, so this is a gross oversimplification. Or perhaps future parents just have a fun way of celebrating birthdays. -Arch dude (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe couples tend to have increased sexual activity on or when getting very close to the birthday of one of the partners, therefore the probability of a conception is higher. So I say there's slightly greater than 1 in 13 chance that the child's birthday falls nine months plus or minus one week after one of their parents. My belief is based from Christmas I learned from research, which is the time of the year when couples have the most sexual activity making September nine months later the most common birth month. This applies to other holidays and major annual events such as birthdays, though they may have less effect on couple's sexual desires as Christmas. Planet Star 04:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My middle sister and I were born 9 months and one day after our parents' anniversary, the same day, although four years apart. That was a month before my dad's birthday, and 5 months before my mom's--otherwise three months between both conceptionwise. Most people avoid marriages too close to other holidays or celebrations, although that may not help with poorly calculated 9-month delays. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My father was born on his father's birthday. Since his two brothers were twins, his mother was the only one in the immediate family with her own birthday (date).DOR (HK) (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will find various references to "celebration sex" - relating not just to birthdays but also to anniversaries, wins and promotions at work. Wymspen (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are way too many suppositions and complicating factors to possibly arrive at a meaningful correlation, especially if you're going to include other celebrations. Sticking with just birthdays, I find 13.7 million hits for birthday sex, yet 21.5 million hits for birthday blowjob, which led to remarkably few pregnancies (I'm assuming). I can't say that I consider Christmas to be a particularly sexy holiday, though the presence of mistletoe and talk of stockings might spark some fun times. On the whole, it's kind of like Thanksgiving, where I defer to the wisdom of George Carlin: "You ever notice you never seem to get laid on Thanksgiving? I think it's because all the coats are on the bed." Matt Deres (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by subtracting 9 months from your own birthdate and see what might have been going on with your own parents. Like, for example, if you were conceived on a holiday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]