Humanities desk
< August 23	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 25 >

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.

August 24

Pre-decimal British currency denominations abbrev.

They were named after old roman currency at least in the abbreviations. How come? Was there a continuity there or did some fan of Ancient Rome start the practice? Temerarius (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity, see £sd.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, somehow I’ve never found that page. Although it doesn’t exactly speak for continuity. And it contradicts itself on a matter of pronunciation. Surely it’s happeny rather than hay-penny? Temerarius (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever heard hay-penny, but of course that's only anecdotal. › Mortee _talk 04:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] As an actual coin they seem to have been (re-?)introduced around 1100, but before then pennies (whatever they were called) were literally cut in half or quarters to provide smaller change, and those halves were, surely, referred to by the same name.

According to the actual History of the halfpenny article it was pronounced "/ˈheɪpəni/ HAY-pə-nee" (I'm not seeing "hay-penny" anywhere). Without resorting to IPA, which I'm not fluent with and you may not be either, the best representation this elderly Brit (who of course used them from around 1960) can suggest is "HAIYP-knee" (with the "H" being dropped in many registers).

The name "penny" (from Old English "peni") is of course Germanic and has close cognates in other Germanic languages. It seems likely that the continuity of the abbreviation (and possibly the actual name) "d" for "denarius", plus of course "L" and "s", would have been preserved by those literate/numerate in Latin, who continued to be a presence in Great Britain after the supposed "departure of the Romans in 410", which was a great deal more complicated and less complete that popularised history suggests. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.183 (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The northern pronunciation was often shortened to two syllables /ˈheɪpnɪ/, like HAIYP-knee but with a shorter vowel at the end. Dbfirs 06:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the pronunciation I know too (southern England here) – either two or three syllables, just as you say, but if it's three it's definitely a schwa for the e (hay-puh-nee, not hay-penn-ee). (My earlier comment was only about the first syllable, which is "hay" not "hap") › Mortee _talk 11:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very old joke - a gorilla walks into a shop to buy a newspaper - he puts a pile of change on the counter - the shopkeeper says "that's not enough - you still owe me a penny" - the gorilla says "I haven't got a penny - but I have got two ape knees" (geddit ?) Gandalf61 (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The usual spelling of the abbreviated form of halfpenny was ha'penny, as in "If you haven't got a penny, a ha'penny will do". The other contraction used was for a a quantity equal in value to a halfpenny, a halfpenny worth or ha'p'orth. By my day, again from the early 1960's, you couldn't by much for a ha'penny, and it was only used as a jocular insult; "you daft ha'p'orth". I do remember my mother ordering "six penn'orth of chips" in the chip shop, i,e, 6d worth of chips. Alansplodge (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten that songs. Thanks for the reminder! › Mortee _talk 11:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to inflation, things are different these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denarius inflation: 33 AD: ~43,450 seconds of hard labor. 2018: 1.9 seconds of sedentary minimum wage. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinning down the early use of the "d" abbreviation has proved tricky. Mind the Pennies …: Money and its Use in Early Medieval Europe says: "Monasteries and aristocratic households provided anchors of wealth and demand which stimulated a more broadly based core of monetary exchanges". Both these institutions would have kept their financial records in Latin - "Rentals and accounts from landed estates are rare in English before the beginning of the sixteenth century" according to Languages used in medieval documents. Alansplodge (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manafort pardon

There is much talk in the air about a possible pardon by President Trump for Paul Manafort, who was convicted on Tuesday on eight felony counts. A second trial is scheduled for next month on several additional charges. Suppose Mr. Trump pardoned him, say, tomorrow, for his current crimes. Would he still have to go to trial again and, if convicted, be pardoned again? --Halcatalyst (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on how it's worded. He could try to use the Ford "pre-emptive" pardon of Nixon, who had not been charged with a crime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One important caveat about a pardon: Accepting a pardon is tantamount to a guilty plea. In order to accept a pardon, you have to admit you are guilty of the crime you are being pardoned for. Also, a presidential pardon only applies to criminal penalties for a crime, it does not prevent (and can even exacerbate) civil suits related to the crimes, for example a person who suffered financial damages from Manafort could still sue him for damages, and the pardon itself is evidence that he committed the act which caused the damages. For those reasons, it may not be wise necessarily to accept a pardon before a conviction. In civil cases, the federal government itself can be the plaintiff, so he could still be sued by them. See here, to wit "the president cannot pardon a person for violations of any federal civil laws" --Jayron 32 14:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Federal pardons in the United States, a pardon will not erase or expunge the record of that conviction. Therefore, even if a person is granted a pardon, they must still disclose their conviction on any form where such information is required, although they may also disclose the fact that they received a pardon. So based on that, even with a pre-emptive pardon Manafort can be tried, he just wouldn't have to serve his sentence. Nothing really in the article about "pre-emptive" pardons though which seems like an oversight. Regards So Why 15:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit less clear if one does not take "pardon" strictly. Per the same article, the powers of commutation or amnesty do not necessarily require acceptance or impute guilt. In that article, amnesties, the Ford-Nixon pardon and the turkey are pre-emptive.John Z (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Nixon matter, he issued as vague a statement of regret on being pardoned for all federal crimes he might have committed while president, as could be negotiated between his lawyers and Ford's. I am sure that Manafort's lawyers could easily draft a statement that would accept a pardon while admitting nothing useful. And I'm dubious any federal court would sustain an indictment against a presidential pardon that is clearly intended to pardon the conduct in question, whether or not imprisonment is at stake.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in Burdick v. United States was whether Burdick could maintain his privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore refuse to testify, by refusing a pardon. The court said he could. The bit about acceptance of guilt was a bit of a side issue; our article says Legal scholars have questioned whether that portion of Burdick is meaningful or merely dicta.

Since many pardons, at least at the state level, are based on factual innocence (or at least the executive's opinion that factual guilt was not adequately proved), I think it's a bit hard to maintain a consistent view that acceptance of a pardon implies admission of guilt in all cases, even if it suited Ford's conscience to think so. --Trovatore (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting an ambassador

Is there a precedent in history, or any provision in diplomatic law/conventions, of a country rejecting a particular ambassador from a country with which it has otherwise normal diplomatic relations? What happens if the government of Country A says; "We're sorry Country B, we regretfully cannot accept Mr X as your ambassador to us because he (Mr X) is known for having a negative attitude towards our country, please send someone else"? Does such a situation create a huge crisis or is there a mechanism for dealing with the matter without too much fuss? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Persona non grata.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 21:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has happened from time to time. This is why the whole nomination process of ambassadors is kept confidential. Whether to make a fuss or not, depends on the mood of the 2 governments involved. "The appointment of an ambassador is subject to the receiving country accepting the nominated individual, conveyed through an agrément. Under a customary procedure, codified in the Vienna Convention of 1961, the sending state forwards the name and biodata of the ambassador-designate to the receiving state. Usually within several weeks, the latter conveys approval or agrément, after an internal processing that usually includes the formal assent by the head of state. Rejection of a nomination is rare; it may occur if for instance the individual is perceived to have a background that renders him or her exceptionally unfit, from the perspective of the receiving state. This might happen if he is on record with views hostile to that country. Rejections are seldom made public. One US study notes that between 1910 and the late 1970s there have been three cases of failure by US envoys to obtain agrément." ( https://books.google.com/books?id=AEVu5vNbD_4C&pg=PA40 ) Here are some later examples: https://books.google.com/books?id=CiolDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA346 --Soman (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Phillips (diplomat) was famously rejected for being Jewish, at a time when the Saudis basically weren't admitting Jews to their country (nor were they admitting blacks, except as hajj pilgrims)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other reasons for refusing agrément include the existence of a criminal record, allegations of participation in human rights violations, or simply holding dual nationality. It can also be done just to indicate that there is a serious disagreement between the two countries (i.e. we will not agree to your appointing anyone as ambassador until matter x is resolved). These types of disputes can last for years. --Xuxl (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics on European immigration to Algeria

Does anyone know where I can find detailed statistics of European immigration to Algeria? Basically, I am thinking of statistics which show the number of European immigrants into Algeria by either year or decade.

I know that the pied-noir population in Algeria peaked at something like 15% in the early 20th century, but I want to see just how many Europeans immigrated to Algeria at various points in time between 1830 and 1962. Futurist110 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James McDougall's recent History of Algeria is good on the colonial period; it certainly doesn't have the detailed statistics itself, but if they're available I expect they'd be referenced in his notes. Unfortunately I don't have a copy hand. Henry ^Flower 07:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"As of the last census in Algeria, taken on 1 June 1960, there were 1,050,000 non-Muslim civilians (mostly Catholic, but including 130,000 Algerian Jews) in Algeria, 10 percent of the total population". From our Pied-noir article. Alansplodge (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"During the French colonial period (1830–1962), Algeria contained a large European population of 1.6 million who constituted 15.2% of the total population in 1962". From our Europeans in Algeria article.

Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little more detail at The Making of Contemporary Algeria, 1830-1987 (p. 53) by Mahfoud Bennoune, which says: "The number of European settlers increased from 7,812 in 1833 to 984,031 in 1954". Alansplodge (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Survey of World Migration (p. 35) gives:- 1841: 38,000, 1847: 110,000, 1856: 170,000, 1872: 260,000, 1882: 412,000, 1900: 630,000, 1936: 950,000. Alansplodge (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of this information, you guys--especially Alansplodge! Futurist110 (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110, don't ignore immigration of Europeans to the Carthaginian Empire and the Roman client states that followed it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit too early for my tastes, though! Futurist110 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pictish king

Who was the first Kings of the Picts to convert to Christianity?107.193.163.81 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Óengus II before 834, see Andrew_the_Apostle#Scotland.
Sleigh (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably much earlier than that since the indications are that the upper levels of Pictish society were converted from the 5th through to the 7th centuries, but I'm afraid the name of the first Christian Pictish king will never be known with certainty because of the sparseness of historical sources. See Christianisation of Scotland#Picts. See also our article on Bridei I, king of the Picts in the late 6th century, for some suggestion that he may have been a Christian. --Antiquary (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Christianity in Medieval Scotland#Early_Christianisation. More detail in The Picts: A History by Tim Clarkson. Alansplodge (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful to use only late modern sources; Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 June 22#Supposed early Scottish kings has a discussion about several Scottish histories of Scotland (most of them early modern period) that rest on highly problematic writings by George Buchanan and Hector Boece. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]