Humanities desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

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

November 18

Distinguishing a w sound from a kiss

The sound of English w and the kiss are made with the same mouth position. Yet, they sound so different. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetics is the branch of linguistics that deals with the physical production of sounds. Phoneticians generally classify sounds in several ways:

Place of articulation
Manner of articulation
Tertiary sound properties, such as voicing and aspiration.

Specifically in the case of your two sounds, they have the similar place of articulation, but not the same manner of articulation. Specifically, the English "W" is a Voiced labial–velar approximant whereas the usual "kiss" sound is something like a Tenuis bilabial click. They reason why they feel similar to you is that they both are labial (involving the lips). The W sound, however, has a moving tongue that also partially restricts the airway near the soft palate (velum). Because there are two places of articulation (at the lips and at the velum) it is not a bilabial sound, it is a labial-velar sound. --Jayron 32 18:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet woman

I remember reading an article here on Wikipedia that mentioned a Russian woman who partecipated to high-level Nazi-Soviet diplomatic talks, which was quite unusual at the time. Do you have an idea who I am talking about? Thank you! 195.62.160.60 (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Kollontai? fiveby(zero) 17:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If not her, Wikipedia has an category titled Category:Soviet women in politics. --Jayron 32 18:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be her, or at least her page doesn't mention Nazi-Soviet talks. I remember reading it in an article about an important official encounter between German and Soviet "diplomats" (a very high-level one, like the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) and I recall it was written that she made some comments about the bolshevization of Germany. It wasn't a biographical page. I already tried perusing a few categories about Soviet women but with no avail. I hope this helps! --195.62.160.60 (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment of VP in the USA - Question 1

banned user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Let's say that, hypothetically, the VP of the USA gets impeached (by the House). Then, the trial moves to the Senate. At some point, does the VP have to "recuse" himself or herself from the proceedings? Or is the VP -- the one under impeachment -- still able to cast a vote? Or a tie-breaking vote? At that point ... during a trial in the Senate ... is the VP still considered a "voting member" of the Senate? Or no longer? (Assuming the VP can only vote in a tie-breaking scenario?) Where is this addressed in the Constitution or federal rules/laws? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since a two thirds majority of the Senate is required to convict in an impeachment, the Vice President’s role as a “tie breaker” would not come into play. He/She would not cast a vote. Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the "extra vote" (i.e., the 101st vote) would be inconsequential. But, nonetheless, does it even occur ... or is it barred? In other words: say, we have a tie ... 50/50. That's dispositive that there is no conviction. Understood. But, is there some law that requires a VP vote during a tie? Or some rule/law that -- in the case of impeachment -- the VP cannot vote. Would the official record be 50/50 ... or 51/50? Also, what rule / law / Constitutional clause controls this? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article 1 section 3 says "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." That doesn't say the VP has to vote, but what be the point of not voting? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"What would be the point of not voting?" Could be many things ... conflict of interest; appearance of a conflict of interest; ethics; federal rules, laws, procedures, protocols, etc. Not sure. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting would have the same effect as voting "No", since the bill can't move on without a majority. Kind of a vice-presidential "pocket veto". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Senate is "equally divided" on a question that needs a 2/3 majority, then whether the VP votes yes, no, or doesn't vote at all, has no (immediate) effect on passage — it could only be symbolic. I suppose arguably by the Constitutional text he/she might have the technical right to cast that symbolic vote, but I've never heard of it happening. The common understanding is that the VP vote is there to "break ties", and in a case where you need 2/3, a tie can't be "broken". --Trovatore (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to know if such a scenario has ever happened. In general, though, the VP cannot vote unless it's 50-50. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment in the USA - Question 2

Assume that this all happens after January 2023, when the new Congress is seated. Scenario 1: Assume that both President Biden and VP Harris get impeached -- and also convicted. At the same time. Who becomes President? Is that Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy? Scenario 2: Assume that just President Biden gets impeached -- and also convicted. VP Harris becomes President. VP Harris then selects a new VP. Correct? The Speaker of the House is not involved in this scenario. Is that correct? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct… if both positions become vacant at the same time (via death or other removal), the Speaker becomes President. If only the Presidency becomes vacant (via death or removal) the Vice President becomes President, and then appoints a new VP. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, the Speaker becomes Acting President (see United States presidential line of succession, fourth paragraph). The appointment of a new VP is subject to confirmation by Congress (this is a fine point I hadn't realized — for every other confirmation of a presidential appointment that I'm aware of, it's just the Senate, but for a new VP it's both houses of Congress). --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trovatore ... is your reply for Scenario 1 or 2? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scenario 1. --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, in Scenario 1 ... McCarthy becomes the new president (or "acting"). Who is the new VP? That is up to McCarthy to nominate? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes… McCarthy would nominate. Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]