Miscellaneous desk
< August 26	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 27

Carpathia

Hi, does anyone know if there is, or ever was, a region called Carpathia, presumably somewhere in or near to modern Romania, from which the adjective Carpathian derives? It seems "obvious" that there should be, but I can't seem to find any actual reference to it anywhere. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am Carpathian. See Carpathian mountains, Sub-Carpathian Rus, Carpatho-Rusyn. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I have already been through all that stuff and more, and none mention a place/region that is actually called Carpathia. I also cannot find it on any map, nor any mention of it anywhere in Google search, which I find surprising. Lots of adjectival uses but no plain Carpathia. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop press: I have just found http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uiHtJ9e1p6wC&pg=PA54&dq=carpathia , which refers to an old principality, though this seems to be a novel so I do not know if it is meant to be historically correct. This is the only mention I have found anywhere of a place simply called Carpathia. 86.160.214.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such place as Belgreb, as mentioned in the book, so far as I can tell. There is a small town named Berehove. Mukachevo and Uzhhorod are the largest cities in Sub-Carpathian Rus. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Carpathian Ruthenia. I think the answer is that it was a fictional nation, but only a roughly defined region overlapping several nations, in the real world, similar to The Levant. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked to that, StuRat. It was part of Czechoslovakia after WWI, briefly independent, then annexed by Ukraine after WWII. It is about as fictional as Transylvania. The IP seems to want to see a map with the English word Carpathia on it and nothing else. That's easily enough done with a google image search. Might as well look for a place officially called "Alp" or "Czech" or "Soviet Georgia". μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to the maps you have found that show a place or region called Carpathia. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Carpathia is the mountains; thus it is the dark green areas on this map. Other regions like Subcarpathia and Transcarpathia and Carpathian Ruthenia are named in relation to the mountains. I don't believe there ever was a polity or state or country or principality or whatever named Carpathia. It refers to a geographic region. The best U.S. equivalent would be Appalachia; there has never been a state or polity named Appalachia, but it is still a region. --Jayron32 02:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more: the Carpathian mountains derive their name from the Carpi, so "Carpathia" could mean "the land of the Carpi", but I don't know if there was ever a formal state. I don't know that the Carpi people ever reached the level of state organization, or if they had a defined land with recognized boundaries. The Carpathian Mountains could just mean "the mountains near with the Carpi lived". Still, I think understanding the term "Carpathia" like the U.S. term "Appalachia" may capture it best. --Jayron32 02:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the mountains was originally the Carpathian alps, the alps that were in Carpathia. The land is not named for the mountains. The name is an ancient, and mostly geographical one. The analogy with Appalachia is a good one. But if you want a recent political entity, you have to look at Karpatalya. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section from ~~StuRat's~~ Jayron's link is very interesting: Carpi_(people)#Name_etymology. I should clarify something. I wouldn't call myself Carpathian ethnically, but Ruthenian. It is common for us to refer to ourselves as Russian, but to distinguish ourselves from Great Russians or "Moskow" Russians as Carpathians, especially to Russians and Ukranians. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Carpatho-Ukraine? It declared itself independent but the very same day it was invaded by Hungary. I doubt it was ever accepted anywhere as an independent nation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the Abkhazians. The point is, if you were going to point to a place you would call Carpathia, province or whatever, as a political entity, that would be it. Obviously it is a very contentious subject, with the official Ukrainian position being something like that of Iraq calling Kuwait "Province 19". μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ IP 86 above, I simply googled "carpathia map" for images. One of the results was ~~StuRat's~~ Jayron's map shown here, but it should be noted that this is a user creation at wikipedia, not an academic creation, and that the area labeled Carpathia is simply land over a certain elevation in that area. It doesn't correspond to any historical entity. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of minor concern, I added the map, not StuRat. --Jayron32 17:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "carpathia map" or "map of carpathia" was one of the first things I tried, but I could not find any maps that actually showed the name "Carpathia", except for one fictional one from a game I believe. I am not in any doubt about where the Carpathian Mountains are situated. Anyway, thanks for all the replies. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

planting cuttings- fresh or later?

Cutting (plant) says nothing about this. A friend who is experienced in gardening says it is better to plant cuttings a few days after so that the cut is healed and the cutting less susceptible to rot. Any idea? --Thirdmaneye (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend is not wrong, but many 'experts' also advise planting the cuttings immediately after severance from the parent plant. The difficulty with waiting a few days to allow the cut end to 'heal' is the high risk of the cutting wilting, especially if it is not a succulent. It is of course easy to place the cutting in a plastic bag to prevent this but that increases the risk of fungal growth. I am interested to know how your friend prevents the cuttings from wilting. I have read that some plants, cacti, epiphyllums, ficus and pelargoniums for example do make roots more certainly if the ends are allowed to dry before insertion into soil. I have taken many hundreds of cuttings and have never allowed the end of the cuttings to dry and have achieved probably 80% success rate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such does not contain 'how to' instructions but WikiHow does have information on taking plant cuttings. Richard Avery (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I grow them hydroponically (in just water with nutrients added) until I see some nice roots, then I plant them. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tax lists

Is it possible to get a list of all taxes and fees paid by average employed citizens within a particular state?174.20.230.202 (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To judge by the lack of response, perhaps not.

Hi, I would start with the Policy Center I also know that the Heritage Group and Grover Nordquist's group does tons of research on everything concerning taxes. Google search those names and different combinations and there are lots of documents and studies available. MarketDiamond 08:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this passport text awkwardly worded?

I know passport language can be more formal and unrecognizable from the language I'm used to so I'm not certain if the following sentence from a passport is gramatically incorrect or just of another sytle. What's everyone else's opinion?

"Please insert below particulars of two person who may be contacted in the event of accident." CORRECTION: "Please insert below particulars of two persons who may be contacted in the event of accident." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bldegroup (talk • contribs) 08:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bldegroup (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "persons" and probably "an accident", check again. Other than that, yeah, it's correct. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not insert 'an'. —Tamfang (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change "persons" to "people", although "persons" is valid, just less common. I'd also make it "the particulars" and "an accident", but I speak US English, which adds more articles than UK English. I'd also change "particulars of" to "particulars for". The placement of the "below" is a bit awkward, too. So, I'd write it as: "Please insert the particulars below for two people who may be contacted in the event of an accident." Also, "emergency" might be a better term than "accident", as presumably they would contact those people for emergencies beyond accidents, as well. StuRat (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it much, much worse. "Particulars for" is not English, whether US or UK. (BTW we are talking about the wording on the British passport.) --Viennese Waltz 10:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? I get 719,000 Google hits. StuRat (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got 8,860,000 for "Particulars of", but on delving deeper I find that 'for' gets 877 distinct hits while 'of' gets only 806 (but that's google search for you), so I would say either is fine. Mikenorton (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I get 81,300,000 hits for "me and you are." There are several variations: "me and you are meant to be", "me and you are warriors" and so on. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text in my UK passport (issued 3 years ago) says "The holder should insert below particulars of two relatives or friends who may be contacted in the event of accident:", which avoids using 'person'. It looks fine to me, if a little terse. Mikenorton (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But should the list really be restricted to relatives or friends ? Say you move to a new city for a job, and don't have any friends or relatives there, couldn't you list your boss, who you would want to have notified if you can't come in to work ? StuRat (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the primary reason for the In case of emergency list in a passport would be so that family or friends could be notified that the person has been seriously injured or died or whatever probably when travelling (which is when people normally have their passports with them) since it's the sort of thing such people generally like to be informed about often even if they're now living in different cities, and they may also want to try and help the person. It's not normally considered that important to notify your boss that you can't show up for work in such cases, particularly since if you're travelling you may not be expected at work anyway. Of course if your boss is really one of the two most important people you can think of adding to such a list (and you aren't close to your boss) no one is going to stop you. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The words "persons" and "people" are not perfect synonyms. They are both plurals of "person", but usually "persons" implies more specificity than "people" does. It isn't a perfect fit, but usually "people" is a mass noun where "persons", if it is used, is usually used where a traditional plural would be. Thus, you would never refer to the "British persons", to mean the British people. You can sometimes use "people" in places where you would use "persons", for example you could say "I need two persons to volunteer." and "I need two people to volunteer", and those both sound equally natural to me. However, the environment of the word can tend to favor the usage of "persons" over "people", for example in the phrase "person or persons unknown", which sounds much more natural than "person or people unknown". In the OPs original example, persons is a perfectely acceptable word to use. People may also be acceptable, though some dialects of English may prefer "persons" if they treat that as the Count noun and treat "people" as a mass noun. --Jayron32 14:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my dialect, "persons" sounds strange, old-fashioned, and/or formal. I see "people" gets 24 times as many Google hits as "persons", so I suspect it's not just me. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Please provide contact information for two individuals to be contacted in case of accident."

There is no need for the word "below" if the above wording occurs within an enclosed box with obvious space left for the information it requests. Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to humans as "individuals" is very off, unless you're making some distinction between them and groups, which is not the case here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book was better than the movie or: why listening to Debussy is like watching a movie

Everyone knows that the book is always better than the movie, yet nobody can quite explain it. Is the book engaging a part of our brain that the film adaptation ignores? What's going on here? And if we can imagine entire worlds out of language on a page, why can't we also see pictures from musical notes on a score? Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that books are always better. They tend to be far more detailed, just because it's not possible to put an entire book on film, unless it was several days long. But more detail isn't always a good thing. For example, Moby Dick tends to be a very dry read, with large swathes devoted to the history of whaling, etc., while the movie limits itself largely to the few action scenes in the book, making it more entertaining. StuRat (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may not agree, but that is the consensus. Exceptions like Moby Dick aside. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is the consensus, based on the large number of people who see movies but don't read the book on which it was based. I suspect that many people just say they prefer the book to sound more literate. StuRat (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really unlikely explanation. It follows that when someone likes a book more than the movie, they usually explain why. For me, it's because I'm the one envisioning the characters, the scenes, the entire story, in my head. With a film, the director is putting those visuals in your head instead. The human mind is designed to think as little as possible (formation of habits, etc.) and reading forces it to actively create the story whereas watching a film is a passive process that requires one to merely be receptive. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions of taste are purely subjective and defy objective definitions. If people say they like a movie better than a book, they do, and they aren't wrong about their own tastes. You can't say that people should like a book better based on your own preconceived notions of how quality should be judged. Once you're predefined people who prefer films to books as uneducated cretins (or whatever more diplomatic language you've chosen to say essentially the same thing) you can't then go and establish a set of ex-post-facto criteria to justify that assessment. People like what they like, and it doesn't make them less in any way because they like a movie better than a book. StuRat has given some excellent reasons as to why a person may find a movie better than a book, and those reasons are not invalid merely because you've decided that books are always better than movies. They aren't for some people, and those people aren't wrong in their preferences because preferences are arbitrary and personal, and aren't subject to measures of correctness and wrongness. You have your criteria, they have theirs, and neither is correct or incorrect. --Jayron32 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are talking to, but it surely isn't me. The statement that "people just say they prefer the book to sound more literate" is just ridiculous. There are significant reasons reader prefer books, and these reasons have been published in various articles. None of them say anything about "sounding more literate". Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that when some people prefer X to Y, they describe that as "X is better than Y". If they thought about it for one second, they'd realise their "better" ought to come with various qualifications. But they don't think. And then they get into debates and slanging matches about whether the movie or the film was better, when there will never be a right or wrong answer to that. If they said what actually was the case, namely, "I preferred the film to the book", and not "The film was better than the book", it would save a lot of time and trouble. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Word. --Jayron32 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Slanging matches" ? Is that an Aussie-ism ? StuRat (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NSFW but you asked... --Jayron32 23:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(cough) Try this. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yours may be true, but mine was more fun. --Jayron32 23:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People who like that sort of thing will no doubt find it's the sort of thing they like. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd say you can see pictures from musical notes, although people who don't read music would need to hear them played. It also helps if somebody explains which instruments represent what, as in Peter and the Wolf. StuRat (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking about different things when I say "pictures". For example, a visual depiction of the ocean as seen in La mer. If one concentrates, one can actually picture the ocean while listening to it, much as one can envision the ocean while reading about it. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a double translation involved, first in converting written notes to sounds, then in interpreting those sounds as visuals. Probably just too far to go for most people. StuRat (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor. Listen to La mer and then reply. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know La mer well. As with all abstract music, we hear what we want to hear, except to the degree that we're pre-conditioned by the title, or by what, if anything, the composer has said about the piece. Had Debussy called it "Symphonic Rhapsody No. 1", I wonder if most people would be hearing anything to do with the sea at all. Conversely, everyone has different mental images when they hear Beethoven's 5th Symphony, but if he'd called it "The Siege of Vienna", everyone would be swearing blind they can hear cannons, the clash of swords, the groans of the wounded and dying and so on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and I think this piece is different. In the Wikipedia article, it says that Debussy used a unique approach, employing a "musical onomatopoeia" to evoke the ocean. This is exactly what I'm talking about; I'm proposing that without knowing the composer or the name of the piece it is possible for a musical passage to evoke an image, just like a word. It appears possible to communicate visual images through music in the same way that reading a book can leave an image of the story in the mind. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is impossible for music to reliably convey images except in the broadest and most general of senses, such as "tranquil", "violent/chaotic", etc. As has been mentioned, people are overwhelmingly influenced by the title of the piece. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music attempts to convey images all the time, from the landscape and temporal quality of Grieg's Morning Mood to the sounds and experience of Spanish palatial gardens in Concierto de Aranjuez and to the Fountains of Rome, to the seasons of the year by Vivaldi. Listening to these pieces is no different than the process of reading a book, and creating an image of the piece in the mind, regardless of the title. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you mentioned Morning Mood. We all think of Norwegian fjords, misty mornings, fog with a bit of sun breaking through, maybe a swallow or two circling around, yada yada. Lovely. Was this the image that Grieg wanted us to have? Decidedly not! It comes at point in Peer Gynt's story where he's in the Sahara Desert, of all places. We have the cool nordic mental associations because that's what we've been told to think by marketers of LPs and CDs, not because the music itself causes us to think of such things. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Tthere is a general agreement that there is a landscape and music can convey such ideas. This has been demonstrated experimentally. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) A particularly stunning bit of program music, I've always thought, is the thunderstorm in Strauss's An Alpine Symphony. It's impossible for me to say how obvious it is depicting a thunderstorm since I knew it was called that before I ever heard it. It would not be hard to conduct a little experiment, since most people probably don't know the piece. Find someone who has never even heard of An Alpine Symphony and play the thunderstorm part and see what they think... Anyway, I don't think anyone mentioned the page program music, which is about this kind of thing. I'm trying to think of an example that doesn't give away in it's title what it is supposed to be about. But even pieces like Strauss's Metamorphosen, which gives very little clue what it is about are often very quickly associated with specific imagery—in this case the destruction of Munich in World War 2, whether or not Strauss meant it to evoke that (I think he was aiming at something more complex and multifaceted than just that, at least). So even music that does not tell you what it is supposed to evoke often has acquired popular opinions that influence listeners. Pfly (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of territory has been explored previously on the ref desks. One such was in the context of a question I myself asked: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 April 23#Mental images of unseen people. It’s worth reading to the end. I produced a fairly stunning example of a performer knowing exactly what the composer was depicting, and not just in vague general terms but a specific notable landscape painted by a specific artist. So, yes, this sort of thing is possible. However, that example was very much an exception to the general case that music and visual imagery, while not unconnected, are not connected in a way that matches a particular set of sounds to a particular image. If I were to play La Marseillaise right now, what would people think about? Something French, no doubt – but what specifically? The Eiffel tower? The tricolor? The Arc de Triomphe? The storming of the Bastille? Cheese? Champagne? The Can-Can? The guillotine? Casablanca? The 1812 Overture? Napoleon? Louis Pasteur? The Burgers of Calais? The Mona Lisa? Condoms? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me join in questioning the premise. While I think that the book usually is better than the movie, there are clear exceptions. For example, most people think that The Princess Bride (film) is better than the original novel (although the novel is also quite good). The film The Graduate makes many greatest films lists, while The Graduate (novel) is not particularly well-remembered. Vertigo (film) recently topped a greatest films list, while The Living and the Dead (1954 novel) has topped no lists. There are many cases where it is not obvious whether the book or the movie is better. Both the book and the movie versions of Gone with the Wind and The Godfather, for example, have their adherents. And, of course, it's a rare case where a novelization is thought to be better than the original movie.

That said, the conventional wisdom is that books usually are better because they more directly engage the reader's imagination. Alternatively, it may be argued that a book represents the integrated creative force of a single author, while movies necessarily are created by many people working together, with the attendant disadvantages of creativity by committee. John M Baker (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, thanks for the best answer I've received so far. I agree. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaws is another where many would agree the film is better than the book. However, I think StuRat has it partly right. A novel can contain a lot more information than a film, and adapting it as a film means cutting quite a lot of that out. Someone who enjoyed the novel may find that a lot of what they enjoyed is missing from the film and be disappointed by that. But another thing people tend to miss is the importance of form. A big part of a good novel is not just the ideas, characters or plot, but how the writer has used the form of prose to express them. No matter how faithfully you translate the ideas, characters and plot into another medium, something vital about the original - the way the author expresses himself in words - can't help but be lost.

I would also agree that music is abstract and conveys no actual meaning without words. Debussy cannot invoke the sea in music without using words - the title - to associate his abstract music with the sea. The mind then fills in its own associations of the sea. But the instrumental music carries no information itself. Someone who did not know the title would not imagine images of the sea - and neither would someone who had never experienced the sea. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to think about what you are saying, as it makes no sense. Words convey meaning because we have already agreed what they mean. But one word can mean many different things depending on the context. Likewise, music can convey meaning because certain sounds mimic or resemble the natural environment, an aural landscape that most people are familiar with and can agree upon. That is the informational content of the music. Someone who did not know the tittle might very well imagine the sounds and experience of the ocean, which is what happened to me the first time I heard it many decades ago without knowing the piece or being prompted by the title. Music can and does convey concrete information provided the listener is able to understand it. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a question. I can't help it if you don't like the answers you get. Please leave off the abuse. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with what I like and I'm not seeing any abuse. You said that music "conveys no actual meaning without words", which is an extraordinary statement. I have to ask, have you ever listened to music before? It's OK to answer no. There is relevant research that is at odds with your opinion. Samples: "Single sounds can activate representations of meaningful concepts in a similar fashion to chords and musical excerpts...the distribution and time window of the N400 effect found in this experiment is comparable to that in other domains such as environmental sounds or language."[1] "Recent studies have shown that music is capable of conveying semantically meaningful concepts...individual aspects of the acoustic input are all capable of signaling affective meaning...It is likely that the mechanism underlying this process is the basic ability to perceive emotional signals in one's auditory environment via the processing of several acoustic signals. These signals are rapidly interpreted in terms of their emotional expression, which are then linked to associated affective concepts...the information is capable of interfering with other types of affective information which in the case of verbal input, is coded in the meaning of the word....the experiments...suggests that individual musical features communicate signals which are procesed as affectively meaningful...These data provide the first evidence that several individual features of the musuical input are capable of communicating meaning..."[2] Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The movie adaptation of Grisham's The Firm (novel) is far better than his book. The movie has a clever ending, the book falls apart at the end. The difference is usually unity of purpose and artistic integrity. The usual motivation in filming a book is the profit to be made from a pre-existing audience. Artistic vision usually has littel to do with it. Peter Jackson's butchery of The Lord of the Rings shows you what happens when a hack puts his stamp on things better not messed with, like "Dwarf Tossing" that destroy the viewer's suspension of disbelief. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The motive you give is only one reason. Many, many movies hae been made from extremely obscure books. Usually a producer (or director) sees something in the book that he thinks will translate into a successful movie; examples include Dr. Strangelove and The Secret of NIMH. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am no cynic, just a realist. I did not say the profit motive is the only one. I highly recommend Bambi vs Godzilla, by David Mamet, which I am in the midst of reading for the first time right now. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you see is what you get in a film. But in a book you provide the specific details. A good writer takes you down the path most likely to allow for associations that will be especially powerful. This power is made manifest in the sights and sounds of a well-made film. There is an appeal in each art form. But the film is closer to reality. This can be a limiting quality if in the hands of a good writer abstract language can trigger more powerful associations than the technology of film is able to produce. Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Koelsch et al. conclude that [in some examples] music conveys semantic meaning in the same manner as words."[3] Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it more the case that a derivative work is generally not as popular as the original? When a film is based on a well-known novel, many people already have an attachment to the novel and are likely to see any deviations from the novel as flaws, and since the storyline is not original, the film isn't so likely to receive critical praise. Novelizations of films are also generally not as popular as the films they are based on. An obvious counterexample is 2001: A Space Odyssey - the novel and the film were produced simultaneously, and both tend to be regarded as classics. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather interestingly, Clarke himself preferred the film to the novel. In notes he made on writing 2010, he specifically chose to make 2010 as a sequel to the film rather than the novel because some of the "happy accidents" that went into making the film he preferred over what he wrote in the novel; a major plot point difference between the two is that in the Novel, the Discovery is bound for Saturn, and in the film it is bound for Jupiter. The choice, IIRC, was made for stylistic reasons, I think Clarke mentioned that the special effects crew had an easier time creating realistic backgrounds for the Jupiter destination. Clarke, in writing the sequel, took these changes to his novel in stride, and ended up preferring the film's Jupiter setting better; it becomes a vital plot point given what happens on Europa during 2010. So you have a case where the author himself preffered the film version, and used that (rather than the novel) as the canonical version for future sequels. --Jayron32 14:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the operative vernacular is "different strokes for different folks" chaps. Take any creative endeavour that's realised in more than one medium and some people will prefer one interpretation, others another and still more will like all of them equally. Lord of the Rings is a good example. Both the book and film series are very good, but things that work on paper don't necessarily translate very well onto celluloid and vice versa. There's also the issue of the vast difference in time they were written/filmed. The books were written fifty to sixty years before the films were made and published forty five years before - a huge time difference in cultural terms. Many things in the books would feel very jarring to a modern audience if slavishly copied for the film. Tom Bombadil would seem incredibly twee by modern sensibilities, Sam seeming incredibly servile and class concious and a lot of very talky exposition, poetry and song that work well in the book but would be tedious on screen. Not to mention it would end up being much longer!. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting Bombadil and cutting in general makes perfect sense for movie adaptations; much of the movie was very faithful and well done. My main problem was the washed out colors. Substituting Arwen on the ride to the ford made perfect sense. That so much attention was paid to faithfulness made stupid touches like dwarf tossing and the added nonsense with Aragorn being dragged by the hyaena-warg all that much the worse. Those touches in no way improved the movie. That has nothing to do with "different strokes." No person would have left the theater saying I really would have loved the films much more if they had included a Dwarf tossing joke. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of hat needed

Hello,

how do you call this type of hat:

Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An astrakhan hat [4], also known as Karakul (hat) --Xuxl (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edhi Van

What is name of the van used by Edhi foundation in Pakistan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.47 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Edhi Foundation website states that the original 'Poor Patient Ambulance' was a second hand Hillman pickup. A Google image search on 'Edhi Ambulance' shows me that the current fleet mainly consists of Suzuki Carry and something that looks like a Daihatsu Fourtrak. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of Manusmriti

Where do we find the most accurate interpretation of the Manusmriti? Has Dr.BR Ambedkar interpreted it correctly in his Riddles in Hinduism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.26.202 (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of Manusmṛti before now, and I've had only a very cursory look at the page. When it comes to interpretation of these old texts (or new texts, for that matter), who can say that any one interpretation is better or worse than any other? What would "accurate" mean here? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]