Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 1

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

Ancestor

I was watching Dogma on Comedy Central and Bethany is told that she is the Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand neice of Jesus Christ (11 greats and 1 grand). At first I thought nothing of it, but later I was talking to my father on the phone and for some reason or another we got talking about our family tree. He said tht my own great-great-grand father was born in 1856. This is when it hit me that it really doesn't add up that a current day's person's great^11-grand uncle couldn't reasonably be from c.2000 years ago. It would be from more like 1150 based upon my family's average. Could, possibly, Jesus Christ be some modern-day person's great^11-grand neice (going by the movie, not any religious doctrine), or did the writer of the movie just assume that 11 greats souded old enough? schyler 02:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (p.s. I checked with my grandfather if his grandfather was born in 1856 and he said I was correct (after looking it up in his books because computer are too "new age and hard to figure out")).schyler 02:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember that the length of a generation is basically the average reproductive age. For many calculations like this in modern times, a generation is often assumed to be about 25 years, so 4 generations per century, and 40 generations per millennium. Median reproductive age in earlier eras might be slightly less, but not enormously so. It would take roughly 80 generations to go back 2000 years. alteripse 02:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So great^79-grand uncle would Jesus to a modern-day person, right? schyler 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Something like that. Of course, some men are capable of having children quite late in life, so you could have as few as around 25 generations down the male line. But 11, generations, no way, that would require an average age of around 180 at the birth of each child. StuRat 10:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Even Moses only lasted until he was 120.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Could, possibly, Jesus Christ be some modern-day person's great^11-grand neice..?" No, unless his gender was other than commonly understood and if we rule out time travel.Edison 20:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that having a character say 'great' eleven times when describing the relationship was considered funny, and having them say 'great' seventy nine times was considered boring. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Truman's letters

After President Truman left office, he wrote a large number of letters to various persons- colleagues, friends and enemies; where he wrote how he really felt about them, and so on. These letters ultimately remained unsent. Is there a good collected source of these collected somewhere other than the Truman presidential library? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this collection contains some of the unsent letters: Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman---Sluzzelin 11:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing posts

Has anyone else noticed posts going missing on these pages? Like you click on an item in your watch list by UserXXXX, and it aint there? Im posting this msg on all ref desks.--Light current 11:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't noticed entire posts going missing, but what I have noticed is that sometimes someone will reply to a question and the text will simplt not show up on the page. You go to the edit page and the text they entered is there in the box, but not on the page and the page needs to be resaved for the answer to be able to be seen. schyler 12:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, but please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Archive dump. No need to post on all desks, just take your question there if you are still missing something.--Shantavira 12:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of India

I'm quite sure that British-India did not have a coat of Arms, otherwise memorials for the coronation as Emperor of India for George V would depict that coat of arms and not the British one. Is that true? But I can't imagine that the Kingdom of India had no coat of arms. What arms were used for this period?--Hannesde Correct me! 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The traditional coat of arms is really more of a European tradition. I see you have already found the emblem of India article. That emblem goes back a long way. I'm not aware of any coat of arms for India as such.--Shantavira 14:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

engagement rings

What is the prime season for buying/not buying engagement rings? I heard that the price can realy drop if you know when to buy them. Thanks

You'd best ask a jeweller. One would expect the spring to be a popular time to get engaged, and the autumn/fall to be slightly less popular, but not by much. Most humans are in the mood all year round. The marriage/honeymoon season is far more pronounced. I would be surprised to see a significant change in price, and I would be surprised if speculative seasonal purchasing could be profitable, otherwise all the jewellers would be doing it themselves.--Shantavira 15:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

actually I think he ment prices as in gold and crystal / other jewels and usually the gold price is down most during the summer season

My opinions:

Some people, both men and women, are legitimately concerned about the political machinations behind the diamond production process, especially in Africa (blood diamonds). Since the only diamonds many people ever buy or wear are in engagement rings, not buying a ring whose diamond comes from one of those areas could be a legitimate political statement. This can be avoided by buying a diamond from Canada (guaranteed cruelty-free and of excellent quality) or a second-hand ring. Most real gemstones are mined in poorer countries, so you have the same problem with them as well unless you buy second-hand or deliberately choose a gemstone mined in a country with a good human rights record.

Some young men, however, are offended by the existence of engagement rings. They see it as a ripoff, and blame stupid (and obviously vastly inferior) women for being brainwashed by TV ads. They sometimes cloak this in a concern for the 'blood diamond' problem. As I said, that is a legitimate concern, but usually these guys don't really believe in it; they're just using it as an excuse. This is obvious when they won't buy a Canadian-mined cruelty-free diamond or a used ring. It's also obvious when they spend $10,000 a year on car accessories, satellite radio, porn, game cartridges, game systems, computer systems, software, etc., but whine that diamond rings are "unimportant".

In my experience, most women see the engagement ring differently than these men do. They may feel that a man who won't buy them an engagement ring, or who (worst of all - I cannot describe the disgust this idea sends through me) insists on one in glass or crystal, is in reality cheap and self-centered, especially if he has money for computers, game systems, etc. They assume he's saying she has no value to him, that his porn collection or his game system are more important to him than she is. It's a huge slap in the face and a huge blow to the ego.

The idea that it has to cost two months' wages is an advertising ploy. If you can't afford a new ring, buy a used one. --Charlene.fic 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And only after posting that do I realize that you wrote "season", not "reason". I have to learn to read better! Sorry! The best time to buy one, new or used, is in the summer. People break up in the summer more so there are more used diamonds on the market, and wedding season is over so retailers are getting rid of their old stock.

Sorry again!!! --Charlene.fic 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about ENGAGEMENT rings, but in the States "wedding season" is June. May through July are some of the most expensive months for any major events due to the high number of weddings and graduations, as well as vactioning families. I would imagine that buying the ring sets would be more expensive in the preceding months, and that prices in engagement rings rise just before Valentine's Day Russia Moore 02:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the value of an engagement ring is about the same, new or used. It's based on the gold and the value of the stone. Diamonds are not the only stone that can be used in an engagement ring, although twentieth century marketing did make them very popular. Plenty of people buy settings and stones separately - one of my relatives has a beautiful ruby. Durova 04:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Requesting help for article on Jean-Marie Le Pen : did he speak to(and support) Russian extremists, who went to fight in Iraq in 2003?

Hello, [1] This is a question of mine on the talk page of Jean-Marie Le Pen. I still don't have an answer.

I am quite certain that in 2003 (or late 2002) I saw images of Le Pen in Russia. He attended a conference of Russian (far-right) extremists who wanted to go to Iraq to help them fight the USA (and its allies). He obviously supported their cause. I have never put this in the article itself because I still don't have a source. Can anyone help me out? Thanks!

Evilbu 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Le Pen is a friend of Russian nationalist Sergey Baburin (and also of Vladimir Zhirinovsky). He seems to have visited Baburin in February 2003, but, according to this antifascist website, Le Pen specifically asked that no pictures be taken. I didn't find anything mentioning his support of troops fighting against Iraq's invaders. Le Pen and Baburin criticized the USA and its allies, but then so did Putin and Chirac. For further research, keep in mind that Baburin is spelled Babourine in French. ---Sluzzelin 09:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A comment from Russia. I don't think Baburin is particularly "nationalist". For Western observers, every Russian politican not supporting Bush is a "nationalist". From what I have seen of him on TV, Baburin is not very radical. As for Zhirinovsky, he prides himself on friendship with Le Pen and talks about it whenever possible, but then he's just a clown. I don't think it's helpful to call both "extremists" as both are influential members of the State Duma. They are as "extremist" as the archconservative members of the US Senate. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Привет Ghirlandajo. Sorry if this sounds like a silly question, but I can swear that I once heard that the whole Жириновcкий (Zhirinovsky) thing was finally revealed to be a giant hoax, and that Zhirinovsky was actually working for Yeltsin, and his job was to play on the absurdity of the Russian right-wing, thus scaring Russians into voting for the more "moderate" Yeltsin. I'm the furthest thing from a conspiracy theorist, but as you say, he's quite a clown! His propositions are well beyond the absurd, but rather the pure definition of insanity. Even Hitler, insane and evil as he was, wouldn't dare make such totally freakish proposals as Zhirinovski has, for if he did, he'd lose his credibility among the German people and immediately be labeled a totally insane laughingstock, and stripped of his führer status. Zhirinovsky's proposals were actually so insane that it even got me, a complete conspiracy skeptic, to actually start wondering if he was indeed a "professional" clown hired by Yeltsin. Would you have any information one way or the other? Болшοй cпасибо. Loomis 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unknown Audio

What is this from?

Thanks. schyler 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's "from" anything. It is a brief self-contained piece that is a musical form of an exclamation mark, much like the British English "hear hear".  --Lambiam^Talk 16:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Shave and a haircut.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

New brunswick culture

How was the life style in Nwe Brunwick during the confederation

It was nice. Loomis 18:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I revel in such magnificent conciseness, Loomis, and I look forward to lots, lots, lots more of it. There's hope for you yet.  :) JackofOz 08:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh shut up Jack! And I say that with the greatest of affection. :-) Loomis 00:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Most New Brunswickers lived on farms or in small towns. Many more people lived from farming and lumbering than now. The St. John River was an important transportation route. People generally lived less comfortable lives because they did not have modern appliances or cars. People heated using wood stoves that had to be tended daily. Most of that wood had to be chopped by hand. People lived mainly on locally grown foods. During the winter, they lived on food that could be stored for months, such oats (for porridge), dried beans, and potatoes, turnips, and other root crops that could be stored in a cellar. A good way to learn more would be to visit King's Landing [2] Marco polo 14:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cholera

In 1850s Britain, which cures of cholera were there which worked? Computerjoe's talk 16:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Death or recovery. That's about it. White Guard 23:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

English in Europe

How many countries in the EU speak English fluently besides the UK & Ireland.

How many countries still depict signs of racism against the asians ?

This'd be better off at WP:RD/L. Computerjoe's talk 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why it be better off? This is an age of freedom & democracy. Recently there was a story that made big news in Russia of an indian medical student being murdered.

What is the cause for such nonsensical acts of intolerance being propogated?

I don't know of any countries in the EU that can speak English fluently. In fact I don't know of any countries in the world that can speak English fluently. Come to think of it, I don't know of any countries in the world that can speak any language, to any degree. Now if you want to ask about the people who live in those countries... Loomis 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a topic to this thread? Or did the original poster forget to sign his post, thus giving others the oportunity to seem to speak in his name? I'll ignore the weird second question and remark that the ability to speak English well (though not quite necessarily fluently) depends to a large degree on having movies (most of which are in English) on tv in the original language (with subtitles). This is the case in the Netherlands and Belgium and I believe also in Denmark. DirkvdM 19:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, why is that our northern and our southern neighbours don't understand our country.... In Flanders they use subtitles for everything except the Teletubbies, in Wallonia they dub movies, interviews... The consequences are obvious.Evilbu 20:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it you, Dirk, who was lecturing the rest of us about feeding trolls/terrorists? :) The first two completely unrelated questions were clearly the work of the same troll, as was that total non-sequitur of a rejoinder concerning "freedom and democracy". (Huh? What's "freedom and democracy" got to do with Wikipedia's rules? By that same logic, one would be unable to play, say, chess in a "free and democratic" country, as the rules of chess clearly restrict the players' "freedom" to move their pieces wherever they wish). That's why I answered the obviously trollish "question" with a suitably matching disrespectful response.

But as I said last time, even trolls can provide interesting topics to discuss. I agree with what you've said Dirk, but I think you've left something out. It's true that the Dutch and the Danish tend to be quite fluent in English. I just think that the answer has more to do with the raw number of native speakers of a given language. As Evilbu has taught me, there are only a bit over 20 million Dutch speakers in the world, compared to, say, almost 150-200 million French speakers. You mentioned the Belgians, I've never actually done any direct research into it, but I'd bet that the Dutch speaking Flemings are far more fluent in English than the French speaking Walloons. Whereas French-speakers seem to have the "critical mass" to manage to live their entire lives in the western world entirely in French without necessarily ever having to learn English, (though of course it helps,) it would just seem to be impossible to do so in Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norweigian, or even Hebrew for that matter. In such countries, namely the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway or Israel, having a working knowledge of English would seem to be a requirement to get by in the work environment, as well as to be able to sufficiently educate oneself in whatever areas one pleases. Wikipedia is a perfect example. I'm sure the Dutch version is extremely limited. In fact, I've looked around in the French version (the only other language I can speak and understand reasonably well), and even the French version just plain sucks. I could just imagine how bad the Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norweigian or Hebrew versions are. As well, you've mentioned before a few things you've read up on, Dirk, such as Che Guevara's biography, etc. How much should I bet that you've read those works in English, because a Dutch translation just wasn't available? But the reverse is also true, while on the one hand, it's great to be a native English speaker, as you can use English to communicate with more people on the planet than with any other language, on the other hand, it tends to be a handicap when attempting to learn a new language, or even master a second one. (Damn those French! In all the time I spent there, in France, speaking damn good French, (not perfect, but damn good!) the moment they heard the slightest bit of an English accent, they switch to English! How am I supposed to master my French if they keep switching to English!) I got so pissed off in Paris once, at some Burger King I think, that when they switched to English I said quite simply: "Je m'excuse, mais je ne comprend rien en anglais!" ("I'm sorry but I don't understand any English!") I guess the point I'm trying to make here is to all you non-native English speakers who think that English speakers are both arrogant and ignorant for "apparently" not bothering to learn your native language. Trust me! We try! It's just REALLY, REALLY hard to learn a foreign language when everyone keeps switching to English! Loomis 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It was Che's diary and I read it in Spanish. DirkvdM 07:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Swedish Wikipedia is indeed much worse than the English (although the German generally seems okay). The number of regularly contributing editors is just too small, I'd guess. 惑乱 分からん 10:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Everytime I can explain the complexity of Belgium to someone else, it makes me happy:)(Loomis, I'm still brewing on a sharp polite response to your last writings:)). In my opinion, what you say about critical mass is very likely to be true for both English and French. I think there are many USA-ers who think English is the only real language and therefore don't really bother, and I don't think the switching problem is a major problem in THAT MANY COUNTRIES. Apart from lack of knowledge in countries like Spain, France, there are people who simply refuse to, and those things occur in the highest positions, on the most important occasions:| ! Read all about it here [3]Evilbu 21:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You frighten me Evilbu! :) "Brewing on a sharp polite response to your last writings." Why do you always make me feel that I've somehow offended you? :)

Voorgoed, Evilbu, natuurlijk many English speakers, Americans in particular are quite chauvenistic about English (many, at least in the recent past, even insisted that they weren't speaking "English", but rather, they were speaking "American"!) We even joke about it up here, about how some "college" somewhere in the deep south was considering creating a "Department of Foreign Languages". (The joke/story is apparently a true one). The whole idea met with great resistance, with picketers holding signs: "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us"!

But let me reassure you Evilbu. As a Canadian Anglophone born and raised in the unilingual French Quebec, (as well as one who prays in Hebrew and whose father's first language is Yiddish), I certainly realize that English most definitely is not the only language in the world. I'm reminded of it every day. Did you know that (unlike in France, or Belgium, or Switzerland, or any other country where French is an official language), in Quebec, the word "Stop" is considered to be too English to be allowed to be posted on a "Stop sign"? The government here must be the only one in the world that is nuts enough to insist that the word "Stop" on "Stop signs" be replaced with the French "Arrêt". So basically, we're probably the only place in the entire world where "Stop signs" are outlawed in favour of "Signaux D'Arrêt". The whole policy is actually too ridiculous to really be taken seriously.

Of course I can't speak for Americans, only for myslef. And as for myself, the "switching" problem is definitely the biggest impediment to mastering foreign languages. I even remember the short while I spent in the Netherlands and Flemming Belgium. Let me tell you, in all seriousness, that it was IMPOSSIBLE to learn any Dutch whatsoever. Not a word. The one word I learned was "natuurlijk", and that was because while in my hotel watching TV, they kept using that word, and the subtitles kept translating it to "naturally". I wish I could have learned more Dutch, but for that I would have had to run into someone who couldn't speak any English! And as you know, in the Netherlands and Flemming Belgium, those people don't exist! France, French Switzerland and Walloon Belgium were only slightly better. At least there were some people there who couldn't speak English, and so at least a couple of times my French actually came in handy. But the whole thing was disappointing. That whole trip to Europe taught me one thing: If you're an English speaker, don't even bother trying to speak the native language, no matter how good you are at it, no matter how sincere you are in willing to improve your ability in it. So long as you aren't COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY fluent in it in every possible way (French in my case), they'll just ignore your attempts and switch to English.

Another couple of anecdotes if I may: Doing my MBA, many of my classmates were Chinese. Not just "East Asian" or "Oriental" but actually Chinese...from China. On many occasions, though, I came upon a couple of my Chinese colleagues to find they were speaking English to each other! Neither of them were fluent in English, so I asked them: "You're both Chinese, right"? "Right" they said. "So why aren't you speaking Chinese to each other"? "Well", one would say, "I speak Mandarin and she speaks Cantonese". "Ok". I said. "But surely one of you, either the Mandarin speaker or the Cantonese speaker is more familiar with the other's native Chinese language than with English!. "Not at all," they each said. The Cantonese speaker said "I can't understand a word of Mandarin", and similarly, the Manadarin speaker said "I can't understand a word of Cantonese". "The only language we both have in common is English!"

Perhaps closer to home for you, we once did a case study on the Nestlé company, based in Switzerland. As I'm sure you know well, (along with the extremely minor language of Romansh,) Switzerland has four official languages, the other three being German, French and Italian. Now Nestlé, being a company with operations in every part of Switzerland, in all linguistic areas, at its head office, was forced to choose a common language to be spoken at corporate board meetings. So what language did they choose? German? French? Italian? Nope. The language chosen to conduct board meetings at Nestlé was the one language that all the board members had at least some familiarity with: English. Loomis 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As much as anything, it depends on demographics - last time I was in Berlin, the Germans would listen to one line from me and immediately take pity and switch into English. On the other hand, when in the Black Forest, we would often be dealing with people who spoke no English at all, so my lousy German was all we had (sometimes took a while, but we always got there ;-)). One of my enduring memories of that trip is a coachload of American tourists in some small village, in the sweetest cuckoo clock shop, demanding of the elderly lady behind the counter at ever increasing volume, "Does it take batteries? BATTERIES? TAKE BADD-ER-IES?!". (Unfortunately, not being able to remember the word for batteries, I didn't offer to help). If you leave the beaten track, or even just the major cities, go out into the smaller areas, or more rural, more conservative areas where the locals are less likely to have the inclination, desire, or need to learn another language, and you'll be more likely to be in a position where you have to speak the local one, or else can't communicate.

To get back slightly closer to the original question, the best English as a foreign language countries are probably Benelux and Scandinavia. I did get told when planning to go to Iceland that whilst everyone in Reykjavik would speak English, very few people in the eastern fjords would (unfortunately not something I got to check). It's worth noting that in a small country with a language of their own (i.e. everywhere I've just listed plus the Baltic states), they'll often use school/university textbooks printed in English or German because whilst the courses are taught in the local language, the printing costs mean it's not economical to write a textbook in the local language. Therefore, they have to learn another language just to study. --Mnemeson 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and something else I just thought of - regarding the concept of a common language for the EU - Alex Stubb argued rather nicely that "Everyone would be content with using English, except for the French. Everyone would be content with using English and French, except the Germans. Everyone would be content using English, French, and German, except the Spanish. And so on 'til Maltese", the EU commission on the other hand argued "Which language should we use? German has the largest number of native speakers in Europe. French is an official language of the largest number of member states (France, Belgium and Luxembourg). English is spoken by the largest number of people, but even there only 48% of EU citizens have even a basic understanding of English". English is a well spoken language, but by all means not by everybody. --Mnemeson 23:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If all have to adapt, then wouldn't it make sense to use a language that is easy for all to learn and has less ambiguities (and thus less chance of misunderstandings)? Like Esperanto? I suppose a problem is that there is too much mobility in especially parliament, meaning that people whoc only spend a few years there still have to learn it. Might still be worthwhile, though, given the adavntages and certainly for the more resident civil servants it would make sense. DirkvdM 07:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah Esperanto, the language of the future, NOT. Face it: is an artificial language which is simply ignored by the wider public. English is being taught almost everywhere and it is THE secundary language for far too many of us. Unless Mandarin somehow manages to gain popularity (quite unlikely, as the Chinese alphabet(s) is quite complicated compared to the Roman one), English is without a doubt THE language of the future, like it or not (being honest I kind'of like it). Every year more and more ppl learn it everywhere, and even if many of us make horrible mistakes (myself included) most of us manage to speak and to write it to a reasonable degree. It is already the official language in soo many countries to be somehow replaced by Esperanto. Blame upon the 2nd WW, Hollywood movies, US music charts, International trade, Globalization, American cultural imperialism (or similar bullshi*) noone can escape this reality: English is already everywhere, and it is here to stay., and don't waste your time longing for a artificial replacement (which in my honest opinion is never going to go anywhere unless goverments somehow impose it). It simply makes no sense to learn Esperanto as English is spoken to such a wide extent. Spare your resources and don't waste your money in learning a language which is simply not as usefull as English. I suspect that almost everyone who learns Esperanto has allready learnt English. Flamarande 09:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC) We are the Imperial Americans. Learn our language, and surrender your culture. We will build a MacDonalds, and sell Hollywood movies to you, besides giving your youth our music to dance for. :)

I was talking about government use, not general use. And don't assume English is the language of the future. Lingua francas have come and gone many times. They always come and they always go. Artificial and other simplified languages heve made it big in various parts of the world, so don't assume no one will ever make it big. DirkvdM 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So goverment employees everywhere should learn Esperanto while the average person is learning English? Dirk, that is indeed a very clever proposal, NOT. And please don't pull the history card, lingua francas come and go, but that notion should never stop us from learning the current one. The impact of English is world-wide and ppl from all classes of society everywhere know it or are learning it (degree and corectness are another mater), this never happened before. The "older" lingua-francas (like latin during the middle ages, or french) were mostly learnt by an alltoo small elite. I must ask you what impact Esperanto had upon the world. Flamarande 13:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced as some of you that the intentions of the questioner are trollish. He may be genuinely upset by, and unable to interpret, what he observes from a distance (a place like Mumbai, say) as a total lack of propriety or care about moral values in Western culture.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer the first question from the original poster: English is one of the two official languages of Malta, along with Maltese. English is also widely spoken in Cyprus. Beyond that, Scandinavians have a reputation in the UK as being likely to speak excellent English. Loganberry (Talk) 12:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And the Netherlands - as we used to say "you know when you've arrived in Holland, because the waiters speak better English than the English". -- Arwel (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside of the tourism sector, where English is virtually a job requirement, fluency in English in European countries other than the UK and Ireland is something of a class phenomenon. In Germany, people with blue-collar or rural jobs tend not to speak much English. There is no need and little use for it. Even in the Netherlands, I have encountered people who do not speak English working in local pharmacies and groceries outside of tourist districts. Oddly enough, I found the lowest levels of English fluency among ethnically non-Dutch people on the southern outskirts of Amsterdam. These are people whose parents came from Suriname or the Dutch Antilles who are first-generation native speakers of Dutch. Some of these people speak Dutch and Sranan Tongo or Papiamento but not English. Marco polo 14:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

well, as a dutch citizen I have to say that over the average taken our english is on a high level. especially compared with countries like France or Germany. and everyone over the age of 12 has basic knowledge about english and can be understood by anyone who speaks english. But even better ; everyone over the age of 18 is SUPPOSED to speak English fluently here. sure we have those people who are natural talents at speaking other (foreign) languages fluently and those who can't no matter how hard they try but as said before over the average we do. And about those groceries and pharmacies. they do speak english but prefer not to since it may or may not be as fluent as that of the others. and it is mainly the generation(s) of the last 2 decades that speak english fluently. Graendal 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC) .

Well, :) even though Dirk was wrong about the subtitles in ALL of Belgium, he was right about the major correspondence, subtitles are used in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Flanders, Finland,.... and their inhabitants are all more or less fluent in English :).Evilbu 17:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop callng dirk and come to the point loomis! There were two independent questions which need to be dealt with independently.

If so, why weren't they asked independently? And please sign your posts (with four tildes; ~~~~) so we can see who is saying what. DirkvdM 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think all of those unsigned comments, including the first two questions, are from Kartikv47...........Evilbu 22:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask a thoughtful, respectful question, and I'll be glad to give you a thoughtful, respectful answer. However, ask a ridiculous unanswerable question, and the best I'll (we'll) do is discuss the issue in general, hoping that WE, can learn from EACH other. "How many countries in the EU speak English fluently besides the UK & Ireland". Now how can that question possibly be answered one way or the other? Each country has a differing level of English fluency among its population. There are no yes or no answers. Only varying degrees. England: Fluent (although visit some neighbourhoods in London and you might wonder about that one!). Elsewhere in the UK and Ireland, fluent, although the various Scottish, Welsh and Irish Celtic languages are encouraged and taught in the schools of those respective countries, along with having bilingual street signs etc...in the hopes of at least holding onto at least some degree (and as a distant hope, perhaps even reviving) their native Celtic languages. The Benelux countries and Scandinavia: Strong tendency towards fluency in English by a large portion of the population. Germany: Less so. France: Even less than Germany etc... (and we haven't even adressed Mnemeson's point about rural vs. urban dwellers). Loomis 07:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Going back to "English is the language of the future", I doubt the latin or South Americans like English much, their leaders like Chavez or the Brazilian dictator (can't remember his name right now) absolutely HATE America and our language. They consider English to be an American invention, and that, therefore, makes it odious and imperfect. Even though they will probably learn it, they resent it (their stop signs don't say stop either:)). | AndonicO 12:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They don't hate America, they are simply envious and cheap politicians always want to gain easy votes. Therefore, they like to blame the USA for the all problems of their country and always bang upon the drum of patriotism. The voting masses like to hear that crap and like to blame "somebody else" for all their woes. Just ignore the corruption and incompetence of their national politicians and poor education. NO, the fault of everything bad happening HAS to be of the USA (current religious and political Dogma of so many of us). Ok, it isn't as easy as that and the USA is indeed guilty of many things but you can get the drift.

If I were Hugo Chavez, I'd hate America, the country which tried to have me killed. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, you can notice that English is so powerful that almost everywhere politicians are choosing a side (Yes or No, depending upon the pools and votes) and are unable to ignore it. Spanish is one of the most wide-spread languages on this planet but, as far as I know, it isn't spreading to other countries. If you don't agree please show me another language who is considered the language of international trade and politics. Show me another language who is being taught in soo many countries (as a secondary language). Just look at Wikipedia: the English Wiki has almost as many articles as all the others combined, and I believe the English articles are normally much more improved. This is achieved not only by "native-English-speakers", this is mainly achieved by soo many users from "other-than-English-speaking-countries" who have learned English as secondary language in school (myself being one of them). It is the same in World of Warcraft. STUFF cheap patriotism, and Anti-USA rethoric, I like English because it is the best language to know if you are interrested in traveling, and communicating with ppl from other countries. Flamarande3:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A PBS program a few years ago pointed out the origins of English on the continent, and said "Good milk and good cheese is good English and good Fries." Is this true? What other Friesian is similar to English?Edison 15:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree about Esperanto. How much of the world population has any understanding of Esperanto whatsoever? I'd estimate a fraction of one percent. So the decision rests upon: which is more likely? Having 99+% of the world learn an entirely new and unfamiliar language (which by the way, is far from culturally neutral, it's a heavily Eurocentric language), or have approximately 50% of the world use a language they're already somewhat familiar with to varying degrees, (English), and have the other 50% gradually accustom themselves to it. I hope this isn't taken as anglocentrism, just plain common sense. It makes no sense to me to expect the entire world to adopt a completely foreign, artificial, Eurocentric language, when English is already becoming the clear, world, lingua franca (possibly temporarily, but I don't see how its longevity is relevant). In a sense, Esperanto is actually quite similar to Marxism: Sounds great in theory, but in reality it doesn't stand a popsicle's chance in hell of ever working. :-) Loomis 05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, they can defend Esperanto as much as they want but English is simply winning everywhere (simply stating a fact). It is the same with kilometers versus miles or kilos versus pounds, we already know which side is going to win, with some ppl just delaying the inevitable. About the charge of Eurocentric might I remind that it was Europe (Portugal, Spain, Great-Britain, the Netherlands, and France, etc) who discovered and linked the world? We live in a heavily Europe-influenced world like it or not (I am not discounting the current political and economical influence of the US, China, India, and Japan). The current victory of English is also due the Britsh Empire and not solely of the USA. Flamarande 09:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

By pointing out that Esperanto is Eurocentric, I wasn't attempting to charge its supporters with any sort of racism or sense of cultural superiority or anything negative like that. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "Eurocentric" when what I meant to say was that Esperanto is made up almost exclusively of languages having originated in Europe. Therefore, I meant to include all of the Americas, as well as Australia, since these places too are "European-language-speaking". (Mainly English, French, Spanish and Portuguese, with a dash of Dutch for flavour). I was merely pointing it out for reasons of pragmatism. With over a third of the world's population living in India and China alone, I just don't see how an artificial language based on a combination of several European languages could have any hope of taking off, especially since most Europeans themselves have absolutely no familiarity whatsoever with Esperanto. Loomis 13:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Are eyeglasses considered a machine?

nt ChowderInopa 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote the opening sentences of article machine:

A machine is any mechanical or organic device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of tasks. It normally requires some energy source ("input") and accomplishes some sort of work.

So I would say no. Picaroon9288 18:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On another note, this page is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Your question should've been in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. If you want a better answer, you're more likely to find one there. (We're more likely to tell you who was recorded using eyeglasses first - Nero, and other things relating to humanities.) Picaroon9288 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition seems a bit broad. since by it anything is a machine, and nothing is a machine. Matter transmits energy to varying degrees, so any matter solid, liquid or gas is a machine by it. Vacuum transmits energy, as in radio messages from the International Space Station to earth, or solar energy from the sun to the ISS, so vacuum is a machine. Edison 15:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud and Nathaniel Hawthorn

can sigmund freud's theory of repression relate to the short story of Nathaniel Hawthorn's "Young Goodman Brown"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.126.94 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 October 2006

If your professor has asked the question, the answer of course is "of course", but the how is up to you. alteripse 22:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC) PS, no one but English professors takes Freudian theory seriously these days (see Frederick Crews's book on the topic. alteripse 13:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it can. 24.193.106.197 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the proper pronunciation for...

Moved to the Language reference desk.

Who painted this and what is the piece called?

Knight

I'm looking for the artist and title of this piece. I first saw it in an Honors English Literature text at my high school back in 1995 alongside a story about Sir Gawain. No one I know still has the book and all I have been able to figure is that it may have been painted by a pre-Raphaelite (from an art friend of mine)

I'm looking to have a tapestry made of it by the people at www.purecountry.com, and appreciate all the help you might offer.

Thank you in advance!

Joe

Your friend's right, it is Pre-Raphaelite. It's La Belle Dame Sans Merci by John William Waterhouse - see this link. --Nicknack009 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict!) I won't repeat the info! Here's a bit more: painted in 1893. Currently in Hessisches Landesmusuem, Friedensplatz 1, Darmstadt, Germany.[4] Based on the poem of the same name by John Keats. Tyrenius 22:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Waterhouse was not a member of the original Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (he was not born till 1849, the year after it was founded) but was a follower in style and content of the original PRBs. Tyrenius 23:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)