Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 July 31

= July 31 =

The use of CAPS in postings on message boards
Is anyone aware of any research into why some people use CAPS to PROVE that the point THEY are trying to make is valid? SOME PEOPLE USE ALL CAPS but seem unaware that this guarantees their message will not be read. What are these people like in real life for instance. Do they drool or are they perfectly normal in appearance? Trieste (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. William Ortiz (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I read all caps messages - mostly, as I understand it people who use all caps are slightly chubby, but otherwise normal.87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of times in legal documents when they start getting into the parts where they intensely disclaim all liability, the text becomes all caps. Maybe they don't want it read, or maybe it's a legal reason, I don't know. William Ortiz (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All caps does make it stand out, as if to say, "See here, we're not throwing teeny tiny boilerplate landuage at you to trick you, we're being very bold in stating this stuff so only a fool can miss it." :-)


 * ISTR some really old computers could only type in caps, but that was sooooo long ago, and I could easily be mistaken.209.244.187.155 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I still occasionally deal with some older IBM AS/400 systems with terminals that do not have lowercase. A pain when you need to do a printer setup and it requires lower case, but we have a workaround.  I detest reading all caps documents, many of which I had to deal with in my previous military career. There have been several studies that show that all caps slows down reading time and accuracy. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where was it somebody said, when argument is weak, shout? Maybe there's method in making something off-putting so you don't read, like the opposite of fine print but having the same effect: tc;dr (too capped...) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We have an article on all caps that could use work. In response to Ed, I've also heard that some illiterate people can make out normal text by recognizing the shapes of words, but can't do this with all-caps.  I don't have a reference, so I'm not positive that's true.  --Allen (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's some commentary on that subject. Incidentally, if you were writing an APL computer program, you could have three cases to choose from!  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 12:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * why do some people write everything lower case, when i see this it usually deteriorates 2 sum barely legible dross which i h8 2 hav 2 reed?
 * We have an article on the probable reason for that one at laziness. :-)  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 13:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If writing can be considered a form of enlightenment, the middle path seems to be the appropriate choice. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of all-caps on a message board (or anywhere else online) is considered shouting. At most, words in all-caps should be used sparingly; an occasional capitalized word for emphasis is fine, but leaving the caps-lock on is just plain annoying and rude. - AJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.227.218 (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Musical notation for falsetto?
I've got some experience singing in choirs and such, and I've always wondered about this. Is there any kind of standard or accepted notation to indicate to the performer that a passage should be sung in falsetto? Whenever I've seen that direction, it's usually just printed as "in falsetto". It just strikes me as being unusually verbose, since most other directions are abbreviations (e.g., "p" for piano, "8va", etc.) or little symbols (e.g., the little "segno" sign, repeat signs, etc). The falsetto article doesn't mention anything about the notation. Dgcopter (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My favorite orchestration book (Blatter, Alfred (1980). Instrumentation/Orchestration. New York: Schirmer Books.) indicates that falsetto is simply called for by writing “falsetto” over the staff, or by writing the passage in a range in which the singer is forced to use falsetto. "Piano", "8va", etc. are abbreviated simply because they are used so often that everybody knows what is meant. It’s not at all uncommon for special techniques to be indicated by simply writing the word over the staff. For instance on string instruments “ponticello” (bowing near the bridge), col legno (bowing with the wood of the bow) and for singers whispering or humming would also be indicated similarly. In fact any technique which is not extremely common in generally notated this way. Why make things any more complicated than they have to be? You might also be interested in the Vocal extended technique article. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, how would the return to a "normal", unfalsified voice be indicated after a falsetto passage in a score? (a voce normale ?) ---Sluzzelin talk  16:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Writing “nat.” (for natural) is the common practice. If the passage is short a bracket may instead been drawn after the technique indication. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dedalus! ---Sluzzelin talk  11:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

romans and fear of losing their desire
I read in a book that the Romans were afraid of losing their desire, which was used to explain their potential for extreme licentiousness. The book was a list of weird jobs in ancient times, and that came from the entry on "orgy planners." Is the claim true? It&#39;s Been Emotional (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure someone in the thousand years of Roman history was afraid of that at some point, and someone probably wrote it down somewhere (likely in a satire). And then someone took one possibly satirical quote and used it to generalize about all people in an ancient society. And I bet the book sold pretty well, too! So, no, of course they didn't all think that. The Romans were usually extremely socially conservative (by modern standards), they liked to think they were all yeoman farmers with their one wife and numerous children, and they didn't drink or philosophize or any of that fancy Greek stuff. Examples of licentiousness are usually moralizing stories of improper behaviour, satire, or simply slander. (But I see I've just generalized them all the opposite way; of course they weren't all uptight and repressed.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)
 * Prudish Roman sexual mores and celibate Christian moralists are both put into a general context in Paul Veyne, ed. A History of Private Life: I. From Pagan Rome to Byzantium. It's available in a hefty paperback.--Wetman (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Yes, I'm aware of the traditional Roman style epitomised by Cincinnatus, but what about the aristocracy and imperial dynasties under the likes of Nero? Could there not have been a more consistent approach to depravity amongst a limited and powerful group? And is it true that they hired orgy planners? If so, surely that would show a current of (im)morality that at least is in stark contradiction to the yeoman farmer with one wife and many children, if not answering the original question about desire. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For examples of crazy emperors, try Caligula in the first century and Elagabalus in the third century. I would not be surprised if "orgy planner" was a real job during their reigns. But then, do we really know what they were like? The sources are hostile and one-sided, so claims of gross immorality may not be true. (I don't know enough about the Romans, unfortunately, but the biases of contemporary chroniclers are a problem for all periods of history!) The book you mentioned at the beginning, what is it called? Does it have any footnotes or a bibliography? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much again. I don't think the book was all that scholarly, ie. no footnotes I'm pretty sure, but it may have had a bibliography. The book was an A-Z look at weird or interesting jobs throughout history, and was called something like "Wanted: Orgy Planner," with a more descriptive subtitle. Clearly not aimed at university professors, It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)