Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 9

= September 9 =

staggering consuls
Has any state had a chief executive consisting of two or more persons with staggered terms? The Roman Republic had its two consuls but they were elected together. —Tamfang (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There aren't many countries with multiple equivalent heads of state. The best example I can think of is the Swiss Federal Council, which is a seven-member body which acts collectively as the Head of State of Switzerland; but they are elected together every 4 years.  Some states have a split Head of State/Head of Government roles, each with differing responsibilities (i.e. a President and a Prime Minister); however these roles are not really the same as two or more people equally part of the Head of State role.  Both the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia have rather interesting arrangements for their Heads of State.  In each case, the head of state is elected from among the Monarchs of the constituent states of the nation.  Still, in those cases there is still a single Head of State representing the whole confederation; though they are elected from among a group of Heads of State of the constituent states.  An interesting idea, but I am not sure any state actually used that system.  -- Jayron  32  05:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The head of state of Malaysia isn't elected but is rotated in an historical order. Sleigh (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ancient Sparta traditionally had two kings; it seems logical that their reigns would be staggered, though not by design. Rhinoracer (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * San Marino continues the tradition of the Roman Republic in that it has two heads of state: the Captains Regent. They are, however, also elected together. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly Tanistry is somewhat close to this idea? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Co-Princes of Andorra? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Andorra doesn't really fit the staggered terms either. Terms implies a finite, definable term.  One of the co-princes DOES have a finite, definable term (the President of France) but this is due to coincidence, not design.  The role of the King of France in Andorra descended to the office of President.  The other co-prince, the Bishop of Urgel is appointed to his See like any other Roman Catholic bishop, and does not serve a fixed term. -- Jayron  32  18:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Depending on what the OP wanted, yes I can see that a fixed term may be a requirement. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

insurance
1.what are the individual methods of providing indemnity? 2.explain limitations of indemnity. 3.what are the challenges facing insurance industry in Kenya? 4.explain insurance underwriting claims & its process.sources of information to underwriters.Solit (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * These homework questions can't be answered for you here.--Wetman (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but we can link to some resources that may be useful. See Life table, Mortality rate and Morbidity rate etc. See Medical underwriting,Life Insurance and also Indemnity. ALl these (and the related links/references) should be able to help. As for question 3 - Kenya may have problems that make insurance difficult if there is limited business-trust/enforced regulation. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Referencing
I read somewhere that some hundreds of years ago, an Author attempted to collate books that have ever been written.However, I have forgotten the name of the Author and the title of his work [I think it was something like 'bibliotheque universalis']. Kindly help me, I am really interested in how many books were in existence or were published between 1000BCE and 1500CE. Mark Inyangetuk, National Broadcasting Commission, Abuja - Nigeria. 41.222.209.2 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There was Conrad Gesner's 16th century Bibliotheca universalis. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's it. But remember that many more books were lost in the cultural bottleneck of Late Antiquity than were retained. Encyclopedias, abridgements, epitomes did them in. A good head count of titles only begins with printing: incunabula are well catalogued.--Wetman (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course that is very true. I didn't find any estimates of how many works were in existence at a certain time before printing. Some more articles you might like to read, Mark: Callimachus's Pinakes, and the article on Johann Albert Fabricius. I didn't find an article on the history of bibliography on Wikipedia---Sluzzelin talk  13:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, any discussion regarding the numbers of books from antiquity to exist will eventually lead to the Library of Alexandria, so I may as well point you there to beat the rush. :-). The OP may also want to check out Great libraries of the ancient world and follow some of the links there. Matt Deres (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the Siku Quanshu, though I very much doubt that's what you were referring to. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nineteenth-century artists
Nineteenth century artists promoted the medieval view of momankind as the seducer and destroyer of mankind explain this view —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlenelangley (talk • contribs) 18:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Has someone been telling you something negative about Moominkind? -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Moomins are the destroyer of mankind! Those creatures terrified me as a child. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 01:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Role of mistresses in royalty
So, watching an episode of Doctor Who has had me thinking about Madame de Pompadour and various other mistresses of royalty and more specifically, kings. And also, the queens. I'm looking for "a day in the life of" sort of stuff here. Would the king sleep in his own room with the mistress? Or in her apartment/room? Or would he be alone? During the day, would he spend his free time with both women (same time or separate)? What about heirs? Would he only have sex with the queen enough to get her pregnant? According to our article, Louis XV of France had 11 kids by his wife but he also had a large number of mistresses, so this has me just a little confused. Were the mistresses looked down upon by anyone? I don't suspect so since M. de Pompadour seems to have had so much influence. I've never been one to care about royalty but the social/marital arrangement has me curious. If you'd like to base your responses around Louis and M. de Pompadour, that's fine since they're the ones who inspired the questions. Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 21:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to sleeping arrangements, the king, the queen, and each of the (principal) mistresses would generally have their own bedchambers, antechambers, dressing rooms, and possible sitting rooms too, separate from the State Rooms where the royal marriage bed (or the lit de justice or some other ceremonial bed) might be. People would come and go in the night more or less as they pleased. It was fairly common knowledge at court when (for example) Charles II was sleeping with the Duchess of Portsmouth, and when with Nell Gwyn or Hortense Mancini - and equally common knowledge that he very rarely slept with his wife, Catherine of Braganza. John Evelyn reported that only a few days before his death, Charles was up and about in the day time with several of his mistresses in attendance. This would tend to indicate that kings kept social company with their mistresses quite openly.
 * Similarly, when Marie Antoinette arrived at Versailles, she was appalled at the favour shown to Louis XV's mistresses; she had been raised at the strictly Catholic court of Maria Theresa, who disapproved fiercely of such things. So, to answer another of your questions, the queen and the wife of the heir apparent might reasonably look down on mistresses, no matter elevated those mistresses were. (And I recall from the same source - Antonia Fraser's book on Marie Antoinette]] - that the king, queen, and principal mistresses all dined together, at least some of the time.) Some monarchs (like James I) only seem to have slept with their wives enough to produce 'an heir and a spare', while others (like Louis XVI and Carlos II) tried for a long time without success. (Louis eventually had an operation and reproduced; Carlos got through two wives without success.)
 * According to Wikipedia, Louis XVI probably did not have an operation; he just needed to be told how to have sex properly. --Anonymous, 23:45 UTC, '09/09/09.
 * (Oh, and 'M. de Pompadour' would be a man's title. The usual shorthand is 'Mme de Pompadour'.) AlexTiefling (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It differed from king to king and era to era, according to the individuals and mores of the time. Since royal or noble marriages were generally dynastic, they were not always successful or fulfilling.  George IV hated his wife and pretty much banished her; he lived with Mrs Fitzherbert instead, who was a companion as well as sexual partner.  He had other mistresses from time to time, as well. We have a rather poor Royal mistress article, plus maîtresse-en-titre, a semi-official position as mistress to kings of France who, apparently, were given their own apartments. Gwinva (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course, the position of "maîtresse-en-titre" gave rise to the phenomenon of the king "cheating" on his official mistress by having a clandestine affair with an unofficial mistress (something that Louis XIV seems to have been fond of)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One point to remember is that medieval castles, and palaces for centuries afterwards, had no corridors. To get from A to B you had to walk through rooms in which anything might be going on, from political intrigues to defecation (hm, not so far, then). Some rooms had privacy (chambers, closets, and cabinets -- all words with alternate definitions), but many did not. The beds had four posters and nice thick curtains. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but the more private rooms would be behind the more public ones. You would have to walk through someone's personal sitting room to reach their bedroom and through that to reach their closet. You wouldn't walk through someone else's bedroom unless you were doing something involving that person. Well, that is true for people with their own apartments. Servants' rooms would be different, as might rooms for junior members of the court (ladies in waiting, that kind of thing). If you go back to Saxon castles, I believe it was common for many members of the court to sleep in the Great Hall. --Tango (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. I can think of pre-Georgian country houses in England -- I know, not Versailles, but germane to the general discussion -- where massive curtained beds sit in rooms with doors connecting them to other rooms, on a wing with no corridors. Think of Hertford House, as well. As for much earlier times, the men who pledged loyalty to Beowulf slept in the hall, on the floor, amidst the rushes and the straw, along with their hunting dogs.  BrainyBabe (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Birth certificates and surnames in the US
I'm thinking specifically of US law here. I don't own any rug rats, so I'm not familiar with the process of filling out birth certificates. When a baby is born, and the birth cert. is filled out, do the parents have the option of giving the kid a different surname than either of the parents? If the parents have a long and ethnic sounding name, can they elect to have their child named Jones, or Smith, or even Doe? Dismas |(talk) 21:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * this is governed by state law, so there's going to be at least 50 different answers. The variables are going to be things like: are parents married? if not, does the father acknowledge paternity? etc. In Louisiana, for example: If married, or divorced for less than 300 days, the father's surname must be used for the child unless an Acknowledgment of Paternity Affidavit is signed by the biological father, the legal father and the mother, in which case the child is given the biological father's surname, or a hyphenated mother-bio father surname (in either order). If the mother is unmarried, the mother's surname must be used for the child, unless the natural father is known (and has acknowledge the child or subsequently married the mother or has been judicially deemed the father) .There is provision for changing the surname based on DNA evidence, within certain time limits. So there may be places where any surname can be used, but there are also places where the choice of surnames at birth is closely regulated. - Nunh-huh 22:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. In general, there's no problem adopting another name or getting it changed judicially as an adult, as long as the intent is not to defraud.  So as an adult Gino Geanakopoulous-Huntington-Osterman-Smythe-Termagant could become Gino Ghost with little problem. - Nunh-huh 22:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. See Chad Ochocinco for a recent famous case of a famous American changing his name.  The principle of "self-determination" holds that you can call yourself anything you want, and have the right to that name to be legally recognized as well.  -- Jayron  32  01:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you but I wasn't asking about adults changing their names. I was looking specifically about what goes on the birth cert. at birth.  Thanks, Nunh-huh for your response.  I should have figured that it would differ from state to state...  Dismas |(talk) 01:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just some OR, but I know personally one family who gave their kids a unique surname, using the first syllable of the father's name and the second syllable of the mother's name (just as one word, not hyphenated). — Michael J  21:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Cbtfcbmm Cvft"[sic] (Languages vs. dialect, round 3)
Just to follow up on the discussion:

@Nil: I am not missing the point. There is a clearcut line between a language and a dialect even when they are part of the same continuum. You can clearly say A is a dialect while B is a language since there's a way you can draw a clear line between a two, even if you can say English and Malay are languages and clearly not dialects of each other: That is called mutual intelligibility. The idea you don't have, is that a language is a category, so a dialect is different, whereas a language composes dialects. You can say there's clearly a difference between light and dark but you can't and you can divide all shades into either light or dark by using saturation. If the gray is less than 50% black, then it's light, if it's more than 50% black, then it's dark, magic, as it seems.174.3.110.93 (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't said where this clearcut line goes, though, unless you mean to say that it should go halfway, that is, at the 50% mark: but for this to be workable, you would need a system of measuring the percentage of mutual intelligibility. Like Nil said, "If you have a way of accurately and consistently measuring you can perhaps put everything into a category..." 81.131.0.113 (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, none of us are novel to language. You can tell if something someone says is something you can understand.  If you were to take that principle, and say "50% of that I don't understand", then you would say that is a language.174.3.110.93 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this is a line of demarcation which is different from person to person. Some kind of survey could be performed to find an average, but how do you decide which group of people should participate in the survey? Speakers of the same language? That is unfortunately circular, since whether they are speakers of the same language or not is what we are trying to establish in the first place. ...You could determine whether any two individuals speak the same language by this method, yes, although it is an arbitrary definition which may go against established habits, that is to say, you may find you redefine things that we currently call dialects as languages by this method. ...It all reminds me of gestalt psychology, specifically the section "Prägnanz" which is to do with deciding what is a distinct set and what isn't. 81.131.0.113 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a random sampling of people would be how you would determine intelegiblity.174.3.110.93 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @OP: I wonder if you have lived through the problem of classification of Chinese? It's a more-or-less unified written language and possibly five or more distinct spoken languages or dialects. The first-level divisions of Chinese might be "languages" by the standard of intelligibility. But intelligibility is a matter of degree, and in the borderlands between the first-level divisions, at least, the lines are often quite blurred. How unintelliglbe does it have to be before it's classified as a separate language? It's often not so clear-cut. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the time it gets to the borderline, it would be a language continuum. I guess then that Chinese languages are continuic.174.3.110.93 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I still can't find the question we are being asked to answer. This appears to be a discussion that belongs elsewhere. // BL \\ (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened is that the discussion was over before I could continue contributing. Wiki law states that you can not move archived questions back on to the reference desk.174.3.110.93 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't this just be added to the intial question? It is without any context here and appears to be just a series of opinions. 03:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did link to the original question; it's right up there in the bluelink.174.3.110.93 (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ideally yes, particularly since the OP seems primarily interested in my reply. If the OP had wanted my response they could have asked on my talk page and I likely would have responded (as mentioned below, I won't anymore after this). At least the OP should provide links back to both questions Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The borderline of course is part of the problem. With light and dark, you can perhaps if you want to create an artificial definition between the two where less then 50% saturation is light and 50% or more is dark. However that is a completely artificial construct which is basically meaningless except for the human need to create categories. It's clearly nonsensical to say that 49.999(infinity minus 1)% is light and 50% exactly is dark and so is 0% light and 100% dark. (In other words 0% and 49.999(infinity minus 1)% light; 50% and 100% dark.) In fact if we look at it scientifically it gets even more complicated. It's unlikely you can measure things that precisely, so in practice you're going to end up with greys that are sometimes light sometimes dark. (Or better, colours who's margin of error falls within both light and dark.) In fact it gets even more complicated when we start to think about what we're actually talking about. What is 100% saturation? I presume we are talking about reflected light here so do you mean something which absorbs all light? What wavelengths? Anyway this is getting a bit OT so back to the original issue. Languages don't tend to have as much continuonity as shades of grey but there's still some. And the same with the shades issue, if you say something is a dialect because it falls within the borderline of your arbitrary definition as is something else very far from the borderline then something else which falls on the otherside of your borderline are languages the same with something very far from the borderline you should hopefully start to realise the limitations of your approach. (You also get the same problem where something falls within both because of the confidence interval of your 'measurement'.) PalaceGuard has mentioned some of the problems with Chinese (which as I mentioned is also I think shared with Malay and Indonesian albeit to a lesser extent and in a different way) which I thought I hinted at in my previous points. To use an example, if you have 3 different languages/dialect it seems to be easily possible that X might be somewhat (over 50%, whatever that means) mutually intelligible with Y and Y with Z, but X barely with Z. Does this mean X and Z are seperate languages but dialects of Y? How does that work? In fact, I doubt languages fall in two dimensions anyway. If you have 4 languages/dialects maybe A and C are somewhat mutually intelligibility to B but not each other (similar to XZ-Y). You may think of A and B as opposite ends of C. But what if D is somewhat mutually intelligible to C but not A and B? Or alternative if D is somewhat mutually intelligible to A and B but not C?
 * P.S. I'm not sure if you entirely appreciate the difficulty of actually measuring what you're discussing. How do these people you randomly sample determine intelligibility? How can you come up with a consistent way? Person A's idea of what is mutually intelligible will be different from person B. There could easily be a difference in what people's idea of mutually intelligible that varies from location to location and from language/dialect to language/dialect? What sort of conversations do you use in determining intelligibility? How do you choose your speakers? How do you 'randomly sample'? I mentioned the Kelantanese dialect. While Kelantan is a state in Malaysia, I doubt follows the border exactly so you're going to have problems choosing the people who use your chosen test language/dialect. And as has been mentioned, it's likely their version will vary from other people who you've also arbitrarily decided speak the same dialect/language. And what about the fact that some of your sample population has more exposure to it or similar dialects then others? (In other words, their opinions are going to depend on their experience with other dialects/languages rather then just the dialects/languages your trying to test. These are some of the many issues which make considering such a test pointless IMHO.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did link to the original question.174.3.110.93 (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, a lot of your arguments are based on speculation.


 * Let's examine them one by one.


 * First, you may be confusing that I take languages and dialects as varieties that on the same intelligibilty level, or taxon, if you will.


 * Let's take English. When one refers to English, they are actually referring to Englishs that people understand to a degree with out losing the idea-behind-the-words.  Some people use British spelling while others use American spelling; ironically, we can both understand these Englishs.  Even though these are dialects.  Another example is I would recommend you take a look at some earlyScots writings.  It's like in the history of scots article or something.  I could still read what they are talking about.


 * The other problem is that may be you think that I think of language, or linguistics (or language in the linguistic sense), like a number line. No.  I don't believe language is like that.  I believe language is like a tree, or like in biology, the tree of life.  Languages branches off one another and twigs branch off of those.  So no, I do not realize the limitations of my approach.


 * Second, the confidence interval of your 'measurement'? I have no confidence interval of my measurement.  There is no estimation in "my" method.  You do it until you get the percentage, or an estimation of that percentage.  And no, this is not physics, you can not calculate a margin of error.


 * Third, using your example: X and Z could very possibly be separate languages, as well as Y. There is a linguistic phenomenon where vocabulary can be extremely similar, but languages are defiantly not related.  A somewhat good example, but not very good, is Korean and Chinese (and I suspsect Mandarin, but the articles does not state).  Korean shares 60% of it's vocabulary with Chinese, or rather, Korean vocabulary is 60% Chinese.  Genetic linguistics has establish that Korean (the Korean spoken during Silla period) was definitely related to the Japanese spoken at the same time.  Presently there is a debate where these are language isolates, or if Japanese and Korean constitute a language family.  And just to keep on track, Chinese is not included.


 * Fourth: "If you have 4 languages/dialects maybe A and C are somewhat mutually intelligibility to B but not each other (similar to XZ-Y). You may think of A and B as opposite ends of C." Did you mean "You may think of A and C as opposite ends of B."?


 * (This fourth) (Your) situation is what is found in a lot of language continua. Germany is the best example.  I think we haven't done enough research in this area, but in some valleys of germany, people can not understand the german spoken in the next valley.


 * For you postscript, I don't think anyone, would just go to a country and start asking people questions about language. I am almost completely certain that preparation, specifically research work, goes into a "grammer book" of a language before jumping in to this foreign territory and madly stenographing the target language.


 * The people that I'm randomly sampling are not the people who determine intelligibility. I almost think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.  How do you choose your speakers?  I choose them by randomly sampling them.  How do you 'randomly sample'?  I pick names out of a hat.


 * Your last argument hinges on the fact that having exposure to different dialects and languages will affect how they speak the language-to-be-tested. Let's take English.  If we were to apply the same test to a random sampling of English speakers, the english would be uniform, and if it was not uniform it would not be very intelligible.  Actually, no, it wouldn't be intelligible, or that all the other randomly sampled testsubjects will define the nonconformist as the, TBH, non English.174.3.110.93 (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The original question was why Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian are called languages when the term dialects would be more apropriate from a scientific point of view. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the context, TomorrowTime. It remains a discussion where the OP appears to be more interested in airing his/her views than in getting an answer. Any answer might be best found on the Language Desk. // BL \\ (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For future reference, the original question was Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 July 15 followed up by Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 July 24 which the OP linked to. I'm actually surprised I keep seeing these, since I don't check out the RDH all the time but I guess I do check it enough that it isn't that improbable. In any case, I agree the OP seems to be fixed in their view so these two will be my last replies to the question Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A language is a dialect with an army and a navy. There really is no other answer. --Tango (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Being cute definitely has it's merits.


 * The answer is linguistic, mutual intellgeabitly.174.3.110.93 (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the answer is political. Spanish and Portuguese are mutually intelligible to a large extent, but nobody doubts that they are separate languages. That is because of the political influence of those Spain and Portugal at relevant points in history. --Tango (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually the lexicon is shared by a large percentage, but the phonology is not mutually intelligible. And you admit it yourself.  That criterion is political and not linguistic.174.3.110.93 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's rather notorious that Portuguese speakers generally find it easier to understand Spanish speech than Spanish speakers do with Portuguese speech, so there's a one-way intellegibility factor (not just mutual intelligibility)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe i should say intelligiblity, or linguistic intelligibility, or linguistic-intelligibility, or linguisticintelligibility.174.3.110.93 (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)