Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 6

= August 6 =

Descendants of John of Gaunt
An obituary in our local newspaper for a gentleman whose last name was "Gaunt" said that he was a descendant of John of Gaunt. How likely is it that any of the descendants of John of Gaunt had the last name of Gaunt? The obituary also said, he was a descendant of "Deboun Knights of Normandy". I have no idea what that means. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As a very back-of the envelope calculation to your first question, if we assume that an average generation is 25 years, then John of Gaunt lived 27 generations ago. If we assume that all male lines kept the name, all females lines lost it, and each generation has a 50/50 chance of having boys or girls, I would guess that one out of 134 million (2^27) of his descendants would have the name.  That said, after 27 generations you could easily have tens of millions of descendants, so it's not surprising that some of them are going to be in a line that keeps the title. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But did any of his children use the surname "Gaunt"? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * John of Gaunt's family name wasn't Gaunt, it was Plantagenet. There is a proven genealogical line from John of Gaunt to people who are alive today, it is called the Royal genealogy, as the current queen Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of John of Gaunt.  It is more likely that this gentleman's family get their name from the actual place Gaunt (modern-day Ghent).  The chances that this gentleman was a direct descendant from John of Gaunt is somewhere between extremely unlikely and not at all. --  role player 01:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I don't understand the math of family trees, but if every generation had a few kids for 700 years, the number of descendants (before inbreeding) would outnumber the population of the UK, so the math seems to sugest that it would be unlikely for anyone from the same region of the world to not be descended from him. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually about two thirds of the population of the UK are descended from the Royal family somewhere along the line, however very few are able to prove it. --  role player 01:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also a statistician once calculated that based on demographics and migration patterns there is a very high statistical likelihood that everyone in Europe is a direct descendant of Emperor Charlemagne: . In fact for a while I have felt like creating a userbox that says "This user is a direct descendant of Charlemagne", and then anyone with European ancestry can bung it on their user page.  The distinction of course is when you make that claim and someone says, "OK so prove it".  I have spent years researching my family tree and I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that I am a direct descendant of Norman nobility.  I therefore find it laughable when someone makes this claim and they get caught out by the simple mistake of not checking whether Gaunt was actually the guy's surname or not. --  role player 01:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a userbox saying "This user is certain within a 95% confidence interval to be descended from Confucius, Muhammad, and a Pharaoh." —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to your second question I think Deboun in this context is a misspelling of the Norman name de Boun (in French de Bohon), and I can confirm that there certainly were Norman knights with this family name who took part in medieval battles. Humphrey de Bohon was a Norman nobleman who died before 1093: see, for example.  However given that this gentleman believed himself to be a direct descendant of a man with the last name Plantagenet because he carried the last name Gaunt I'm not holding my breath for a legitimate genealogy linking him to the de Bohon knights. --  role player 01:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * More usually spelled Humphrey de Bohun by the way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew that *cough* --  role player 18:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Surnames were not fixed at the time of John of Gaunt and weren't actually a requirement until the time of Henry VIII. Maybe this family adopted the "Gaunt" surname to preserve a link with a well known personality. Alansplodge (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comparatively unlikely - John of Gaunt's legitimate children bore the pseudo-surname 'of Lancaster' and were considered to form part of the English royal house of Plantagenet; his children by Katherine Swynford who were subsequently legitimised bore the surname 'Beaufort', as did their descendants in several generations; and his one known unlegitimised bastard was called Blanche Plantagenet, but married a man called Morieux. I support the earlier suggestion that the surname Gaunt, if it does not literally mean someone who had a gaunt appearance, would indicate a commoner or minor noble emigrant from Ghent. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You may like to peruse this: Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal. It only goes up to the early part of the last century, so to make the connection you would have to do some elementary genealogy research. Incidentally, John of Gaunt is in my family tree too! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Justifications for peacetime promotions in the military?
I'm curious about the justifications given for promotions within a country's armed forces during peacetime. While I understand that the further up the ladder you go the further removed you become from the bloodshed, and the more your work mirrors that of a leader in a regular corporation (planning, forecasting, product management, etc.) - I'm still interested in how promotions are portrayed. Wouldn't a promotion for qualities directly demonstrated during wartime be more significant than a promotion during a decade of peace? Do military professionals even care about this? "See that guy? Promoted for flying a desk. Ol' Bill on the other hand, he made (rank) over Bosnia..." 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lots of promotions in the U.S. military are regimented by time of service; while certain things can accelerate or hold up a promotion, at least through the lower non-com and junior officer grades, promotions basically happen within a window of service time, for example it can be expected that a junior officer can be made, say, Captain within 4-7 years of service, and Major within 6-10 years (I made up those numbers, but in general that's how it works). Furthermore, LOTS of the military is not involved in combat situations.  Logistics (getting supplies to people who do the fighting) is a major component of any well run military, and I'm not sure that the people who fire the bullets would appreciate it too much if the people who got the bullets to them weren't doing their jobs well.  I can't imagine that, as a general rule, front line fighters look down upon those that work behind the scenes so that they can do their job... -- Jayron  32  04:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The term you're looking for (US mil) is REMF. In most circumstances as far as I can tell though as an outsider, that only is an issue in certain situations, otherwise military folks generally respect each others' service no matter what it was. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Even for countries that get nowhere near a war themselves they can send their troops off on UN missions and see how their officers fare on them. Coping with emergencies like flood relief can also show peoples' mettle. Dmcq (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Promotion is normally related to performance in the British military all personnel are assesed annually on a range of stuff both technical and how good they are at doing the job. If the service has a vacancy say for six Captains because others have retired or moved up they look at all the candidates, who has done enough time (promotion as has been said sometimes needs x-years minimum service) and who are the best according to their assesments. Certainly wartime performance if any helps the assesment but if the guy or girl have done their time, technically competent and showed better skills in things like supervision and delegation and just being a good worker and good person skills and they are in the top x needed that year they will get promoted when they have a vacancy, sometimes it can take a few years to get to the top of the list. MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a downside to the process (in the British Army) in that there tends to be a shortage of competent senior NCOs (i.e. Non-Commissioned Officers -- Staff Sergeants, Warrant Officers, Sergeant-Majors) because it takes years of progression up the ranks to get that far, and attrition reduces the numbers of those eligible. Consequently, the Army can be reluctant to lose their expertise at these levels by promoting them further to Commissioned Officer ranks (Captain, Major etc) even when their performance and length of service merits it (and the concomitant higher pay), and it sometimes seems to be the case that less accomplished NCOs are the ones promoted to these higher but arguably overpopulated ranks. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Soldiers with combat experience age out, and get replaced by younger ones at various ranks. When the American Civil War started, Union General-in-chief Winfield Scott was too old and fat to get on a horse or to visit battlefields. After the Civil War, 1865 to 1898 was a long time for the US to have kept the same sergeants and lieutenants to then go charging up hills in Cuba. The Civil War lieutenants, if they were still in the army, had likely gotten promotions to higher command. There was skepticism of officer from "the previous war," trying to still fight with the same tactics, with outmoded or dangerous ideas which got soldiers killed and lost battles, besides perhaps lacking the stamina needed to lead soldiers in combat. When WW2 approached, for instance, many military leaders were skeptical that airplanes could damage heavy ships. Allied military leaders did not see the virtues of massed tank formations, and still thought of them as an adjunct to distribute among infantry. The German use of masses of tanks supported by mobile artillery allowed concentration of force that was largely responsible for the swift German conquest of France and Belgium in 1940. Of course there is rarely true "peacetime," and there was for the US the Indian Wars and for the Europeans colonial wars between major conflicts in the 19th century. Edison (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. As with any organization, people will grow old and retire, or die, or leave for other reasons, and promotions will occur to fill those positions. More rapid advancement and expansion obviously is more likely during a major war, but it never stops. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just reading a Wikipedia article a few months ago that involved the very top ranks in the US military, or at least one branch of it; and the article claimed there was a sort of gentlemen's agreement that every officer of a certain rank &mdash; these were generals, basically &mdash; would voluntarily retire after 1 year, specifically to qualify for a higher pension and make way for the next guy in line to get to that rank and, likewise, qualify for a pension. It was considered to be an awful thing for the general to spend any more time at his post than 1 year, because this obstructed the promotions of his (former) peers.  It was very different from the merit-based system I had assumed would exist.  I browsed for a while last night looking for this article but could not find it.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good thing they didn't have that policy during WWII. "Yeh, Ike, we know you'd like to finish Operation Overlord, but Colonel Snafu here needs his promotion." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two comments (not related to the U.S. Army). First, militaries of the past had no mandatory retirement age. It was not uncommon to have active generals over 80 years of age... no wonder they needed some incentive to quit (and others, like Philippe Pétain, needed more than an incentive) and make way to the next generation. Second, many militaries and particularly navies had a very strong concept of seniority. When seniority of a promotion threatened the normal flow of affairs, the natural response was to narrow the gap between "first and last promoted", and this included frequent rotation too. East of Borschov 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

16 districts of Bangladesh
My dad told me that before Bangladesh had 64 districts, it used to have 16 districts. So far, I know 11. They are Greater Pabna (Pabna and Sirajganj), Greater Kushtia (Kushtia, Meherpur and Chuadanga), Greater Bogra (Bogra and Joypurhat), Greater Noakhali (Lakshmipur, Noakhali and Feni), Greater Mymensingh (Mymensingh, Tangail, Kishoreganj, Netrokona, Sherpur and Jamalpur), Greater Sylhet as Sylhet Division, Greater Rangpur as Rangpur Division, Greater Barisal as Barisal Division, Greater Khulna (Khulna, Satkhira and Bagerhat) and Greater Faridpur (Gopalganj and Faridpur). What other 11 districts did Bangladesh used to have before having 64 districts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.7 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Administrative divisions of Bangladesh covers these former divisions, which were called "Regions" and there were 21 of them. -- Jayron  32  04:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

British vs. U.S. Table Manners
From the Fawlty Towers article: He also criticised the US-born Terry Gilliam's table manners for not being 'British' (switching hands with his fork whilst eating).

1. What exactly does switching hands with his fork mean? Passing the fork from one hand to another?

2. Are there any other differences between British & U.S. table manners? I read both their sections in the article on table manners and didn't really notice any, but I'm an American going to England soon where I'll be in formal dining situations. I'd thought they'd be just like formal dinners in the States but apparently not, and I want to get everything right.

Thanks! Rorrima (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When an American eats, he or she cuts a piece of meat with the knife in his right hand (if he's right-handed), then puts the knife down and put the fork in his right hand to eat the piece. When a Briton eats, he keeps the fork in his right hand and the knife in his left hand the whole time. I have no idea why this is. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost... Brits keep the fork in the left and the knife in the right. But otherwise, I agree. I think what our article is clumsily saying is that Gilliam switched hands, which is unBritish. The text is ambiguous, as it can be read to mean the opposite of what is intended. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

See eating utensil etiquette. Gdr 13:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, I've never seen anyone do that, American or Canadian. That seems like an extremely inefficient way to eat. Also, the way I remember the story, Terry Gilliam cut his food into little bite-size pieces first, then ate it all, which is something I have seen both Americans and Canadians do. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This "British" practice is just good table manners. It is, however, difficult to eat curry and rice with this practice.  When eating out with guests in Britain it would be normal to eat with fork-&-knife in this manner.  In fact it would never be acceptable to form the fork into a type of shovel in the right hand.   If you had rice on your dish, you would take your cue from your host or ask if you may use a spoon.     MacOfJesus (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In my experience, Europeans in general will hold the meat down with the fork in left hand, cut it with knife in right hand, and then pop it straight into their mouth from the fork in left hand; whereas American custom is to put down the knife, transfer the fork to right hand, and eat it that way. (Obviously, the opposite process if you're left-handed.) Perhaps the American custom forces you to "slow down" a bit? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If Americans ate slower, Americans wouldn't be the most obese people of the world. I think that whole table manners section needs some sort of statistical sample citation to support the claim that this is the American way to eat.  Not all Americans juggle their utensils at dinner.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a world removed from me (table manners are for those who use tables; I haven't used one in...years...) but what's the point of juggling your food in this manner? I think I'd be in danger of spraying food due to laughing if I saw someone do this...Plus, when I try to imagine it, it takes ages. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather how we feel when we see Europeans keep holding their forks inverted. It's a spoon with holes in it, why use it upside down. About hand switching, some references: says Emily Post calls it zig zag style,  calls it American style. Rmhermen (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We were taught that cutting the meat and then going straight to the mouth without transferring was kind of uncouth or uneducated, like the way a hillbilly would eat. So it was kind of amusing the first time I saw Europeans eat that way. However, that first link at least explains where the American method probably comes from, which is was what the OP was asking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your hillbillies owned forks? They must have been rich, ours ate with just a knife. Eating with a utensil in each hand is seen as greedy, piggish, boarder house behavior. You're too busy getting your share to set your knife down - and I may need to keep hold of my knife to keep you out of my plate. Rmhermen (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as Will Rogers said, we have the world's richest poor. But that does remind of this li'l ol' poem: "I eat my peas with honey / I've done it all my life / They do taste kind of funny / But it keeps them on my knife." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My ex-wife trotted that one out at least once a week for the 15 years we were married. We are no longer married.  I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I conclude that your grounds for divorce were, at least in part, something to do with "mental cruelty", or perhaps you just grew tired of being served corn. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. In Australia, fortunately, "couples do not need to show grounds for divorce, but instead, merely have to show that their relationship has suffered an irreconcilable breakdown."  The prospect of raising the pea-honey story before a judge would have had me thinking about Plan B.  Ironically, she and I remain very good friends, and have regular if not especially frequent contact, so our "relationship" is fine.  But we never talk about peas, honey, or knives any more.  It's safer that way.   --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   09:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The US is not even in the top five of the world's fattest countries. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article, or just the headlines? That ranking is based on percentage of the population overweight, and is titled very much by the fact that in a few very small islands in the South Pacific with tiny populations, where portliness is highly desired trait (think Samoans). So if you take those out of the running, the only countries in the top 10 are the United States and Kuwait. The US has by far the largest overweight population, with some 237 million overweight. (Kuwait has 3 million people total, by comparison.) So calling the US the "world's fattest country" is probably justified in more than a few ways, if you actually sift through the facts of it. If you compare the US to other countries with similar economies and culture (e.g. Germany, UK, France), the US is waaaaaay ahead in the rankings. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When my mother's US penfriends (from Florida?) visited us in London, they did the cutlery juggling thing, and we couldn't help notice them staring at us eating with both utensils.
 * In the UK, well brought-up people always use a fork with the prongs pointing downwards and the concave side (ie the back) upwards. You can give away your social status by the way you manage your peas. They ought to be squished onto the back of the fork with the knife and transferred to the mouth without losing any. A skill that requires practice. The working classes (and I expect everybody else in the world) proudly scoop their peas up with the concave side, but this is not the done thing in polite society. Apparently, in the highest circles, even a banana should be eaten with a knife and fork at the table. As to spaghetti, the traditional British method is to chop pieces of pasta off with the knife and then squish it onto the back of the fork as above. However, one can now appear educated and cosmopolitan by using a fork and spoon after the custom of the Italians. As Indian food should really be eaten with the fingers of the right hand (a highly un-British method), just about anything goes except licking it off your knife. Alansplodge (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, my understanding was that the Italians can't believe anyone eats spaghetti in such an inefficient way. They break it up to fit into the cooking pan, and eat it with a knife and fork.  Rojomoke (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Our waiter in Venice spent some time showing the college girls in our tour group how to eat with fork and spoon so I think it is not entirely unknown. Some seem to think it is a childish method for those who can't twirl it on their plate. Rmhermen (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two quotations might sum up the foregoing discussion:
 * "There are nine and sixty ways, Of constructing tribal lays, And every single one of them is right." (Kipling)
 * and
 * "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." (St Ambrose?) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say, the Wikipedia Ref Desks never cease to amaze me about yet another strange and arcane bit of US-UK difference; especially ones like this that seem trivial yet clearly have some kind of importance. After reading the ref desks for a few years, am I ready to visit the UK?? Pfly (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but practice eating peas on the back of your fork first! Alansplodge (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * NB: the above is not to be taken seriously, unless you're planning to visit Buckingham Palace. Original research indicates that 99.99% of British people do not try to balance their peas on the back of their fork.  :)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pfft, the Windsors are upper-class, and hence won't really care how you eat. It's the people below on the ladder you have to watch for, particularly if they don't feel socially secure. Personally, I put ketchup on my peas, and then I can easily stick them on the back of the fork: I get quite ungainly when I try to eat with the fork the other way up in my left hand. I'm not sure if that's better or worse... 82.24.248.137 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe your research is flawed Ghmyrtle, see this primary school website for confirmation of my thesis; "To be very polite, peas should be crushed onto the fork - a fork with the prongs pointing down." Or this from the improbable "peas.org"; "The proper way to eat them is to squash them on the back of the fork." Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I missed it in the above, but the American hand-switch goes along with pretty much eating the various components of your dish of food separately, while the British/European non-switch allows you to use your knife to assemble multiple components of your dish of food on to your fork as a microcosm so you actually taste the intended blend of flavors. Ultimately, the "no-switch" method makes your food more interesting and complex. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I crossed the Atlantic thrice between the ages of 6 and 11, and my British parents told me that the reason Britons don't cut up their meat on their plates before eating the first bite is that the other bits would get cold and dry for no good reason. (Also there's more of a temptation to finish eating everything you've cut up; whereas you might thriftily and more safely refrigerate the uncut leftover half of a joint, with fewer exposed surfaces than a collection of slices.) —— Shakescene (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To the OP: here's a video which demonstrates the differences quite clearly. Note the lady's demonstration of the "European" style, which assembles a variety of food in one mouthful (as Vecrumba also notes above).  Gwinva (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Egh, that "American style" thing looks terribly time consuming. Incidentally, what's with the napkins on the knees? I've seen that done a few times, and it just strikes me as patently absurd, like an adult using a bib. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven’t had such a good laugh in many years. Thanks, one and all, but it is time to put you out of your misery. The truth is that the entire switching hands thing is a joke played on the monohanded by those of us capable of using each of our hands equally well. Sorry, we should have said something before it went this far, but if you could have seen the looks on your faces . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A-ha! Thus the bigotry of the ambidextrous rears its ugly head! TomorrowTime (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I not God speech
I was listening to a song that had clips of assbags in the background giving speeches. For example, it has Hitler's popular Noremburg speech and some clips from Manson and Leary. There is a clip that I cannot place. It goes: "Am I not God almighty? Am I not God almighty? The answer is yes Lord.  Can I not then do anything?  All things are possible with me. Then am I not good to my people?  Of course I am." This sounds like Jim Jones to me, but I can't find any reference to this speech. Does anyone recognize it? -- k a i n a w &trade; 13:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Safe Harbor" by Priscilla Van Sutphin (April 17th, 2005) contains the line "AM I NOT GOD ALMIGHTY, the CREATOR of heaven and earth? Surely nothing is impossible with Me.". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

what english word expression
what english word expression for mean "what Papa is get money, Mama is spend it"? That is mean: one person make a money, other person but spend. 84.153.230.246 (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean you want a single word to express that one person earns money that another person spends? I'm not sure there is such a word. It seems English is not your first language. If you can tell us the word in your own language, it might help us. Or you can post the question in your own language. Note to other ref desk regulars - Please don't move the question to the Languages desk - it'd be easier to divert their readers here - the OP may lose the thread if we move it --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * nono, word expression I say in before. Is no one word.  For like "what Papa is get, Mama is spend it".  One another example are: the boy, he collect the pizza by him money - but the girl is she eat it! 84.153.230.246 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone else understands better than me, but I'm struggling. Please post the expression you want in your own language. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * oly gyenge jellem, hogy mindent elkölt, az utolsó fillérig 84.153.230.246 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The translation from Hungarian seems to imply that the second person is taking advantage of the first person's good nature / weak character. I can't think of matching expression like this in English.--188.222.58.219 (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

<-So, how about "taking advantage", ie Mama is taking advantage of Papa, the girl is taking advantage of the boy. --Dweller (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it something like "What a man earns, his wife spends"? Not a million miles from being an expression in English. 92.9.152.53 (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * that translation is very offensiv. 84.153.230.246 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know we're having language difficulties here, but that's kind of funny. Any phrase like this is going to be offensive, isn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If machine translation is anything to go by (which it isn't) then it seems to mean something like "In such a weak character, they'll take every last penny". So, maybe, the second person isn't relevant.  Perhaps an English equivalent might be "A fool and his money are easily soon parted". --Frumpo (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The saying I know is "soon parted" rather than "easily parted". --Tango (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I've corrected that. Thank you. --Frumpo (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Shared responsibilities. Division of labor. Procurement of funds (money), procurement of goods and services. Many such phrases could apply. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Breadwinner, housewife. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Earner, spender. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Breadwinner, homemaker. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One earns, the other spends. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When you use this expression, are you saying something bad about the man? Are you saying something bad about the woman? --Frumpo (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I find in elsewhere place the good expression, but just half only. Is: "My husband is bringing the bacon home."  And bacon is money.  But, this metaphore only - so what woman do?  Fry bacon?  84.153.230.246 (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "My husband brings home the bacon; I fry the eggs." Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The lyrics for "I'm a Woman" might be a propos: . Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you say: Dada brings the bacon home, (then you say): And Mama spend it. As you say right; "bacon" means "money" here.  OK?    MacOfJesus (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The saying is usually "brings home the bacon". --Tango (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many foreign expressions that have no equivalent in English, other than a direct translation. Cordon sanitaire, for instance. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How would you explain the expression: "Gordon Bennett!"?   Wikipedia article page: Gordon Bennett (general)  MacOfJesus (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Mama burn what papa earn..." though it's not really an American sentiment.  in the US, you're more likely to hear things like "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach, but there are other routes to his wallet..."  -- Ludwigs 2  22:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the same IP. Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Difference between total capitalization and market capitalization
Why might the total capitalization (equity plus debt) of a company differ significantly from it's market capitalization? The specific company that prompted this question is American Water Works -- the market cap is ~$3.7 billion, but in their latest 10K they list stockholders' equity as ~$4 billion and total cap as ~$9.7 billion. Does the market really think that the company is about to lose almost two thirds of its value? And how could market cap be less than stockholder equity -- isn't stockholder equity (approximately) the money that would be left over if somehow a company was immediately liquidated? Specific info for AWK would be nice, but I'm trying to understand what factors generally might lead to this sort of discrepancy. Thanks. 96.246.62.228 (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You basically answered your own question in your first sentence. Enterprise value = equity plus debt. (Minus cash, etc ... see enterprise value for a more comprehensive equation.) So the difference is due to debt, in the form of bonds and other loans. When a corporation is liquidated, debts must be paid before the shareholders are compensated. Gdr 15:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We would expect market cap to equal stockholder equity, not equal equity+debt. However, it won't actually equal it because equity doesn't take into account what the market expects the company to earn/lose in the future, which market cap does. So, the market currently expects this company to lose $0.3 billion (in present value) in the future. That's not good. It is possible that the equity value is misleading due to including goodwill that the market doesn't agree exists, or something, rather than the market expecting an actual loss, but the market may just think this company is going to lose lots of money. --Tango (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is generally not true of water utilities. Aqua America, say, has a market cap of ~2.4 billion, total cap of ~2.5 billion and stockholders' equity of ~1.1 billion. That pattern is true of all other publicly traded water utilities besides AWK. I hadn't looked at other industries until now, but it looks like that is the exception, not the rule. So let me reverse the question: why might water utilities, except AWK, have market caps equal to their total cap even though they all have a roughly 50-50 split between equity and debt? The only systematic difference between water and other industries is that because it's so regulated, water companies tend to be very stable. But I don't see how that would have this sort of effect. 96.246.62.228 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It could just be coincidence. The total cap will be equal to the assets. The market cap is the value of the company. There is no reason why the value of the company would equal its assets. --Tango (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Films showing elms in the English landscape
I was born in England the early 60s and so can't really remember much about what the the English landscape looked like before the advent of the Dutch Elm Disease that took away the elms, such a big and important part of the treescape of the country, in the late 60s and into the 70s. I have a wonderful book called Epitaph for the Elm which has many photographs of glorious elm-rich landscapes, but somehow a photo isn't sufficient - I would love to see such landscapes on film. Can anyone recommend any films shot in England in colour that show the pre-disease elm-rich landscape? 81.129.134.110 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think there are any! Perhaps rich tree background is not that appealing for film?   I would begin by viewing Ryan's Daughter 1970.  The same thing happened in the south of Ireland to the Elms.  MacOfJesus (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Might be worth checking out any of the Robin Hood films that were actually shot on (English) location. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a scene in Four Weddings and a Funeral set in the grounds of a large country estate, at night, where the driveway was lined with massive old trees. I'm not sure whether they were elms or oaks.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most large elms had died by the end of the 1970s. They were more often seen in hedgerows than in formal plantings - the most likely suspects for avenues in country estates are lime and horse chestnut. You can tell where an elm was, as you get a little thicket of elm saplings that sprout from the root system. They get to 4 or 5 metres high and then succumb to the Dutch Elm beetle. Then the cycle starts again. Very sad. There are some glimpses of hedgerow elms in the 1936 documentary Night Mail - look for the big trees with a flat-topped crown. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Healthy elms in UK and Spain (videos). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I recently saw a rather stunted adult elm on Mersea Island; I had to get a close look at the leaves to be sure it was one. But they're as rare as hen's teeth in the SE of England now, when they were two-a-penny in my childhhod. The Woodland Trust have started an experiment by planting clones of suposedly resistant trees.Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some areas in Kent that had some young Elms. In the 70ts. Government sponcered tree experts spent time preserving them.  These were in a protected valley.  In the South of Ireland the countryside was devistated!  Elm-wood is a very strong hardwood and very resitant to rotting.   MacOfJesus (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially when immersed in water. When the old London Bridge was demolished in the 1830s, it was found to be supported by elm piles that had been inserted when the bridge was built in 1176. Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * News Item: Today 12/Aug one of the beams have been found below where the old bridge was in The Thames. I presume it will be Elm.   MacOfJesus (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Black African Canadian Population
What is the black african immigrant population of Sub-Saharan African origin in Canada? I don't want to know black carribean Canadian population, just the black african population of Sub-Saharan African origin. 192.75.118.46 (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the info from the 2006 census for everyone identifying as "black", although it only gives place of origin for immigrants. From "West Africa", 44,900; "Eastern Africa", 64,300; "Central Africa", 19,170; and "Southern Africa", 1,740. (There are also 9,610 from "Northern Africa" which might include some people from sub-Saharan Africa - it's not these things are strictly defined on the census, or even in real life). This would not necessary include people whose families came from sub-Saharan Africa one or two generations ago (unless they are still considered landed immigrants for some reason, and not permanent residents or just plain old citizens). And of course it doesn't include anyone who chose not to identify their ethnicity. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am getting a "file not found" on that link. Rmhermen (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. How about this? Seems to work now. Well, anyway, here is another list from the 2006 census that lists all the ethnic groups that were given as responses. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Berlin Wall and "Peaceful Coexistence"
Can the building of the Berlin Wall (relatively late in US-USSR tensions) be reconciled with the theory of "Peaceful Coexistence" and "Thaw" under Khrushchev?--达伟 (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no conflict at all. Some issues were open to debate and moderate changes. Small change. Others were set in stone and allowed no compromise. East Germany, the strategic bridgehead in Europe, was a top priority asset. Keep at all costs (ideally, paid by someone else). When the East German regime needed a wall, they got a wall. Austria, on the contrary, lost its strategic importance and was traded for a ransom at the first convenience (see the end of allied-occupied Austria). East of Borschov 19:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Relatively late"? 1961 was approaching the peak of the cold war, which I would think reached its zenith in the Cuban missile crisis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't admit it publicly, but the Western Allies were quite relieved by the Berlin Wall, since it eliminated the biggest flashpoint at that time in the Cold War, at least in Europe. The Communists were freaking out about the loss of so many well-educated citizens. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Explain further, please. They built the wall to keep people trapped inside because they kept leaving. Rather than look into why they were leaving, they imprisoned them. That situation certainly was ready-made pro-western propaganda which the "Commies" handed to us on a silver platter. Is that what you mean by being "relieved"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "why they were leaving" ... are you serious? People always run away from failed regimes - for personal liberties, for wealthier lifestyles, they just do. There are two ways of stopping emigraton from a socialist regime. Either kill the regime. Or, as the founding fathers suggested, spread it across the globe so there will be nowhere to run. East of Borschov 10:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, how about a reference, there, Mwalcoff? Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From the Berlin Wall article:
 * US and UK sources had expected the Soviet sector to be sealed off from West Berlin, but were surprised by how long the East Germans took for such a move. They considered the wall as an end to concerns about a GDR/Soviet retaking or capture of the whole of Berlin; the wall would presumably have been an unnecessary project if such plans were afloat. Thus they concluded that the possibility of a Soviet military conflict over Berlin decreased.[39]
 * Doesn't sound implausible to me. A wall is better than a Russian invasion, if those are the two options. To say such a thing does not imply that the Russians were good folk about this, it is just a reflection of the realpolitik of the times. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. There were fears that the Soviets might march into West Berlin and take it over. Instead, they built the wall around it, officially to contain the West Berliners, but really to keep the East Berliners from seeking asylum there. Makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The "thaw" was internal to the USSR. It was not complete, but it signaled a (temporary) relaxation on cultural control within the USSR and a (slight) easing of some of the Stalinist dogmas. Mostly it was a removal of some of the most oppressive elements of the Stalinist state and an admission of the crimes of Stalin. It was not liberal by Western standards — it was only liberal by comparison to the terrible period they had just come out of. It had little to do with their foreign relations. "Peaceful coexistence" just meant that he was no longer committed to the Leninist dogma of forced, violent, world revolution. (See Peaceful coexistence for details.) It also speaks not at all of how the USSR would handle satellite countries, and again is only "peaceful" within a very limited, Marxist-Leninist context. One should not read too much into the "thaw" or even the "peaceful" aspects — they were in many ways only significant in contrast to Stalin, not on their own, objective terms. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Winter burials
How do cemeteries bury bodies in the dead cold of winter, when the earth is frozen solid? Do they somehow attempt to dig the earth? If so, how? Or do they store the corpses and coffins somewhere until the ground thaws? If so, where? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC))
 * The typical grave is dug by heavy machinery such as a backhoe, which most likely has enough power to get through the frozen layer. There might be further info in cemetery and wherever it takes you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * During WWII, my grandfather had to take a job up on Prince Edward Island. He said that they didn't dig holes for graves; they just sharpened the toes and pounded the deceased in. PhGustaf (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I bet they did. They had to plan ahead to get the right equipment. Hence the term "mallets aforethought". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I googled [winter burials] and this is one of the sites that popped up. In Alaska, at least, they will typically put the bodies on ice (which is probably not hard to find) until the spring thaw. It's also possible to plow and thaw, which of course adds to the cost of the funeral, so I expect it's not done often. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Old stories sometimes mention the cemetary running out of pre-dug graves because they failed to predict the number of people who would die during the cold season. One source from 1942 mentions "the building of a Vault for winter use, thereby doing away with the necessity of opening graves in severe weather, and people standing in snow during Burial Service." Rmhermen (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One old technique was to build a fire on the spot to thaw the burial plot. Depending on where you live, the depth of frozen ground may not be all that great. And modern power digging equipment can cope with quite a thickness of frozen earth. Edison (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From having had two dogs die during winter (not the same winter, they were two years apart), I can tell you that it doesn't take *that* large of a backhoe to dig a hole in Vermont's ground. We have frost lines of something like 48" and twice now we've managed to dig a hole for our dead pets.  The trick is getting the earth back in the hole before it freezes yet again.  The backhoe can still handle it but it's easier if you do it quickly.  Dismas |(talk) 05:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Great ... thanks, all! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

Jesus
If Jesus was a Palestinian, why does he look English in the photos?--SpasticColon (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean artistic depictions of Jesus, see depiction of Jesus. Note that (a) it's widely believed that all information about Jesus's physical appearance has been lost, and the common depiction is a convention, and (b) most Christians tend to depict Jesus as looking like the people they are used to seeing, either out of habit, or intentionally, to create a sense of closeness.  Sadly, Depiction of Jesus is very short, and the rest of the article is all about ancient or modern European art.  Paul (Stansifer) 00:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SpasticColon -- The word "Palestinian" is rather anachronistic when attempted to be used to refer to Jesus, since it wasn't until a century after Jesus' death (ca. 135 A.D.) when the emperor Hadrian chose to somewhat arbitrarily rename the Roman province of "Judaea" to "Palaestina", with the intentional and specific purpose of spiting the Jews in the aftermath of the Second Jewish Revolt. During Jesus' own lifetime, the word Palaestina or Palestine was a semi-archaic term for the southern coastal plain (i.e. Philistia), and would not have been used by others to refer to Jesus, or by Jesus to refer to himself (since he didn't come from or live in the southern coastal plain, or identify himself as a descendant of Philistines)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

See Race of Jesus and White Supremacy. schyler (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sadly, no photos of Jesus survive from his lifetime on Earth. Edison (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never seen a portrait of Jesus that makes him look "English". Is there a typical English look? --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where are they learning that Jesus was a "Palestinian" one wonders.--Wetman (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * JackOfoz -- File:StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass Shepherd Face.jpg and File:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg have been used on Template:Christianity, at various times, and I doubt whether either of them is very accurate... AnonMoos (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I still can't see anything specifically English about those images.  Caucasian, maybe, but that's as far as I'd be prepared to go.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OP was blocked as a sockpuppet Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If anyone cares, Elsie is out again. hydnjo (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On the general phenomena of drawing our heros to look like us, in Boorstin's The Image, he makes what I found to be a good point, that the Western tradition of "heroes" means you draw everybody to look more or less like an everyman, because the hero is really all of us. "Celebrities," by contrast, are notable for how different they look from one another, and how forgettable and unrelatable most of them are. (Obviously he attributes a lot of this to changing technologies of representation, to be sure, but also claims it goes beyond that.) It's the kind of broad, not-entirely-correct generalization that Boorstin does all over the place in the book, but I thought it was a clever synthesis that accounts for why Hercules is essentially unrecognizable (in that he looks like everybody else in the statue room) unless you know to look for his lion and club, for example. I don't recall if he speaks of Jesus specifically. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

related
I've heard that Jesus was black? Is this true? 84.153.186.86 (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If your question means whether it is at all likely that he looked like a typical sub-Saharan African, then the answer is "no"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See Race of Jesus. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors, they sell authographed photos of Jesus on the cross. You might try to track down one of those.  :)  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In what photos does he look English? And what does it mean to "look English"? Take a look at the Shroud_of_Turin to get the better 'picture' of him. Quest09 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, many would argue, a better self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, or of whoever else the shroud's mediaeval forger (whether or not Leonardo) used as a model. (Note that I am not dogmatically asserting that the shroud is definitely a mediaeval forgery, but there does seem to be considerable sincere disagreement about its authenticity.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Catholic Church owns the Shroud, but they have never made any claim as to the identity of the person it may once have wrapped. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)