Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 23

= September 23 =

Languages
Can every speech-capable human produce every sound in every language? Is there any known language that can only be spoken by a certain tribe/group because other people are physically incapable of producing the sounds, due to genetic or environmental differences? --140.180.250.181 (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A possible starting point might be Second-language phonology, although this does not answer the question. I would suggest that if there were major differences based on birth/genetics etc., this would have been covered in such an article, so the absence of such information at least suggests that these major differences do not exist. It does not rule out subtle differences. The article might also help other editors as a starting point in trying to hunt down the answer to your question, but I am really presenting it only as a possible resource. I have certainly never heard such a claim (phonology dependent upon birth/location) from linguists, and it would go against my understanding of human genetics - it would seem to require a specific anatomical wiring of the mouth, peculiar to a particular tribe or something. IBE (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The answer to your first question is No: see for example Speech and language pathology in school settings. Whether there are whole populations who cannot innately produce some sound is less clear, and I would be surprised if there were. --ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I can't find a reference or even a link to a Wikipedia article stating this, but I have certainly heard it asserted by linguists that at birth anyone of any ancestry can become a native speaker of any language with all its sounds (except in individual cases of pronunciation disorders). Duoduoduo (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Individual prior to society and vice versa
I'm trying to figure out what statements like "the individual is prior to society" and "society is prior to the individual" mean. It's worse when the term "logically" is thrown in. I feel like this strays into ontology or something else that's kind of mind screwy, so can anyone explain to me what those statements means and what the differences are? — Melab±1 &#9742; 03:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you are right that it is philosophy as much as anything. Can you give us a context? IBE (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If it's stuff like this you are interested in, then yes, it's philosophy. I would suggest that it requires the word "logically" to be thrown in, for without that, it isn't even clear what sort of a debate we are having. Individual logically prior: this means we can have a debate about individual rights without respect to prevailing social conditions, so an individual might have an innate right to live. Individual not logically prior: might need further clarification, but would suggest that individual rights depend on social circumstances, so the right to live might be something the state could take from you, if it could grind up your bones to produce a cure for cancer (for example). This is different from "historically prior" because that depends on whether the state (or prehistoric, tribal equivalents of this) did in fact evolve alongside human biological evolution. But if you could give us more context, that would be best. IBE (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Melab-1 -- In the 17th and 18th centuries, social contract theorists, notably John Locke, assumed that the individual was prior to society, at least for purposes of political analysis, while some opponents assume the reverse... AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And what do those assuming the reverse have to say? What do they describe it as? — Melab±1 &#9742; 21:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

These might possibly help: for society prior to the individual, see collectivism, shame society, and guilt society; for the individual before society, see individualism. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ukraine and Belorussia at the UN
When the Ukrainian and Belorussian SSRs were in the UN, did they ever vote differently from the USSR? Perhaps on minor things, to show that they weren't puppets? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * United Nations Security Council Resolution 61 shows Ukraine voting against while Russia abstains, I'm unaware whether or not the Ukraine did so under orders from the Kremlin, either way the whole list of security council resolutions can be found here. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Justice delayed is justice denied
The Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, John Stalker was suddenly taken off his enquiry into an alleged "shoot to kill" policy by the RUC and suspended while he was subject to an enquiry headed by the Police Complaint Authority. He wasn't told why and the media frenzy which followed put him in the ridiculous situation of when he was asked - what is this about? he could only answer "I don't know". He was cleared and reinstated but only after his wife had nearly had a breakdown and he had an enormous legal bill which might have resulted in him having to sell his house, but for the tsunami of donations from the public. An associate, Kevin Taylor, who had no criminal convictions of any kind, remained under police investigations for years, causing financial ruin. Stalker said about this "In less than that time "international terrorists and mass murderers have been investigated, tried, convicted and imprisoned"

There's no smoke without fire. Just by investigating someone, the police generate smoke. What other examples are there since 1988 of the police ruining people with their "investigations" where the person investigated was completely innocent and there was no evidence to suggest guilt in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't exactly what you're looking for but here's a list of people executed and later found innocent. Richard Jewell is perhaps a better example, in 1996 after he was suspected of bombing the Olympics in Atlanta, the media hounded him but the police never formally charged him. These examples are all American so I hope that's what you're looking for, given the subject of the question you may also be interested in The Innocence Project an organisation which works to exonorate the wrongly convicted. If you want specifically British cases you should find something  here. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's the Duke lacrosse case, which was entirely unfounded and based on false accusations. But again, that's an American case.  -- Jayron  32  13:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The Matrix Churchill case comes to mind. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Matrix Churchill was Customs and Excise, rather than the Police. Off the top of my head: Christopher Jefferies, Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, Plebgate, Hillsborough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.25.36 (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For some Canadian examples, David Milgaard and Stephen Truscott. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * See Category:Overturned convictions.—Wavelength (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Literary influence over French Revolution.
Is there any literary work that influenced French Revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.227.214 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Older historiography usually points out Jean-Jacques Rousseaus The Social Contract as a main influence, however bookhistorian Robert Darnton in his work The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Prerevolutionary France has challenged that view, claiming that that work was never widely read, and was mainly to be found in a few private libraries among the wealthy, while it was a much broader group of poor and middleclass people that caused the revolution, and made a list of forbidden bestsellers that in his opinion was far more widespread amongst the populace and thus much more likely to have been influential. On pp. 63-64 of this book he lists the 35 top bestsellers, the no. 1 being Louis-Sébastien Merciers L'An 2440, rêve s'il en fut jamais, no. 2 Anecodtes sur Mme la comtesse du Barry, and no. 3 The System of Nature by Baron d'Holbach.


 * However it seems that a research team is currently in the process of revising Darntons results, so the list may change drastically. Then of course there is the whole debate on how much or even if at all books had any influence on the Revolution, or if it was mainly social or economical reasons that caused it. A part of it is collected in the anthology The Darnton debate, but it still continues and historians are still greatly divided on the matter.


 * Most recently historian of ideas Jonathan Israel in his trilogy on the Radical Enlightenment has made the case that books and the ideas they contain did indeed cause revolutions (his claim being that most of the radical enlightenment philosophy, which in his view was the cause of the Revolution, can be traced back to the works of Baruch Spinoza), while postmodern historians like Samuel Moyn on the other hand rejects that interpretation and claims a wide variety of reasons was the cause. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Spiritual vs. __________
Anne was resolute about following a spiritual path, and consequently, she made a focused effort to divorce herself from _______ concerns.


 * A.plebeian
 * B.secular
 * C.pious
 * D.nebulous
 * E.temporal
 * F.nondescript

Select the two answer choices that, when used to complete the sentence, fit the meaning of the sentence as a whole and produce completed sentences that are alike in meaning.

Without looking at a dictionary (trying to simulate a test environment here), I chose B and E, and I got the answer right. However, this question was intriguing, because it made me wonder if a person could follow the spiritual path and still make changes in the world, thereby interested in both spiritual and secular matters. As a matter of fact, I hear this from religious people who are also politically active. So, is there a term for it or not? 164.107.215.162 (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note the use of the word "divorce" in the test sentence. This indicates that Anne wanted to keep them separated. StuRat (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * StuRat is right, there doesn't need to be a term for it because their separation isn't necessary, it was a choice made by Anne. Biggs Pliff (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it may be the assumption of the narrator (assuming that secularism and spirituality are polar opposites) rather than Anne's choice. 164.107.215.162 (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Philosophical subsumes both spiritual and secular or temporal concerns. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Material" would have been the best choice, except it's not on the list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In the UK, spiritual/temporal make the easiest pair, as in Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. Then working from Temporal ("produce completed sentences that are alike in meaning") you get "secular". I realise that it's one of those idiosyncratic bits of the British system though! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Some statistical / financial questions
I considered posting this question at the maths desk, because I'm not so much looking for the ref-desk to answer these questions for me - rather to suggest a methodology for reaching them myself. I'd add that what seem to me to be the obvious Google searches haven't helped me much.

I need to work out the following for a work-related report. I won't cloud the issue by explaining how (indeed if) they all inter-relate. But I would say that I need rough-and-ready answers which I can look up on the internet today, or calculate with simple arithmetic, rather than high-quality very accurate answers which would require research or posting freedom of information requests!

Anyway, here goes:
 * 1) What is the life expectancy, in England, of an average person of a specified age?
 * 2) What is the average value of the "net estate" of all cases actually admitted to probate in England and Wales?
 * 3) How do you work out the current value of a future payment (i.e. what is the hypothetical market value, today, of the right to receive £x at a specified time y years in the future?)
 * 4) Of a random sample of 1000 people of a specified age, in England, how many will die in each subsequent year? (And if that figure is not constant, how does it change? e.g. will more people die in year 10 than in year 5, or vice versa, and what would the pattern look like?) AndyJones (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the first and last question. What do you mean by "of a specified age" and how is that relevant? Are you just asking picking a random Englishman or -woman at this present moment, taking into account of his or her present age, and calculating his or her life expectancy? Is it important to take into account of the present age? 164.107.215.162 (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. A life expectancy calculator should help?
 * 2. And you might look through these statistics for estate values.
 * 4. I'm not sure I understand this one either, but is it about Risk of death by age? 184.147.120.88 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Specified age is a set of ages: under 1, 1, 2...120. Sleigh (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. This is the job of an actuary.
 * 3. Looks like an annuity. Sleigh (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3. looks like a simple case of present value. The present value of payment X, occuring Y years in the future will be X/(1+r)^Y, where r is the appropriate discount factor. The discount factor is the more difficult part to find and will depend on the nature of the payment. Risk-free interest rate (yield on government bonds of a corresponding duration are typically used) is a good bet for cash flows occuring with certainty.129.178.88.81 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Number 4 is a life table - there's one in our article and google throws up plenty more. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)