Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 December 1

= December 1 =

Medieval Future and other furture thoughts
You know how people today think the future will involve flying cars, massive cities, lasers and robots and space colinsation? Well what did people in the middle ages and other early modern times would be like in the future? 49.225.203.103 (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahistoricism is generally attributed to the Middle Ages, prior to the Black Death and the Renaissance it was pretty much assumed the earth had only recently been created and that the end was nigh. By the time you get to Jules Verne, that has all changed. I am sure we can getter better details from experts--and the ahistoricism article could be a lot better. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * With limited horizons it seem (reasonable to me) that the ruling classes, thought of the future in terms of their descendants becoming ever more powerful. The clergy hoped that they would one day rule over  god 's perfect world when his kingdom finally arrives. The  classes lower down hoped for a future were they would move up the social scale. Whilst the common peasant  hoped only for a future where they were assured of more food and warmth. So mainly, they probably only considered Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Leonardo da Vinci was the first free-think dreamer, that I can think of,  that started separating  (forking) art ( which in greek is Techne: meaning both art and technology) into art and technology  and using his knowledge to invent new contrivances, that opened people eyes, to possibilities beyond Maslow's hierarchy of needs.--Aspro (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * History of science fiction has a bit of info about ancient and medieval "sci-fi". By the way I would not agree that the Middle Ages had a particular streak of "ahistoricism", at least as our article defines it...they didn't know what we know, but they were certainly very interested in and concerned with history. But as Aspro says, it's a bit difficult to conceive of the far future when you're constantly thinking the eschaton is about to be immanentized. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * They (or some of them) likely knew quite a few things we (or some of us) don't about the past, simply by virtue of being closer. As years roll on, even in a lifetime, writing is destroyed and memorized stories make way for new ones.


 * Not like Pope Gregory II spoke for his generation, but he seemed to think the future of the "father" of the Middle Ages would include lasting fame on earth and eternal life in heaven. Plenty today still envision the same. If death is inevitable, why wonder about the world you'll leave behind, beyond a simple "Karl was here"? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Luck of the Irish
is the phrase the luck of ithe Irish was it formed because it was ironic because the irish werent lucky, they live on a rainy island with famine and the english? 49.225.203.103 (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't say anything about the etymology of the phrase, and its earliest attestation is in the early 1900s, evidently connoting the positive sense of the phrase. I haven't anything more reliable or definitive than that, though. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This page argues that it was first associated with miners of Irish descent during the gold rush in America and is meant derisively. Biggs Pliff (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I think we deserve a capital "E", even if we have been beastly to our Irish neighbours in the past. Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No you dont. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.226.49.214 (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

what's the name of the person who convinced Genghis Khan to not kill off the chinese?
What's the name of the person who convinced Genghis Khan not to kill off the Chinese because he could get lots of money from taxes if he didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereismylunch (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the basis of your premise? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone told me about about a person who convinced Genghis Khan to not kill off all the Chinese. Instead Genghis Khan could get lots of money by charging the chinese taxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereismylunch (talk • contribs) 05:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

He was a follower of Confucianism according to what I was told and an advisor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereismylunch (talk • contribs) 06:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yelü Chucai's article states "He did his best to convince the Mongols to tax rather than slaughter conquered peoples." (I'm a bit skeptical that Genghis Khan would even have contemplated doing something that stupid.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Slaughter was a bit of a Mongol speciality. We even have an article, Destruction under the Mongol Empire, which quotes a historian who describes the Mongol conquests as " an orgy of violence and destruction". Further down the page it says; "The total population of Persia may have dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine". Alansplodge (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Before the 19th century, the logistics and administrative capabilities necessary to directly commit genocide over a large area didn't really exist. However, the Mongols committed many intense but localized massacres, of course, and when the Mongols converted various agricultural areas into pasture lands for their horses to graze (sometimes by sabotaging irrigation systems etc.) this resulted in a decrease in how many people the land could support, and many of the former peasants on the land were guaranteed to have a dismal fate.  In China, converting the most fertile agricultural areas into pasture probably wouldn't have made too much sense, and it was more in the Mongols' interest to tax the Chinese... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The history of the Mongolians disagrees. According to List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, the Mongol conquests killed 30-40 million people.  Even in absolute terms, that is more than twice the death toll of WWI, and many times than the death toll of any 20th century genocide.  In relative terms, 40 million deaths in the 13th century is equivalent to 700 million deaths today.  --Bowlhover (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

high crimes and misdemeanors
The Constitution says a President may be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." If s/he is convicted, s/e is forced out of office. Other than this, what other penalties are imposed on the ex-President? --Halcatalyst (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's right in the constitution -- congress can only impose "removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States", but ordinary criminal legal procedures to punish such crimes could impose criminal punishments for the same crimes... AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless they get a "pre-pardon" from their predecessor, as with Nixon and Ford. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Successor. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * D'oh! Mixed metaphors. Thanks for fixing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yea, when you put the cart before the horse you have to get right back on top of it again. StuRat (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Did it again Bugs! Against talk page etiquette, messed with your "D'oh!" Should that be "a post-pardon from their successor"? Contact Basemetal   here  13:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Post in the sense that pardons can only ever apply to offences that have already occurred. (But that's normally a redundant usage.  We don't talk of someone being "post-sentenced", as all sentences come after conviction, which comes after trial, which comes after charge, and so on.) Pre in the sense that Ford was pre-empting any legal action that might have been taken against Nixon in the future for any offences he might have committed in the past.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm even amazed such a thing can happen. That a president can issue a pardon once that person has been tried, convicted and sentenced is one thing. But that he can prevent a legal process from even taking place by issuing a blanket pardon defies logic. At least that gives a peculiar meaning to the word "pardon". Any other place where this can happen? Contact Basemetal   here  20:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

audio hearing-
want to get in touch with reserchers on brain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premacharir (talk • contribs) 12:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a listserv for neuroscience from the NIH: - anyone can sign up to hear announcements and perhaps discuss some topics. Here is a list of several neuroscience-related email lists that might also be of interest . Here is a list of neuroscience blogs that you can read . All of these will help you see what neuroscientists are researching and discussing these days, and you might be able to get involved in discussions through email or comments. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Language sophistication and its role on the development of society.
Is there a correlation between how advanced a language is, and the development of the people that use it in terms of their intellectual abilities. I'm wondering if this may offer an answer to why some societies grew and expanded into empires (Mongals) whereas others did not (Masai tribesman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.252.148 (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would reject the premise that a language can be described as "advanced" or "sophisticated" in any non-arbitrary manner. That said, I believe you may find reading on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to be interesting. By arguing that the structure of language may influence the structure of individual thought, it tees up an argument that the structure of a language may influence the structure of a society. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth mentioning then that the S-W hypothesis is currently widely discredited, at least in the relatively simple form originally described (as noted in our article, which is a redirect to the more general concept of linguistic relativity). If anyone wants to read modern work that is more rigorous and salvages parts of the S-W, see this book, or any of John A. Lucy's related research articles. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To piggyback on Mendaliv's answer, any language which is not a dead language is capable of making new words as needed to meet needs. That is, every language which is in use has the ability of what is called productivity, meaning it can use its own internal rules to formulate new words to represent new concepts.  Every language is also capable of assimilating words from other languages through borrowing from other languages.  Because of this, every complete language is always capable of expressing every idea that every other language can.  Thus, there is no way to describe the "Masai" language as being more or less "advanced" than the "Mongol" language, or any other.  There may be reasons why some cultures are capable of dominating others, be they social, technological, geographic, or random chance.  But it isn't because of their language, because languages cannot be more or less advanced.  They are different, but the difference is arbitrary, and not one of quality.  -- Jayron  32  01:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In 1921, Edward Sapir wrote in a semi-famous passage: "Both simple and complex types of language of an indefinite number of varieties may be found spoken at any desired level of cultural advance. When it comes to linguistic form, Plato walks with the Macedonian swineherd, Confucius with the head-hunting savage of Assam." etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * An simpler explanation would be whether a group of people has both the resources and the need to expand. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, overly complex language might actually stall things. Cultures with complex writing scripts either got to a point where they worked and did their damnedest to sit there despite outside interference, or were replaced by or evolved into "barely-literate" cultures whose writing systems only used twenty-something characters. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cultures using alphabetic scripts didn't have a major geopolitical impact until roughly around 500 B.C., when the Persian (Achaemenid) empire adopted Aramaic as its administrative language, the Greeks turned back the Persian invasions, alphabetic scripts started filtering into India, etc.
 * For what it's worth, Japanese has by far the most complex writing system in active use today (see detailed explanation in ISBN 0-8047-1756-7)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition to the excellent points already made, consider the following: What do you mean by "language sophistication" and "how advanced a language is"?  I suspect that you mean a large vocabulary, a body of well-regarded literature, and perhaps established academic study of the language.  Which societies will have a language with these attributes?  Obviously they will be societies with large and literate populations.  In other words, it will be the very societies which you suggest are associated with sophisticated languages.  John M Baker (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What's relevant is not the complexity of the grammar or other formal aspects of a culture's language, but the possession of higher abstract concepts in science, art and law by the people who speak such languages.


 * There's nothing special about English as a language that made the Anglo-American cultures world dominant. But English speakers built up or adopted bodies of knowledge using concepts that hadn't existed before, like oxygen (from the roots "to make acid" in Greek) or indict from French "to accuse at law", from Latin, to "point out".


 * The reason our chemistry is better than witchdoctory and our legal system is better than trial-by-combat is because of the possession of the concepts, not the words, which ultimately trace back to more primitive meanings (or original coinings). Any language can internalize such concepts and will often borrow the words for them, such a bug and mouse when they are reused in a more advanced context.


 * Some languages prefer(red) to make up there own words by use of calques, such as the German Sauerstoff. The word that is used to stand for a concept (dog, Hund, sobaka) may be arbitrary, but the possession of a word for it is necessary for the possession of a concept.  In order to have a concept you have to have both a word for it and understand the more basic ideas which underly it. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure that you have to have "a word" for something to have a concept of it. I have a concept of "American reference desk regulars" but I don't have a single word for them (luckily you may say). Ditto for "electric kettle", "digital computer", "steam train" (but cf "steamer"). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you do understand my point. You are just stipulating a (for the widespread cultural rather pointless) definition in many words, without using a single new word to cover it.  If your notion "American ref desk regulars" were to catch on, it would quickly be reduced to something like ARD'ers, just like we speak of WASP's, not white Anglo-Saxon protestants.  There's also got to be a use for the concept, and some essential characteristic that unites the members of the concept.  One could stipulate 5'3" non-Momon Belgian women who don't own cats, but it would not be a concept--they don't share ny essential characteristic that singles them out in any useful way.  The point is cultural development is conceptual development, not complex grammar, and if you don't have concepts for chemistry, the germ theory of disease, calculus, the rule of law, and so forth, your culture will either borrow them or stay relatively primitive. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Most Pidgin and Creole languages are usually not especially successful compared to "standardized" languages. English was just spoken by a great navy.


 * England had a great navy because it had an advanced culture which included governmental checks and balances with the rule of law, a large market with the lack of internal tariffs, and the benefit of centuries of pracitcal and scientific maritime knowledge and a supporting infrastructure all learned by the transmission of concepts through example and book learning. Land the fleet of Britain on New Guinea in 1800, and give the natives the boats, but don't transmit the concepts, and you get a shoreline dotted with wrecks and rotting hulks. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not joking or exaggerating when I say that there's only a dozen-and-a-half countries that Britain hasn't tried to invade at some point in history. Even going with just the areas they managed to hold on to for a while, that's a quarter of the planet.  Then there's the influence their colonies (particularly America, especially with movies and television) would go on to have.  Really, all English had to do to become as dominant as it is was to not consist solely of tonal raspberries punctuated by various hair pulls and genital waggings (hair wagging and genital pulling might have increased its popularity).
 * English does provide a unique flexibility resulting from it more or less being the linguo-cleptomaniac child of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French (which also makes it an easier mutual second language for both Romance- and Germanic- language speakers), but that's not the reason why it's so widespread. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that map may be a bit inaccurate; insofar as it says that Britain has never been at war with Sweden. The Anglo-Swedish War (1810–12) may have not had any loss of lives, but they were officially enemies for a short while.  So, that actually makes one LESS country Britain has never been at war with. -- Jayron  32  20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Guatemala? Wasn't there a problem over Belize? Contact Basemetal   here  21:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe off topic maybe not: It seems to me this question is connected to the question whether people "think through language" or think "in" a language. I imagine many Americans must believe that since they seem to be prone to ask things like "But do you think in English or in Spanish?". That question is itself connected to whether language shapes your concepts. I think the answer must in the negative and most people who've ever tried to write something longer than a few sentences must have experienced the effects of "language" and "thought" not being the same when they struggle to find a word or a turn of phrase that truly expresses what they have in mind. If one really thought "in" a language that should never be a problem: the ideas would come directly in the shape of words and phrases. So the fact that problem even exists must prove that one does not think "in" a language. Sorry for this and other meandering posts. They are usually so because I don't have time to make them more concise. Someone once wrote "I wrote you a long letter because I didn't have time to write you a short one." Contact Basemetal   here  15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The spoken word (or the hand gesture, or brail sequence) is the consciously available perceptual tag that allows the mind to deal with and express the notions that bubble up from the subconscious when we speak or think. There has to be some consciously available perceptual tag for the brain to handle and express complex ideas.  Ultimately the subconscious is the source.


 * It's when the various subconscious associations: unmarried, available, heterosexual, adult, male come together to "activate" the concept bachelor that the word comes to mind. If the word "gigolo" were to come to mind instead, we would notice the tension (+compensation, -marriage, -exclusive), and say, that's not exactly what I mean, and we would either think of it after some thought or a suggestion from a colloquent or a thesaurus.  The magic of language is that it allows us to use simple tags like bachelor to express complete thoughts like "My sister married the first bachelor she dated" without having to say "related to now word producing upright ape egg bearing relative from same parents was present and active subject in legal and religious hand-waving with a certain unattached adult male following unprecedented repeated mutual escalation of intimate body touching and exchange of friendly sounds by lips and ears."   In a pidgin you can say "First big old man belong sky see all" but the advanced conceptual way to say that is God. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)