Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 December 9

= December 9 =

If a completely average horse stars in a viral video would it's stud fee go up?
If a random horse stars in a viral video would it's stud fee go up? Something stupid like a modern woman in 1929 clothing sneaks in without permission, wants to see if she could get on the horse in an unorthodox manner, her friend's mildly wary that it might kick her, she still does it and gets kicked. Later on the farmer finds out his horse is famous but it's still a genetically mundane horse. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WHat kind of source would you expect to find this answer in? Just because the question has popped into your head, doesn't mean that anyone has tried to answer it before.  As the reference desk, we're here to provide you with existing answers to your question.  What made you think that this was a question that a reliable source had been published to address?  -- Jayron 32 14:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The article you yourself linked to indicates that studs are chosen for their genetic traits. So unless the breeder is looking to breed horses that would kick their riders, the answer is probably "no". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's my guess too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Best realistic-type answer I can give: Er, I think Grumpy Cat is desexed, sorry. And even if she wasn't, her dwarfism would make pregnancy too dangerous to risk with her, given that she's worth millions. But if she was a male, and had become famous before getting desexed, would they breed him? Doubt it would work. Grumpy Cat is a superstar, but there's no guarantee that any offspring would enjoy similar status and value, even if they inherited the dwarfism and underbite. (Maybe they would, actually, for those rich few wanting their own "personal version of grumpy cat"). On the other hand, the offspring of Pal (dog) and Rin Tin Tin would have been worth significant money if they showed similar acting train-ability skills. But just starring in a viral video is worthless in stud fee terms, unless it shows that the animal has genetically inheritable and financially valuable skills. In the cases of Pal and Rin Tin Tin, that was indeed the case, and some of their descendants did go on to enjoy success as actor dogs, though not to the extreme degree of their ancestor. So such dogs as these two, yes, they would probably enjoy a significant stud fee. If the horse likewise showed circus-type abilities or a high level of train-ability which were deemed genetically inheritable, and thus valuable to an actual circus, movie studio or theatre, yes, the stud fee might indeed go up. (Sources: For info on Rin Tin Tin and Pal's descendants, please read the articles in question, particularly the "legacy" section in the Rin Tin Tin article. Yes, his genes still have value. The rest is my own logic, is this prohibited on the refdesk? Can anyone provide sources which either confirm or refute my answer? The two dogs are actual real-life case-studies of possible relevance to the OP's question - though they both starred in actual movies, not just youtube clips). Eliyohub (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to know more about this than me. Thanks for the answer. I didn't know the dog who played Lassie was so easy to train. No wonder his descendants are valued today.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to see my answer was helpful, even though it did not address your particular scenario. In the scenario you gave, I'd say Baseball Bugs is almost certainly spot on. Besides, viral video publicity can often be fleeting, though Grumpy Cat does seem to endure. She's an example of an internet star who does command real financial value, for some bizarre reason, and yes, she started her online life as a viral, who became a meme. But horses which kick when one attempts to mount them in an unorthodox manner? I don't think that's an exploitable trait, even if there was a genetic element to it. Humourous as it may be in that particular clip. Jayron32, I do think Baseball Bugs was entitled to answer this question with reference to the article as a reliable source. My answer was probably to a broader question than the OP asked, where I attempted to address the stud value of a "performance animal". Eliyohub (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Historiography
I wonder why there is no section about medieval historiography in the article.--Hubon (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you didn't write it. -- Jayron 32 01:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ;-)--Hubon (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

'each' and 'both'
"We have always considered John and Abigail Adams as the most famous couple of the Revolutionary generation -- each of them smart, observant, and a superb letter writer." (Gordon S. Wood, "The Strangely Contentious Lives of the Quincy Adamses," New York Review of Books, December 8, 2016, p. 55)

The 'each' here bothers me, especially in the last phrase, "and a superb letter writer." I would have thought 'both' to be better. But the point is not to carp on a distinguished writer's word choice. What are the differences in usage of 'both' and 'each'? When would one or the other be more appropriate? Does it involve subtleties, a fine sense in writing, or is the question straightforward? --Halcatalyst (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * They construct differently. "Each" treats the members of a group as individuals: Each of them is smart. "Both" treats the members as a group: Both of them are smart. Both is just the two member version of "all", whereas "each" can refer to any size group greater than one. There are certain contexts wherein only the word "both" can be used, such as "this widget is both large and heavy", but I cannot think of any similar context for "each". Someguy1221 (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In a context of ownership, if they "both" owned something it suggests joint ownership of one thing, whereas if they "each" had one then there were two of the things. This is not a hard-and-fast rule&mdash;some people might say "they both had a horse: his was white and hers was black"&mdash;but I think that sort of sentence works better with "each". --76.71.5.45 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Both of them... a superb letter writer" might mean that the letters written by the two of them in collaboration were very good, even if the ones they wrote individually might not be so good. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "...both of them [were] a superb letter writer" is clearly unacceptable. It would have to be "...both of them [were] superb letter writers".  This neatly shows up that "both" is always plural, while "each" is singular.  Both of them have a job (or have jobs).  Each of them has a job.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)