Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 August 15

= August 15 =

Why don't people in England speak a Romance language?
If England was controlled by the Romans before,why aren't Romance languages spoken there today? Please note that I'm fully aware that most words in modern Englsih are derived from French and Latin. Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the Romans where no missionaries. The Roman Empire was Exploitation colonialism. --Kharon (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This question is answered in full at English language. Matt's talk 03:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The basic traditional answer is that the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain were the migration of a whole people, as opposed to the Visigoths in Spain and such, where the Germanic conquerors formed only a thin ruling class, underneath which there was substantial continuity of the provincial Roman society. There's some more extended discussion in "Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World" by Nicholas Ostler, near the end of Chapter 7.  Others have wondered if the Anglo-Saxon languages hadn't caught on, whether the inhabitants of England would be speaking a Romance language or a Celtic one (and then there's Brithenig, which splits the difference[[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]]).
 * By the way, "most words in modern English are derived from French and Latin" (and Greek) only if you count dictionary entries. There's a much more even split if you count the words in a text... AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a related but inverted question: why don't the French speak a Germanic language? The Franks had sufficient influence to change the name of the country and people where they settled, but not to change the language. It seems that most other former Roman countries either took the name and language of the invaders (England, Scotland, Turkey, Hungary), or retained their own name and language (Italy, Spain). Why did France take the name of the invaders but retain a Romance language? Iapetus (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Because largely the invaders had a pretense towards re-establishing the Roman Empire. Medieval Latin remained the languages of the upper classes and a lingua franca throughout Western Europe, and a prestige language.  After Charlemagne re-established the Western Roman Empire with himself as Emperor, Latin (the language of the upper classes) and Old French (a form of vulgar Latin that was slowly evolving into French) were the main languages of his realm.  Starting with the Oaths of Strasbourg, Old French increasingly became a language of government, slowly displacing Latin.  -- Jayron 32 12:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The Romans failed to invade Scandinavia. Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did they ever seriously try to do so? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no reason to. The Romans weren't big aficionados of skiing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Romans certainly were aware of Scandanavia, see Swedes (Germanic tribe). While Rome did not invade Scandinavia (which would have been difficult given that they never incorporated any land bordering it!) they did trade with them, hinted at in History_of_Scandinavia and Germanic-Roman contacts.  Both iron ore and grain were important Scandinavian exports.  -- Jayron 32 12:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that the Welsh language has a fair number of Latin loan words picked-up from the Romans, mostly relating to technology introduced by them; ffenest (window) pont (bridge) and melin (mill) spring to mind. As modern Welsh is descended from the Common Brittonic language spoken by the Ancient Britons, it's a fair assumption that the average Romano-British person had a fair smattering of Latin. Alansplodge (talk)
 * You'd be hard pressed to find a single modern European language which did not have significant numbers of Latin/Romance loanwords, given the pervasiveness of Latin and Romance languages throughout history. Even Russian (see, i.e. Comrade).  Analysis of language evolution suffers from a Ship of Theseus problem, languages change in incremental ways over time, and they change through contacts with other cultures.  Even linguists have a hard time coming up with a taxonomy they can all agree to (see Lumpers and splitters, and somewhat flippant adage A language is a dialect with an army and navy). -- Jayron 32 12:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Although in the case of Welsh, this can be directly attributed to the Roman occupation rather than Medieval or Renaissance scholarship. See The Legacy of Rome: A New Appraisal (p. 392) edited by Richard Jenkyns, and The Welsh Language: A History (p. 7) by Janet Davies.  Alansplodge (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welsh also has significant contributions from Norman French, which makes since since the Normans, as a ruling class, were in Wales as long as the Romans were: . -- Jayron 32 10:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Normani ite domum? Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Mary, Mother of Jesus
Question sparked by a comment about Mary in the Guanyin discussion above: Muslims do not believe Jesus was the Son of God, but merely a prophet. Muslims venerate Mary, but do not believe in the immaculate conception. So, why do Muslims venerate Mary? What did she do / how did she lead her life that was so special? DOR (HK) (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article titled Mary in Islam which is quite detailed and explains her role in the Qu'ran. -- Jayron 32 14:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That article carefully skirts around the major issue that calling Mary the "sister of Aaron" and "daughter of Imran" (i.e. Amram), means that the Qur'an confuses Mary mother of Jesus with Miriam sister of Moses (two figures who are at least a thousand years apart). AnonMoos (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No, that means that YOU characterize such as a confusion. The text says what the text says.  Your interpretation begins with the word "means" which is what you believe it to mean.  -- Jayron 32 16:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's nice -- if you personally choose to interpret the Qur'an as a free floating fairy-tale with no connection to any events on planet earth (the same way that you chose to interpret Great Expectations last week), then everything is in a relativist haze where nothing can said to be right or wrong (or you can choose to regard it as being that way). However, as soon as the Qur'an is located as document belonging to a certain culture at a certain period of history, then we're no longer floating in an indeterminate haze, and some things immediately become much more probable than other things... AnonMoos (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I never said any of that, so your argument is entirely null. I have provided no interpretation, and never said that it was a free floating fairy-tale.  YOU said that.  I have not made any statement one way or the other, so your characterization of me is a strawman which serves no purpose.  Instead of making rude defensive statements characterizing me based on nothing except your own insecurity at being called out for not directing the OP to any useful reading, cite reliable sources instead of telling us what you think.  Just direct the reader to reliable commentary on the subject, and don't tell them what they should think about it.  -- Jayron 32 17:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- you seem to operate under an extreme relativist theory of literary criticism, where the minute somebody says something that goes beyond the literal words of the text, then it's all merely pure personal opinion, where no one personal opinion is any more right or wrong than any other. That was certainly the strong impression I received from your exegesis of Great Expectations (and you didn't bother to contradict it at the time).  I find the extension of this philosophy from literature to religion to be unhelpful, and I don't see any reason why I shouldn't say so. AnonMoos (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't operate under any of that so stop with the bullshit where you tell me what I think where I haven't stated it. Stop pretending like you can read my mind, it's rude and I'll ask you to stop it.  What I have said is that you have not provided the OP with any reliable sources to read.  Provide some sources, because until you do you are doing nothing of value here.  I've never said that "no one personal opinion any more right or wrong than any other"  Instead, in the context of the role of the reference desk, we're not here to provide our own personal opinions.  We're here to direct people to published scholarship, either here on Wikipedia or elsewhere.  Stop telling me I believe what I have never stated believe, because it doesn't have anything to do with my belief.  Provide some references or shut the fuck up.  -- Jayron 32 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever dude -- it's been pretty extensively discussed in various Muslim-Christian dialogues over the years, but all your postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativistic garbage (clearly visible in your message of "16:55, 15 August 2017" directly above) doesn't create any corresponding urgency in me to seek out sources. In fact I see no real reason to cater to your free-floating indeterminate fairy-tale haze as if you were a random honest questioner. Showing that you have some basic respect for facts, truth, and evidence would be far more effective on me than a barrage of four-letter words. AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am pretty much the exact opposite of a "postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativistic" so you characterization of me as such is beyond hilarious. I have ONLY respect for absolute facts, truth, and evidence, but no respect for randos who show up and tell people what they know without providing evidence.  You'll note that ONE person in this debate has presented evidence.  It's not you.  One person has showed up telling people their own opinions, and has provided no facts at all, that's you.  The irony of the situation should be plain.  For someone who attacks others as relativistic (and funnily enough, picks the exact wrong person to do it to, because I'm pretty much exactly the opposite of that) you certainly do a lot of claiming that facts and evidence aren't important enough to provide, and instead just expect us to trust you.  Don't provide facts and evidence to me.  I've already researched them and helped the OP find them.  Provide them to the OP.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to be mistaken for one, then don't act like one, as in your "01:39, 3 August 2017" comment on Great Expectations, and don't be so quick to don't tell other people that what they say is merely their personal opinion (with the implication that all such opinions are equally valid, which I find incredibly annoying). AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * All opinions are NOT equally valid. Your opinion, for example, that I am a relativist is absolutely wrong, and thus is a shit opinion.  Which I keep telling you.  You also ignore what I say when it is inconvenient for you to have to confront it, so you keep skipping over it to create a fictional character to disagree with, and then give that fictional character my name.  Stop that.  The only thing you have done wrong, and the only thing I will keep reminding you have done wrong, until you either fix the problem or go away, is to provide the OP with facts for them to answer their question.  I have never said that any opinion is valid.  I have said YOUR opinion is worthless, because you are not a reliable, published expert on the matter.  Instead of giving your opinion, give them something to read.  You know, a reference.  Stop deflecting this into some invented character you've made me out to be, and provide some sources to be useful to the OP.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, if you had bothered to look at the Amram article, you would have seen that it's widely agreed that Qur'anic "Imran" does mean Amram in another passage... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A couple of seconds of Googling brings up lots of Islamic scholarship on the issue. A lot of jumping through hoops, you might say...reminds me of New Testament exegesis :) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As explained at Jayron's link, and also at Jesus in Islam, Muslims do believe that Jesus had a virgin birth. Mary was chosen by God, purified by God to be without sin, and gave birth to Jesus who was also without sin.  In Islamic teaching Jesus is not God incarnate, but his birth and life are still considered miraculous.  He would generally be considered the second most important prophet, behind only Muhammad.  Dragons flight (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Reading those articles, it appears that in Muslim theology God endowed Mary with the Holy Spirit and she conceived and had a son, Jesus.  So who do Muslims consider His father to be? 92.19.169.76 (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This book presents one particular Muslim scholar's statement on the matter on page 127. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The traditional Islamic view, as I understand it, is that Jesus has no father. Jesus, like Adam, was a divine creation.  However, Islam does not consider it correct to say that God "fathered" Jesus.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This discussion was carried over to Talk:Mary in Islam. It appears that I have taken a postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativistic stance similar to Jayron32's. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Roflmao. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Since you didn't imply that every personal opinion is just as valid as any other, I would say you didn't... AnonMoos (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

District of Columbia Authority
Constitutionally, do the President and/or the Supreme Court have anything to do with the District of Columbia when its engaged in acts that normally would fall on the state's governor and/or the legislature?

I know that DC derives its authority from the US Constitution, Article I "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States", Section 8 "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District..." But does that mean that the President and the Supreme Court are totally cut out?

For example, if someone is about to be prosecuted for simple burglary in DC and the prosecutors office must make a decision on whether or not the case is worth prosecuting, would the prosecutor's authority to make that decision come directly from the Congress, passed down through Washington's mayor, similar to any of the 50 states? Like: Legislature => Governor => Prosecutor is similar to Congress => Mayor => Prosecutor. Wouldn't this allow Congress, if they wanted, to overrule DC's prosecutors in the case of a simple burglary?

Or does the authority flow through the executive branch, so that the President can overrule the prosecutors office? Like this: Congress => President => Mayor => Prosecutors Office. Does this mean that the President has the power to interfere in a non-federal crime? Does he also have the power, for instance, to interfere in DC's budget? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As per our Washington, D.C. article, the Attorney General is elected to a four-year term (while not stated in so many words, this implies “by the voting residents of the District”). And, “Congress typically provides additional grants for federal programs such as Medicaid and the operation of the local justice system…” The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 put in place legal system reforms. Adult felon prisoners are under the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The District also runs misdemeanor Detention and Correctional centers. Parole is handled by the United States Parole Commission. As DC is under the authority of Congress, the President would not be involved in any legal decisions. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Are Presidential pardons plenary? I believe the President can pardon, even prospectively, anyone in DC convicted of "Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" (USC II.2). See Plenary power. Can anyone confirm? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)