Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 August 1

= August 1 =

memorious
I don't quite understand the meaning of the phrase "memorious substance" in "memorious substance of land laws". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.153 (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The phrase appears to be from a book called The Old Way by Robert Macfarlane (Amazon). In context it is "Paths are consensual, too, because without common care and common practice they disappear: overgrown by vegetation, ploughed up or built over (though they may persist in the memorious substance of land law)." As far as I can tell, this is the only time the phrase has ever been used (or, at least, so says Google).
 * For this reason I suggest that the phrase is, essentially, meaningless. If I were editing the book I would be very tempted to simply strike through 'the memorious substance of' and I don't think the meaning would be changed at all. The author seems to be fond of using slightly odd, impenetrable phrases; see here for discussion of another from the same book. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the author made up the word, it's clearly an adjective derived from "memory" and the meaning of the phrase would be: "these paths still exist as a memory in land laws" even though they have ceased to be used. In other words, local land laws may still refer to paths that existed at one point in time even though they are no longer used today and may even have completely disappeared. --Xuxl (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The OED gives two meanings for 'memorious': " Having a good memory; mindful of (obs.)." and "Memorable; evocative of or rich in memories", neither of which seems particularly helpful in explaining the phrase. Etymology is "post-classical Latin memoriosus - having a good memory". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By memorious substance he just means the (metaphorical) memory of the law. There are old records and precedents and modern remainders of past boundaries and roads.  The straight diagonal boundary between Burlington County, New Jersey and Ocean County, New Jersey reflects the old pre-Revolutionary boundary between East Jersey and West Jersey.  Compare the name King's Highway which used to be King's Highway (Charleston to Boston) in the US and is now a local name for various roads such as New Jersey Route 27 in the New Brunswick-Princeton area and New Jersey Route 41 in the Deptford, NJ area. There's the Manson-Nixon line which was the surveyed boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania, which became the "border" between free and slave states in the US.  These all exist in the memorious substance of the land law. μηδείς (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary car equivalent
We've had a few questions on cars recently which have been given pretty short shrift, but I'd still like to ask one myself. What would be the modern equivalent of a Rover P4? Not (necessarily) in terms of performance/size, but in terms of comfort and percieved "luxury"? In other words, what sort of car would a modern-day Captain Mainwaring drive? (I hesitate to say "a modern bank manager" for obvious reasons). Tevildo (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is really an appropriate question for the reference desk (seems to be more of a discussion/opinion question), but I'm going to throw out an answer anyway. From a quick read of both the Rover P4 and Captain Mainwaring articles, I would posit that the Mercedes-Benz S-Class or a BMW_7_Series would be a modern-day equivalent. --Zerozal (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, let's make it formally correct. "Are there any statistics to show which type of car is more popular among Socioeconomic Group B, and which of these cars most resembles the P4?"  The 7-Series is probably a good candidate, although (IMO) that's more into P5 territory. Tevildo (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the article's claim that the P4 was "widely known as the 'Poor man's Rolls Royce'" - I've requested a citation be added in the article. My family owned one when I was a child and we were not rich by any means.  It was nicer than most of my friend's family's cars but it didn't feel particularly "special".  Looking back though, I can appreciate that perhaps we could only afford to run such a car because my father was a mechanic.  Astronaut (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And one caution about comparing old cars with new ones, it doesn't work when comparing the values of each, say to determine the rate of inflation of car prices over the years. This is because modern cars have all sorts of features which classic cars lacked, like airbags, antilock brakes, etc.  So, it's an apples and oranges comparison. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Which type and model of Buick?
The other day I was on camping in Denmark and the Buick Club of Denmark had a meet-up there. Buicks are unusual in Denmark as they have never been sold here, only imported second-hand. There I spotted this yellow beauty and what was astonishing for me a completely matching caravan. I am ignorant of older cars, but this one has gotten me curious to what type/model/year (approximately) of car, and whether the caravan is a 'Buick' caravan. I have tried looking around on the Buick pages, and I am wondering if it could be an "early" Buick Riviera. I tried deciphering the text on the side of the car, which is something with "R...", maybe Riviera? Unfortunately I did not have my DSLR with me, so it is a mobile phone shot, so the details aren't that great. I have tried asking the Buick Club of Denmark by mail about the car, but no response. --Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are pretty much right. The earliest Rivieras were called Buick Roadmaster Rivieras, and were a part of the Buick Roadmaster range. Take a look at the 5th generation (1949-1953), and at this example. The badge on the side of the car in your picture appears to say 'Roadmaster' rather than 'Riviera'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cucumber Mike, Thanks for your swift and precise reply! Yes, it all makes sense with the Roadmaster Riviera, and the "Roadmaster" text! I wrote caravan before, but that was due to my incomplete English, I meant the travel trailer. I cannot find any mentioning on the net about Buick producing travel trailers. Is the travel trailer one which has been styled to match the Roadmaster, or is it "original"? --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Velbekomme :-) Unfortunately, my knowledge of caravans is extremely limited. In fact, until you just mentioned it, I had no idea there was a difference between a caravan and a 'travel trailer' (and I'm a native English speaker!) I'll have to leave this to someone else. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found some examples of scale modles of 1949 Roadmaster Rivieras with a travel trailer being available for purchase, here for example. I wonder if that indicates that the travel trailer is a 'buick' trailer? --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The trailer in your picture is a type that's been made, with minor variations, by hundreds of different companies over the years. I suspect, based on a flaw in the styling on the trailer (if you look at the chrome trim separating the yellow and white areas, the trim on the car forms a single smooth curve, while the trim on the trailer has an angle just to the rear of the door) that the trailer was modified by the owner to match the car. --Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Carnildo, Thanks for your reply. It makes sense! I consider this question resolved. --Slaunger (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

First Settlers
I would be interested in knowing who were the first settlers in the Algonquin Provincial Park area before it became a Park and in what year did the settlers leave that land. Thank you... hope to get a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreverangel54 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Ojibwe people are known to have settled the area, and given the shallowness of the Algonquin languages in the area it is quite likely they were not the first. Indeed the area was likely used as soon as the glaciers melted, some 10,000 years ago.  You can look at Archaeology of Canada. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)