Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 20

Translation

Suppose I download Inspire (magazine) from the Internet, translate it into French, and post the French version on the Internet. I do this all by myself. In the US, would I be guilty of any crime?

Just in case anyone's wondering, I am NOT planning to translate Inspire into French, nor is my French even good enough for such a task. I'm asking because someone did exactly that and was indicted in France for "terrorism apologism" and "inciting acts of terrorism". --Bowlhover (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Crime or a tort? You could be sued for copyright infringement. --Jayron32 00:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's highly unlikely that anyone, least of all al-Qaeda, would claim copyright and pursue the matter in court. I'm pretty sure the author(s) would be overjoyed to see their work in another language anyhow. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The question was not what would happen. You wanted to know what could happen. Stealing the work of others and publishing it without their permission is copyright infringement, a civil law violation. Whether the person or persons so aggrieved actually sues you or not is irrelevant, and also not within the scope of this board to speculate on. You wanted to know what crime you were committing in the U.S. It's not a crime. It's a civil violation known as copyright infringement. --Jayron32 01:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A little more specifically, US copyright law gives the original creator exclusive rights to create derivative works, of which a translation is one. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I knew it's copyright infringement, but I wanted to know if I would be committing a crime. Is your answer that I would only be guilty of a tort, and not also a crime? --Bowlhover (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would be wise for any of us to tell you you would not also be committing a crime, since we are not lawyers, and we do not know all the specifics. You've been advised of commonknowledge about the relevant civil laws. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, the person in France is in legal trouble not because of a copyright violation, but because the text he translated allegedly violates French anti-terrorism laws [1]. These laws vary from country to country. --Xuxl (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And that's exactly why I asked what the law is in the United States. --Bowlhover (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

We told you the laws. Not criminal law, a civil law, against copyright infringement. --Jayron32 14:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Although copyright infringement generally is seen as a civil matter and most copyright infringement cases are civil actions, it can also be prosecuted criminally. The relevant federal statute is 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1), which provides:

Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed-- (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

It sounds like what you describe probably would not come within any of these prohibitions, but that should not be taken as more than the guess it is. It is possible that the infringement would also come within other criminal statutes. John M Baker (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What you are referring to John is anti-piracy law. That is slightly different from civil law regarding derivative rights, which covers translations, although what you mention is interesting in its own merits. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Medeis: Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "anti-piracy law" (except, you know, the kind involving actual pirates, on the high seas and such). The crime is criminal copyright infringement, and it's the one that the OP is asking about. It's true that this statute is used primarily for copyright infringements involving software and music, but in theory it is equally applicable to written materials. John M Baker (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The law you quote has to do with the copying or distribution of a copyrighted work or one in process--it basically defines a new type of theft, and has nothing to do with derivative works, and nothing to do with the question the OP asked about making a translation, which is still covered as civil infringement. I am baffled by the significance of your point that this is not technically high-seas piracy. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Under U.S. law, the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works (such as translations) based upon the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 106. Any act that violates any of a copyright owner's exclusive rights is an infringement. Black's Law Dictionary, infringement (9th ed. 2009). An act of infringement is a criminal offense if it is willful and if it meets any of the requirements of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1), of which the relevant alternative would be if the infringement was for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. The criminal statute does, therefore, apply to translations. Of course, per John Z, if the source is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted and there can be no infringement. John M Baker (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point I don't know if you are being willfully obtuse, but the full conditions are:

Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

The law applies to distributing physical or electronic copies for gain of a finished work or one in progress. Clause (a) by itself is necessary, but not sufficient, (a) in conjunction with (b) or (c) constitutes the crime. This law does not criminalize translating a copyrighted work per se. The translation of a text is not the reproduction or distribution of that text, it is a derivative work, not a reproduction. It's an anti-pirating law. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I will choose to be amused rather than offended. Anyway, you are incorrect; Sections 506(a)(1)(A), (B), and (C) are alternatives, and any one of them is sufficient for criminal liability to attach. We can tell this just from the text; consistent with the usual drafting practice for the United States Code, there is an "or" after the (B) clause and no conjunction after the (A) clause. If there were any doubt, however, it's made crystal clear by 18 U.S.C. § 2319, which has separate criminal liability provisions for each clause. John M Baker (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Inspire (magazine) may be in the public domain - see the talk page. Mohamed Yousry and Tarek Mehanna have been prosecuted and convicted in the USA for similar actions. The translation being into French would likely not succeed as a defense against similar prosecutions.John Z (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

On the surface, it's rather shocking to see someone convicted just for translating something. However, freedom of speech/press is not boundless. It all depends what you do with such a translation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to note that the OP's two examples seem a bit incongruous. The FBI would definitely see a distinction between posting a translation of a magazine like Inspire ... and translating and posting a message from a known terrorist organization. The second might well see you arrested for engaging in terrorism. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the government would make a distinction between "You need to know what the enemy is saying" vs. "I believe in making war on the country, just like what these glorious freedom fighters are saying". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Since it's probably kind of hard to follow the back-and-forth above, I wanted to clarify the answer to the OP's question. Translation and publication of the magazine may be a crime under U.S. law; the statements that there could be only civil liability are incorrect, although in practice criminal prosecution is unlikely. Criminal liability may attach if all the requirements of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) are met. Those requirements are as follows:

• That the magazine is in copyright;
• That the person publishing the translation acted willfully; and
• That he or she acted for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.

On the facts as described, all three elements are in doubt, but none can be conclusively eliminated. John M Baker (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, that's simply not true, Mr. Baker; the law you quote (I should say woefully misrepresent) does not cover derivative works like translations. It covers physical or electronic copies of the original work for sale or under production. Again: "(a) Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (b) by the reproduction or distribution, ... of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; (c) or by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution..." Clause (a) by the means expressed either clause (b) or (c) must be met. Clause (b) starts with a by, not an or. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, you have exhausted my patience. I have no idea why you persist in your uninformed statements. 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A), (B), and (C) are alternatives. Meeting the requirements of any one clause is sufficient for criminal liability to attach. It is irrelevant that clause (A) starts with the preposition "for" while clauses (B) and (C) start with the preposition "by," when either preposition can grammatically and sensibly follow the language preceding those clauses. As I noted above, we know for sure that the three clauses are independent, because each has its own criminal punishment specified in 18 U.S.C. § 2319. Any infringement, including the publication of a derivative work, is subject to criminal liability if the requirements of the statute are met. We know all this from the clear language of the statute itself and from standard references in the field. See, for example, Rebecca E. Hatch, Criminal Infringement of Copyright Under 17 U.S.C.A. § 506, 120 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 181 (2011).

At this point, I must ask you to supply some backup for your claims. I have provided you with a legal analysis and an authoritative reference. I am a 1984 graduate of Harvard Law School and have 29 years of legal experience. What basis do you have for asserting that I have "woefully misrepresent[ed]" the law? John M Baker (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with John here, the reading I would give it is "Shall be punished if committed (for personal or financial gain/by the reproduction/by the distribution of a work being prepared)" The dash after "if committed" introduces a clause of the form A, B, or C, where doing any of A, B, or C makes it a crime. For your reading, it should read "shall be punished if committed for financial gain - by the reproduction ... or by the distribution..." (note that the dash has moved). On the other hand, depending on whether or not a translation is considered a copy in US law, if the translator was not making a profit (no pesonal gain, so not (a)), and the magazine had aleady been published (so cannot come under (c)), there ma be no crime in the original example. MChesterMC (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate the time and effort of everyone here, but I honestly don't care whether translating Inspire would violate copyright. I wanted to know specifically about non-copyright laws like those regarding terrorism and threats of violence. Sorry that I didn't make this clear. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You ask whether you would be guilty of any crime, and about criminal laws. I would say no. And I would say that the consensus of society would have said that in a freer, idyllic era, now shrouded in the mists of time, like 1993. :-) But likely your implicit question is whether you would be prosecuted or found guilty in today's USA. And I would say yes - it would be very dangerous to do this, just as it is in France. If you were a Muslim, if you were Middle-Eastern or "ethnic", if you were political (in some way outside the two-party duopoly), or were associated with such people, the danger would be seriously heightened. Of course if you were wealthy or powerful the danger would be diminished. An academic doing such a thing for academic purposes would be less likely to be prosecuted. One academic testifying for Mehanna noted he regularly did the same things Mehanna was prosecuted for, but he was not prosecuted, although on the government's [remarkable] theories he should have been in danger also. Since Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project one can hardly overestimate the incredible overreach of the definition of material support for terrorism.John Z (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It might have helped if you had mentioned a little earlier that you were only interested in non-copyright laws. You might want to repost the question, since it's about to scroll off the Reference Desk.

It is illegal to publish anything advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government. 18 USC § 2385. So intent is going to be a critical issue. If a criminal proceeding were brought, authorities might actually include criminal copyright infringement, just to have a potential alternative basis for conviction. There may be other potentially applicable statutes, but I know more about copyright law than the laws applicable to terrorists. John M Baker (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Spartans Helots

The ancient Spartans practised their military skills on their Helots, singling out the more intelligent, innovative, potential leaders. What other examples exist of a ruling class using their lower class to practice their military skills on. As there may be a lot of examples, historically/geographically, I am particularly interested in Europeans/Russians in modern times, no further back than 1,000 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

In Edo period Japan; "Law stated that any disrespect against a samurai from a peasant was justifiable cause for the peasant to be killed on the spot. Some regions had laws so lax that a samurai could kill a peasant for any reason at all, often leading to "practice murder." [2] Alansplodge (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Northern France in the 11th century was known for it's random violence committed by the knightly class - the idea goes that because the feudal system was particularly strong there, sometimes there were young knights with no land, who had nothing better to do that wander around making war on other landless knights and attacking peasants. The Peace and Truce of God was an attempt by the church to stop (or at least regulate) this. There is also a theory that this is partially responsible for the crusades - the church, looking for a way to stop all this random violence, decided to round up all these jerks and send them somewhere where they could put their skills to good use. It's an outdated theory, since the origins of the crusades are far more complicated than that, but this was a real concern - the theme of the brutal, peasant-attacking knight definitely appears in the literature of the time. (As an example of such a knight who was sent on crusade, see William the Carpenter.) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically that would be knights attacking other knights property, not really an example of a ruling class "using their lower class to practice their military skills on". I think the Spartan society (if we are to believe the sources) was pretty extreme and unique in that regard, there simply isn't anything comparable anywhere else. The Japanese example is probably what comes closest to something like that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is something even more barbaric: Tsujigiri. Samurai would test out their swords on random passerby, often at night, to see how well they worked. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

At least in theory, Europeans were bound by the Ten Commandments which forbid murder. Although there were all sorts of ways of legitimizing killing people, an institutional right to murder whoever one wanted would have been beyond the pale in my opinion. 07:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

'Role reversal' in political thought?

This is just a terminology question. I was wondering if there was a specific term for making a point about feminism or discrimination generally in which one changes the parties involved but not the situation, and noting that we would react differently if that were the case. For example, if someone were to argue that the TV show Take Me Out was unacceptable because if it were thirty men (or just four) judging the romantic and sexual appeal of a single woman, it would be regarded as extremely distasteful. Or perhaps (though this is maybe slightly different) exploring how we would react to the burqa if it arose out of some kind of western, quasi-feminist movement.

is there a term for that, or even just a better one than 'role reversal'?

Thanks much for your attention, Wikipedians! Dan Hartas (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Turning the tables ? (can't find an article) --Xuxl (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also seen someone call it "the flip test" as in "let's see if this argument passes the flip test". Katie R (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal question: Would Charlie Harper's daughter have a claim to his estate?

In this season of Two and a Half Men, the show is introducing Charlie Harper's previously-unknown daughter, Jenny, as a new character. I don't know what is supposed to have happened to Charlie's properties when he died, but (possibly counterfactually relative to the show's plot) let's assume that Charlie died intestate and his properties were distributed according to law. Now further assume that Jenny could prove her relationship to Charlie. Would Jenny have a claim to her father's estate against recipient(s) of the properties already distributed? Two and a Half Men is set in California, but if the story took place in some random place in the US, what would the legal situation of Jenny typically be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.146.6 (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The laws governing the handling of estates is going to vary from state to state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If he dies intestate (and unmarried), presumption is normally that any children inherit, but they would have to come forth while the estate is in probate. It will be hard to make a claim or perhaps impossible after the estate is settled. Also, the concept of legitimacy at least used to play a role, with illegitimate children not being recognized legally as having any claim to inheritance. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That would depend on the laws of the particular state. I don't think this is a matter of national law, except as regards estate taxes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "it depends on the state" covers about 90% of questions on US law. (I didn't repeat it, cause you'd already said it.) μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe, in the show, he died owing more than his assets, based on his lavish lifestyle of gambling and hookers, so the creditors would be paid off first, with nothing left for the heirs. This is why his brother Allan, in order to continue living in the house, had to sponge off the new owner, as he had off of Charlie. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

But even this would vary from state to state and what kind of assets they were. For example, in some places life insurance is distributed regardless of whether the deceased had debts outstanding. No idea about California, though. Matt Deres (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that will be part of her character's plotline, that she has some claim to the home which is how she persuades Walden to allow her to stay. We will find out when it airs.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

While, in the TV show, it turns out the Charlie had three mortgages on the house and didn't leave any money to his family, because he was a jingle writer, I assume his estate would receive residual checks for as long as the copyright to his tunes lasted. Music licensing is very organized and, in general, more money goes to the songwriter than the performer (which is why touring is such an important source of income for most musicians). While, of course, he would not be producing any new music, as long as his jingles continued to be used in advertising or TV theme songs, domestically or abroad, his estate would be compensated.

Of course, sitcoms are not known for being realistic (what does Barney on How I Met Your Mother do?), in this scenario, assuming his daughter could prove paternity, she likely has a claim on his estate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Misogyny article - section on Judaism

Someone has locked the article on misogyny, even though there's a bit of bullcrap on it. The section on Judaism has blatant misinformation on it, such as where it talks about Lilith and where it says Jewish women can't divorce their husbands. No, no, no. Lilith is basically a piece of fanfiction that shows up nowhere in the Torah and wasn't even a concept until the Middle Ages. Jewish women COULD divorce their husbands for a number of reasons, including abuse and if he were sexually repulsive to her. Finally, just to add insult to injury, it talks about "the divine feminine" or something which makes me think that part was written by a Neopagan. Also note that all of this crap is unsourced.

I've left two comments on the talk page so far and as of yet no one's stepped up to fix this or source their so-called "facts". I request that either the article be unlocked so that I can fix or someone else goes in and fixes it. Bluekevlar16 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Bluekevlar16

This is not the proper forum. You should put your comments on the article talk page. The article is only semi-protected because of vandalism. That merans you will be able to edit in a few days from a newly-created account. Paul B (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there an orthodox prayer where Jewish men thank God for not having been born women? μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, apparently. --BDD (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether it should go in dispute resolution or not, since I haven't seen any one person causing trouble. Also, I've already left two comments on the talk page, and got no reply, and as of yet no one's fixed this glaring errors.

At the above people, Idk if that's true or not. I was just seriously annoyed with the blatant lies like the sheep crap about Lilith and not being able to divorce. It's also rather unfair that Judaism gets such a long entry (with hardly any sources), whereas the other sections on religions hardly mention anything. I mean, look at how short the section on Greek mythology is, and the myths outright state women were created in order to punish mankind. Bluekevlar16 (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Bluekevlar16

I think it was only Hesiod who said that "women were created in order to punish mankind", and he's known for having a somewhat sour personality in some respects. As for divorce, see Agunot... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, wrong venue. Take it to the article talk page. — Richard BB 21:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to the OP's claims, Lilith appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls and many other Jewish texts written well before the Middle Ages: see Lilith. The section on Judaism is comparable in length to the sections on Christianity and Islam. I think it's fair to say that ancient Greek mythology has a much smaller influence on today's world, and that fewer people know or want to learn about it, than for any of these 3 religions. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The myths also have Artemis kicking out one of her huntresses for being "impure" (being raped by Zeus) and Athena punishing Medusa and her sisters for daring to be raped by a god, so it's not just that part. Ah well, my source I had read said a woman could initiate divorce based on a number of reasons, guess that source was wrong. I'm not Jewish, so my knowledge is pretty scant. I just thought it was unfair to Judaism whenever most other religions have sections talking about how they're not as bad as others think.

Again, what am I supposed to do when the article is locked and no one replies to me or the other person on the talk page because they know they can get away with it?

Yeah, she appears as some kind of demon or monster, not as Adam's first wife. My point regarding Lilith still stands. And Greek mythology continues to get more attention in the media than any other mythos, and is often sanitized and sugar-coated for kids. Also, starting in the 20th century, some people started worshipping them again, and yes, it's heavily sanitized and appropriated but that combibned with the pop-cultural stuff makes me think that the misogyny in Greek mythology deserves more of a look. Also look at how most Greek women were treated. They had fewer rights than most other pagan societies afforded to their women, and certainly less rights than the ones in Persia (despite what 300 claims). And what about other pagan cultures? Islam has its flaws, but at least it made it illegal to kill infant girls and maybe it's so that at least Arabian women have some rights.

Also I think it's kind of worth mentioning that Islam does actually have some positive things in relation to women, such as what I've already said, and also how the treatment of women in the modern day is actually worse than what it used to be. Bluekevlar16 (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Bluekevlar16

Ancient Greek societies had some repressive customs against women (varying to some degree between different city-states, with Athens often being one of the most repressive), and also had some bizarre (occasionally disturbing) myths -- but the myths weren't generally directly used to justify the social customs (there was at best a rather tenuous and indirect connection between the two). There was also no fixed "canon" of ancient Greek religious texts, or consensus on which writings were most authoritative (except that mainstream Greek thought placed Homer -- most of whose writings were not primarily religious in nature -- on a level above the others). Therefore it would have been ineffective in many cases to try to use the writings of someone like Hesiod to justify repressive social institutions; Hesiod was a somewhat respected early author, but he was not the voice of God, and his heavy-handed personality was far from being to everyone's taste, and it would have very unclear to many why Hesiod should be allowed to dictate social arrangements... AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Karen Carpenter's Voice

Can anyone suggest a good analysis of what makes Karen Carpenter's voice so distinctive in both abstract and concrete aspects? Our article doesn't even mention the subject. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that information usually discussed in singers' articles? How is it sourced? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Some information here. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have certainly read comments on other singer's voices--NB's link mentions lush harmonics. If I knew the answer I wouldn't be asking the question. I am assuming a musicologist could have an educated comment on the subject. I have neither the skill nor the vocabulary. I can make sense of commentary in this field, but not produce it myself. μηδείς (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Jack is a music guru here, so hopefully he can comment. Karen had what I, as a total non-expert, would call a "rich" voice. Too many of today's singers sound like shrieking 12 year old girls. (And by the way, I include Bieber in that category.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't comment, hopefully or in any other way. My gurutude has its limits. The mechanics of voice production is not something I know much about. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, full, golden, and rich are terms that appeal to me, and I would suspect that her overtones are extremely regular. But that's the totally ignorant guess of a layman who cannot read music or play an instrument. Timbre is obviously a relevant concept. I'd be happy to settle for a good documentary on the subject of the human voice in music along the line of something by Howard Goodall. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Check out the very interesting [3]. Note also that she was a contralto, the lowest female voice. That just may be the range for your taste. But it makes sense too: Lower notes means more possible audible harmonic content (the higher the harmonics you go, the less you are going to be able to hear them, so the lower the note, the more number of harmonics you will be able to hear, ceteris paribus). Here's some discussion of recording equipment and technique: [4]. A final link relevant Google scholar search link: [5] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! This http://rfrick.info/interpretation/carpenter.htm is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I'll have to listen to her again in light of its comments. μηδείς (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Even more excellent. I've often wondered why singers, mainly female popular ones, sometimes do what I think of as "croaking" a word or two to inject some special feeling, since nobody never does this when speaking. And there's the answer: Gristle and Creak (good name for a band). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

'[N]obody never does this when speaking' - not sure if it's the same thing, but what about creaky voice or vocal fry? See also Language Log on the subject. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You'll notice my intentional Freudian slip - "nobody never does this". See, typos do have their uses.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As in, "Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as a female her voice was officially called "contralto", but her range was more of a tenor, in that it was lower than most female voices and a note or three lower than the normal contralto range. She had roughly the same range as her brother, which is unusual. (I know this because my voice has almost the same range, and when I was doing A level music at school the teacher and I had to explore what songs I could sing in order to take the exam, and I ended up singing the tenor set pieces. Her voice was quoted as an example for me.) --TammyMoet (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Here is Richard Carpenter saying that at school, she was forced to sing falsetto which bears my point out. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Pre-modern poetry containing time travel or other worldy beings...

Hi, I was considering attempting to write a saga like poem about the Rendlesham UFO incident, and was wanting to know if there were any existing examples of Pre-Modern sagas (Anglo Saxon ones especially) which involve time travellers, ships of falling stars, other worldly visitors etc..

The idea came out of listening to a comment on Micheal Wood's BBC program on Beowulf, which stated that Rendlesham used to be an ancient Saxon seat.

However, I don't know that much about pre modern sagas and wold appreciate some starting points to draw from in the existing 'canon' so to speak. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of epics that speak of divine beings including stories as exotic to Europeans as the Popol Vuh and the Kalevala--how one defines other worlds is open--it doesn't mean other planets, since that notion wasn't discovered until the Greeks of the Classical era. I am not aware of any time travel stories before Mark Twain and H. G. Wells. But they may exist. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Time travel in fiction has stories of falling asleep or travelling to another and and returning in the future that predate Wells's machine. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Rip van Winkle would be an obvious example. Although that doesn't really defy the laws of physics, other than the notion that one could sleep for 20 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Louis-Sébastien Merciers L'An 2440 ("The Year 2440") from 1770 is another example. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Check out Voltaire's Micromegas (though not a "saga", of course)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• From the Hindu canon, see Revati for something similar to time travel and vimana for something similar to otherworldly flying craft. 142.134.215.140 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

True Story, The Man in the Moone and Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon are some early science-fiction-ish works. I'm not sure if the Green children of Woolpit would count (probably not) but it could be of some interest. 198.84.198.188 (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Like various others who spent time away with the fairies, Thomas the Rhymer is supposed to have undergone a form of time travel: it's likely older examples exist in the folklore of the British Isles and Europe. {The poster formerly known as 81.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)