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.
Which teams in different sports have US presidents been fans of? I think Wikipedia should have a list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.67.49 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 November 2014
Some politicians are genuine fans, while others see an advantage to embracing a team they may not normally care about. But politicians who don't really follow a sport and are ignorant of the details have to be careful. Like in 2008 when Sarah Palin congratulated the Phillies' World Series win, while campaigning in western Pennsylvania. But a politician who is a fan of a sport may know less than he think he does. Richard Nixon provided some kind of offensive play idea to Don Shula, coach of the Dolphins, who tried it out of a sense of obligation. It didn't work. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lyndon Johnson is the assistant football coach at Maryland. Though, as he's alive and black, he's probably not that Lyndon Johnson. The one who said Gerald Ford was "a nice fellow but he spent too much time playing football without a helmet."
Obama is a fan of both the Chicago Bears and Pittsburgh Steelers. Tho he never became president John McCain became a big fan of the Green Bay Packers because of the limited press he got during his captivity (and then famously confused their jerseys with those of the Steelers during the 2008 campaign). George W. Bush was part of the ownership for the Texas Rangers(Edit:Clarityfiend already mentioned this!) so I'm assuming he is and was a fan. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way10:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I've read academic journal articles that compare American immigrant families from developing countries and white European-American families. But I think there is something missing. Has there been any discussions on where African Americans fit in the collectivist-individualist spectrum? (By "African-Americans", I mean African Americans whose ancestors have been through the 1800s, not modern-day African immigrants.) 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC) (moved by Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Belay that last comment - I've just proved myself wrong. I remembered in 2008, the gasp of astonishment which accompanied the Speaker Michael Martin's confession that he allowed the police to ransack the office of MP Damian Green without asking if they had a search warrant (they didn't). Hansard records: 'I was not told that the police did not have a warrant. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Order.' [3] So yes, Hansard does record "noises off". Alansplodge (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the mention of a long-standing alliance wouldn't have been enough to elicit surprise. Would the surprise have been related to the fact that Churchill was working with Salazar? Hack (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. “The Creeds of the Devil”: Churchill between the Two Totalitarianisms, 1917-1945 by Antoine Capet discusses Churchill's attitudes towards various dictators and says (just over half-way down the page); "There is no reason to believe that Churchill entertained any illusions towards Salazar, and even less that he had any empathy for him and his régime. Simply, Churchill evidently believed that he had played a good trick on Hitler by turning the tables on him, with a Fascist dictator indirectly participating in the British struggle against the U-boats." Personally, what I find surprising is the political gymnastics required to represent Portugal's neutrality as the continuation of an alliance. Still, in total war the ends can justify the means I suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the news today is a story about the UN Human Rights Committee voting to take North Korea to the International Criminal Court over its human rights record. I'm struggling to find a list of how each country voted - can anyone help? Coolcato (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking Bugs. I had trouble too - I don't think it it was a General Assembly vote or resolution, it believe this vote was a pre-cursor with that being the next step (changed the title from resolution to vote as it was misleading. ) There was a photo of a big screen with what looks like the voting outcome on the BBC News site but you can't make out who voted what. Coolcato (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Beeb it was a UN Commission of Inquiry, under the mandate of the UN Security Council, not the UN General Assembly. As often happens, some of the five permanent members of the UNSC voted against the motion, thus vetoing it. CS Miller (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interesting posting on the subject here. To summarise it, out of the very many recorded forms of the family's name, Boleyn was the most common in the middle ages and Bullen the most common among modern holders of it. So no blame to Shakespeare (or Fletcher). --Antiquary (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that spelling was not standardized in Shakespeare's time. But, don't modern editors go through the text and do exactly that (i.e., modernize the spelling into today's standard format)? They do it with all other words. Why would they exclude "Boleyn" ("Bullen") from that general rule? For example, you never see a modern-edited text that states: "by William Shaksper" (or any other variant of the author's name). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. But it depends on the edition. My Oxford Shakespeare (Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, eds) uses Anne Boleyn not Ann Bullen. What particular edition are you looking at? In any case the only way you can get an answer to your question is to ask the particular editor who produced the edition you're looking at. Various editors apply various criteria not all of them always applied consistently even in the same edition. Contact Basemetalhere13:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The copy I am reading is merely a photocopy. Hence, I am not sure from which edition the photocopy was made. Nonetheless, the use of "Bullen" seems rather common. In fact, the Wikipedia article on the play (Henry VIII) also specifically uses "Bullen". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you from study that multiple spellings of names were common even into the 20th century. The one nice thing about "Bullen" is that it suggests the proper pronunciation of "Boleyn", assuming they're essentially homophones. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What is the proper pronunciation? I assumed that the name "Bullen" rhymes with the adjective "sullen". And I thought that "Boleyn" was pronounced "bo" (rhymes with "go") and "lin" (rhymes with "pin"). No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: No I mean what do you mean by saying that "multiple spellings of names were common even into the 20th century"? In editions of Shakespeare or in general? Joe Spadaro: It is not the case that common nouns in Shakespeare are always modernized in the same way and that there are only variations in the spelling of proper nouns or that only proper nouns retain their original spelling. There too editorial decisions vary. For example in some editions of Othello Iago is an "ensign" and in others an "ancient" (no difference in pronunciation). In some editions of Henry V the Dauphin (of France) is spelled like we do the aquatic mammal. Oxford Shakespeare seems to have gone further than most in the process of spelling modernization. To compensate for that they also offer an "original spelling edition" based on the spelling of the First Folio and the Quartos (presumably). As to their modern edition some of their editorial decisions are explained in the foreword. (I'm looking at the 1st edition but there's now a 2nd edition). Note also that most editions you find on the Internet and that WP articles refer to are likely to be out of copyright older editions. It might be true that "Bullen" is more common in older editions but that is by no means necessarily the case with modern editions. You do have to go through those to make that claim. You're welcome to. (Oxford, Cambridge, Riverside, Arden, others). Modernizing Shakespeare is not a straightforward process and whether that edition is meant for reading or for performance also matters. Contact Basemetalhere17:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I understand all of the complexities and vagaries that go into the editing of Shakespeare (for modern spelling, etc.). It just seems to me that "Boleyn" is pretty much the only modern-day accepted spelling of her name. As such, the editorial "decision" (as it were) should favor "Boleyn". Even the Wikipedia article does not offer "Bullen" as an alternative name/spelling. So, I guess my question is really asking: why did that particular editor make that particular decision, in light of modern-day spellings? (The answer to which, presumably, only he knows.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing, Joe. "Bullen" does not rhyme with "sullen". The first syllable "bull" is spoken like the animal, and is stressed; the word rhymes with "pullin'" and "woollen". In "Boleyn" it's the second syllable that's stressed these days (very close to "Berlin" when spoken normally, i.e. without thinking of how it ought to be spoken). Maybe back then they were both spoken the same way and it was only the spellings that varied. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]18:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Australian rhymes must be different from those in northern England because Bullen does rhyme with sullen and woollen where I live, but "pullin" is different. I suppose "Boleyn" might rhyme with "pull in" (imperative). Dbfirs23:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, that all makes sense. Aaaarrrgggghhhhh. Shakespeare is enough to make one's head spin. And this is just one more layer on that onion. So, I guess I learn something new every day. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know [why that particular editor made that particular decision -- as I was writing my answer you and Jack inserted stuff -- funny I didn't get an edit conflict -- but I'm addressing the question you asked before Jack's comment]. Unless you can ask that particular editor or he explained his editorial principles somewhere you can only try to guess his thought process and I wouldn't even know where to begin. Maybe some people who are familiar with this kind of work may shed some light on what goes on in an editor's head. Regarding the pronunciation of Boleyn/Bullen (/ˈbʊlɪn/, /bəˈlɪn/ or /bʊˈlɪn/) it's not that hard. There's the question of the vowel of the first syllable and that of the primary stress (there's no discussion that the second syllable is "lin" rhyming with "fin", "bin", "tin", etc.) For the stress there's two possibilities: stress on the 1st syllable or on the 2nd syllable. If the stress is on the 1st syllable there's only one possibility for the vowel of the first syllable: the short "oo" sound you find in "bull", "pull", "foot", "soot", etc, so "BULL-in". If the stress is on the 2nd syllable there's two possibilities: either the same vowel as in the first case, so "bull-IN" or the vowel of the first syllable of "begin" (the so called schwa; it is also the vowel of the 1st syllable of "again", "about", etc.); so if you wanna use say "a" for that vowel you can write the pronunciation as "ba-LIN" or if you are not scared of the schwa symbol "bə-LIN". As Deor mentioned in the other section if you hover the cursor over each IPA symbol in the IPA respelling you'll get the value of that IPA symbol in terms of an English word that uses that sound, for example if you hover the cursor over the ʊ of /ˈbʊlɪn/ you'll get: /ʊ/ short 'oo' in 'foot'. Try it. Contact Basemetalhere19:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They both have /ʊ/ in standard English on both sides of the Atlantic. In what dialect are they different? (I suppose they are in some northern dialects where foot rhymes with boot, but this is dying out.) Dbfirs08:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever heard "bull" and "foot" said with the same vowel - they are very close, but the vowel in "bull" is shorter and darker. Lips go further forward in foot. Grew up in Cornwall, university in Durham, lived in Sussex for twenty years, and with friends and acquaintances from most of the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying. The vowel in "bull" is more rounded (and thus darker) whereas the vowel of "foot" is more neutral, closer to the schwa (but that may just be another way of saying it is less rounded). But these are subphonemic distinctions that are not taken into account when using IPA to represent the phonology of a language. What people mean when they say 'bull' and 'foot' have the same vowel is that both words have the same vowel phoneme. No pair of word is distinguished solely on the basis of the distinction you detect between the vowels of 'bull' and 'foot'. The same way the 'l' sounds in 'list' and 'still' are very different but they are (in English) two allophones of the same phoneme so people don't say those are two different consonants. This said, this subphonemic discussion is interesting. My guess is the main factor is the rhyme, that is the final consonant of the syllable, not the initial consonant. So I would guess the vowel of 'bull' is more rounded and dark because of the velar l not because of the labial initial. To see if I'm right or wrong you can have fun checking the minute shades in your /ʊ/ vowels using this table of rhymes. Is the vowel in the 1st syllable of 'woman' closer to the vowel in 'bull' or the vowel in 'foot'? (If you do pronounce it /ˈhʊməs/ not /ˈhʌməs/) How about the vowel in the 1st syllable of 'hummus'? (the Middle-Eastern dish.) Contact Basemetalhere12:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see what you and Duncan mean. Do bull, pull, full and wool all have the same sub-phonemic vowel? Do foot, put and soot have the same? Dbfirs14:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This's my theory but I was waiting for Duncan to respond. He seems to have lost interest. For your own dialect you can record yourself and see what you can detect. I'd always thought the phonological system was a discrete system but that once you go beyond that that there's no end to the distinctions you may uncover depending on how sensitive your ears or your experimental setup is. Well apparently not. According to this article (dealing with consonants this time; in various languages, not only English) even at a subphonemic level the system is structured (if I understood what it's saying correctly; I must say I've so far only browsed through it). In any case this particular subthread should probably be transferred to RD/L where there's more expertise. Note I was naively using "subphonemic" as synonymous to "allophonic", but experts at RD/L may say if that's really the case. (And what on earth is "suballophonic" as in the title of that paper?) Contact Basemetalhere12:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not lost interest, but do have the beginnings of a cold! Hummus is nothing like bull, foot or woman. Wool differs slightly from bull, pull, and full. DuncanHill (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In many dialects of English, the most significant difference between the pronunciation of the [ʊ] or "short oo" vowel between "bull" and "foot" is that the first occurs before so-called Dark l. In my dialect of American English, [ʊ] and [ɨ] partially merge, so that traditional [ʊl] can end up being pronounced as a stressed syllabic "l", but I don't imagine that's relevant to Shakespeare's time... AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... discussion continued from earlier
Thanks. Yes, I understand all that you are saying. I would take exception with one statement, however. You stated: If the stress is on the 1st syllable there's only one possibility for the vowel of the first syllable: the short "oo" sound you find in "bull", "pull", "foot", "soot", etc, so "BULL-in". Why do you say that there is only one possibility for that first vowel? Why can't it be pronounced as if it rhymes with the adjective "sullen"? That's plausible, no? And that refutes your assertion. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sullen is unique in the English language in that the "u" of ulen is officially pronounced with the love vowel. There are probably some people with the surname Bullen who do use that vowel. Here in northern England, sullen rhymes with woollen and Pullen, but this use of /ʊ/ in sullen is considered non-standard by those who use BBC English. Dbfirs23:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict with Dbfirs; I'm answering Joe's question above) What I meant by saying there's only one possibility in that case is that, in the pronunciation where the first syllable carries the stress the vowel ə (the schwa) is impossible because that vowel only occurs in unstressed syllables. But you are asking why can't the word be pronounced as if it rhymed with "sullen"? But that's like asking why can't I pronounce "pull" as if it rhymed with "dull" or "put" as if it rhymed with "cut". Because that's not how those words are pronounced. Bullen or Boleyn has got three pronunciations (according to the references they give which are Daniel Jones "Everyman's English Pronouncing Dictionary 12th edition" (1963) and John C. Wells "Longman pronunciation dictionary" (1990)) and no more. Now there might be people out there who, under the influence of the spelling, pronounced or pronounce the name as if it rhymed with "sullen" or maybe in yet other creative ways, but there aren't enough of them for such pronunciations to have become accepted as recognized pronunciations of that name. Maybe if you try your hardest to convince people to pronounce the name as if it rhymed with "sullen" there eventually will be enough of you for this pronunciation to become recognized as a valid alternative. But so far this hasn't happened. Note that usually the pronunciation of words precedes their spelling. Words do not derive a pronunciation from their spelling but a spelling from their pronunciation. And that's because most of the transmission of language, for the largest part of human history, was done orally and not through writing. However there are cases in English and in other languages where a spelling was misinterpreted and gave rise to a new pronunciation of the word which in time became accepted as standard. My favorite such case is the Italian word for "west", "ovest", whose pronunciation resulted from a misinterpretation of the written form of the French word "ouest" at a time before the letters 'u' and 'v' began to be distinguished in writing. Contact Basemetalhere00:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An example I find amusing of Shakespeare confusing a naive modern reader: In Antony and Cleopatra (V, 2) Cleopatra says of Antony: "For his bounty, there was no winter in't; an autumn 'twas that grew the more by reaping: his delights were dolphin-like; they show'd his back above the element they lived in: in his livery walk'd crowns and crownets; realms and islands were as plates dropp'd from his pocket." Any kid is bound to wonder: "Plates dropped from his pocket? Wow. These were huge pockets." Except here 'plates' doesn't mean 'dishes' but 'silver coins'. Note this is a tense emotional moment in the play. You wouldn't want somebody in the audience to start laughing. So it's even more important to think about those things if you're producing an edition of the text for a performance. Contact Basemetalhere21:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Small detail, modern standard English (UK or US or Aust.) is just that, MODERN, it is probable/conjectured that Elizibethan English was much more like some regional accents than modern RP. Anyway, what would seem the 'natural' pronounciation of EITHER spelling at the time, might differ from what would seem natural to us now (wherever we are from). Pincrete (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not, I'm not an expert, but we are SURE that Shakespearian English varied regionally much more than modern English, and was nothing like modern 'standard', which tends to be (in UK), the accent of educated, middle-class, Southerners. Such a homogenous social group probably didn't exist 400+ years ago. Pincrete (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a terminology issue here, sometimes framed as extinction vs. extirpation. Many professionals feel that a phrase like "Extinct in [region]" is nonsense, and should be avoided. Technically, "extinct" means absolutely gone from everywhere, not just one place, though the phrase "local extinction" is still fairly common. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These extinct Denisovian humans might count [5]. Their descendents now live in Tibet, not clear yet how large the Denisovian range was. I thought it included parts of modern Tibet, but I don't have time to track that down at present. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I once had a history instructor who briefly inserted his family history in the lecture. He told the class that he was descended from German immigrants on both sides of the family. Despite that, his parents, who were kids when they arrived to the US, only spoke English when they raised him. When he went to college, he thought of taking German as a foreign language, only surprised to see that his father spoke German too. Was this behavior common among German immigrants? What about the broader European immigrant population? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the U.S. entered WW1 in 1917, there was major anti-German-language sentiment (sauerkraut becoming "liberty cabbage" being only a trivial manifestation). AnonMoos (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can support what AnonMoos mentioned, being from Pennsylvania several German social clubs, German fraternal organizations, German community groups, German neighborhood areas either changed their name, abandoned their naming conventions or at least softened their identity with Germanic things. There is a Granite old style skyscraper in Pittsburgh (about 10 floors) it was originally built as the Germania Bank, in the mid 1910s the name magically went away. I have heard a few anecdotal stories that when the RMS Lusitania was sunk is when a lot of the shift started in North America with German families/communities. BTW I included a graphic that might be interesting on the contrast of the number claiming German ethnicity in the U.S. when one considers how rare it is to see anything of German culture around. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way10:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This "de-Teutonification" occurred to some extent in the UK as well. The most prominent example that I can recall offhand was the change of the Royal Family's dynasty name from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the newly coined House of Windsor, but I'm sure the phenomenon was more widespread. My own paternal line (family lore claims) immigrated to London in the early or mid 19th century, allegedly from Denmark, but the reported (and mangled?) surname that was Anglicized – "Huntz" – seems to me more likely German than Danish. (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have known 2nd generation immigrant parents who have used their ethnic language only as a secret language between themselves and not teaching it to children is common (English-only as a strategy for economic advancement). Much of the recent scholarly work seems to be on Spanish-speakers in the U.S. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were communities where "de-Teutonification" did not happen in World War 1. I know a region of Minnesota where farmers whose ancestors immigrated from German-speaking countries in the 1850's through 1860's. They were enough of an isolated community they could continue speaking German and marrying German speakers, although this led to people being related in numerous ways (she is your third cousin one way and your fourth cousin a different way) and may have been a poor practice genetically. In the 1930's, in the third generation born in America, German was spoken in the churches (German sermons and Sunday school, German hymns), in the parochial schools, and in stores in the local communities. English was taught as a second language in the parochial schools. It wasn't until the fourth generation that German faded out in churches, parochial schools and businesses. Edison (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How and by what means did European powers portray imperialism to their publics? This is a question that we have been asked to cnsider at the university, and the information provided tends to focus solely on Britain. Could you perhaps point me in the direction of resources for the other great imperial powers? --Andrew23:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest researching European newspapers from the 19th - 20th centuries. In reality, all of this was just propaganda, and the common public were more interested in getting on with their lives back home, than these wars in foreign lands - except for the fact that many of them had watched their sons don red uniforms and white helmets, and hoped they would come back home one day. The middle classes had more of an interest in the whole affair, as it affected the economy, so they would be more likely the ones to read the newspapers. No need to mention the upper class. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag)13:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish, in particular, argued that everyone was doomed to hell unless they converted to Christianity. With that mindset, basically any measure to convert natives was appropriate, including torture, since that was only transient pain versus an eternal damnation. Of course, other than a few religious leaders who really believed all this, it was just a convenient excuse for most to enslave the natives and steal their wealth. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uhlan's "people were supportive of empire, unlike today of course", is it Empire that people are today opposed to, or simply the word they shy away from ? One can think of countless examples of how 'Empire' today disguises itself as 'the spread of democracy', 'global trade', 'spread of technology', etc. It is very easy to see how previous centuries, equally justified to themselves, what may not have been intended to be, but became Imperialism. There probably isn't/hasn't ever been an answer, when a powerful, technologically advanced culture meets one that is less so, there is almost inevitably a 'senior partner' in the relationship. Pincrete (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
THere's certainly an element of truth in the widespread nature of imperial-like practices by those political entities with greater (perceived or real) power as you describe, Pincrete, but your argument risks extreme reductionism of any imbalance to imperialism.--67.244.27.1 (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
