Humanities desk
< December 12	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 14 >

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.

December 13

Jack-gnat and jelly-tray

In reading The Rainbow, I came across the terms "jack-gnat" and "jelly-tray". I have searched online to find the meanings of these two terms, and while I have found instances of them, I have not been successful in finding definitions for them. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Jack-gnat" appears in the "Explanatory notes" at the end of the book, online here. It is defined there as "a small gnat". The word does not appear in the current Oxford English Dictionary online. I suspect he made it up and borrowed the "jack" from "jack-snipe", but I would not be at all surprised to learn that it is in everyday use in some dialect or other of English. "Jelly-tray" is also in the notes, although it too is not in the OED, and means "an early duplicating method, using impressions made on a prepared gelatine surface". This is for real; see Hectograph. --Milkbreath (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all ten entries for jack in the OED. One of them might be what we are after, the man's name 'Jack' used to mean the common man, as opposed to a gentleman: it's at least possible that Lawrence meant 'the common or garden gnat'. It makes sense, in context. Xn4 (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jellytray seems to be guessable from its use in The Rainbow: "At the table a thin man in shirt-sleeves was rubbing a paper on a jellytray. He looked up... and stripped the paper off the tray, glancing at the violet-coloured writing transferred..." This is happening in a teachers' room, and 'jellytray' seems to me to be a printing device, perhaps a simple form of stencil duplicator? Xn4 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the OED: "Jellygraph An appliance used for multiplying copies of writing, etc., of which the essential part is a sheet of jelly. Also attrib. Hence jellygraph v. trans., to copy with a jellygraph; jellygraphed ppl. a." The instances offered by the OED include one from Keep the Aspidistra Flying (iii. 58): "They ran an unofficial monthly paper... duplicated with a jellygraph". Xn4 (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That answers my questions. Neelix (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legend has it that some house-guests of Bruce Pelz once remarked in the morning that the gelatin they found in the fridge was bland; they had eaten his hecto. —Tamfang (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Milkbreath: You don't have too search far to find another instance of jack meaning small. Matt Deres (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you inferring to? (To be said with the voice of the head weasel in Roger Rabbit.) Appropriate, though, that it's from Jellyvision. Thanks for sending me there—I found a typo in the lead: "promoted as the games 'where high culture and pop culture collide'". That should be "colloid", if I'm not misshapen. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weird request

I know this sounds weird but is there any way I can find a list of all the U.S. presidents by order of birth dates? Preferably those born between July 23rd and August 22nd? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not weird at all, at least not by our standards. We have just such a ready-made list, List of United States Presidents by date of birth. Just click on the "Date of Birth" icon in the table and it will list them in the order you want. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a great list, and how odd that the only two to share a birth date should be one after the other (or vice versa) 86.4.188.125 (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading it right, they're just listed in that part so we know they add up to the right number; it says right below the only ones to share a birthdate are 70 years apart. Or, did you mean something else?Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Friend 86 misread "18th" and "19th", which refer to the century they belonged to, as "18th and 19th President". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a "Century" column?! Can't readers be trusted to work that out for themselves, if they give a hoot? —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an "Age at Ascension" column. I know the presidents are above mere mortals .. but ascension? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at that! Now I know another useless thingg, Presidents Polk and Harding are the only two to be born on the same date! Thank you, birthday paradox! 195.58.125.95 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler quote

I remember reading somewhere that Hitler made fun of America's military and lack of weaponry, something along the lines of "what are they going to fight us with, refrigerators and automobiles?". Could someone help me with the specifics on this quote like the exact wording. Thanks. Coolotter88 (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an exchange between Goering and Rommel, according to World War II by C. L. Sulzberger. I have no idea how reliable that is. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a classic case of underestimating the enemy? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both Hitler and Japan made the same mistake, they looked at the United States' military, at the time, which was quite small, rather than look at the industrial capacity of the US, which was huge. This might have been the proper way to look at a potential enemy which could be quickly defeated, but the geographic isolation of the US and the size of it's population ensured that it would survive any war long enough to convert to full war-time production. Indeed, neither Germany nor Japan had any plan to invade the US mainland any time soon. Thus, the industrial capacity of the US was what was really important, and failing to realize this was rather short-sighted. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese seem to have hoped that following the Attack on Pearl Harbor the Americans would be demoralized and leave the western Pacific alone, rather than devoting much energy to battle (based on the strong US isolationist sentiment this wasn't a totally stupid belief). Therefore they underestimated American resolve rather than American industrial or economic strength. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, their understanding of psychology was even worse than their military assessment. I believe the US vote to declare war on Japan was nearly unanimous (one pacifist voted against). StuRat (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that one "nay" vote was cast by Jeannette Rankin, who was the first female member of the House of Reps. She's an interesting figure, in that she served only two seperate terms, from 1917-1919 and from 1941-1943; thus she made history twice; during her first term she was one of 50 Reps to vote agains WWI; and in her second term she was the ONLY Rep to vote against WWII. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olde euphemisms and dysphemisms for menstruation

Hi - can anyone provide euphemisms and dysphemisms for menstruation that might have been current, or precede, the European renaissance?

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The King James Version of the Bible would be reasonably close to the Rennaissance, I think, as the term would have been in use for a while. It uses "the manner of women." The example I'm thinking of is dealintg with Sarah, and childbearing age, not menstruation specifically. However, since the two are connected, I think "the manner of women" would be viable.Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One very old term, dating back to Old English, is "monthly", usually seen in the plural, "her monthlies", "the monthlies", etc (in Old English spelled monaðlecan or monoðlican). The OED's earliest attestation is from 1150 AD. The term is still sometimes heard. Joyce uses it in Ulysses. Another old term is "the flowers", which is first attested in 1400. It comes from the French fleurs, a corruption of flueurs, "fluors", which is also a term for the menses. Related terms are "effluvia" and "fluxes", the latter of which was used as early as the fifteenth century. A more recent term is "catamenia", which only dates back to the eighteenth century, and comes from the Greek for "monthly". Lantzy ^talk 10:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff; so, how would fluxes be used - 'she was suffering from her fluxes'? - 'she was in her fluxes'? Adambrowne666 (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you'd say the flux - 'she suffered the flux'. Sometimes it was expanded to 'red flux' or 'bloody flux', and these terms were also used for dysentery. Lantzy ^talk 17:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, speaking of "monthtly", we have a women's magazine here called Australian Women's Weekly (or just Women's Weekly for short). Originally it was produced weekly, but in 1982 they decided to make it a monthly publication. Consideration was given to calling it "Women's Monthly", but for obvious reasons that idea was not adopted. One writer said "the most obvious new name would be too gauche, even for Australian tastes". Indeed. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "courses" was more usual than "fluxes". The latter term is more medical, the former would be what women said to each other. ("I have my courses") Itsmejudith (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall a Bible story about Jesus curing a woman who had "an issue of blood". I was never sure whether that referred to excessive menstruation or some other condition involving blood flow. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are all great, and useful, thanks, but can anyone come up with any olde worlde dysphemisms for menstruation? Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid the flux: used for dysentery. A dysphemism is "women's curse". (see [1]. Gwinva (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gwinva Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is Pranayama ?

What is PRANAYAMA ?what is the meaning of pranayama ,objects of pranayama.GEENA SAJITH (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something of this is revealed at Pranayama. Xn4 (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seating in the British House of Commons

I often notice that MPs in the house are scattered around on the benches during debates. Perhaps this is because the benches are full for things like PMQs, and then some MPs leave when it is over, and those that remain do not bother to shuffle together. I know there are not enough seats in the house for all of them, so that precludes a proper seating plan, but is there some sort of guide to where MPs should sit, say, by region? --Rixxin 12:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Different parties have different areas to sit (Government on one side, Opposition on the other, roughly speaking, there is sometimes some overflow depending on numbers, and the opposition benches are split between the different minority parties), and senior members of the party (cabinet ministers/shadow ministers) sit on the front bench, others sit further back (hence the name, "backbenchers"). Beyond that, I don't think there is a system. --Tango (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MPs reserve seats by placing a prayer card in the frame which is behind each seat at the start of a session. They then have to be in that seat for prayers. Some MPs - in particular Dennis Skinner - make a point of getting there early and taking the same seat each time, but most just see where is available and convenient. In theory, MPs can sit wherever they like - there is no restriction in the standing orders - but if a backbench MP tries to take a frontbench seat, or one in an area usually used by another party, this is seen as messing about, and they are liable to be more or less politely thrown out of it. Warofdreams talk 02:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get this from an article on WP? If so, which one?--Rixxin 11:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just based on personal knowledge. The essentials are confirmed by the BBC, here. Warofdreams talk 19:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I might add this to an article, as there's a citation for it. Thanks for the answer, by the way.Rixxin 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So, why aren't there enough seats for all ? StuRat (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a practical point of view, because the House of Commons (like, indeed, the House of Lords) has kept its medieval size and arrangement although the number of its members has slowly grown, over the centuries, with the unions of the crowns and with parliamentary reform. From another point of view, because it has suited parliament to keep things the way they are. Of course, the Commons can accommodate all of its members for voting purposes, when it has to. Individual seats are not essential. Xn4 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story often related about why the House of Commons has so few seats is that when it was re-built after the destruction in World War II, Winston Churchill and others specifically wanted it to be small, so that MPs would be more engaged more actively in debates in the House. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the proceedings of the House of Commons were first televised, there was a fascinating phenomenon which became known as "doughnutting". Under this little wheeze, MPs would make a point of sitting close to the MP who was making a speech, so that they could be seen on the television. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS Statistics

Does anyone have any sort of statistics for the number of US citizens that visit Africa for buisness, missions work, or pleasure and contract HIV/AIDS while there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.25.62 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Brazilians

I want to do my NHD project on historic Brazilians, but I don't know any.

71.199.240.221 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)What would be a good NHD project idea that is Brazilian?71.199.240.221 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)What is a good website (besides Wiki) to research him/her71.199.240.221 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what an NHD project is, click the link below.

[2]

Please hurry: this is do next Friday!!!

Hi there. Please read our article on the History of Brazil, and then pick someone that interests you from that article, and read our article on that person. You will find links from there to other web sites. If you have other questions after that, come back here and ask and we may be able to help further. You might even find something of interest to put in one of our articles. -Arch dude (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Brazilians should give you a few useful names. Depending on your major interests (art / sciences / politics / etc) you can pick a few from the relevant section and do a spot of research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the list is quite long, may I suggest Paolo Freire? His "pedagogy of the oppressed" (adult literacy for the poor) has benefitted countless thousands of people. He is known in his native Brazil and overseas, especially as he and his theories were treated very differently by successive governments in his own country. As you're a student yourself, you may find Freire an inspiring choice that will interest your teacher and classmates. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bills

What are some common bills people have to pay for? I have thought of health insurance, auto insurance, internet, phone, cell phone, taxes, electricity, garbage. I am trying to think of things I will have to pay when I move out of my parents house. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're renting there are some bills the owner of the property is responsible for depending on your jurisdiction, that may include garbage or water (but that one is changing in some places). There's contents insurance if your stuff is valuable; and don't forget food bills, clothes and maybe laundry costs if you're making a budget. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some other posibilities: gas, homeowner's insurance, cable/satellite and some communities have an assessment fee for amenities. Don't forget about any credit card bills. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you include car insurance, you should probably include fuel for the car and maintenance (and road tax and tolls/congestion charges if appropriate). In some places you may need a TV license. If it's not already paid, you'll need water (and sewage, although that's probably comes with the water, unless you have a septic tank). You may need building insurance (although if you're renting, that will be probably be paid by the landlord - it's their building). If you're buying, then there are mortgage payments, if you're renting, then there is rent. You may also want to pay for gym membership, and other similar discretionary expenses. And, the common advice: The first person you should pay on receiving your paycheque is yourself! (Which refers to saving a little of each paycheque for a rainy day and/or pension.) --Tango (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I allocate money into lots of different 'pots' (its all one bank account). My pots have names: Car tax, Car service, car insurance, next car saving, car breakdown rescue, clothes, holiday, food, mortgage, house maintenance, building insurance, house contents insurance, landline phone & internet, mobile phone, water rates, council tax, TV license, professional membership, "pocket money", charitable giving, pension, car fuel, electricty, gas, rainy day saving, specific project saving, christmas present fund. Some are monthly, some annual, some erratic. I try to put 10% more than one twelth of the previous annual bill into each pot a month so that when the bill arrives I can pay it. I try to ensure that the grand total of this is less than or equal to my salary. When it isn't I have to adjust something - eg have a cheaper / don't have a holiday - eg make the old car last longer (and longer). -- SGBailey (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment can be a major expense for young folks, including music CDs or downloads, movie rentals, the cost of dates (which hopefully means paying for the restaurants, movies, night clubs, etc., as opposed to paying cash to the "dates"), etc. You may also have medical, dental, and optical expenses not covered by medical insurance. StuRat (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on where you live, you may have to pay for a parking sticker or a private parking space at your apartment. Other possibilities I can think of are: a monthly pass for public transportation, subscriptions to newspapers/magazines/internet services, and copays for medical visits (although that's not necessarily a bill). Some checking and savings accounts will bill you if you write more than 7 checks per months/let your account drop below $1,541/do any number of other arbitrary things which were mentioned in the fine print of your contract. So always be aware of what the policies are for your bank accounts. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One that I don't see mentioned above is the cost of cable or satellite TV, if you want more channels than you can pick up with rabbit ears. (However, if you'll be renting, this might be included in your rent.) If you want to have a cat, dog, or other pet, you may have to pay a license fee for that, and you will have veterinary expenses at least for annual immunizations. And pet food, of course. --Anonymous cat-lover, 06:30 UTC, December 14, 2008.

What about Rent? That's usually a big one. Also, water and/or sewer bills. I'm not sure if anyone mentioned those. APL (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and Germany's military in WWII

In Hitler's suicide note, he makes the following statement:

"May it, at some future time, become part of the code of honour of the German officer—as is already the case in our Navy—that the surrender of a district or of a town is impossible, and that above all the leaders here must march ahead as shining examples, faithfully fulfilling their duty unto death."

What does he mean? Is he saying that in the Navy code of honor it is better to fight to the death rather than surrender a town or district? I'm confused because the very nature of the Navy is that they're in the water and are unlikely to have to surrender something on land. Or is that why it's part of the Navy code of honor, because it's unlikely to ever happen? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess in the case of the navy, it would refer to surrendering your ship. There are options in addition to fighting to the death and surrendering the ship - you can retreat (if you are already fighting, then it's probably a little late for that) or you can abandon ship and scuttle it (again, if you're already fighting, this doesn't give you a great chance of survival, but you can try and escape in a lifeboat or swim). --Tango (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another difference is that there aren't likely to be civilians aboard a ship, so fighting to the death in the navy won't kill them. On the other hand, if the army is holding a town and fights to the death rather than surrender, a good portion of the civilians in that town are also likely to be killed in the cross fire or from aerial bombing. The town itself may also be permanently destroyed. StuRat (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what he's saying in the note is that he doesn't care about that. He's saying that naval officers have a rule to never surrender their ship and similarly army officers should have a rule to never surrender whatever land they're fighting to defend. This "never surrender" attitude of Hitler's is one of the things that helped the Allies defeat him -- generals were forced to fight on when they would have done better to retreat and preserve their forces to fight another day, as the British did at Dunkirk, and the Germans did not do at, for example, Stalingrad. --Anonymous, 06:37 UTC, December 14, 2008.

There's a difference between surrender and retreat. Retreat involves escaping the field of battle, and then you can fight another day. Surrender involves laying down arms and allowing yourselves to be taken prisoner - if you do that, you can't fight again (unless you escape the POW camp, of course). --Tango (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's state of mind regarding his order not to break out at Stalingrad have always puzzled me. Previously, I thought that it was a decision based on emotion (where ever a German steps his foot, he shall never retreat) or that he figured that within the context of the whole war, the 6th army would inflict the most damage on the enemy by fighting to the death rather than breaking out. But I think I saw on a documentary on the History Channel that Hitler was trying to avoid repeating Napolean's disasterous retreat from Russia. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the Japanese and Russians (at times) also had orders not to retreat. This is a poor military strategy in general, as a force that's about to be surrounded and defeated can be far more useful if they escape to fight again later. However, there are some specific cases where it might be an effective strategy. For example, the Japanese defense of islands like Iwo Jima was partially designed to convince Americans that all Japanese would fight to the death, so invasion of the home islands would be too costly. This was meant to help obtain a negotiated peace. However, the Japanese didn't know the US was working on nuclear weapons, or, failing that, was entirely willing to starve the population of Japan to death. Another example was the Alamo, where this was basically a delaying action to allow Texan troops to prepare for Santa Anna. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to watch the commander of a ship march ahead off the deck of the ship into the ocean rather than surrendering. Hup, 2, 3 splash! Edison (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Madoff

Not understanding these things, is what Bernard Madoff has (allegedly) done in any way similar to Bernie Cornfeld's scam? Is there any significance in (alleged) scammers being called Bernard? -- SGBailey (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My limited understanding is that the only definition around the exact dealings by Mr. Madoff is that the firm was "One big Ponzi scheme." This suggests that he was using money from future investors to pay out past investors, to some degree. Likely this just means that the value of certain assets on the firm's books is significantly less than the sum of the stated value of all of the investors' accounts. I think that is all that we know.

Check out this thread on elitetrader though. Three years ago, an account was created, made four posts on a single thread, including "I heard from a trader on wall st. about a SEC investigation on Madoff for various SEC violations. I'm trying to find out if anyone has heard the same. I have some friends who have big money with Madoff so I thought I try to get some info. No, I don't post here since I only look at the forum. And whoever suggested that I'm starting a "rumor by forum" can kiss my ass. Get a life." and "I actually got some update and found out that it's Spitzer's office doing the investigation not SEC. But I don't know what the scope of the investigation is." and then never logged in again. Spitzer was AG of New York then, and had a big rep as bringing the hammer down on Wall St. He then got Governor, and... well... we all know what's happened since.NByz (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh and CNBC's Charlie Gasparino has apparently confirmed that the investigation started in 2005... It seems a new respect might be found for those crazy internet forum rumours... NByz (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]