Humanities desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

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.

January 31

African languages

So, I've been wondering. If I am fluent in French, Arabic, and English, approximately what percentage of the population of Africa will I able to hold a conversation with? I know French and Arabic are spoken in parts of North Africa, and English is spoken in South Africa and in a few other countries, but I don't know how to get exact numbers. According to Languages of Africa, about 175 million Africans speak Arabic, and according to Africa, the total population is over 900 million. Wrad (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English is widely spoken in large parts of East Africa, Wrad. In Uganda, for example, all of the main daily newspapers are published in English. I don't have any statistics for you, though. Sorry! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on how extensive a conversation you want to have. Most African countries have English, French, Arabic (or more than one of these) as an official language, but in many of these countries, only a small, educated minority could actually conduct a conversation in one of these languages. A larger percentage might be able to sell a souvenir to a foreigner and maybe carry on a rudimentary conversation ("Where are you from?") but could not discuss their family life or local politics in any of these languages. A larger percentage still could exchange basic greetings. While the official languages are theoretically taught in school, school attendance is far from universal in many African countries, and even those who do attend school may learn from a teacher who is far from fluent. While traveling in Tanzania, I met an English teacher who struggled to communicate with me. While I walked through villages, children would trail me shouting "Good mawneen teechah!", possibly the only words they knew in English. Marco polo (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a French estimate: African French states: "As of 2006 an estimated 115 million African people spread across 31 francophone African countries can speak French either as a first or second language". (The source is La Francophonie dans le monde 2006-2007 published by the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Nathan, Paris, 2007) ---Sluzzelin talk 01:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] says that there are about 370 million english speakers. Therefore, we have 370 + 175 + 115 = 660 million Africans speaking these languages. Assuming there is overlap, we should probably subtract at least 150 million, so it would seem that about two-thirds speak at least one of these languages. Wrad (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Organisation internationale de la Francophonie has an interest in exaggerating the number of people who can speak French. The source you quoted for the number of English speakers seems to have simply added the populations of all of the countries that have English as an official language. Certainly top bureaucrats in those countries could carry on a conversation in English, but many villagers could not. Another issue that no one has mentioned is that in countries whose official language is Arabic, the majority of the population does not speak Standard or Classical Arabic (though they may have a passive understanding of the standard language). Instead, most people speak the local varieties of Arabic, which would be unintelligible to you if you learned Standard Arabic in school. I have collected the populations of all African countries from CityPopulation.de. I have then taken the literacy figures from the CIA World Factbook. For most countries, I have used the literacy figures as a proxy for the number of people conversant in the official language. This number is probably too high, since most countries exaggerate their literacy figures. However, there will be some people who are illiterate but nonetheless can speak some of the official language. For countries where English, French, or Arabic is an official language alongside a local language, such as Swahili, I have discounted the literacy figure by half based on my experience in Tanzania. Using this method, I found that, according to the most recent data, the population of Africa is 832 million. Of this population, 428 million are likely to have some ability to converse in Arabic, French, or English. This represents 51% of the continent's population. Marco polo (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wrad (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marco seems to have made some good progress with your question, but for practical purposes I don't know how useful such figures are. In people's ability to speak at least one of those three major languages, French, Arabic, and English, there are, of course, real differences between African countries, and (more significantly for travellers) big differences between rural and urban areas. In my experience, in most sub-Saharan African towns you can make yourself understood in many shops, most bars, most hotels, and most garages, if you speak English and French. The norm in villages is that most people speak only a local language. Xn4 23:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery code.

I looked up a certain type of code that was a lot like Morse Code but a little different and I was wondering if you could tell me the name of it. To say a letter you would click 1,1 for a. or 2,1 for B. I think I read that it was used in the prisons or something... I'm not sure.

If you could give me the article for this old code it would be greatly appretiated. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.195.104 (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think all sorts of codes were used throughout the history of prisons. In Gulag: A History, Anne Applebaum describes a Russian tapping code based on an alphabet grid, similar to what you are describing. Here is a link. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of a joke:

A Soviet citizen is found guilty of expressing counter-revolutionary sentiment, and is sent off to the Gulag. When he gets there, he is kept in a cell with two other political prisoners. These two prisoners seem to communicate entirely by telling each other double-digit numbers, and then laughing uncontrollably. The new inmate is completely confused, he doesn't know what's going on between these two, but as he's still a newbie, he just keeps himself to himself. Eventually, his curiosity gets the better of him and he asks a fellow inmate what his two cellmates are doing, his fellow inmate tells him that these two have set up a system where they have memorised one hundred political jokes, and assigned each joke a double-digit number, then, once one tells the other a certain number, the other will remember the joke which it corresponds to, and will laugh accordingly. The newbie feels satisfied having finally learnt this secret, so he goes back to his cell that night and waits for his cellmates to start telling their jokes. Eventually, he builds up the courage and interupts his cellmates and shouts, "46!" His two cellmates just sit there nonreactively. So he tries again, "19!" Again, nothing. "84? 51? 06?" And still, the two cellmates don't react. He voices his confusion, "I don't understand, I was told how your system works, but still you don't laugh! What's going on?" One of his cellmates looks him the eye and tells him, "It's just the way you tell them..." Ninebucks (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we go: Tap Code. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that what Larry Craig was doing? :) 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs)

Horse Racing and Women's Hats?

I want to know the history behind the huge and garish hats that are worn at horse races around the world. It is a tradition for women at the Kentucky Derby to the Dubai World Cup to wear hats. What is the reason behind it and when did it start? Can you recommend any website or reference where I could find further information?

Tbwebber (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Tbwebber[reply]

The reason surely is just 'one up manship', and maybe it started at the first meet at the Royal Ascot horse races, the ladies trying to compete with the Queen!--Johnluckie (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it started at Ascot. Read the article. Oda Mari (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that the article states that the women should not wear anything that bares the shoulders, yet one of the women in the provided picture only has spaghetti straps over her shoulders. Also, the text says that men must wear top hats, yet neither one of the men in the photo are wearing any type of hat at all. Dismas|^(talk) 14:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The moustached gentleman is carrying a top hat in his right hand though. It looks like the picture was taken outside the grounds. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The woman in the spaghetti straps seems to have stuck flowers into a spare tire and put it on her head. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hats having for decades been replaced by bonnets, came back into fashion in the 1860s in Britain and France: see 1860s in fashion. Millinery was a luxury, and so a modish hat was a symbol of class status. Ladies' hats got larger and larger in the later C19. Gentlemen did not go hatless in the C19: only boys went out without a hat. At a stylish afternoon wedding today, there will be no lady present without a hat. --Wetman (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding legislative bills on the net

I've been trying to find information related to Vermont House bill 613 but haven't been able to come up with anything. I was also looking up Senate bill 316 (yes, they are coincidentally similar) and was able to find http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Session=2008&Bill=S.0316 that link which gives a few details of the bill and a link to the full text. I'm looking for something similar but for HB 613. Anyone know where I can look or what keywords I'm missing from Google searches that would yield better results? Dismas|^(talk) 13:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's at http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2008/bills/intro/H-613.HTM (full list of house bills at http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/BILLS.CFM or by using the links at http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/docs2.cfm ) Foxhill (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the ticket! Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 14:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Underwriter

Could anyone explain briefly what this role entails?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.64.67 (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After putting it through google... I believe a commercial underwriter is someone who works for an insurance company who goes round places detecting risk assessments etc. "The role is a full underwriting role and will involve making day to day decisions regarding the acceptance and rating of commercial risks" [2]. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A commercial underwriter deals specifically with commercial insurance policies, which insure businesses against liability claims or damage to their property. The underwriter's job is to assess the risks faced by the insured business and to determine the appropriate premium that the insurer should charge to cover that risk and make a profit. Marco polo (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deciding my major

Hi guys...I am a 22 year old female... i think i am a little old for not having finished my major already but oh well...

i was studying psychology....but I also like literature, art, music,philosophy,music and photography.... I don't know what is my true vocation though.... does anyone have any idea on how i can find out? or know of any field where i acn apply more than one of those fields?

thank u! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.183.216 (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We at the reference desk can't really tell you what you want to do, of course, but I don't think that's what you're asking. Your first step is probably to make an appointment with ththe guidance or career counselour at your university. They should have lots of experience with helping people make decisions with regards to careers. You seem to be interested in subjects based mostly in Humanities. There may be a counselor specifically for humanities students who can direct you towards courses that will attract your interest.

I would also suggest looking out for a careers fair nearby. There will be a number of employers there who can tell you about opportunities. Moreover, with such diverse interests, if you are a keen student you might find a career in academia very interesting. Is there a field or area which combines your interests which you would like to research?

Perhaps also investigate the idea of being a professional researcher for government departments or media. They provide concise and detailed reports for senators, reporters, etc. on the topic du jour and enable them to make informed decisions or programs. Steewi (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a professional researcher seems quite attractive for people with multiple interests like you. It is also better to Decide what you want to do professionally before you choose a major. 217.168.1.63 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're leaning more towards the liberal arts end of the spectrum how about becoming a Conceptual artist? Of course you may end up in academia anyway if you do that though. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even counting those friends who trained for specific professions (law, medecine, engineering), a quick count of the first 30 people in my age group (50 - 70) in my contact list shows 21 of them are (or were at retirement) no longer doing either what they trained for or what they set out to do when they left university. Eleven of them have had more than 2 completely different professional careers. I would no longer worry too much about what I studied in university in terms of what careers it prepared me for. So much will change over your working life that you will be constantly training on-the-go. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you the same advice as I gave my sons, and wish that somebody had given me. You will need to work hard at your major to get the best from it, and the best way to do that is to choose something that rewards you by being really interesting to you. As Bielle says, many, many people end up working in some other field from the one they first studied. What do you really enjoy reading, writing and thinking about? What is it that you choose to find out more about in your free time? In this case you should follow your heart! SaundersW (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would enjoy being an essayist, which is not easy if you want to be good at it (and also not easy to make a living on even if you are good), but would allow you to escape the increasingly narrow confines of specialized professions, being an occupation in which you can combine all your interests and more. But is it something you can imagine doing for the rest of your life and enjoying it? --Lambiam 11:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy

If the election of representatives by a group of people, and the making of decisions by the people themselves are both examples of democracy, is one system "more democratic" than the other or is it simply "democracy" versus "not democracy". ----Seans Potato Business 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a scan at Democracy. Each electoral methods has pros and cons, they often 'favour' one outcome over another. Be it stronger political powers, weaker political powers, more stability, a framework to foster change or otherwise. Anybody who suggests that one is 'more free' than the other is generally looking to win political points in favour of their preferred system. Each of these democratic-election systems are questions of organisation and the concentration of power. SMPS (single member plurality system), a method favoured in many countries including the UK, is regularly attack by those in favour of PR (proportional representation) but it can be argued that each as equally as democratic. ny156uk (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) The articles you might be interested in reading are representative democracy and direct democracy. Having cast my vote in both types of system, I could argue either way (like the article on direct democracy does), but I won't. Ideally, the people are the sovereign in both cases and if the demos has the constitutional option of changing their system from one to the other, then neither is "more" democratic than the other. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could rephrase your question to "what's more democratic: direct or representative democracy". Both are more democratic in another way, and it depends on the specific implementation of direct or representative democracy. If a representative democracy includes a mechanism like coalition forming, it will more closely resemble a consensus democracy (the ideal democracy?) than a simple majority direct democracy would. In the latter, 49% of the population could in theory disagree with the policy that has been voted upon by 51%, while it is likely the compromise reached during coalition forming would reflect a broader base. On the other hand, a direct democracy usually includes more voting. User:Krator (t c) 13:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If George Orwell were still with us he could still write - "The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning." If you take the word 'democracy' literally, 'rule by the people', then direct democracy can claim to be nearer to the literal meaning. But in a world of nation states, some form of representative democracy is needed, with the rulers being at least answerable to the ruled. The world still has plenty of spurious 'democracy' in it, and perhaps the most spurious forms are those in which the rulers are only theoretically answerable to the ruled and can't in practice be removed by them: for instance, when in a one-party state most or all candidates are sure to win the elections they stand in because there are no other candidates, or else when elections are rigged in various ways. Xn4 22:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperialism

Today, What did the present European nations and non-European nations gain the benefit from the Imperialism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.154 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They got to take other people's stuff, and still have some of it. --Sean 01:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to read this as anything but an essay question for a grammar school world history class. This is Wikipedia - an encyclopedia. Just pick a few countries that embarked on Imperialistic goals, such as England, France, Spain, and the United States. Compare the strength and stability of their economy, governments, health care, and education systems with a few that were colonized, take your pick from just about all of Africa, the Middle East, and southeast Asia. -- kainaw ™ 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question you give us strikes me as loaded by the word Imperialism, which generally carries political baggage with it. A more neutral word might be colonialism. You could try pondering on this remark of Benjamin Disraeli's - "Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent." The question you give us is limited in its scope. As discussed here before, the motivations of colonialism were complicated and were as much individual motivations (trading profits, religious freedom , new land to farm, etc.) as they were national ones. Nations often fought over the richest colonies, once they existed, and in most cases the national motivations were financial ones, though sometimes they were about imperial policy (such as the need of the British Empire to secure the sea lanes to India). Also, coming back to the limitations of the question, you can't really consider the positive outcomes of colonialism (or, if you insist, imperialism) without considering the negative ones at the same time. Xn4 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

since when was the US an imperialistic country in the same way britain, france, spain and most of europe was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The world tour (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine US Imperialism could be broken down into its Foreign Policy, and its early annexation of American Indian lands in the West. I'm no expert on the matter however. 90.207.43.98 (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]