Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 January 18

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 18

Classical Piece

Could anyone suggest a short but challenging(for someone who just learned an arranged version of the first movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata) classical piece? I just got back from west Africa where there wasn't a piano in sight and I'm trying to get back in shape. Thanks!--Elatanatari (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "Turkish March" by Mozart. Exercise your fingers. Edison (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I found Bach quite useful for getting rust piano skills back. The great thing about Bach's piano (keyboard) music is that it often sounds quite nice even when played way slower than usual. Also there is a general simplicity of a sort--a limited range, few ridiculous leaps, etc. But there is also a surprising amount of technical challenge, especially in fingerings--passages that sound perfectly naturally sometimes require rather awkward fingerings. I got a lot out of using the Goldberg Variations. Naturally there were only a few variations I could play at first, and those quite slowly. Although I'll never be able to play all of them (or even half of them, really), over time I have slowly found myself able to play more variations. It is nice how with practice the piece opens up as your skills allow you to work on harder variations. Also, it has the technical challenge of trying to play on a piano music that was composed for a two-keyboard instrument. Some of the variations revel in both hands playing one on top of the other in ways amazingly difficult to do on a piano. Those are beyond me. But many of the less difficult ones also involve questions of how to cross hands or swap voices hand to hand. Finally, the Goldbergs are amazing in they way they are constrained by quite rigid rules patterns of canon yet are highly musical, beautiful, even transcendent. I've been playing them for years now and have never grown tired of them. They are like little jeweled crystals--beautiful to the senses as well as the mind. Anyway, worked for me! As a whole the work is long, but each variation is quite short. Pfly (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You might like to try Satie's Gymnopédies. Xn4 (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the easier preludes of Chopin, and many of Mendelssohn's Songs without Words would fit the bill. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! Those all seem out of my league. Did I mention I don't have a teacher? The Last song I tried to learn, unsuccessfully, was Aragonaise from Le CidElatanatari (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't let the names of the composers put you off. Try Chopin's Prelude No 7 in A major, or some of the "Venetian Gondola Songs" in the Songs Without Words (Nos. 8, 12 and 29). You might like the famous old Minuet in G by Beethoven. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some Bartok toccatas? Steewi (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I printed out Songs Without Words Op. 30 No. 6 |Elatanatari (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC) are the tiny notes in the third measure of the 7th line just regular 16th notes? Thanks!!!

No, it's a two-note acciaccatura (or crushed note). They're played quite quickly (without rushing), theoretically taking no time at all, but practically a short duration of time. They lead into and accentuate the first note of the next measure; they are never accented themselves. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that will be easy to learn . . . . How are the E# and the F in the 3rd measure of the 3rd line supposed to be played?Elatanatari (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean the E# and the G#? I’d say it’s meant to be conceptualised in 2 ways simultaneously – as the end of the motif that starts F#-A-B (in the previous 3 measures), and also as part of a new mini-motif F#-G# (both notes are marked sf). If it makes it any easier, ignore the black E# crotchet and just play the minim. You hold the E# - and then the G# - down for the rest of the measure and continue holding them down for the first 4 notes of the next measure. Is this what you meant? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant the E# and the E, just before the G, sorry but I think I get it Thanks!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elatanatari (talk • contribs) 05:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no E in that measure, nor is there a G. The # sign before the E crotchet applies to all the Es on that stave in that measure, so both the crotchet and the minim are E#. You only actually play the E# once, while thinking about it in 2 different ways (it does make a difference). Then you play a G#. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh. I get it, thanks.Elatanatari (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did "March 4" come from?

The US Constitution in its original form specified that the Congress could choose the date when electoral voting for the presidency would take place, and that the president once elected would serve a 4-year term. But it did not name the date when that term would begin, nor did it authorize Congress to choose one.

Well, George Washington took office on April 30 and his second term began on March 4 (and why wasn't that an unconstitutional violation of the 4-year term?), and March 4 then remained the normal date until the 20th Amendment bumped it up to January 20.

I presume that April 30 and March 4 were dates chosen by the Congress at the same time that it exercised its power to choose the date of the electoral vote. But what were the actual acts involved, and was there any debate over the proper date? In particular, did anyone consider that the constitution might be interpreted as requiring the new president's term to begin immediately once the electoral votes were counted by Congress?

--Anonymous, 07:42 UTC, January 18, 2009.

The Congress of the Confederation set the timing of the beginnings of the new government. It passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, which set the election for January 7, 1789, the meetings of the electors for February 4, and the effective date for the Constitution and the new government to be March 4. Much of the early business of the new government was set by the Congress of the Confederation, which established New York as capital, the dates for the elections. The new Congress did not actually achieve a quorum until April 1. Adams was not sworn in as VP until April 21. Washington only reached New York on March 23, and was not sworn in until March 30. See History of the United States Constitution#The new government. Tb (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You can find the document with the actual resolution of the Congress of the Confederation here [1] and here [2]. Tb (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean April 23 and 30. But anyway, thanks, that's what I wanted to see. So I guess this means Washington's first term is like Zachary Taylor's term -- it really began on March 4 and he just didn't take the oath of office and "enter upon the execution of his powers" until later.

The reason I wanted to see if the original resolution was that I was wondering if it said anything about the time of day. Since it does not, this implies that the change of presidents officially happened at midnight between March 3 and 4. So for example where Wikipedia says that Thomas Jefferson served "March 4, 1801 - March 4, 1809", it's wrong by one day. (His term was still 2922 days, the same as Dwight Eisenhower's, but it was 2922 complete days, ending on March 3, while Eisenhower's term was 2921 complete days and two halves.)

Am I right that this means a bunch of articles need to be fixed? --Anonymous, 04:24 UTC, January 19, 2009.

No, I think you're incorrect. (Tb)

I'm going to use Interleaved replying style here so I can address several points in Tb's items simultaneously. (--Anon)

Let's suppose your argument was ironclad. Let's suppose you could establish that, at the time, midnight was meant when no time was specified. Even then, this would only be original research. (Tb)

I assumed you had provided a source and the most authoritative one possible. If a law says that it takes effect on a certain date, that means it is effect as soon as that is the current date. And the date in our culture changes at midnight. How ironclad do you want? (--Anon)

What we'd need is a source that identifies the time as you would have it, rather than the way it's listed now. (Tb)

Well, the pages as they are now don't list a source, do they? And many references don't give the dates a president's term began and ended, just the year. However, I have here at hand the latest World Almanac, which does list the actual dates on pages 516-517. Specifically, it shows them as dates of "service". And it shows the end date as March 3 for all presidents from Washington to Hoover, except those who died in office. Incidentally, for both Zachary Taylor and John Tyler it shows their "service" beginning as of when they took the oath of office, i.e. March 5 and April 6 respectively. (--Anon)

I think it's just as reasonable to think that the default time was dawn, or noon, or that it was generically "during that day" with no actual attention to the moment. The question is not about legal interpretation, but about historical reality--and about veriable sources that establish that. Tb (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly if it was generally accepted that the outgoing president was still in power on the morning of March 4, that should be good enough. If, of course, there are verifiable sources to establish that. (--Anon)

Further investigation shows that it was generally taken that the terms changed at noon, though there were consistent minority views which held they terminated at midnight. See [3]. (Tb)

Aha! And indeed, the author of that page seems to agree with that. (--Anon)

Also, my first note above explains where the original March 4 came from, but it should be noted that once Congress met, it passed a statute to the effect that terms started on March 4, as did Congress. (Tb)

What was that last bit? Oh, you mean Congress also started on March 4. Got it. (--Anon)

Apparently there were Presidents who did continue to function as such on March 4 until their successor was sworn in. You may also be interested in [4]. (Tb)

Well, this one really addresses the issue as far as Congress is concerned -- thanks for finding it. (--Anon)

But no, no change to our pages is called for. Tb (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Since you've found a source to indicate that it was the actual historical practice, I don't have a problem with all of those March 4 end-of-term dates standing. But they all need a footnote mentioning the issue and reading something like "Sometimes given as March 3. See End of U.S. presidential and congressional terms before 1935." Where that link, of course, is to a new article that goes into the things we've covered here -- and cites sources, like almanacs, telling whether they say March 3 or March 4.

I'm not prepared to do that at the present time (and even if I was, I can't, because I'm not registering with Wikipedia and that means I can't create new articles or edit some of the existing ones that are semi-protected). But someone needs to do it. Would you like to volunteer or should we plant a note on a suitable talk page somewhere? We're obviously getting out of bounds for the reference desk now.

Thanks for your help in locating the relevant facts.

--Anonymous, 08:20 UTC, January 19, 2008.

• Please don't interlace comments like that. Anyhow, you have misunderstood what I said. I said that what counts is a reference that lists the times as you would have them, not your (or my) legal speculations. We do have a source that says the end at noon: the Sonate determination once Jeff Davis played his "I'm not elected anymore" game. Tb (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was a helluvalot more readable interlaced than if I'd made all those separate points below your posting. Anyway, I did cite a source giving March 3 as the end of presidential terms, and a respectable one: the World Almanac. I haven't seen a source that gives March 4; the existing WP articles don't cited one. And the Senate decision seems to apply only to the Senate, not to the presidency. --Anon, 05:34 UTC, January 20/09.

Hessian consorts

I am starting a list here User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy/List of Hessian consorts. I was wondering if anybody can help me clarified some dates. I may have accidently included morganic spouse. I suspicous of the status of Marie, Countess of Mansfeld. Weren't countesses consider unfited for marriage by the Hessian royal family? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also there is the Hesse-Darmstadt Langravines. I not sure the number of wife Louis IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt had. Who was Marie Adelaide Gräfin von Lemberg in relation to Louis IX? I think she might be a wife. I have no idea what this say. Kurz nach dem Tod seiner ersten Frau heiratete Herzog Ludwig IX. im Jahre 1775 Marie Adelaide Gräfin von Lemberg. Die Ehe blieb kinderlos--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It says more or less the following: "Shortly after the death of his 1st wife, Duke Luis IX married Countess (see:Graf) Marie Adelaide of Lemberg in 1775. The marriage was without children." Flamarande (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The far more commonly used and recognized form of the word is actually "morganatic". AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the title of this Marie (more likely, Maria) is to do with the Counts Mansfeld of the Holy Roman Empire, and not our own Earls and Countesses of Mansfield (or Mansfeld). If so, she was perhaps the widow of a Count Mansfeld, so might have been of any origin.

An even odder Mansfeld marriage happened in 1583 when Gebhard Truchsess von Waldburg, Prince-Archbishop of Cologne, fell in love with the beautiful Agnes, Countess Mansfeld, canoness of Gerresheim, converted to Lutheranism and married her, which led to his being deposed. Gebhard retreated into his Duchy of Westphalia, collected an army and had some military successes until the arrival of Spanish forces. See Schiller's History of the Thirty Years' War. Xn4 (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As Xn4 notes, it's the HRE counts involved here. This particular woman was a Mansfeld both by birth and later by marriage. Per Europäische Stammtafeln, she was the daughter of Johannes, Graf von Mansfeld and his second wife Margarethe of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Ludwig III (your IV) was her first husband; her second, whom she married in 1611, was Philipp, Graf von Mansfeld, son of Bruno, Graf von Mansfeld and his wife Christine von Barby-Mühlingen. - Nunh-huh 22:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

French immigration in Australia

Hi, in my job (customer service), I've encountered a large number of French people. This is matched by a fairly high French presence on Australia's multicultural television service, SBS, in the form of a daily, 40 minute news bulletin, and a swathe of French films. Am I right that there is either a wave of French tourism, or perhaps immigration, in Australia at the moment, and what is the cause of it? Regards, and thanks in advance, It's been emotional (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems to suggest the French influence on the arts and media may be disproportionate to the number of French immigrants. Rockpocket 21:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe France is in the top 20 countries from which immigrants come to Australia. This has been the case for many years. We don't hear much about French migrants here - much more about Italians, Greeks, Lebanese, Sudanese, Vietnamese, Chinese, Turks, New Zealanders and British. But they're here nonetheless, keeping a fairly low profile. Maybe they felt it should have been a French, rather than a British, colony in 1788 - and it almost was (see Jean-François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse @ Pacific). The USA is also in the top 20, which would surprise most people. Maybe they're preparing for the announcement of the 51st state. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a sizeable French community in Canberra. It is enough to support a bilingual school (K-10 at Telopea Park School) and a healthy Alliance Francaise. The French community is largely bilingual, though, with a generally very high level of English compared to other multicultural communities. They're less visible than other communities, I think (WP:OR!) because it is less exotic than, say, the Chinese, Vietnamese or Sudanese communities. Steewi (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ming Restoration

Is the only restoration of the Chinese monarchy in the heirs of the Manchu Qing Dynasty? In 1644 the Manchu emperors forced on the Chinese Han majority and if their ever would be a possible restoration of monarchy; would the Han Chinese choose the a descendant of the Qing Dynasty? Could it ever be restored under a descendant of the last native Dynasty, the Ming? There must be a direct descendant of the Ming emperors out there with the surname of Zhu. Is there a Ming pretender out there? --172.190.213.195 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See Line of succession to the Chinese throne. Hope this helps. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese have not kept to one single imperial dynasty (the way the Japanese have done). The doctrine of the mandate of heaven means that being a distant descendant of an overthrown royal family wouldn't count for much in terms of practical politics in most cases. AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama – 44th or 43rd president?

Many media state Obama as the 44th president of the United States. However, Grover Cleveland, 22nd president, had the 22nd and the 24th presidency. So Obama has the 44th presidency; but is he the 43rd president or the 44th? --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 12:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a philosophical question more than anything, but a numbering that would make him the 44th president seems to have been adopted quasi-officially... AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

By convention, presidencies are taken to be contiguous administrations; whether for 4 years, 8 years, or in one case, a bit more than 12 years. Since Cleveland served in two non-contiguous terms, his two administrations are counted seperately. Thus, Obama is the 43rd person to hold the office of President of the U.S.; but the Obama Presidency (that is, the administration as a concept, not the man) is the 44th. This numbering scheme is a bit confusing, but its been in place for a long time, so we stick with it. Its at least more logical than the number of most monarchies; for example that England/Great Britain/UK has had eleven Edwards as King, the last of which is titled Edward VIII, or that the current King of Sweden, Charles XVI is the ninth recorded King of Sweden with that name... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the numbering of English monarchs begins only with the Norman Conquest of 1066. You have to start somewhere! Xn4 (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean of course like Ethelred II of England and Harold II of England and Edmund II of England? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the *current* numbering starts with William I, and British monarchy#Style agrees with me. --Tango (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to number a very small number of the Anglo-Saxon kings, but I believe doing so is a modern development. It was hardly necessary at the time, because the early English had such a wide range of names, compared with the Normans and their successors. Indeed, the Anglo-Saxons often made up a name for a child, as we do again now, and the handful of their royal names which weren't new could be differentiated with an epithet such as the Unready. Xn4 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And consider Pope John XXIII (of blessed memory). There were only ever 20 legitimate popes called John before him, but the numbering got confused along the way (the original John XXIII was an antipope, and there was no John XX at all) and it would have been more trouble than it was worth to retrospectively renumber all the older ones. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll note in passing that in pre-Norman England the old Indo-European dithematic naming pattern was still 'living': most personal names consisted of two elements, arbitrarily put together, one of them usually taken from a parent's name. William and Henry and Edward are frozen examples of the pattern. —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Map locations

Kiev and shiraj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.95.67 (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Kiev is in the Ukraine and can be found on several maps in both articles. We have no article on Shiraj and I have no idea where it can be located. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you refer to Shiray / in the vicinity of Kandahar / Afghanistan: Latitude = 32 38' 54" and Longitude = 65 08' 32" . --62.47.154.1 (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC). Whoops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Could also be Shiraz in Iran. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Particularly after poking your nose into one of the 7,000 year old amphoras of the stuff. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Lovely stuff, especially as the Aussies make it . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When Jan 20th is on the weekend....

Hello Wikipedia, Just a quick one.. The new US President gets inaugurated on the 20th of January (not long to go now!), whih this year is a tuesday, but what if its a saturday or a sunday? Does it make any difference?86.6.101.208 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In the past, several presidents have delayed their inaugurations by one day if the scheduled date of the beginning of their term fell on a Sunday, but there's no rule saying this has to be done. AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one president Zachary Taylor has delayed his inauguration because the date (at the time March 4th, it has only been January 20th for the last 80 years or so) fell on a Sunday, and he refused to be inaugurated on the Sabbath. He was inaugurated on the 5th. This led to some speculation that David Rice Atchison, at the time President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and under the then-existing law, next in line for the Presidency, was actually "Acting President" for one day. Most historians and constitutional scholars discount that, noting that the President, by the constitution, becomes so instantly at the expiration of his predecessors term, and that the oath is merely required before he can exercise his duties. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

According to United_States_presidential_inauguration#Sunday exceptions, a number of them did... AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It notes that the addressses (speeches) were delivered on the Monday following. However, AFAIK, the actual act of inauguration, i.e. the oath-taking, was only ever delayed by Taylor... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

how much apple stock does the woz own?

how much apple stock does steve wozniak own? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.85.178 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This article cited by our own article on Steve Wozniak notes that he is a shareholder, but it also notes that Woz's stock position in the company varies over time. Also, that interview is over 8 years old. I have no idea if his actual holdings today are published anywhere. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

AAPL has an unusually small proportion of their stock owned by insiders (0.67%, according to Yahoo). You can see recent insider activity here; Wozniak is not listed. Presumably you can get better data from one of the premium (i.e. pay) services available. Antandrus (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that that just means that Wozniak has not moved any of his shares in the past 90 days. He could just be holding what he has. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. Unfortunately I don't know a way to get static stock ownership data without paying substantially for it. I just did a little bit of extra digging on my brokerage website, which gives me documents you'd have to pay for elsewhere; he's not listed doing any insider trades going back to the beginning of 2007. (Al Gore shows up on the list. Cool.) Note that Wozniak may not be listed as an "insider" any longer, if he is no longer an officer of the firm, so his activity may not be publicly trackable at all. Antandrus (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Woz still counted as an "insider" after all this time? The article says he's still on the payroll but gives no more clue of what role he's had since 1987. —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

how do the people you would 'pay substantially' know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

They compile data filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States, which regulates trades of securities. I imagine there is a similar regulatory entity in France (taking the liberty of noticing the originating point of your IP). The laws that established this were the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. I don't know all the ins and outs, but certain transactions -- e.g. insider trading, and trades over a certain size -- are reported to the SEC, so that investors can get an idea of who or what owns a publicly-traded company, and when insiders make moves. If you look at the published data, you can see how many shares insiders own, and when they trade those shares. The reports I have seen give the total number of shares owned by insiders at the time of trades, along with the size of the trades. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

[5] Here is the raw data on the SEC filings. By clicking on "document" for each one, you can see the person involved in the title. I scanned a bunch, but didn't find any Woz. He isn't listed as a board member in the Annual Report, but, according to his site, he is still an employee, receiving a small paycheque; he wants to be an employee for life [6]. If he is an executive employee, he would be required to make statements of beneficial ownership of securities filings for any change in ownership. It's likely that he is not an executive employee, so his financial affairs are probably private. NByz (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For visual artists (and anyone else interested)

Resolved

 – $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 19:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that (thanks especially to Wikipedia) I have a thorough grasp of the basics of primary colors, both in the "strict" sense of our trichromatic vision and the "pigment" sense of the RYB color model. I understand that when it comes to the color yellow, for example, the yellow we see on a computer screen is really made out of "different ingredients" (red and green) than the yellow in a rainbow. So my question is less about the specifics of experimental evidence and more along the lines of aesthetics, and it goes as follows:

The RYB model makes intuitive sense to me — I can "see" the blue and red in purple, the yellow and red in orange, and the yellow and blue in green. I understand this to be a product of the mixtures of pigments in whatever substance I'm looking at. But the RGB model is more troublesome, especially when it comes to "red plus green makes yellow". Is it possible to explain it in a way that makes sense — or is this like asking for quantum mechanics to make sense? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 17:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RYB makes sense because it is subtractive color—we imagine it like we are mixing paint. It's easy to visualize. RGB is additive color—it is like mixing light, not paint. So instead of thinking of it as "red plus green equals yellow", think of it as "white minus blue is yellow." Does that make more sense? We aren't using to thinking about mixing light, but we're pretty used to mixing paint. Getting the metaphors crossed means a lot of confusion, of course. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there's the crux of it! Aren't the terms "backwards", though? Isn't mixing a process of "addition"…? and when you say "white minus blue is yellow", that sounds like a process of subtraction! Well, after reading some of the relevant talk pages, most of the mysteries seem cleared up. Thanks! $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 19:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What's up with the "the" in "The Ukraine"

Yes, I know that officially and properly the name of the nation is merely Ukraine, but it is common (if wrong) practice in English to refer to the country as The Ukraine. From where does this come? I understand the use of the definate article when refering to places whose name is descriptive, such as The Czech Republic and The United States of America and The Netherlands or even The Hague, but as far as I can tell, Ukraine has never fit any of these categories. Calling it "The Ukraine" seems like "The Russia" or "The China". It seems wrong, and yet the practice exists. So how did it come to be that much of the English-speaking world calls the country "The Ukraine"? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is common to refer to regions with "the" and countries without, though individual cases vary much. In the case of Ukraine, the style "the Ukraine" was preferred by the Soviet Union to stress its political union with Russia, and to mark it as a region (as is the Moldau, the Levant, the Outback, the Great Basin, etc). Countries do not normally get "the", and so when Ukraine became an independent nation, it properly dropeed "the". So what about the exceptions? When the name of the country is headed by a common noun, it is necessary to use "the" for good grammar; hence, the Czech Republic, the United States of America, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom. "The Netherlands" is an exception, and indeed, simply "Netherlands" is sometimes seen. Netherlands (terminology) does not address the use of the article, as far as I can tell. Perhaps it's because it's the Netherlands. So the upshot:

* Regions sometimes get "the", sometimes not;

* Ukraine, when it was a region, got "the";

* Countries (except when there is a common noun heading the name) don't get "the".

* When Ukraine became an independent nation, word went out, "drop the 'the' please".

Oh, and what about "The Hague"? It's a shortening of Des Graven Hage, which means "the count's wood"; it's thus "The woods" in colloquial English, and gets "the" because "woods" (or "Hague") is a common noun. A similar case occurs with "the Bronx" which comes from the name of a family farm north of Manhattan, owned by a family named "Bronck". There are two stories, one is that the area is named for the Bronx River (that is, the Broncks' river), and gets "the" because names of rivers do; the other is that it came from a custom of saying that one was at "the Broncks' [farm]". Tb (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"The" Sudan is another, as is The Yukon. I can understand "The Yukon" as deriving from the name of the general region, but was that also the case with "The Sudan"? I notice that both our Yukon and Sudan articles use the "The" form intermittently throughout. Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also "The Lebanon" at times, and "The Levant". AnyPerson (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(The) Sudan is also the name of a physical region, isn't it? —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands sometimes gets "the", sometimes not. We'd never say "I'm going to Netherlands for a holiday". The name is grammatically plural, and sounds like a name for a collection of nether lands (which in fact it is), so it's natural to use "the" in that context. But our article is titled simply Netherlands (although it starts off with "The").

During the Falklands War, some newsreaders consistently referred to the warring countries as the UK and "the Argentine". Not "the Argentine Republic", just "the Argentine". It sounded a terribly affected way of talking to me.

Re Ukraine. Russian does not use definite or indefinite articles, but one of the Tsars' various titles, in English, was "Tsar of all the Russias". This referred to the fact that Russia was "Great Russia", Ukraine was "Little Russia", Byelorussia was "White Russia", etc. Further, Ukraine is from Украина (Ukraina), which comes from the Russian words у (u, meaning "in/at") and край (kray, meaning "region"). We'd say "in the region", not just "in region". Hence, it was traditionally known as "the Ukraine", and old habits die hard. I suppose if we wanted to be a bit closer to the "correct" pronunciation, we'd call it (the) Oo-crane, not You-crane. Maybe some people actually do call it "the Oo-crane", which, unless you insert a glottal stop, sounds identical to "the You-crane". Another good reason for dropping the "the".

Oocrane sounds funny to me; somehow I can more readily imagine English-speakers adopting Oocryne. Irrelevantly. —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some old hands still refer to "the Lebanon", a calque from "the Levant", I suppose. It sounds like a shorthand way of saying that it used to be a colony, and "colonies do not cease being colonies because they are independent" (Benjamin Disraeli). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Lebanon named for a mountain-range? —Tamfang (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam was sometimes referred to as "The 'Nam" by U.S. veterans of that conflict, as in "Were you in the Nam?" [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11].

Could "the 'Nam" be short for "the Vietnam war"? --Tango (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubtless so, unless they were asking about falling in the Nam Song River. Edison (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Name of Ukraine. Украина meant, initially, "the outskirts", and was used to refer to lots of peripheral territories. (In Russian, compare the similarity of the modern word for outskirts, окраина). It's not unlike Australia in this sense (whose name is derived from terra australis incognita, the unknown land of the south), in that its name derived from earlier words meant to indicate its location. In English it would not be totally untoward to put a "the" in there when discussing it as a region and not a political entity, even though Russian/Ukrainian have no articles. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Punjab", "The Sudan", "The Argentine". All sound very British and very out of date now. "The Ukraine" is now only an alternative for "Ukraine". Itsmejudith (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That probably dates back to when they were regions of the British Empire (or, in Argentina's case, places the British wanted to be regions of the Empire, although I've never actually heard of "The Argentine", so perhaps it is in less common usage since it was never actual British), so is consistent with Tb's analysis. --Tango (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Scotland once qualified for the World Cup (which was being held in Argentina), and had a song with the line "We're off to the Argentine". DuncanHill (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other side of the ledger, we have The Gambia, which is generally referred to as simply "Gambia". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also "The Comoros", which I thought was because it looks like a plural, but is apparently because it is officialy "Union of the Comoros". Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of those being named after natural features (the Gambia is a river, the Comoros are islands). —Tamfang (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What it going on in England and UK?

This question has been removed. Please re-read the header to the Reference Desk above. The Reference Desk is not an open forum for discussions. If you have a specific, direct question please feel free to ask it. However, open invitations to discussions of opinion will be deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

photo

How do I submit a photo of NYC Polive Capt. John S. Folk for the section on Civil War Draft Riots? I have copied it from "Brooklyn Guardians" by W.S. Fales, 1887. <email redacted>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Byron711 (talk • contribs)

I removed your email address. Also, please remember to sign your talk-page questions with four tildes: ~~~~. Now, if you want to upload an image, you will probably get the best help from Help:Images. Also, you may want to ask your question at the Help Desk where people there may be better able to help with the technical aspects of uploading pictures. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)