Humanities desk
< February 28	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	March 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.

February 29

Memphis, USA and Memphis, Egypt

There are several cities named Memphis in the US, the most famous being Memphis, Tennessee. I recently stumbled across our article on Memphis, Egypt and assumed that it was purely coincidental that the name is identical, however surprisingly the US cities are named after the ancient Egyptian city [1]. Apparently Memphis, Tennessee was named after the Egyptian city for "obscure reasons". Anyone have any idea as to what these "obscure reasons" are?

I thought usually cities in the New World are named after European cities or native American loanwords. I can't imagine there being a lot of middle eastern, let alone Egyptian, settlers back in 1826.99.245.35.136 (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we don't have cities named Cairo, Illinois or Thebes, Illinois, nor any number of Alexandrias. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, guess my geography knowledge is worst than I thought. I've honestly never heard of these two places before. We even have an article explaining this exact phenomenon: Little_Egypt_(region)#Origin_of_.22Little_Egypt.22_name 99.245.35.136 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to Cairo, Illinois. It's not exactly a teeming Metropolis. (Nor, for that matter, is Metropolis, which is less than an hour's drive away.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they're all in BFE - no wonder you've never heard of them. ;) Lithoderm 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, I'm gonna have to spend the next 30 minutes trying to figure why it's Egypt in BFE instead Greenland or the Falkland Islands.99.245.35.136 (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because Greenland or the Falklands don't start with E? --Jayron32 04:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not biblical in origin either. Memphis is mentioned in the bible multiple times, but not in a very favorable light[2].99.245.35.136 (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt became fashionable during and after the Napoleonic Wars, resulting in a spate of Egyptian-influenced buildings: see Egyptian Revival architecture. It also resulted in Egyptian place names (Memphis, TN was founded in 1819,, right in the middle of the craze). Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a fascination with Egypt at the time Memphis, Tennessee, was founded. Like the original Memphis, it was founded on the banks of a mighty river. Founders may have hoped that it would someday be as powerful a riverine metropolis as its ancient namesake on the Nile. The existence of Cairo, Illinois, suggests that settlers drew parallels between the Mississippi and the Nile. Marco polo (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought Memphis and Cairo were named that because the Mississippi River was known as the "American Nile". Googling on that term brings up lots of hits about the Mississippi, but also the Colorado River. I'll check some other sources... Pfly (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go; my 'go to' book for US place names, George R. Stewart's Names on the Land, pp. 238-239: "Various imaginative people had not failed to compare the Mississippi with the Nile. Analogies were obvious enough. Both were great and muddy rivers, given to inundations, highways for travel. The hope was also expressed that a new and greater civilization, surpassing even that of ancient Egypt, might soon develop along this "Nile of America". Such analogies and hopes soon suggested the transplanting of Egyptian names." Such as Cairo, and "Because of Cairo...all Southern Illinois came to be known as the Land of Egypt, or merely Egypt..." "Father down the river...another town was laid out, shortly after Cairo. Its founders too cherished hopes for its greatness, and were conscious of the Nile of America. They remembered the great city of ancient Egypt, and called their new venture Memphis." Pfly (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are obscure no longer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this cite to the Memphis, TN page. Pfly (talk) 06:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Southern_Illinois#Origin_of_.22Little_Egypt.22_name. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to read the link above about BFE. When I was growing up the phrase was "some place 'way to hell and gone, near Bum Fuck Iowa." Bielle (talk) 06:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

For me it was always Idaho. I guess Idaho is sufficiently exotic for us in Ontario! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Mecca, Ohio, presumably named by people who wanted to make it a "mecca" for settlers. The founders of a town to the west wanted to call their settlement Mecca, but since the name was taken, they chose Medina, Ohio. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leap Year...Today's

What would tomorrow's date be had leap year never existed? Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 1st. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TOMORROW would be march 2, because today would have been the q1st ;)Lihaas (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. That would be the case if only 2012 wasn't a Leap year. But what about 2008, and 2004 .... and 1764, and 1760 ... and 1288, and 1284 ... all the way back to 45 BC. Read the link above. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If 'leap years had never existed' they would have been invented - or some other fix to the calendar would have been found. The 'year' is something we've constructed to explain the regular passing of seasons, and if we'd been getting it wrong long enough, we'd have noticed, and done something about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Bugs said, March 1st. Either we would have corrected for it, by skipping a whole bunch of days, or let it be, like the Islamic calendar and now it just would be in the middle of Summer. Mingmingla (talk) 06:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two very different scenarios. The first one might have lead to the same outcome as we have now (or it might not have, depending on exactly what the correction was). But the "let it be" option definitely wouldn't have. If late Feb/early March turns out to be in the middle of (northern) summer, then now would most definitely not be late Feb/early March. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? They're just names. If we had a lunar calendar it wouldn't matter what seasons the months actually occur in. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're just names, but now is always now. Now would still be late winter/early spring, but the date would be very unlikely to be 1st March. "Let it be" could result in now being called all manner of dates, but the season would be the same. Using SupernovaExplosion's link, and adding today's leap day, there have been 513 leap days since they began, thus we can pretend that today would be 3rd October 2013 (may have made a counting error, feel free to correct me). 86.164.69.124 (talk) 08:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close enough to make the point that it's nowhere near "1 March 2012". (The OP did not want us to assume any other correction.)

Btw, tomorrow is the 300th anniversary of the one and only February 30. How do you say "Happy tercentenary" in Swedish? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grattis på trehundraårsdag, I think - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would need the definite form (dagen): Grattis på trehundraårsdagen. --NorwegianBlue^talk 22:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was that if the year was exactly 365 days, there would never have been such a thing as "leap year", and hence never a February 29th, and hence the day after the 28th would be March 1st. If the year were still 365 1/4 days but the concept of leap year had never been invented, it would still be March 1st, except it would be a different time of year climate-wise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the OP didn't ask for the date after 28 February, they asked for tomorrow's date. --Tango (talk) 13:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the debate we are having here is simply one of perspective. Bugs and I are clearly assuming by today, he meant February 28th. In the universe without a leap year, maybe it is February 28th in the middle of summer. Time is relative, and maybe in that universe, he would have asked what if there was a leap year to correct for the ~365.25 year, what season would it be now? Since he asked about tomorrow, not today ("What would today's date be without a leap" year, rather than "What would tomorrow's date be?" like he actually said. This question could ask about any random date if that was the case), I figured that was a reasonable assumption. Mingmingla (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor appears to be American, in which case when he wrote "today" it was still the 28th. If he could come here and explain exactly what he meant by "had leap year never existed", that would help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organization Type For Pooled Funds?

Hello. I'm sure pooling funds for business ventures and things is a fairly common situation with lots of business precedent, but I don't know what it is. What I want is a combined account that could hold group funds, but with no one owning the money directly and no one being able to run off with all of it. I presume that that will be under some kind of organization, and don't know how to set such a thing up. I was guessing that there would be some financial officers that had to agree to withdraw from the account (what's to stop them from agreeing between each other to split the money and run off?). Trust is the backbone of participation and I have to ensure that no fraud or embezzlement can take place. Thanks for reading (and forgiving the confused structure of the question, I'm in the dark here! :) --66.188.85.15 (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a private corporation, wherein people deposit an amount of money (share capital), and the administration and distribution of profits/assets/etc are specified in a contract (known as the articles of association, articles of incorporation, or similar names). The law about incorporation varies greatly from country to country, and we can't give legal advice about the specific details. Find a lawyer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What type of incorporation? And is incorporation the best answer? Like, would an LLC be easier, cheaper, or in any other way advantageous? And is it appropriate for the very small scale (sums less than $50,000)? --66.188.85.15 (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public vs. private laws in the USA

Public Law 94-67, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1975, posthumously restored full rights of citizenship to Robert E. Lee. Since it only dealt with one individual, why was it a public law, rather than a private law? Nyttend backup (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation on my part, but possibly because citizenship is a public matter. Mingmingla (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your linked Private bill states: "private bills were common between 1817 and 1971. Now federal agencies are able to deal with most of the issues that were previously dealt with under private bills ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how is that relevant? Legislative changes in 1971 made it so that private bills were less frequently requested: they didn't change how laws were designated upon enactment. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are "private laws" confidential? If so, maybe they made it a "public law" so they could publicize it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not confidential; they're private in the sense that they don't apply to the general public. Even the texts are publicly available — during that period, people were occasionally writing letters to Birch Bayh (whose papers I'm helping to archive) about various private bills, and the texts of such bills currently in Congress are online through the Library of Congress; for example, H. R. 193. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Private bills/laws are meant to do real things for real, living people, like allowing an immigrant to stay in the country. This bill was clearly symbolic (or a publicity stunt) and meant to get attention, so it would not work as a private bill. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK employment law

Please settle a dispute. In the UK, does your employer have to give you a printed pay slip? If the answer is yes, please can you point me at the Act which says so? (it's not legal advice, it's more a pub quiz question) --TammyMoet (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem not. [Edit: more like "probably have to on demand, but only on demand.] Can't vouch for that site, but it looks trustworthy, and it was some things to follow up (the implication of the HMRC quotation seems most concrete). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Good site - I'll bookmark it for future reference.--TammyMoet (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]