Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 July 27

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.

July 27

Manticore

Can anyone be definitive about the origin of the tales of the manticore? ~ R.T.G 13:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it certainly went down some time before the first known telling. But yeah, you probably want the harder truth. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Our article seems to cover it pretty well: it's an exaggerated tiger. Matt Deres (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Well given that we are not immediately apparent, and our article seems to be making stuff up... I find at a cursory search that the manticore is earliest mentioned by Pliny, and is given as a cross between a hyena and an "Ethiopian" lion[1] which can mimic the human voice (unlikely as a real creature I imagine), however as that is my own OR, all I can after that say is, "one of the earliest mentions of the manticore is..." and leave the origin unclear, while a dispute appears to brew or at least slowly contradict on the article... Surely many studies have been done with this familiar mythical beastie... ~ R.T.G 13:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That's the thing about men studying maneaters with uncanny destructive abilities, though, most reports don't make it back. And those that do are sometimes destroyed by fire salamanders, thunderbirds or quakemoles. I might assume a lion with a mynah bird in its mouth could convincingly rip off a human voice, though perhaps incredibly next to a kangaroo with a superb lyrebird in its pocket. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

In visual terms, a big cat carrying a human head by the scruff might look like a human-faced cat, on first glance. Closer examination should uncover the illusion, but at a clear risk. Maybe early settlers found it only natural to run like hell and not think twice about looking back. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

One Idea I think of is, lions being more likely to scavenge a hyenas prey than vise versa, and hyenas being likely to skulk around until they are brave enough to gang the lion out. Maybe some humans doing this rite of passage where they stalk the lion and take its food, would often come across the lion surrounded by laughing and whoops from just out of vision, i.e. the hyenas working up the courage to take their food back, and not really know or believe that hyenas and lions would interact this way, seeing the lion as the absolute king because of its mighty appearance... According to Smithsonian Mag, most hyenas die to lions or humans, 60% to lions who will corner and kill a hyena without any interest in eating it, so there probably is a lot of skulking around out of vision, but would villagers by this stage not be expert in understanding the situation and also aware of the old stories of the lion with the voice and put the two and two? ~ R.T.G 13:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

If that's how the stories started, no, they wouldn't be aware of them yet. But that aside, quite possible. To my modern English ears, hyenas don't sound much like humans, but all language is shifty and India's had a lot of them (including forgotten ones, presumably). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) Is there a non-language-based version of folk etymology? That's what seems to be going on here. I guess armchair expert is the closest. Considering the possible origins of stuff like this can be fun, but in most cases we will never ever actually know the origin with any kind of certainty. The study of cultural anthropology and folkloristics can be maddening at times because it's so easy to get spun into these webs of guesses, suppositions, and outright fabrications. Many times, the best sources of information are still only the equivalent of Chinese whispers played across dozens of generations by people who didn't know they were even playing. What I'm getting at is this: you're contriving scenarios to account for specific character traits for an animal that has clearly been exaggerated to make for better stories. A tiger, just on its own, is more than enough to account for the manticore once you add in all the gooshy stuff story-tellers like to throw in there for flavour. Matt Deres (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

WordReference.com defines "gooshy" as the kind of thing little girls hate. This does not seem to describe a man's face. If you strip a normal tiger of its mythical goosh, you still have a cat-faced monster, not any sort of manticore. Even a shaved, mangy or otherwise bald cat still walks and quacks like a pussy, rather than some nutty land platypus. Remember when they and gorillas were fabrications and fun figments? Man-faced bear and venomous milk duck...bah! But you're mostly correct. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I find them to be somewhere between a dog, a cow, maybe a gibbon... and a human... and also sort of disturbing in any circumstance which gives a good example of their voices! Totally, just chit chatty speculation, in the apparent absence of substance. ~ R.T.G 20:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You know whose disembodied voice is disturbing in the darkness? Frickin' fishers, man. Sometimes I think one of those ugly murderous trolls paddled out to Ireland back when just to convince people of banshees and kill all the snakes for fun. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Federal funds rate

Why is the current Federal funds rate quoted as a range (2.25%-2.5%), and despite this why do some publications just list it as a single rate of 2.5%? I find it confusing that 1) the Federal Reserve set it as a range, and two that different sources report on it differently. Could anyone in the know provide a bit more colour around this for me? Many thanks Uhooep (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it is between banks, it can only be influenced, not set. The rate that is set is the rate to borrow from the Fed which is intentionally set above what the banks lend at to keep the free market juju going and because that is not the purpose of the Fed, the purpose of the Fed lending to banks is to be the lender of last resort to avoid severe economic problems. It is just a target, they preform open market operations (buying or selling, whichever direction makes it get closer instead of further) or change rates given to required bank reserves and stuff if the rate is drifting away from the target and they still want to keep it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

From our Federal funds rate article, “According to Jack A. Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank, one reason for this unprecedented move of having a range, rather than a specific rate, was because a rate of 0% could have had problematic implications for money market funds, whose fees could then outpace yields” DOR (HK) (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ladies "literally sitting among" senators in the US Congress

Having been an observer of US politics and governance for a long time, I was amazed to come across this diary entry from Fanny Kemble of 14 January 1833. On her visit to the US Congress she reports that "… literally sitting among the senators were a whole regiment of ladies, whispering, talking, laughing and fidgeting …".

I've never heard of any such thing being allowed in any legislature anywhere in the world.

Who were these ladies? Wives? Mothers? Daughters? Sisters? Friends? And when did this extraordinary practice cease?

Or was she perhaps using "literally" in the 21st-century sense of "not literally"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Here and on the following page is another instance, but this was Inauguration Day (March 4, 1865, an all-night session that started on March 3). Apparently the senators wound up almost crowded out of their own chamber "I trust we have not surrendered possession of the Senate Chamber." "Oh yes, we have, the ladies have got it".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully not prostitutes, though a well-fellated Senator may be less likely to make war. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

No, they were well-connected people. The scene of the women outside getting wet and muddy is mentioned in a book I read on Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, which happened a bit later in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

During typical legislative sessions (as opposed to special occasions), they would presumably have been confined to the upstairs visitor's galleries (one of which is named the "Ladies' Gallery" -- see Old Senate Chamber)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The very page you linked to has this to say in a footnote: "Their wives and daughters, frequently the reigning beauties of their respective states and towns, generally accompany them thither during the session ... The Capitol is a favourite lounge in the morning" So most of the ladies would be the families of the legislators. --Khajidha (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The 21st century use of literally has literally been used for centuries 80.4.145.34 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This page has information. "Immediately behind the last row of desks is a low paneled wall that separates the Senators' space from a third visitors' area. Furnished with red-upholstered sofas, this area was reserved for privileged visitors who gained admittance to the Chamber through the special invitation of a Senator." That is probably what is being referred to.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Outsiders filtering into a legislative chamber was not such a rare occurence in Early Modern parliaments. I've read that in Old Polish diets, the speaker would sometimes ask everybody out of the chamber and then let the MPs back in one by one to make sure only actual MPs are present. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

References