From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< February 1	<< Jan | February | Mar >>	February 3 >

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.

Contents 1 February 2 1.1 One error or two? 1.2 Unusual rock assemblies 1.3 Herbert Spencer 1.4 World Tour 1.5 energy consumption 1.6 Parodies of Coleridge's "Kubla Khan" 1.7 reflections on a vase/mirror/etc. 1.8 Constituent Assemblies dismissing Congresses 1.9 100 years of best sellers 1.10 Intricate mysteries 1.11 How to write literature

[edit] February 2

[edit] One error or two?

Does the sentence "You are so much fun, you hated to leave." have one error or two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.39.245 (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an error. I can't say I know what it means, though. Is this an ESL thing? --Milkbreath (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The grammatical error in this sentence is that the two verbs do not have a consistent tense. "Are" is in the present tense, but "hated" is in the past tense. In addition, there is no coordinating conjunction between the two clauses. ("and", "but", or "or") However, the sentence itself doesn't make any sense. If a person is fun, what is relevance of hating to leave? Maybe the sentence should say "You had so much fun, and you hated to leave."--Dem393 (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Sounds a bit odd to me. Seems to be describing a past event, where a person hated to leave because they were either having so much fun, or being the life of the party. A more natural-sounding expression might be either "You were having (or were being) so much fun, you hated to leave", or "You were having/being so much fun, that you hated to leave". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a run-on sentence, corrected by making a subordinate clause, which renders "You are such fun that you hated to leave," with the sense, as I construe it, "You ordinarily shine so in company, that on that occasion you hated to leave." The preceding is not a run-on sentence, though it tire the lip muscles. --Wetman (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No no no. You misunderstood the question. The point is that if you fix either mistake, the other one becomes correct. So do you count the mistakes together and say there are 2 mistakes, or say that there is only one mistake, because if you fix one, the other is not a mistake anymore. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I made a typo earlier, it should be "You are having so much fun, you hated to leave." not "You are so much fun, you hated to leave." 99.226.39.245 (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, in that case, I'd count only one mistake. It's just a question of which correct version was intended; decide that, correct the sole error, and you're home. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a name for this type of case, wherein either one error or another can be fixed, but not both? Just curious. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is only an argument of "two errors" when the sentence is divorced from context. Thus, we have to construct our own, imagined context, to try to make the sentence make sense. Once we have constructed this context, we realise that there can be two alternative contexts, each of which would require changing a different word in the sentence. Notice that the error is not one of logical inconsistency - it is conceivable that the speaker intended to say that "you" are ordinarily a lot of fun, and that on this particular occasion "you", perhaps as a result of this conviviality, were reluctant to leave. We only see an "error" because the sentence does not match what we would say in these (imagined) contexts.

In real, practical language, there can only be one intended meaning, and so there would only ever be one possible error.

On the other hand, in abstraction the number of "errors" is only limited by our imagination. If I imagined the context to indicate that the intended meaning was "The man you were talking to was such a bore that you would have loved to leave", you could argue that there are multiple "errors" with the sentence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! 99.226.39.245 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual rock assemblies

In 2004 our family took a trip around Lake Superior, which was over 1000 miles. In this trip all along the roadside were rock assemblies like this, that obviously someone constructed. There were dozens of these assemblies for the full length around Lake Superior. It obviously took a lot of time to make for someone or a group of people. Is there a name for an assembly of rocks like this and does anyone know the story of these rock assemblies at Lake Superior in Canada? Many were much larger than this and much more complex.--Doug ^talk 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks like an inukshuk. I don't think there are a lot of Inuit as far south as Lake Superior, so I don't know what sort of people would have erected it there. --Anonymous, 02:05 UTC, 2008-02-02.

Actually, if you read through the article Inukshuk, you will see that it has become a kind of Canadian national symbol and that non-Inuit Canadians have built many, particularly in parks and other natural areas. Marco polo (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I call 'em cairns. 77.56.99.133 (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Reading the article it appears that non-Inuit visitors are duplicating this practice and has got out of hand in Ontario. Where I noticed it the most was on the north part (especially the east part) of the main highway going around Lake Superior - which happens to be Ontario territory. We saw dozens of these (perhaps a hundred). I took pictures of several. The pictures at Commons are also typical of what we saw. I may have to add mine. The old B & W pictures of 1924 and 1929 were typical. We found so many that we knew it had to have been done by several people. Being an old ancient custom carried over into today now makes since. --Doug ^talk 13:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

They are also a symbol of the 2010 Winter Olympics, although there are no Inuit in Vancouver. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I live on the southern shores of Lake Superior in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and frankly I have never seen any of these rock formations before. That is not to say they don't exist here in the "U.P.", but perhaps I'll have to keep my eyes open. However, this would underscore the idea that it is primarily a Canadian thing, instead of a practice being done in the States... Who knows, maybe I'll build a couple this summer to start a trend down here! -- Saukkomies 10:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See also, Rock stacking. Dismas|^(talk) 11:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The example looks like a variant of a trilithon. --Wetman (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also live in Michigan (Lower Peninsula) and travel to the "U.P." - however also have not seen them anywhere in Michigan. Where I saw them was definitely in Canada of the Ontario territory, mostly in the northeast part above Lake Superior in Canada. Looking over my pictures, there are many that do in fact look like a variant of a trilithon - that is, they have vertical stone posts that support a horizontal stone like Stonehenge. They are minature versions of a trilithon. Trilithon are megalithic structures of large stones, where these are minature structures of basically the same thing. Trilithons are larger than man, where these inukshuks I saw are about the size of a little person. --Doug ^talk 23:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Herbert Spencer

Can you please help me? I need to know how Herbert Spencer fits into ninteenth century British thought and if he has any relevance for today? Norman Clegg (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Herbert Spencer? Algebraist 14:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia artile on Spencer is very long and contains a lot of useful information. Read it then come back if you have further questions. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spencer, I suppose, is another one of those Victorian antiquities, like Karl Mark, whose reputation and influence has declined steadily over the years. Both lived at a time when it was fashionable to produce a great synthetic vision, one that captured life and history in all its bewildering diversity in a convenient explanatory net; historical materialism for Marx, functionalism for Spencer. But whereas Marx looked for 'collective' solutions to the problems of the time Spencer was the apotheosis of an old Anglo-Saxon liberal tradition, one which sought to remove all artificial constraints to 'natural progress.' The measure of his importance can be gauged from his entry in the 1912 edition of the Dictionary of National Biography;

Spencer's place in the history of thought must be ranked high. His influence in the latter half of the nineteenth century was immense: indeed it has woven itself into our modern methods of thinking that its driving revolutionary energy is nearly spent; there is little likelihood of its being hereafter renewed. It was the best synthesis of knowledge of his times.

Ah, but who now reads Herbert Spencer? Not many, I think. Does he have an abiding relevance? Perhaps, particularly in concepts of laissez-faire, in his belief that state intervention in social and economic life more often makes matters worse, not better. But what of the grander vision of 'Order and Progress', who now has faith in those? Clio the Muse (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There was an interesting review of a new biography of Spencer not long ago in the New Yorker. It's a good read: "However, the big idea that gave Spencer’s philosophy its coherence was just too big to yield coherence or pertinence at more mundane levels. Watching Spencer derive concrete social policies from his theory of evolution is like trying to deduce whether to send the kids to private school from a theory of justice. The sledgehammer cracks the nut, but it makes a mess." --24.147.69.31 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World Tour

hello,

basically if i were to do a 'world tour' (eg go everywere!, see everything etc) for many years where should i go...any suggestions, are there any websites for this sort of thing, anyone done a similar thing,

thanks, --The world tour (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Asked at the Misc. desk, with some responses. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] energy consumption

hello,

one more question....has the electricity output (from non-renewable sources exc. Nuclear) from western countries, eg France, Uk, US, germany etc been going up or down....just wondering because if it is going up then all the 'save energy' stuff that people are ding would be a waste of time....right?

thanks, --The world tour (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• See [1] which says that for 1993-2004 in the US, generation from coal, liquid petroleum, natural gas, hydroelectric and other renewables, as well as nuclear decreased, while generation from coke increased. It claims that US total generation decreased, which I find surprising, since another reliable source [2] says US consumption is steadily increasing. See also [3]. Edison (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies of Coleridge's "Kubla Khan"

I would like to know how continues the parody beginning with the words "In Bakerloo did Aly Khan A stately Hippodrome decree: where Alf the bread-delivery man ..." Is the author known? I understand that he or she was making a point about the importance of the meaning of poetry, rather than the sound of the words. Lawrentius (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

bit more here http://plagiarist.com/poetry/1078/comments/2/ or a different version here http://my.telegraph.co.uk/tjsudbury/october_2007/poets_corner_a_classic.htm87.102.44.109 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's an ad-hoc parody:

Mr. Bean Interviews

In Xerox Park by Mr. Bean

A stately copier was Seen

And knowing that the ink was Free

-- And paper, too -- decided he

To make some copies of his CV.

Twice ten copies he did think

Would not be too hard upon the ink,

But having not a card to swipe,

He glimpsed instead a prototype:

An early view of what was to be!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If anyone likes this style I'll add more.... (hilarious Mr. Bean antics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.25 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The cartoonist Don Martin once did a very funny parody of the poem, targeting the Houston Astrodome. Rhinoracer (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reflections on a vase/mirror/etc.

I would have thought very old painters (Antiquities) already "painted what they saw", to include, for example, the reflection of a window on a shiny vase or in a mirror/other shiny surface, even when the window is not visible in the painting. However, my wife says this is not so old a technique!

So, what's the earliest painting (or epoch, etc) in which we can see a reflection of something "off-canvas"?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.25 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember a Dutch painter who did detailed images including things seen in reflections. Holbein, perhaps? There were also paintings of a scene viewed in a reflection from a curved reflective object, which can only be viewed "correctly" when the object is placed in the middle of the painting. Edison (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The latter would be anamorphosis. Bovlb (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You may find more at History of painting; pick the earliest artwork that meets your criteria. An argument could be made that Photorealism was the start of "painting what you see". Bovlb (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

One famous example of something painted seen in a mirror is the Arnolfini wedding... Also, Venus/Aphrodite was frequently shown gazing into a mirror (see Image:Titian_Venus_Mirror_(furs).jpg etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck dates from 1434, but I think that the reflection shows only what is also shown in the painting. The most famous example of a reflection in a painting that shows something outside the picture frame (that I can think of) is Las Meninas by Diego Velasquez from 1656. The mirror shows the king (Philip IV of Spain) and queen looking into the scene from outside. That said, I have no idea what the earliest example of this type of image is.--Eriastrum (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The mirror in the Arnolfini Portrait shows additional figures that are definitely not in the frame.  --Lambiam 23:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do high-shine highlights count as reflection, as in the eyes of this Egyptian boy? The use of such highlights was common in 1st and 2nd centuries A.D Fayum mummy portraits, of which the linked image is an example.  --Lambiam 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A fascinating question. Things unseen, in-ness and out-ness, flat space intersecting with other dimensions. The ones who did Lascaux were surely capable of any abstract thought that you or I are. The bodies of the swimming deer are there but not there. The artist himself steps back and leaves the canvas. We are off-canvas now. The earliest example I could find of an actual reflection is from a Roman mural from Herculaneum. I refuse to believe that that bunch of engineers were the first to render a reflection. The concept is not difficult at all. The Egyptians had mirrors, and Cro-Magnons had at least ponds and puddles. And eyes. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Lambiam, that the Jan van Eyck mirror does indeed show two figures between the couple. One source says that one of the figures might be Jan himself. I didn't realize this until I looked at a good reproduction, since the images in the mirror are so small. I found another interesting example of mirror images in paintings. The Music Lesson by Vermeer shows a woman with her back to the viewer playing a virginal. There is a rectangular mirror on the wall in front of her, and in it you can see her face. What is interesting is that in the reflection what is shown behind her does not seem to be what is behind her in the painting! Is this an error, a joke, a piece of obscure symbolism?--Eriastrum (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constituent Assemblies dismissing Congresses

The Ecuadorian Constituent Assembly convened in late November of last year, and the first thing they did was to vote to dismiss Congress. Now, for the time being, a portion of the assembly has assumed the legislative role that Congress once had. I'm curious to know if there are other examples of a constituent assembly dismissing a nation's Congress. Sjmcfarland (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The United States Constitutional Convention pretty well did away with the Congress of the Confederation. Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it didn't. The Congress of the Confederation finished it session and even had another session after the convention. The adoption of the Constitution led to the replacement of the Congress later, though this is not at all like the Ecuadorian example. Rmhermen (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 100 years of best sellers

Is there a list somewhere on the net of all the best sellers (books) of the 20th Century? Keria (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is one for the USA in Publishers Weekly lists of bestselling novels in the United States. It´s by single years, though and does not give individual sales figures, so you can´t accumulate it over the century. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You can check out the list of best-selling books and filter the list for all books published in the 20th Century. However, the sales figures will include sales that have occurred over the last eight years, as well. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intricate mysteries

Which are some of the most intricate and complicated detective or mystery novels? Keria (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wilkie Collins wrote one of the first detective novels in The Moonstone. It's pretty complex and can help you see the history of the genre. Wrad (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One detective novel that stands out to me as intricate is The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler. --Anonymous, 00:02 UTC, February 3, 2008.

Intricate enough that even Chandler couldn't work it out—personally that's a big turn-off. Personally I'm a big fan of the (later) work of James Ellroy (White Jazz onward), which is very densely wrought with facts, characters, and context. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agatha Christie was an early lover of fiendishly complicated plots (see, for instance, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd). A US example which comes to mind is Richard North Patterson's Dark Lady (1991). Xn4 07:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reginald Hill's Dialogues of the Dead is an intellectual romp through literature, myth, and language tied up with a complicated murder which is like a word puzzle in itself. Here's one review I googled, as a taster, but I'm sure there are better ones out there. Gwinva (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to write literature

Could you recommend a book about writing literature? It would be giving advices such as what to look for when writing sentences, the traps to avoid, how to vary sentence construction and the like. I'm looking for a work on literature and writing, not on plot construction or on 'how to write a best seller'. Thank you. Keria (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not of much help, but: I don´t think it works that way. There may be books on "Writing Literature by Numbers", indeed, there certainly are many. I simply doubt their usefulness.

If you feel that you must write, than I suggest:

• Read every spare minute, less as a reader, but more as an analyst, as a critic, as a student of the skills (and weaknesses) of a fellow writer.
• Consider joining a local writers´workshop, where budding novelists read from their work in progress. If nothing more, it will make you aware what a sentence sounds like "from the outside" and how your mind constructs the images parallel to the words on paper.
• If you are serious about writing, you will have to learn the difficult skill to alienate yourself from "Keria the writer". You need to be able to read (and reread) your work as if you had never seen these words before. You, in your role of "Keria the critic" must be able to recognise, without pity, any weakness in the construction. A slight personality disorder seems almost mandatory. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you are looking for is a book on Composition. Perhaps the reason you have been finding it difficult to locate a book on this subject is that you were not using the right keyword to find it. Try going to Google, Amazon.com, or your local library, and using the keywords "composition writing", and you'll find plenty of material to choose from. -- Saukkomies 09:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The best concise little book on writing style is, of course, Strunk and White. It is also quite entertaining. It cannot teach you how to be a good writer, but it does help keep you from being an abysmal one, if you follow its advice. Buy a copy and keep it at your bedside. Read it a few times through until you've internalized its suggestions. They're good ones. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A "summation of the case for cleanliness, accuracy, and brevity in the use of English" sounds very good, and it's available online! Now I'm all worried about making gramatical mistakes. Thank you. I'll look into composition too. Cheerio! Keria (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The only one available online for free is Strunk's original 1918 text. Get the full Strunk & White for more tips on grammar and style. White's bits are really quite wonderful as well and very funny; he has long descriptions on good and bad things to avoid when writing that goes far beyond Strunk's original rules. It's worth the $5 or whatever it is that it costs (it is a very short book, by the way). You can certainly find it used almost anywhere as well. I have an illustrated version which is just wonderfully fun as well (but meant to be fairly silly). Whenever I mentor thesis students I make them buy a copy and learn to worship it. As they point out, you don't have to follow "the rules", but in most cases, it's a good idea, and if you're going to break them, you should at least know you are, and be prepared for the consequences! --24.147.69.31 (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that Strunk & White is a useful book. Here are some well-informed attacks Haukur (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can find a fool who believes anything! Anyway, as I said, Strunk and White are very clear that they are not so much rules as guidelines, and that violating them is of course within the perogative of the writer. As with a musical instrument, or any other fine art, one generally needs to spend time learning the "formal" and "correct" way of doing something before deciding to become avante garde, and frankly if most beginners could stick with Strunk and White, the world would be a much more well-written place! In any case, whether you like it or not, whether you heed it or not, Strunk and White is a classic book on composition. One can hardly burn a copy, as one of those pages suggests, before one has owned and read it to care enough to burn it. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read the version available online and it has already helped me tremendously. Bye bye passive constructions (when unecessary). I've even managed to localise one book here in South America! Thank you for the suggestion. I think you are right, 24, it looks like the book can defend itself against any attack. It has pre-defused the traps by stating that one should stray from the rule when feeling it is justified. I'll read the critics too though. I'm sure they are very interesting. I'll look further into 'composition' for more complete books. Keria (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend Fowler or Gowers (the latter shamefully under-represented on Wikipedia) over Strunk & White. There's nothing wrong with the passive voice. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's one guy who really hates Strunk & White and recommends Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage instead. While I'm on the subject, I can't resist linking this poem. -- BenRG (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked directly the professor who wrote the critique of Strunk and White (I think it is the same BemRG is linking to) to suggest alternatives and he replied with a very kind email. He suggested, among others, Joseph WILLIAMS Style: Toward Clarity and Grace. The title, at the very least, sounds good to me. Keria (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the passive voice, but it can be overused, or abused. When a journalist says:

• "It's not known whether a decision has been made by the government or not", what they mean is:
• "The government obviously knows whether or not they've made a decision, but I, personally, don't know, because I, personally, didn't/wasn't able to do enough research to find out before my deadline". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)