Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 May 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< May 28 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 30 >
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


[edit] May 29

[edit] Name for belief about acquiring attributes

I'm trying to think of the general name for the belief that consuming something will bring the consumer the attributes of that thing. For instance, if you consume the sexual organs of a tiger, you will be virile, or that if you consume a turtle you will be slow. Ring any bells? -- Beland (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

James George Frazer in The Golden Bough calls it "sympathetic magic", or, more specifically, the branch of that magic he calls "homeopathic magic" or "imitative magic", the other being "contagious magic". (That book is on line at Gutenberg and is a must-read for anyone interested in stuff like this.) He proposes that one of the two principles on which magic is based is that like produces like. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
See also the article Chinese medicine[1] for brief intro and article Sympathetic magic. Great link by the way MB, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
And somewhat related is Lamarckism. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really... Lamarck's idea was that acquired characteristics were passed to the next generation: our article gives an example of a blacksmith passing his strong arms on to his children. A theory of evolution based on sympathetic magic would say that dragonflies evolved to become fast by their habit of eating quick moving insects. Matt Deres (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes evolution comes close, as it might say dragonflies became fast (evolved) in order to eat quick moving insects. Is it like that? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Something close, but you see the mechanism is backward. Under natural selection, the fastest dragonflies had the most offspring and passed that genetic trait on to their offspring. Under Lamarckism (debunked), the strain of flying fast built up the dragonfly's muscles and those large muscles were passed onto the offspring. Our hypothetical theory of evolution by sympathetic magic would say that the dragonflies that ate the fastest mosquitoes would acquire ability from them. In more general terms, natural selection is the weeding out of existing variables (a subtractive process), Lamarckism is the building up of acquired characteristics (an additive process), and our ToEbSM is, well, a transitive process (I'm making this up) in that the abilities of one animal are passed directly onto another from digesting it.
In a very limited sense, sympathetic magic is a more factual phenomenon than Lamarckian theories. Poison tree frogs, for example, do not create their toxins within themselves, but get them from the insects they eat. In a loose sense, the "magic" poison is passed onto the frog. Even there, though, we run into the problem of passing the trait onto the next generation. Oh well! Matt Deres (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voodoo?

When a villain can only be killed if a certain object is destroyed, eg in Lord of the rings, Sauron dies if the One Ring is destroyed; the genie Jafar dies if his lamp is destroyed; and in Harry Potter, Voldemort dies if all his horcruxes, which contain pieces of his soul, are destroyed. Is there a word for this objecting being more than just standing for, (apart from effigy) the villain? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Would "soul vessel" or "icon" fit the bill?--71.236.23.111 (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
How about phylactery?--Lenticel (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks like a medicine bag to me. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
They all sound like it. I'll put those in a see also at the end of the article and maybe a section with links. Thanks for your help. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You are no doubt aware that "phylactery" is a word in its own right having nothing to do with all this, borrowed without permission for the obscure fictional mumbo-jumbo. Frazer could come up with nothing better than "soul-box" (p. 680) to contain the "external soul". Incidentally. in poking around I discovered what I think I used to know, that the "Host" of the Eucharist is not the same word as the ordinary "host" but instead derives from the Latin for "sacrifice". I was hoping it would have to do with "hosting" the soul or something of Christ, but no. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Katschei is also famous for this. 134.96.105.72 (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
<nitpick alert> Sauron doesn't die. He is just rendered impotent (Viagra endorsement time?). </nitpick alert> Clarityfiend (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
One of the other examples has a similar inaccuracy. Spoiler here. --Anon, 00:06 UTC, May 30, 2008.
This is so helpful, I'm copying the whole thread to the talk page. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tin Woodman

Why would the Tin Woodman in the Wizard of Oz be replaced by a snake in Hindu countries? Just curious, not wanting formal legal advice. :) Abeg92contribs 03:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting question. I've had a good trawl round via Google, but the only sites that assert this look like WP:Mirrors; I can't find anything that looks independent or gives any explanation of why this would be the case.
The information appears to have been added by User:Woggly in this diff [2] four years ago. Since they are still an active contributor, I've dropped a note on their talk page asking if they can help shed any more light on the matter. -- Karenjc 12:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This is cited to someone's website, but the website provides no additional reference beyond the assertion that it is so. I question whether this satisfys the verifiability requirement and have tagged the assertion in the article as needing a better reference. Edison (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Woggly has provided the following additional info:
Hi. I learned about the Tinman/snake substition in a presentation given by Dick Rutter in the year 2000, at the Wizard of Oz Centennial Convention that was held in Bloomington, Indiana, by the International Wizard of Oz Club. Rutter is an orthodonist and Oz enthusiast, who owns what very well may be the world's largest collection of international editions of the Wizard of Oz. He gave a slideshow presentation of books from his collection, including several books from Hindu countries, and reported the snake anecdote. I hope this information helps. --woggly (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karenjc" --Karenjc 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Emailed Dr Rutter and requested help in tracking down the source. -- Karenjc 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
So... no response? Will this topic die? Should the snake stuff be removed from the article? I guess I'll remove it if this gets no replies to the contrary by tomorrow... Abeg92contribs 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who is this writer?

I remember reading on the internet about some author who cranked out science fiction books (by dictation) at a rate of about one every week and a half. Supposedly they were full of filler, including a long tooth-brushing scene. Also, he was said to be the most prolific science fiction writer ever. I can't remember the name! Argh! 98.199.17.3 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Isaac Asimov was the most prodigious, however I don't know that his works are "full of filler" nor am I aware that he dictated his work. Wikiant (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Philip K. Dick wrote a lot. However, he was rather crazy and was writing more to write than to create science fiction. In his worst states, I would not be surprised if he wrote an entire story about brushing teeth. In his better states, he created the foundation of many great stories. -- kainaw™ 13:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Not L. Ron Hubbard, by any chance? --Richardrj talk email 13:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds a bit dubious. A book every week and a half works out to just under 35 a year. Over say 20 years, that's nearly 700. Asimov (a freak, or an alien, or a whole gaggle of aliens) is considered by many to be the most prolific science-fiction author. By comparison, he wrote just over 500 books, not all science fiction, over a much longer period. Now it's possible for somebody to write drivel and call it science fiction, but would it be published? I think not. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have heard this before - the toothbrushing scene story is very familiar. I did wonder whether it might be John Creasey, who is known for his prolific output (well over 600 books) under a variety of names and who was capable of writing a short pulp novel (35,000 words) overnight. He's best known as a thriller writer, but he did write SF too. There's also Kenneth Bulmer. However, I have a niggling feeling it's another name, and one I ought to remember. Will keep looking. --Karenjc 17:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Asimov's rate picked up over his lifetime, and during his final decade, he was producing about one book every two weeks. --Carnildo (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a vague idea that the guy had three names (ie not John Creasey). 98.199.17.3 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The toothbrushing thing reminded me of Kilgore Trout, which lead me to Philip José Farmer. Mr Farmer does not seem to have written 700 books, but he is a SF writer with three names whose list of works in his article is quite long. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
A. Bertram Chandler comes to mind, but his article shows "40 novels and 200 works of short fiction". --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of Asimov's work over most of his lifetime wasn't science fiction, and a lot of works that are counted in his total are ones he only edited as an anthologist. Another prolific author best known for SF is Robert Silverberg; our article says he wrote a million words a year at his peak, and I once saw him quoted -- I think in the 1980s -- as saying he'd written more books than Asimov. But I haven't heard the story being asked about, for him or anyone else. --Anonymous, 00:18 UTC, May 30.
It was Lionel Fanthorpe. --ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That's him! Thank you very much! 98.199.17.3 (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hooray ColinFine! It was driving me mad too, once 98.199 had brought it up. If anyone's interested, the infamous toothbrushing scene was in Fanthorpe's novel Dark Continuum and is reproduced in full here [3]. -- Karenjc 14:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relation

Is Colin Campbell Ross related to John Campbell Ross? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 06:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I doesn't seem very likely. Ross is a common surname, and Campbell as a given name, although less common, is not uncommon. In the absence of a specific reason to think the two are related, the most likely guess is that they aren't. In the same way it is unlikely that Charles Campbell Ross and Duncan Campbell Ross are related. Ditto for Alan Strode Campbell Ross and Callum Campbell Ross.  --Lambiam 07:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question!

Who were the most barbaric: Vikings, Goths, Mongols or Huns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.93.179 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a very subjective question, and not very useful as a question about history; to the monks of Lindisfarne, the Vikings were pretty barbaric, but the inhabitants of thirteenth century Baghdad would argue that the Mongols were the most barbarous. But what about all their good qualities, their civilization, their contributions to humanity? All of them founded extensive empires and had literature and art. Does that make them less barbaric? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As usual the answer depends on who wrote the book you're reading. Romans are great because the beat "barbaric" tribes into shaping their empire. Moguls are "barbaric" because they beat "great" nations to shape their empire (?!)--71.236.23.111 (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that barbarians doesn't have a ethymology like Vandals or we could easily answer this question with a meaningless response. However an interesting thing I just learnt "The female first name "Barbara" originally meant "A Barbarian woman", and as such was likely to have had a pejorative meaning" Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It depends if you mean which ones were most ruthless and destructive in behaviour or the sense of barbarian as one who is outside the dominant culture (and seen in a lesser light). With the first, there's no distinction as Adam Bishop explained. Though the Romans had the word "barbare" for it/them, the second gets the rest. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Vikings were certainly not the barbaric peoples you think they are. Firstly, the term "vikings" is misleading because it means "raiders" and was assigned by Christan cultures looking at what (at the time) was a Pagan society (though Christianity did spread to places like Iceland in AD 999). The Vikings were in fact both raiders, traders and settlers. There are written sources from as late as the 1400s which write on the 793 raid on Lindesfarm or the raid on Portland, Dorset somewhere between 786-802. However in the latter, the inhabitants were expecting the Vikings to trade, nor raid, so that suggests they traded too. Furthermore, a camp excavated at Repton on the River Trent showed both weapons and scales and other trading equipment, and many Vikings were buried with scales as well as weapons, showing that they traded as well as raided. They were often merchants, trading ivory from Greenland and Iceland and they were farmers, they farmed crops and sheep and cattle. The entire of Iceland was made up of a commonwealth of small Viking farmships. They obviously settled as well, Viking settlements existed in Iceland, Greenland and Vinland (northern Americas). The idea of them being barbaric murdering raiders is a creation by Christian Europe, abhorring the idea of a few raiders sacking a Church in northern England, and (when they did adopt Christianity) taking the Church's tax money for themselves. This is a simplification of the reason, but undoubtedly the idea that Vikings were murderous barbarians isn't true. They even had far greater equality between the sexes than Christian Europe did at the time! SGGH speak! 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simple Question .... Long answer

This is not supposed to offend anyone but I have a feelinbg it might. The other day I was sitting with my partner watching a program about Steven Hawking and his wonderful theories. Then, my partner said to me,' so if this is true, it blows Christianity away and the creation of the world in seven days...' I have a huge amount of respect for both religion and science but I couldn't help feeling my partner had won me over on this one. Any ideas? Kirk UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that Christianity doesn't depend on the world being created in seven days. Most Christians take the passage describing that as being theological rather than scientific. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
7 days doesnt necessarily refer to 7 literal days. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 17:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that the Biblical description of the order of events, and not solely the timing between them, is spurious. Genesis claims that plants were created before the Sun that drives their photosynthesis, and that land organisms were produced before life in water. This description of events, and their attribution to God, would seem very reasonable to an ignorant person 2000 years ago but not by an author inspired by an omniscient God. The Bible also includes appaling examples of cruelty, collective punishment, and sadism, but again, these examples can easily be explained by the Bible's author's acceptance of comtemporary values. I think the Bible should, if rationality is not completely disregarded, be taken as simply the work of a mundane person 2000 years ago. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It only blows Christianity away if one assumes that the point of the Bible is to relay historical fact. I can similarly "blow away" the program you were watching by pointing out that Steven Hawking is three-dimensional and composed (principally) of carbon, while in the program you were watching he was a two-dimensional arrangement of photons. Of course, this misses the point that the program was meant to portray Steven Hawking's ideas, not to physically represent him. Wikiant (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, seven days is seven days surely? Seven phases I can understand as being interpreted in many different ways but seven days equals seven blocks of twenty four hours. If not, then why say seven days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

During the program, would you have thought it odd if someone had pointed to the TV and said, "That's Steven Hawking"? It seems a straightforward statement -- surely, Steven Hawking is Steven Hawking. But it wasn't Steven Hawking; it was an image. In fact, the point of the program wasn't that the image was or was not Steven Hawking. The point was the information the program was trying to get across -- Hawking (or his image) was merely a vehicle for the information. Similarly, the specific words in the Bible are vehicles for transmitting an idea -- the idea is that (1) God is the source of all things; (2) God loves us. Wikiant (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In other words, ceci n'est pas une semaine? Deor (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not what I'm asking, I'm familiar with the Rene Magritte ananagy of 'C’est Ne Pas Ne Pas Une Pipe', that's not what I'm referring to in the Hawking Statements. Moving away from Hawking statements, whether it be big bang theory, string theory or whatever, can the two exist simultaneously? Can a god creation of the universe exist alongside a scientific explanation of gravitational fields, probability fields and black holes. If we ignore the phrase 'on the first day, God said let there be light' in the bible, then does that mean that any phrases in the bible can be ignored if they 'don't fit'? Keeping to the original question, is there any research that explains how a religious and scientific explanation can co exist. Thanks - Kirk Uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is, what do you mean by "don't fit?" If you take the words in the Bible as statements of fact, then not only do they "not fit" with science, they don't even "fit" with themselves (do a google search on "contradictions in the bible" -- there's a lot of them). Now, if you take the words as conveying the idea that God created the universe, then there need not be a contradiction with science. Science explains *how* the universe came into being, but religion addresses *why* the universe came into being. Wikiant (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You may find this article interesting. Particularly the second subheading 'The Marriage of Teachings—Does It Work?'. Best, --Cameron (T|C) 20:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't get hung up on the "7 days" of Genesis 1. If you read Genesis 2, you will find the story of creation told in quite a different way (and order). From a Christian perspective, both are the Word of God, and thus speak of the Truth. Yet they appear to contradict each other. That doesn't fit with our modern preference for describing facts in a scientific, analytical way, so it seems nonsense. But, as Wikiant says, that is to take the passages in a way they were never intended. Think instead of traditional story telling as a way of conveying truths and ideas. There's a hundred versions of Robin Hood, yet we all understand the gist of it; we tell of the Tortoise and the Hare, when that never occurred ("How stupid, as if a hare and a tortoise could talk, and run a race"), yet we use it to demonstrate severals truths & concepts (that of not being too confident; that slow and steady often wins, etc). Even now we use fiction to portray truth. There never was a Private Ryan; do we then doubt D-Day happened? So, no, faith and science don't have to tie up exactly: they speak of different things. Can they be held together? There is much in the way of research, philosophy, discussion regarding that. Check out, for a start, Intelligent Design, Theistic evolution, Jewish views on evolution. There are plenty of links to follow from those. Also consider JRR Tolkein's On Fairy-Stories, where he addresses the idea that where fairy stories tell of truths, the Bible is the ultimate "fairy story" to portray the ultimate truth. Basically, science hasn't "blown away" religion. There are many intellectually satisfied people of faith (of all persuasions). Gwinva (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Addit: to clarify: I am NOT claiming that the Bible is merely story, and the various events described within it didn't happen. I was merely suggesting that each part of the Bible must be read as it was intended to be read; some is story, some is poetry, some contains historical records, some are personal letters, etc etc. Studies of any texts must start first with an analysis of style, and asking "why was this written". Gwinva (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've known a few fundamentalist Christians who are so tied to the idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, that they believe the world was created, destroyed and then created again just to deal with the dual creation stories in Genesis. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to me that a hard-core fundamentalist view of the Bible is not overly dissimilar from idolatry. Wikiant (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hawking and the Bible can both be right for one very simple reason: We really don't know what "seven days" means in the Bible. The only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that it wasn't the equivalent of one week in our time. Why? The sun wasn't even created until the "fourth day" of Genesis (Gen 1:16). If the sun wasn't created yet, and the sun is the most natural way we tell one day from another , how can we say that each of these days is twenty-four hours? We can't. Your friend's analysis was a bit simplistic. Hawking hasn't blown the Bible away, and the Bible hasn't blown Hawking away. Wrad (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note as well Day describes the issues to some extent and bear in mind that the Bible was not originally written in English Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gold State Coach

The state coach of the UK, has it been valued, it must be worth hundreds of thousands --Hadseys 19:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's part of the Royal Collection, and I don't think anyone's valued that specifically. I remember somewhere, someone saying that they had an insurer in at Buckingham Palace one day, and he was in just one room and gave up! But it's value would be hundreds of thousands if not millions; after all, it's a work of art, and it's royal provenance is pretty immense, having carried every sovereign since George III. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And its coated in gold leaf all over and got lots of paintings by famous artists, wonder how much it'd fetch on ebay :P --Hadseys 19:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol, they probably won't know what it is and it'll go for £75 as a nice novelty item. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Bargain then :D
Well it's got my bid! And if things get desperate she can throw in six horses. I did always get fed up with taking the bus into town... PeterSymonds (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Once removed from its context, the state coach belongs in Las Vegas as much as anywhere. In Las Vegas the publicized amount it would be insured for would essentially be a publicity stunt. The problem: you're asking to evaluate something that embodies ineffable cultural values in terms of something without any intrinsic value. Two conventional systems that don't intersect: "invaluable", "priceless" give hints...--Wetman (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ye but if it was robbed how much would the queen be able to claim in insurance? --Hadseys 11:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Plus we value the invaluable all the time. QUALYs (Quality of Life Years?) for deciding what drugs to put on the nhs. Life insurance policies valuing the loss of income if a partner/person was to die. Auctions selling all manner of cultural artefacts. I expect that given that it is A) a work of art, B) Part of the British Royal Family and C) Famous that this thing would be worth well over £1m, probably 10x that (if not more) to a collector. Of course this is based on purely knowledge of auctions/antiques built up from years of watching The Antiques Roadshow as a child. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pear and Fig dish

Is there a traditional Chinese or middle eastern Pear and fig dish? If so, what is it called? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have three large traditional Chinese recipe books. There are only two recipes that include figs. One is a fig/vinegar syrup intended for pork. The other is a fig-filling for sesame balls. Neither recipe includes pears. -- kainaw™ 21:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've come across a pear-and-fig chutney, which I'm pretty sure comes originally from India, but don't ask me if it's from any particular part of the sub-continent. If you focus on chutneys, you may be able to get nearer to it. Xn4 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the name of this chutney? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
One name for it is (ahem) 'Pear and Fig Chutney', as made, for instance, by Maison Therese Ltd. I can't say it's traditional, but for all I know it may be, somewhere. Xn4 11:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Where figs ripen dependably in the open (i.e., not cossetted against a warm, south-facing brick wall), pears don't get enough winter cold to set fruit dependably. That's the basic reason why there is not a "traditional" Chinese or Middle Eastern dish combining pears and figs: the ingredients come out of separate cultural contexts. --Wetman (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secret codes in france WWII

I was watching the movie 'The Longest Day' over the weekend, and was left wondering how the secret code words played over the radio to the French Resistance were distributed to various cells? Every movie or book I've read with this concept has just taken it for granted that the right people will know what some random assortment of words will mean, but historically, how did they decide upon the meanings?142.33.70.60 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Philippe de Vomécourt, at least, was given the code in London:

When would they come? In London I had been told to listen to the B.B.C. on the first and the fifteenth of each month. The message announcing the invasion would be broadcast after the 9 P.M. news—among the other curious messages that were put out night after night, like my own messages to tell my family I was well. April 15, May 1, May 15—each of them passed without the message I was waiting to hear.

Then the first of June.

"Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne...." It was the first line of a poem by Verlaine. And it meant the invasion was soon to be launched. Only a few of us in the Resistance knew the significance of this message, and we could not tell our friends. We must now wait for the second half of the message, which would tell us that the invasion was to be launched within the next forty-eight hours. It was big news to carry about with me, and it was hard to hold it back from the others, but it could scarcely have added to the feverish excitement with which all were now possessed. Everyone could feel, despite all the disappointments of the past, that the invasion must come very soon. I looked at their faces, the faces of men whose friendship I held dear: men like Vincent and "Dédé," my adjutant, Captain Makowski, known as Maurice, and Colon, in charge of the Cher. I thought to myself, "You have not long to wait now."

And on the fifth of June, the imperturbable voice of the B.B.C. announcer, unaware of the momentous importance of the words he was speaking, said:

"Blessent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone...." It was the following line of the Verlaine poem, and it was the second part of the message. It signified that within two days Allied forces would be fighting once more on French soil.

Then followed a long string of "action messages," the coded messages by which each réseau received its orders to carry out the various prearranged operations against the railways, bridges, lines of communication, and so on. It was soon apparent that all notions of "graduated" action, on a selective basis, had been abandoned. About 300 "action" messages were broadcast that night, which meant, in effect, an order for a general uprising in every county in France. The messages went on and on, taking up far, far more time than usual. The Germans are said to have known the meaning of the two lines from Verlaine. Had they needed other proof that the invasion was imminent, those 300 "action" messages must have given it to them. That the Germans did not react more urgently, that the invasion, launched in bad weather, should have found them relatively so unprepared, with Rommel on leave with his family in Germany, was the purest fortune for the Allies. But, of course, there had been false alarms about the invasion for the past three years, when, just as now, the code words signaling imminent landings had been broadcast, and our hearts leaped in vain. Perhaps the Germans had also become skeptical by now of these messages.De Vomécourt, Philippe. (1961). An Army of Amateurs. pp. 229-30. OCLC 1634632

—eric 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I assume that only a few trusted people in the Resistance would know the codewords, and they would tell the others at the appropriate time. Given the huge effort that went into the deception operation I would be surprised if a few 'false' codewords hadn't been planted for the Germans to hear about in the hope that if they did find the real ones they would ignore them. The above passage would seem to bear that out. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Governments & bank accounts

A local government is similar to a business as they both take in revenue and pay expenses and employees. But a business stores its money in a bank account. How does a government treasury store its money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.11.128 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. Treasury is the U.S. Government's bank. Also, the two entities are dissimilar in that the firm's goal is to maximize profit while the (implicit) goal of governments tends to be to maximize revenue. Wikiant (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking more of a local government.71.218.11.128 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure local goverments keep their money in bank accounts like everyone else. Algebraist 10:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's really too simplistic to say "a business stores its money in a bank account". Most businesses have their capital tied up in property, equipment, trading stock, vehicles, infrastructure, etc., and beyond what's needed for cashflow purposes few have much cash in the bank, because businesses can generally find better uses for their money. If there's a company pension fund, it's likely to be invested in property, stocks and shares, bonds, etc. on the advice of fund managers, although there are times when a large part of a pension fund may be held in cash on deposit. In the UK, principal local authorities are (as you say) similar to businesses, and all of the above applies to them, except that they are more likely to have significant reserves, especially after selling major assets, and those are usually invested (on professional advice) to provide the best possible return without excessive risk. Like businesses, local authorities are likely to have borrowed money, especially for developing new housing or other major schemes. However, the lowest tier of local authorities in the UK (town, parish, or community councils) are more limited in their room for manoeuvre: there are restrictions on their powers to borrow money and to hold reserves. Xn4 10:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that was a bad comparison. But a city still has to pay its workers, like a business, so that paycheck has to come from somewhere. 71.218.1.96 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)