Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 5

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.

November 5

Multilingual legislatures

This is a vague question, but could anybody direct me to any resources that describe how legislatures are run in polities that have more than one (and particularly, more than two) official languages, such as the Swiss Parliament? --140.232.10.160 (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two possibilities. You either choose one language that everyone has to speak (I believe some African countries do that - they have local languages that have official recognition but use the language of their former colonial power (English or French, usually) for government business) or you have real time translation in the legislature (which Switzerland does [although it doesn't translate to and from Romansh, apparently], as does the European Parliament). --Tango (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The mother of them all: United Nations Interpretation Service. --Nricardo (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In Canada, members of Parliament can speak either English or French depending on their whim, and there are translators working whenever Parliament is in session. I don't know how many of them are actually bilingual, but most probably speak only English and some might speak only French. If you watch a session on TV you can see them hurry to put in their earpieces when someone starts to speak French. If you're actually in the building watching them, there are headphones so you can listen to the translators too (or at least, there were when I was there, but that was almost 20 years ago...) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In areas of high linguistic diversity, there is a working language for the legislature in which business is done. All people who are in the legislature will use that language. Other languages that have official status can be used when a speaker does not have competency in the working language and an interpreter is used to translate their words for the benefit of the rest. I don't have a particular resource for that. South Africa is another area where this is likely to be a strong issue. Occasionally it is used as a political statement, to use an official language despite competence in the working language, for example Welsh in Wales, or Maori in New Zealand. Steewi (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, in multilingual countries there might be a strong tradition for "passive" competence in several major languages, I think this is the case in Switzerland (ie an educated person is likely to understand all three major languages even if she can only speak one of them) Jørgen (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In Ireland's Dail (parliament), some mischievous members insist on speaking Gaelic, knowing full well how few of their colleagues master it! Rhinoracer (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Scottish Parliament has held some debates in Gaelic. --ColinFine (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Does the Knesset have translation capability for their Arab members? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Although Arabic is an official language of Israel, Arab Israelis generally know Hebrew. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong uses English and two Chinese dialects (Cantonese and Putonghua). DOR (HK) (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They use headphones. Channel 0 is untranslated, 1 is Cantonese, 2 is English. (Yes I watch Legco on tv.) F (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You have my deepest sympathies ! DOR (HK) (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In Luxembourg, French and Luxembourgish are used in parliament, with French the official language for parliamentary documents, laws, and court proceedings; parliamentary proceedings are also published in German because it's more widely understood than French. (Multilingualism in Luxembourg) has a little info; see also [1].) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesleyhood (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In New Zealand, all MPs speak English fluently, but some speak Maori as a matter of principle, and some do it to filibuster (because it is consecutively translated), eg on the bill setting up the Auckland Council. F (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, pretty well all federal MP's in Canada are bilingual--at least the important ones. Those who need translating get it. I believe one can ask a question in either English or French, and the other can answer in the other language, though I suppose it's polite to answer in the asker's language. I'm not sure how in goes in the legislatures of Quebec, New Brunswich, or the 2 territories--other than Yukon. These might help: House of Commons of Canada#Procedure, Official bilingualism in Canada, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Akwesasne.Civic Cat (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Orlando Navy Exchange

In 1999, NTC Orlando was closed, but the Navy Exchange remains open today. Is the exchange now subject to state inspections (such as FDACS Food Safety inspections), or is it still governed by the DoD? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unable to afford shoes

Hi,

Can you tell me how many people in the world are unable to buy shoes because they cannot afford them? (an aproximation will be fine)

Many thanks !  :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.203.169 (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think many people cannot acquire footwear. Used footwear is probably plentiful, and relatively available, relatively inexpensively. But I am just guessing. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Some people who are not able to afford to buy shoes may make them,like the Chinese slippers made of scraps of cloth and glue and sandals made from old tires.If your question is about who is going barefoot you may need to phrase it differently...hotclaws 12:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"like the Chinese slippers made of scraps of cloth and glue and sandals made from old tires" - you just described my last two dollar-store purchases! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.150.186 (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I find that my footwear made of old tires gets great mileage. : ) Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hotclaws is right that people who cannot afford mass-produced shoes can and do make their own footwear. This is very common in Africa. Also, in the poorer parts of the world, there are sandalmakers and maybe bootmakers using inexpensive or recycled materials who make footwear that is cheaper than the Chinese manufactures that we tend to wear in the more developed countries. The percentage of the world's people who absolutely could not afford footwear if they needed it is probably quite small. (Of course, in poor countries with warm climates, people may choose to devote their scarce resources to things other than footwear, because going barefoot is a reasonable option.) Marco polo (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One example: Flip-flops (though I know they aren't always considered proper shoes) seem readily available even in very poor areas. Flip Flotsam is a documentary about the fate of some of the 20 million pairs made every year in Mombasa, Kenya. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A Google search for images of tire sandals turns up an interesting array of images. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There are countries where people cannot afford animal dung to burn as fuel or to use as fertilizer, so there are people in the world who cannot afford even tire-tread shoes. ("Let's see: should I spend 10 cents for a piece of tire tread, or for enough rice to give the children a small supper and prolong their malnourished lives?") Edison (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

School comic book

In the fall of 1978, as I was in second grade, my teacher handed out this educational comic book on how to stay healthy. The comic book's main character was superhero-like. He was called "Health Man". I can't seem to find that comic book on the Web anywhere. Anyone else out there remember what I'm talking about?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think comics like this have been routinely produced by city and county governments in the US for decades. Most likely the comic you remember was locally produced. I suppose it's possible that if you call up the county or city government you might find a record or an old copy of Health Man, though of course it might be difficult to persuade a file clerk that there's a pressing need for a file search. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of Sub-Saharan African Population

The population of black african countries are all estimates. How accurate are the african censuses? There are always wars, deaths and migration of people moving around Sub-Saharan Africa. How can they conduct population surveys in Sub-Saharan Africa? Is Sub-Saharan African population really less than expected? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When demographic statistics are spotty, as they are in much of Africa, demographers take the most reliable data available for each of the main determinants of population (births, deaths, immigration, emigration) and extrapolate or interpolate. Where data are lacking, they may use proxy data, such as imbalances between exits and entries at border checkpoints, as a basis for extrapolation or interpolation. See this source for a discussion of some of the issues. Certainly, the estimates are not precise, but when more reliable data become available, earlier estimates are seldom gapingly wrong. The reason is that demographers working on a given country are aware of major issues affecting the population, such as war and disease, and make an effort to get data that will allow them to estimate the effects of those phenomena. Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been hearing that black african countries lie about their censuses and overestimate their populations. If they claim they have more people in their countries, UN would provide more foods and medical supplies. If they claim their populatin is small, UN won't provide enough foods. This forces african countries to give false information about population. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Does Yoda have the FOXP2 gene?

Any body have any idea about it?--Gilisa (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) When Yoda died, his body became a force ghost, thus not being available for autopsy or DNA sampling, I would imagine. Given that Yoda was not human, it seems unlikely he would have a human gene. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The biology of extraterrestrials is an interesting topic which gets a fair amount of discussion. It's usually pointed out that there isn't a convincing reason that creatures which evolved on another planet would have the same genetic structure as us - they may not even use DNA as genetic material. For that matter, they might not even use the same basic amino acids and other biological molecules (e.g. eating an alien's food would probably give you a bellyache at best, and could possibly kill you) - the frequently discussed possibility is that aliens might use a different chirality of amino acids and carbohydrates, but it's possible that they may use completely different systems entirely. Having aliens interbreed with humans (e.g. Mr. Spock) is a very speculative concept - and usually has to be explained by some other alien "seeding" planets with the same genetic material. In the case of the Star Wars universe, I'm no expert, but I don't think anything has been said about the different types of aliens interbreeding. For that matter, since it was "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away", I doubt we could even say if Leia and Han Solo were genetically similar to modern humans. That said, in the usual contexts of discussion, FOXP2 is implicated in language development, and as Yoda can speak, he would likely have a gene which functions in a similar capacity. His Object Subject Verb word order wouldn't by itself be an indication that he has impaired language function, as that construction, while rare, is used in various Brazilian languages, American Sign Language, and even Yiddish in some instances. Mistakenly applying constructs and patterns from your native language to a second language is a common problem, especially for people who learn the other language later in life. -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus, considering that Yoda is either a puppet, or a computer graphic, means that he likely doesn't have that gene. He doesn't really have any genes. His creator and portrayor do have genes, but as far as I know they have normal language skills. --Jayron32 18:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. If you stuck a needle deep enough into Yoda, you'd eventually come up with some blood that was very similar to Frank Oz's blood. APL (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"These are not the genes you are looking for."

Hilarious absurdity aside, I'll also point out that everyone has the FOXP2 gene - it's a mutation that Yoda could, in theory, have. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

... if you grant that Yoda has a human genome. APL (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To what extent language is hard-coded and to what extent it is learnt is a question that has been debated quite a lot. Obviously the details are learnt, that much is obvious from the wide variety of languages in different societies. Some aspects might be hard-coded, which could mean mutations could result in people speaking strangely, but SOV word order does happen and native speakers of those languages have no difficulty learning other languages and vice versa, so it seems unlikely that it could be explained by a simple mutation. --Tango (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think even the more stringent advocates of a "learned" approach to language would argue that there isn't a lot of specific neural hardware made for language. (Things like Broca's area, Wernicke's area, point to that most directly.) I think basically everybody agrees that a large amount is hard-coded (there is an innate human ability to learn language, there are parts of the brain that specialize in language), a large amount is learnt, and the question is where specifically that boundary lies. It doesn't strike me as implausible that a single mutation that significantly affected connectivity or functionality in the language organs in the brain, even if one believes that much of language is learnt, though, yeah, whether SOV is affected by such a thing would seem to have strong implications for the hard-codedness of grammar in particular. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about Jeffrey Dahmer's conviction

He wasn't sentenced to death because Wisconsin does not have the death sentence. But he killed his first victim in Ohio, and Ohio does. Why wasn't he sentenced to death there, but he received a life sentence? --190.50.82.98 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Jeffrey Dahmer article (Trial section) mentions that he was extradited to Ohio, and entered a guilty plea. Usually the prosecution and defense arrange a plea deal, in which any defense lawyer worth his salt would ensure takes the death penalty off the table (otherwise, what benefit is it to the client to accept the plea deal?). As he had already been sentenced to 957 years in prison (i.e. he's never was going to be able to get out of prison), I assume Ohio really didn't have a good reason to push for execution, especially as they would have to pay for (1) the lengthy capital murder trial (2) appeals (3) imprisoning him for the duration (4) the actual execution. Even if Wisconsin strangely decided to let him out, Ohio would be able to imprison him on the guilty verdict. That, and they wouldn't risk him being declared not guilty on a technicality. -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty good speculation, though it would be good to find a source for what actually happened and add it to the article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also of note that Ohio did not execute anybody between 1963 and 1999, according to this page. Why that is, I don't know (other than the legal difficulties discussed on that page, but they seem to have been resolved by the end of the 1980s), but it doesn't seem like they were very enthusiastic about capital punishment during that period. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

When Dahmer committed his murder, Ohio had no enforceable death-penalty law. The U.S. Supreme Court threw out Ohio's death-penalty law in 1978, and the new one didn't go into effect until 1981. In 1991, Governor Richard Celeste commuted all of the death sentences that had been imposed to that point, which is why there were no executions in the state until 1999. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In what year will he complete his sentence, and how old will he be? When could he get out with good behavior? What are the chances he will serve more years than William Heirens (who has served 63 years, so far, of a life sentence)? Edison (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, I see that Dahmer only served three years. A mere drop in the bucket. Edison (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But he still never got out - at least, not alive. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless he has a rich uncle who can donate millions of dollars to a US President, who will then pardon Dahmer just before leaving office, as Bill Clinton did. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That's unfair—and fairly trolling. No president has ever pardoned anyone on par with a serial killer, and plenty of other presidents plenty of presidents of both parties have partied campaign contributors. Clinton's pardoning of Marc Rich is certainly controversial, but pardoning someone indicted for tax evasion is not comparable to pardoning a convicted and confessed serial killer. (I call it "trolling" because it is really just a hostile Clinton non-sequitur.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Way too late for any but a posthumous pardon. Edison (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect; Bill Clinton did not pardon a serial killer — as far as is publicly known, anyway. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That just means that the price tag is higher to pardon serial killers. If we draw a curve on a graph showing the increasing cost of the pardon against the increasing severity of the crime, we can likely extrapolate to find the exact price of a pardon for a serial killer. StuRat (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, that doesn't actually make any sense. If you just want to espouse your political views please do it somewhere else. Rckrone (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's meant as a joke. Still, there's some truth to it. Perhaps a serial killer won't be pardoned anytime soon, but I'd bet that a future President would be willing to pardon someone guilty of more serious crimes, as long as they are paid more, in turn. There is a huge hole in the Presidential pardon system that allows this. Perhaps Congress should have the right to veto such pardons, as it would be much more difficult to buy off all the members of Congress (not because they are more honest, just because there's so many of them that billions of dollars would be required to do so, which few criminals could afford). StuRat (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There would be obvious political consequences for such a thing, as there were when Clinton pardoned Rich. (People got mad, and that does have a long term political effect, even if the given President is leaving office—especially if his wife is running for office later!) Anyway, "ha ha", great "joke", other than basically being trolling. Are you done, yet? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)