Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 20

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.

December 20

Overtone singing vs throat singing

Overtone singing is, according to our article, often wrongly called "throat singing". However, throat singing does not redirect to the former, but to Inuit throat singing. That article says it is "also known (and commonly confused) under the generic term overtone singing", but the only difference it describes is that it's sung by a duet of women. Given that there are all kinds of overtone singing ensembles (especially with modern composers discovering it), I don't see this as a big enough difference to call it a "confusion". Or is there really a difference that I'm not aware of? — Sebastian 08:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I will assume the articles changed since you posted this question... The article on overtone singing states that throat singing is incorrectly used to describe unconstricted overtone singing. I've personally never heard it referred to that way. I've heard unconstrained overtone singing. Why would I have heard that before? I have had a few nasty accidents - hit by a bus, fell off a cliff, went through a speeding car - and if I attempt to hold a singing note loudly, I often produce two notes. I've been told that it is due to damage to my throat causing two sections of the vocal chords to vibrate at different rates. I also know about throat singing because I can do throat singing. Therefore, I understand what the constrained part means. When singing, you open your jaw to increase the air pocket in your mouth. Then, you close your lips into a circle - not as small as whistling. By closing your lips, you constrain the air so the vibrations reflect from the lips, back through the mouth. If you get the right tone, you will hit a point that the vibrations going back and forth create at least one overtone. I can usually do three tones easily (I practice out of boredom when I have to drive long distances). So - I hope all this cleared up a bit that unconstrained overtone singing produces more than one note in the vocal chords. Throat singing (aka overtone singing) produces more than one note through sound-wave interference inside the mouth. -- kainaw™ 04:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing with your rich experience! If I understand you correctly, "constrained overtone singing" is constraint by the lips. However, the article seems to use the term "constricted" referring to a constriction of the larynx. Maybe it is always either one or the other, and there's no such thing as "unconstrained/unconstricted overtone singing"? I'm not sure how your experience fits into this; I can't imagine how different sections of the vocal chords could vibrate at different frequencies, any more than a violin string could. (There is a nice illustration at de:Stimmlippe.) BTW, the way you describe reminds me of the way vowels are created (See Mol, H. (1970). "Fundamentals of Phonetics: II. Acoustical Models Generating the Formants of the Vowel Phonemes". (Den Haag, Mouton & Co.)). Another interesting link in this context is this: http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/medicine/2000/m.p.de.vries/thesis.pdf. — Sebastian 02:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The vocal folds are not like a single violin string. Kainaw probably has some sort of damage that perhaps shortens or tightens one of the folds so that it can't vibrate in synch with the other one. Also, what Kainaw describes sounds more like modern "western overtone" singing than true throat-singing. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right, of course: They're not the same, since strings can vibrate freely. But at least I can't imagine how this could work. I should better have compared it with a double-reed mouthpiece (another topic that is not well covered). If anyone has one handy, it would be interesting to see how it sounds if you tie reeds of different tightness together. (The single-reed mouthpiece can be seen as the extreme case, with one reed being infinitely tight. The fact that neither produces two frequencies led me to intuitively assume that you won't get them at all, but I now realize that the these two borderline cases could just be degenerated.) — Sebastian 00:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Some constriction of the larynx is a key feature of traditional throat-singing styles such as are found all over Siberia. Some of these styles do not emphasize the creation of a melody using overtones. The overtones are instead an embellishment or ornamentation. I don't know enough about Inuit throat-singing to comment. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitions are not made any easier when the professionals in the field have not apparently created a clear distinction between the different styles around the world. Take for example in Ted Levin's (with Valentina Suzukei) most recent book on Tuvan throatsinging "Where Rivers and Mountains Sing" in the preface, "In throat-singing, a single vocalist can simultaneously produce two distinct pitches by selectively amplifying harmonics naturally present in the voice." This is a clear description of overtone singing, yet the Tuvan throatsinging sounds quite different from modern overtone singing due to the addition of the larynx constriction. Levin's description is excusable though since he's an ethnomusicologist, not a phonologist. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. The experts seem to confuse more than they clarify. I think it is just because there are so many ways to make extra noises. Overtone singing by causing sound to echo back and forth inside the mouth is easy - anyone can do that. I can make a two tones - not really an overtone - due to vocal chord damage at sometime in my past. I'm sure some people can train their throat to do the same without damage. I've heard people who could vibrate the uvula to make a buzzing noise. I've tried and sometimes I've got it to buzz. It makes me gag though, so I can't do it very long. I went to see some Mongolians perform who could get their rib cage to vibrate, making a low rumbling sound. You can touch their sides and feel it vibrating - it feels weird. It is possible to make whistling noises through the nose as well. So, what do you call someone who can do one or two of the above? A throat singer? I think it is just a general term since nobody wants to be referred to as an overtone singer with a nose whistle and a rib vibration. -- kainaw™ 12:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your replies! We currently have the article "Overtone singing" and the "category:Throat singing". Should we rename one of them so that the names are the same? — Sebastian 00:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thomas More quote

It appears that Gustav Mahler once attributed an aphorism, "tradition is the passing on of the fire, not the worship of the ashes" as based on Thomas More. Strangely, I fail to find the original quote. The attribution to More is invariably in German language sources[1] that seem to just take Mahler's attribution for granted. Benjamin Franklin appears to have said something similar, about "guarding the ashes" and "rekindling the embers", but again, vexingly, the English language "quote" is only found on German language websites[2] I even fail to find a decent source for Mahler's aphorism. here the Mahler quote is even translated back into English, but with no other "source" other than simply "Gustav Mahler".

The only thing I could find was a quote by Sir John Denham who in 1647 prefaced a translation of Il Pastor Fido by Giovanni Battista Guarini with

A new and nobler way thou dost pursue

To make translations, and translators too;

They but preserve the ashes, thou the flame,

True to his sense, but truer to his fame.

So, is there a genuine quote by Thomas More this is all based on, and is there really a Franklin and a Mahler version? --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol chronology

A Christmas Carol was published in 1843. It makes no mention of how old Scrooge is, only that he and Marley had been partners for many years, and that Marley had been dead for several years before the story opens. In the "Ghost of Christmas Past" episode, Scrooge was a young man at Fezziwig's. Would it be right to assume that the Fezziwig episode takes place in the early 1820s, at the latest? Could we therefore infer that the Christmas celebration that takes place at Fezziwig's was a common occurrence in the 1820s? There was a recent discussion about when the Christmas celebrations as we know them began, but it seems that at least some sort of celebration was taking place in parts of England at least in the 1820s. The illustrations by John Leech show mistletoe and possibly holly being used as decorations (though no Christmas tree as of yet), thus leading me to assume that such decoration was reasonably common. Dickens's audience in 1843 would surely have thought it odd if he was writing about celebrations which they themselves were not celebrating some 20 years before their time. Am I right in this analysis? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

One prob with that analysis is that it assumes that either such celebrations did not happen at all on a given date or happened everywhere. It's possible that tradition could have started in the author's home town of Portsmouth and only slowly spread to the rest of England. Therefore, he might have written about such things before they were commonplace. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I did say in parts of England.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to take the illustrations as indicative of Christmas practices of the date they were drawn (1843), but less so for the putative date illustrated (1820). I don't think an anachronistic illustration or two would have bothered Dickens's readers at all. The drawings were meant for a contemporary audience rather than as a historical document; I think if it's important for you to know how Christmas celebrations changed between 1820 and 1843, you'll have to look at documents from both times. - Nunh-huh 19:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Give a read to The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal, London, 1821, p105 which describes the history and practice of celebrating Christmas. It included in times before the writing the appointing of a "Lord of Misrule" and which said the Christmas celebration in early days had taken much from Saturnalia, including candles, torches, and boughs and laurels suspended, and presents exchanged. The same magazine from 1822 [3] p641 talked of the yule log, evergreens decking the windows, boisterous sport, heavy dance, and the "smoking board." Sounds right Fezziwickian. The celebration was said to be more festive in the country than in London, with merchants allowing less drunkenness and gluttony. Plum puddings, mince pies, the wassail bowl, mistletoe and turkeys are mentioned, but it says Christmas festivities in 1822 London was less raucous and festive than formerly. The public singing of carols on Christmas was more seen in the country than in the city. It is noted that in America traditional revelry was still common. Looking back from 1849, Chamber's Information for the People (London, 1849), p447 describes Christmas celebrations then and in the past: Formerly the house was decked with greens, large candles were lit, there was a yule log, folks sat around drinking beer. People went carolling from house to house, thern there was a midnight church service. On Christmas day there was a feast, and social distinctions were ignored. The article says little about 1840's customs.See also "A gossip about Merry Christmas by Bell, from 1850 [4] which distinguishes the "Christmas of the Rich" from the "Christmas of the Poor.".Edison (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Edison, those are great reads. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Geffrye Museum in London does a good job each year of decorating its rooms in appropriate Xmas garb -- appropriate to the middle class English interior from c. 1600 to the present. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion of parts of this on BBC Radio 3 yesterday (Sun 21 Dec). One of the points I recall was that in Sketches by Boz in 1836, there is an account of grandpa singing a song at Christmas, but no mention of carols; but by the time of A Christmas Carol in 1843, Dickens apparently expected his readers to be familiar with carol-singing.

Nativity scene ideas + queries

Help! Christmas is almost here...and I would like some ideas for a Nativity scene. I have a few of my own, and this time I want to make it as authentic as possible.

1. Would a stable 2,000 years ago be made of wood or some other material?
2. Was the place where Jesus was born far away from town, or close to the city?
3. What was the geography of Bethlehem back them (too many houses in all the pics I see, can't discern properly). Is it a sandy or rocky place?
4. What would have been the fauna like? (Jerusalem mentions that it would have been forested—but there are no sources)
5. Water sources back then for a stable would have been rivers or wells? (I read there would have been a lot of wadis in the region)

I know the timeline... just have 4 days with me to implement a scene but I want to bag the first prize. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Church of the Nativity may be useful. Nativity scenes are usually a literal stable, as in Luke's Gospel, but there were equally ancient traditions that said he was born in a cave, which is what the church in Bethlehem shows (that's also how it was depicted in the huge Nativity scene at the Catholic church I went to as a kid). It's close to Jerusalem, I assume it's like a suburb today, and back then it was maybe a few hours walking distance (close enough to see in the distance, surely). It's not sandy there, it's in the Judean Mountains. I'm not sure about the rest. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like I'll have to abandon using sand. Any clues on the stable material? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not merely a cave as an alternative, but Matthew's Gospel specifies a house, Joseph and Mary being residents of Bethlehem, not Nazareth. One often finds nativity scenes including an ox and a donkey based up the Protevangelion of James. B00P (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forge to include a caganer.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus has some information on the location. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it proposed that it was a cave being used as a stable by the inn owner — this being what I've grown up hearing as "maybe what it was like". If this were really it, you'll have trouble, as I don't expect you really feel like digging yourself a cave. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

do people have the right to lie on their resume?

I'm surprised Googling this question ("do people have the right to lie on their resume") didn't turn up anything relevant. I'm not asking for legal advice, just curious: if someone reasons "my right to work trumps my company's right to know the truth about me" and just lies outright on their resume, is that like, fraud, like when a company lies in advertising? I'm not asking for legal advice, I'm just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.90.7 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You can lie all you want, but don't expect to be there much longer after they find out. See job fraud, and for a recent example Ali Kordan. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think "You can lie all you want" is true on many jurisdictions - if someone lies on a resume and gains a job as a result, they've gained monies by dint of a fraud, which is a crime in most places ("gaining money by deception", etc.). Although such a lier is very unlikely to be prosecuted, its' not impossible that they are 87.114.130.249 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, of course there's no right to lie on your resume. Of course, many people do so and never get caught, but if they eventually do get caught, and if the lie is material to their qualifications for the job, they can be fired for having done so - even years before. Of course, the specifics vary with local law, which you aren't asking about, but the general principle holds most places: If the employer has a right to ask you a question (i.e., the question is material to your qualifications), and you lie when you answer it, kiss your paycheck goodbye. On the other hand, if they don't have a right to ask you a question, and they ask it anyway, it's likely the lie can't be used against you [5] - Nunh-huh 21:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There's lies and there's ways of presenting things. You may choose to keep quiet about some bad things, you may wish to shout about good things. The "hobbies" section of a CV probably doesn't want to say "I drink beer and watch TV every evening and weekends", even if that is what you do. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say that maybe the question could have been phrased "Is lying on a resume ever justified?", in which case I'd say it depends on what you mean by lying, and it would also depend on your personal circumstances and your personal moral code. Withholding all the truth can sometimes have the effect of misleading people into thinking something that just isn't true. If you choose words deliberately intended to create that misleading impression, even if you don't overtly claim something that's not true, some would say that's a form of lying, and would be judged by whatever their position is on lying generally. If you had no intent to create that misleading impression, but that's the impression they got anyway, then that's not lying, but you might have a communication issue to consider. If you claim to have a degree from Harvard when you have no such degree, that's obviously blatant and overt lying, and as others have said, you run a risk of being exposed and your name blackened. As to the general question "do I have a right to lie", that's one for the philosophers, not the Reference Desk. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not legal advice, but in many cases misrepresenting information (i.e. lying) for the purpose of gaining something of value (in this case, a pay check) generally falls under the legal definition of fraud, and as such many employers will terminate you with extreme prejudice should such fraud be exposed. See George O'Leary who was hired by Notre Dame to coach their football team, and was fired 5 days later for lying on his resume... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, they won't actually kill you, which is what "terminate with extreme prejudice" is usually taken to mean.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally does that phrase (like some other well-known bits of spy jargon) come from Le Carré? —Tamfang (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

to follow on from a point raised earlier, there are some questions that you can lie about. In the UK at least (and i imagine in most developed countries, although the US may be different), companies are only allowed to ask very specific questions regarding your criminal record (do you have any unspent criminal convictions). If they ask a more general question (have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence), assuming a given amount of time has elapsed since your conviction, you are allowed to lie quite legitmately. I would imagine the same principle works in order to comply with discrimination legislation. Its now for example no longer advisable to put your date of birth on your CV, as it puts your perspective employer in a difficult position vis-a-vis age discrimination. I would guess that if you were asked and you took 10 years off your age, i tihnk that would be Ok, should the truth ever become known. (Ok, that was a crap example, but the same thing works with less obvious things -religion for example)82.22.4.63 (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i've been drinking.. you wouldn't put those things on your CV anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.4.63 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Some convictions are never spent on this regard; those convicted of sexual crimes must always disclose that for relevant jobs (and many jobs that don't seem relevant two). 87.114.130.249 (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In the UK the relevant legislation is Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The period before a conviction is considered spent under the act depends on both the original sentence, and the age of the offender at that time. Convictions resulting in a prison sentence of over two-and-a-half years are never spent. Certain occupations are exempt from the legislation. DuncanHill (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

a lot of you have mentioned being fired, but none of you have mentioned having to give back your paychecks. Can anyone think of an example of this? I think if you lie and work for 5 days, or 5 weeks, or 5 months, or 5 years, you can be fired once you're found out, but you don't have to give any of your pay back -- EVER. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.3.252 (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a rather cavalier attitude to the workplace in general and to your own reputation in particular. If you are charged with fraud for your deception (an unlikely, but possible, outcome), you could be fined, and in that way some or all of your paycheque might be recalled for all practical purposes. The principal consequence is much more likely to be that you have considerable difficulty finding another paycheque as your tarnished reputation precedes you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You say you are not looking for legal advice, but it seems you would not be satisfied until someone came out and said "yes, the maximum penalty is that you'll get locked up and fined $1 million", which, by the way, is possible depending on your jurisdiction. The following is not legal advice but general observations about the general law in common law jurisdictions, which may in fact be quite different from the actual law in your jurisdiction.

Basically, your contract of employment is a contract like any other. Lying on your resume to obtain employment is fraud. As a matter of contract, if the fraud is fundamental enough, the contract is void ab initio ("from the start"), you would in principle have to give back all your pay cheques, but of course the employer would need to make an account for the work you actually did.

Fraud is, of course, also a crime in many jurisdictions, and the prison sentence or fine you will receive will vary depending on the severity of your offence and the laws in your jurisdiction. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And of course if the reason they realised you were a fraud was because of your utter incompetence you may not only have to pay back your wages but they could probably sue you for additional damages for whatever harm you cause the company as a result of that incompetence. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Extension School

Do any of the other Ivy league schools have programs simmilar to the Harvard Extension School? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.98.202 (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly the same, but I know Cornell, as a private institution, also runs 4 colleges which are considered part of the public State University of New York (SUNY) system. See Statutory college for more information. Columbia University School of General Studies seems to be about the exact same thing as the Harvard Extension School. The other Ivy League schools (Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, Princeton, and Yale) do not appear to run similar "open admissions" or "public" programs. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)