Humanities desk
< October 18	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 19[edit]

O Captain! My Captain! and Nelson[edit]

Hi all, are there any references comparing O Captain! My Captain! to Horatio Nelson and the Battle of Trafalgar besides [1]? Seems an odd connection to make... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea has occurred to others: Indeed, the poem so easily could also apply to Admiral Nelson, who was killed at his greatest victory at the Battle of Trafalgar, that one wonders if this ambiguity was intentional on behalf of Whitman.^[2] Whitman's "the victor ship" might be an allusion to Nelson's flagship HMS Victory, on board of which he died. For the literal-minded, Nelson, unlike the Captain of the poem, did not lie dead on the deck. Also, Nelson was not the captain of the ship; that was Vice-Admiral Sir Thomas Hardy. --Lambiam 08:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong's Hebrew word 7853 in Psalms 38:20?[edit]

does Strongs Hebrew word number 7853 (שָׂטַן saw-tan') appear in the Hebrew text, at Psalms 38:20?.can't seem to find the word in Hebrew Bible at chabad.org, yet it is appearing in King James Version with Strong's numbers.. Gfigs (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. [3] I can guess what the confusion is, though it's rather odd. The first word וְֽאֹיְבַי, literally means "and my enemies". שָׂטַן is "the adversary" or perhaps The Adversary, not that Satan plays a big role in Judaism. But it's not the same word, and the plural here makes it baffling that someone could translate it that way. Even more odd in the context of the Psalm previously discussing his friends ... and some of the language that follows about the enemies doesn't really fit with a supernatural one. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gfigs This site seems to suggest that no major translation of the Bible, including KJV, translate it as Satan. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solved it. You've misread your first link. You've read 7854, instead of 7853, which specifically cites "adversary". --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The numbering of the verses in the KJV is not the same as the traditional numbering in the Hebrew Bible. Verse 1 in the Hebrew Bible is the epigraph (מִזְמ֖וֹר לְדָוִ֣ד לְהַזְכִּֽיר‎, "A psalm of David for remembrance"), which the KJV omits, starting with the first line of the song: "O Lord, rebuke me not in thy wrath; ...". So KJV Psalm 38:20 is תהילים 38:21‎; it contains the word יִ֝שְׂטְנ֗וּנִי‎, which the KJV translates as "mine adversaries". The full KJV translation of the verse is "They also that render evil for good are mine adversaries; because I follow the thing that good is." In other translations, such as that at chabad.org ("And they repay evil for good; they hate me for my pursuit of goodness."), no "adversaries" can be seen; they have become haters. The Orthodox Jewish Bible has "They also that repay ra’ah for tovah are mine adversaries; because I pursue the thing that is tov.".^[4] --Lambiam 09:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this should be included in Psalm_38#Verse_numbering as with Psalm_56#Verse_numbering?.thanks to previous comments also.. Gfigs (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. KJV just omits verse numbers from certain verses? How would you cite what I'd call verse 1 of Psalm 38, according to KJV? On the subject of יִ֝שְׂטְנ֗וּנִי, even someone with dreadful grasp of Hebrew grammar (ie me) can tell that's definitely a verb, not a noun. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not sure why this should be, as the intro to Psalm 56 is included in KJV?.it may not have appeared in some manuscripts..or could this be a copying error in the Wiki KJV Bible#Psalm_38? Gfigs (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the KJV always includes the description directly under the title, but without giving it a verse number - like this. Whoever transcribed the Psalms onto Wikisource must have decided to omit the descriptions. The Book of Common Prayer, which is the version actually used in Anglican liturgy and is based on an earlier translation (the 1539 Great Bible), does omit the description and uses instead the Latin incipit, in this case "Domine, ne in furore". Verse 20 in the BCP is (unusually) identical to the KJV text. [5] Alansplodge (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As a unique quirk of Psalms, many of the Psalms are introduced with introductory statements explaining the authorship, purpose, or basic description of the Psalm itself. By tradition, many Christian bibles consider these a form of extra information and not part of the text itself (i.e. akin to a footnote, marginalia, etc.). Many English translations include them as an unnumbered title or introduction to the Psalm. For example, the The Revised Standard Version of Psalm 38 Here includes the statement "A Psalm of David, for the memorial offering." which is in the original Hebrew text, but does not count it as an official part of the Psalm. Similarly, the Holman Christian Standard Bible here says "A Davidic psalm for remembrance." as a introductory statement. These introductory statements are explained in more detail at Psalms#Superscriptions. --Jayron 32 16:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An online Concordance suggests that this word appears as a verb in a similar way in four other places in Psalms: 38:21, 71:13, 109:4, 109:20 and 109:29. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear, that is not good..hope you are not right about this.. Gfigs (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a bad thing? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

are you saying the words "mine adversaries" in Psalms 38:20 (KJV) should not be there?.why does the Strongs word 7853 even appear in the KJV Bible in this verse? why does this phrase appear in the Orthodox Jewish Bible (a Messianic Jewish Bible)? can this Hebrew word be found in other manuscripts in this verse?.where did they get it from?. Gfigs (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the word יִ֝שְׂטְנ֗וּנִי‎ (yistenuni), which the KJV translators rendered as "mine adversaries" is definitely in the Hebrew text. It can be viewed in the Leningrad Codex (the oldest complete Hebrew Bible manuscript) here (column on the right, 7th line from the bottom, just left of the white space). Also, the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia does not note any textual variants for this word, meaning that there are no ancient manuscripts which leave out this word (or at least none were known when the BHS was published). As Dweller noted, this Hebrew word is strictly speaking a verbal form (Strongs 7853), and not a noun. This verb can be translated as 'to bear a grudge against', 'to harbor animosity toward', etc. So the word יִ֝שְׂטְנ֗וּנִי more literally means '[they] harbor animosity toward me', which the KJV paraphrases as '[they] are mine adversaries'. - Lindert (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that some English versions use a verb form (of sorts) in the translation. The NIV uses the verb phrase lodge accusations (though the NIV has other controversial translation issues, this one they appear to be closer to the source in using a verb form). The New English Translation uses a more vehement "hurl accusations", the pre-KJV Wycliffe Bible uses "backbited", the HSCB uses "attacked", the English standard version uses "accuses". Douay-Rheims uses a different chaptering and versification scheme, calles it Psalm 37, and includes the verse as Verse 21, and uses the verb "detracted". Just a smattering of other English translations that uses a verb, rather than a noun, here. --Jayron 32 18:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks also to the previous comments..so I take it then that this word yistenuni does not have an entry in Strong's Concordance?.it certainly is not mentioned under 7853 or 7854..the problem am finding, is that to an illiterate such as I, the Hebrew letters in this word do not even look like a derivative of 7853..so then, does this word yistenuni appear in any other English reference books?. Gfigs (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it derived from the root listed as 7853, "to be an adversary". --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 19:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a verb form. An English dictionary will generally not list the word fought separately; it is a form of the verb to fight and treated under the lemma fight. My Hebrew grammar is rusty; this looks to me like the masculine third-person plural form, future tense ("Haters are gonna hate"?) Finite verb forms in Hebrew can have a pronominal object suffix, in this case the first-person singular ("they'll hate me"). The verbal root שׂטן‎ (stn) should be recognizable in ישׂטנוני‎ (ystnvny). --Lambiam 20:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that is just as well having said so..because I thought Strong's Concordance contained every word in the Bible..yet now understand that it only contains the roots..maybe it would require something like a bilingual Hebrew-English dictionary?.hopefully something like this available online..although, will most likely need to start finding a better Android bilingual Hebrew-English text editor..as the one I have is not displaying combined text properly..is this a common problem? Gfigs (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gfigs -- no ordinary Hebrew dictionary (Biblical or modern) includes all inflected forms of verbs, because there are so many of them, and they would crowd out ordinary words beginning with yod, taw, etc. What you want is something like the "Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon" by Benjamin Davidson (a nineteenth century work which has often been reprinted cheaply)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

have an idea my luggage is starting to get heavy..can I not fit this into the mobile phone, I have a MicroSD card?.hopefully not a scanned copy..or virtual reality?.xx.possibly an indexed or searchable online copy?. Gfigs (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance does not give merely the lemma form, but also the inflected forms as they are found in the Tanach, together with transliterations. Brown-Driver-Briggs gives the inflected forms with their syntactic classifications plus their scriptural loci. Englishman's Concordance provides brief overviews of translations in context. The Biblehub website lets you search using an inflected form and provides all this information, conveniently organized. --Lambiam 03:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks..also to previous comments.. Gfigs (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why can I not find this word yistenuni online in basic Hebrew language resources?.should it not at least appear in a biblical Hebrew language word list?.maybe it is not really a common word?.what are the syllables, are they yis-te-nuni or yiste-nuni? and what do each of them mean?..for instance te and nuni. and yis in Yis-ra-el? and is yishte related?. Gfigs (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it's an inflected verb form from the same triconsonantal root sh-T-n which we've been discussing in this section. The y- prefix indicates third person masculine subject, the -u suffix indicates plural subject, the way the root consonants are embedded in syllable structure indicates imperfect verb aspect, and the -ni suffix indicates 1st person singular object. The basic Strong's Concordance is notoriously for people who are unwilling or unable to learn Greek and Hebrew. If you want to go beyond this, then you're going to have to learn at least a little bit about Hebrew morphology/grammar in order to be able to use the more advanced reference works effectively. AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

can understand what you are saying, and hoping to do so. however have not found much more than this on the internet unfortunately yiś·ṭə·nū·nî yisteNuni yiśṭənūnî and wondering if it is yis or yiste?.is there not possibly an online dictionary (or Wiktionary) entry in English?.is this word still in modern usage in Hebrew language? cant seem to find it on Google, so logged into Hebrew Wikipedia..nearest entry is %D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99 .and it is appearing in תהלים לח/טעמים that is the article title, not really displaying correctly in my text editor (or the Wiki edit box)..whilst trying to copy/paste this title, positioning of letters is changing, according to location of cursor in the word/words.. Gfigs (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but as I said before, ordinary Hebrew dictionaries do not include separate entries for all inflected verb forms, for several practical reasons. I pointed you toward a standard older specialized reference work -- "The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon" by Benjamine Davidson -- whose purpose is to take a word-form as found in the Bible, with inflections and clitics, and reduce it to a consonantal root. AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

these appear to be scanned copies, probably not searchable? The_analytical_Hebrew_and_Chaldee_lexicon_.._(IA_analyticalhebrew00davi).pdf A_concordance_of_the_Hebrew_and_Chaldee_Scriptures_(IA_cu31924058517586).pdf Gfigs (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there is no article for this book on Wikipedia..am trying to understand why this word is not in common usage, in modern Hebrew language..could it be that am searching for a word with diacritics, that are not included in modern Hebrew? do you know what is the equivilent modern Hebrew word for יִ֝שְׂטְנ֗וּנִי‎ ? Gfigs (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first-person singular verb object suffix -ni is archaic in Modern Hebrew, and sh-T-n does not appear to be commonly used as a verb root in Modern Hebrew, but if you replace tet ט as the middle root consonant with kaf כ (sh-k-n), then you can easily get a parallel Modern Hebrew inflected form such as yishkenu meaning "they will dwell, will live in a place"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

could it be that English Google search is not stripping the diacritics, not recognizing the equivalent modern Hebrew word?..this is best I could do..does this modern Hebrew word exist? ישטנ֗ונ does not seem to be appearing in Hebrew Wikipedia.. Gfigs (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

inverted nun נ֗ו is a rare letter? Gfigs (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ישטנוני ?the matching word for this on spell checker of Android Hebrew keyboard is ישנוני ,am guessing it means "Sleeper"? ישטנוני appears in שטן Gfigs (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

better start with Hebrew alphabet.. Gfigs (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there's no entry for this word in Hebrew Wiktionary - yistenuni .have not found a modern Hebrew Bible online yet..although, am hoping this word yistenuni does appear in such a Bible..in reality, seems to be a big problem?.this article why-is-the-newest-bible-translation-in-modern-hebrew is of interest.. Gfigs (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i think the modern Hebrew word was looking for is hitnagéd (התנגד) that ought to be oppose? Gfigs (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the comments.. Gfigs (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tradition[edit]

is history traditional?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History 110.151.77.58 (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning what? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 11:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning does it work in generations, is history generational?2001:8003:740C:D100:C137:5A9C:F381:2E1A (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, meaning what? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 12:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't follow the nature of your question or what you are asking about. What do you now mean by "work in generations"? --Jayron 32 12:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're struggling to understand your question. If English isn't your first language, you can post a question in your first language and it's likely someone will translate it for us. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on oral tradition, if that's what you're looking for. Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The media love to apply generational labels to somewhat arbitrarily segmented demographic cohorts, such as Greatest Generation, Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millenials, Gen Z, Gen Alpha, ... . Perhaps the idea of the question is whether the segmentation applied by historians follows this pattern. If that is the question, the answer is no — if the boundaries sometimes agree, it is either coincidence, or some very significant historical event left its impact on the generation then coming of age. --Lambiam 19:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a couple of references: It's time to stop talking about generations, and Ask Historians: What do historians think of dividing people into generations? with further excellent explanation of why the premise doesn't work to explain history--and may even completely mischaracterize these cohorts--in Ash Historians: There are claims that there's a generational cycle. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ask this question is in the article history it mentions this and in section geographical locations Regions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

Regions

History of Africa begins with the first emergence of modern human beings on the continent, continuing into its modern present as a patchwork of diverse and politically developing nation states.

History of the Americas is the collective history of North and South America, including Central America and the Caribbean.

History of North America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's northern and western hemisphere.

History of Central America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's western hemisphere.

History of the Caribbean begins with the oldest evidence where 7,000-year-old remains have been found.

History of South America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's southern and western hemisphere.

The history of the world is the memory of the past experience of Homo sapiens sapiens around the world, as that experience has been preserved, largely in written records. By "prehistory", historians mean the recovery of knowledge of the past in an area where no written records exist, or where the writing of a culture is not understood. By studying painting, drawings, carvings, and other artifacts, some information can be recovered even in the absence of a written record. Since the 20th century, the study of prehistory is considered essential to avoid history's implicit exclusion of certain civilizations, such as those of Sub-Saharan Africa and pre-Columbian America. Historians in the West have been criticized for focusing disproportionately on the Western world.[28] In 1961, British historian E. H. Carr wrote:

The line of demarcation between prehistoric and historical times is crossed when people cease to live only in the present, and become consciously interested both in their past and in their future. History begins with the handing down of tradition; and tradition means the carrying of the habits and lessons of the past into the future. Records of the past begin to be kept for the benefit of future generations.[29] This definition includes within the scope of history the strong interests of peoples, such as Indigenous Australians and New Zealand Māori in the past, and the oral records maintained and transmitted to succeeding generations, even before their contact with European civilization. 2001:8003:740C:D100:C10:3286:13DF:BF73 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WADA sanctions and chess[edit]

Why did the World Anti-Doping Agency sanctions against Russia spill into chess leading to neutral flag representation by Ian Nepomniachtchi at the World Chess Championship 2021? Apparently, doping substances don't affect chess so WADA's jurisdiction over it looks questionable. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the ban applies to any "world championship":

FIDE can confirm that, due to the WADA sanctions against Russia, Ian Nepomniachtchi will not be allowed to play under the Russian flag at the World Championship match in Dubai. This ban forbids Russian athletes and event organizers to display publicly the flag of the Russian Federation, the name “Russia”, (in any language or format), or any national emblem or national symbol of the Russian Federation, including on their clothes, equipment, or other personal items, at any event under the denomination "World Championship". CAS directly clarified to FIDE that these restrictions do not apply to the qualification stage of any world championship, like the World Cup 2021 and the Women's World Cup 2021 that will take place in Russia later this year. [6]

Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the Russians were also banned from the World Conker Championships :-) Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been a conker championships for a while due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The next scheduled one is not until 2022. I can't find any information on if people from different countries represent those countries in any official sense or if they merely show up as individuals to compete. --Jayron 32 16:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a joke, but a crowd of some 2,000 spectators and 250 competitors attended this year's event on 10 October 2021. [7] No breakdown of nationalities and although there is a team event, there are no national teams as such. The winners of the men's and women's competition both seem to be British as far as I can tell. At least we're still good at something. On a less frivolous note, the application of anti-doping sanctions to conkers seems about as ludicrous as applying them to chess. Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

frivolous? fiveby(zero) 19:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the winner given the title "World Conkerer"? (As I was skimming the article, I thought at first it said "take turns to strike the others nuts".) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Why assume chess is immune to drug-cheating? See Nootropic#Drugs, several of which are on the WADA blacklist. As to how much benefit one can gain at chess by taking a Nootropic such as Modafinil, Ritalin or Adderall, I cannot say (they definitely reduce mental fatigue, and boost concentration). Are they banned for chess tournaments, I wonder? Anybody able to clarify? Eliyohub (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that everyone is missing is that the punishment is not for an individual because they used drugs. The punishment is for the country because they sanctioned and in many cases encouraged the use of drugs. It is Russia that is being punished, not competitors that happen to live in Russia. Russian chess players are under no sanction when they compete in FIDE events, Russia as a country cannot get credit for having supported them, however. The entire discussion over which drugs may be useful for chess are irrelevant. FIDE is a signatory to WADA, WADA has banned Russia from being recognized, FIDE will not recognize Russia. There is nothing more that needs to be said on the matter because it isn't relevant. --Jayron32 16:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, now understandable. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I do get your point. But if drug-cheating wasn't (at least hypothetically) a possibility in chess, why would FIDE have signed up to WADA? It does sound odd. If my explanation (nootropics) doesn't hold water (and I accept that it may not), what explains this decision (FIDE signing up to the WADA code)? Eliyohub (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does This help? --Jayron 32 10:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Jayron32, that is indeed a very helpful article, and indeed confirms my theory that Nootropics are the concern :-) Eliyohub (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]