Language desk
< November 29	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	December 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language 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 30[edit]

“Experiencing disconnection helps individuals come to a greater sense of acceptance” - English speech concept?[edit]

So I need to write a speech on how the concept of “experiencing disconnection helps individuals come to a greater sense of acceptance” is evident in 3 texts.

The only problem is I find the statement incredibly contradictory and am struggling to find a "way in" to the statement. What kind of idea could I incorporate into my thesis to show how such a contradictory statement is evident? If it helps the area of study is based on "belonging". I'm clearly not expecting you to write any part of the speech I just, like I said, need a "way in" as such. 115.64.57.154 (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you can't resolve contradictory things by logic or by eliminating one of them, your only choice, if you don't want to keep experiencing disconnection, is to say 'it is what it is' and move on.184.147.136.249 (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without ragging too much on your prof or the current state of academia, the in you're looking for is irony/paradox. Sometime when you've got too much time on your hands, try getting through TS Eliot's Four Quartets. (Bonus points if you do it again when you're 60.) For now, just realize that "greater" is going to have to mean "stronger", "more profound", or "more meaningful" in a nebulous "sense" way. Your teacher wants you to find three examples where going through a time of being an outsider made the later sense of belonging that much more powerful and secure: human history, religion, and literature are rife with them, especially since leaders take the opportunity to gain unusual insight and helpful hidden knowledge that they then use to show why they are the Chosen Ones. To take three easy ones from the Bible: Moses being raised by the Egyptians; Job enduring the Book of Job; and Jesus's days in the desert.

But don't fault your initial read. It's a pretty badly-written prompt. The answer above is based on "acceptence" being the pack's acceptance of the former lone wolf (who has now acquired Wisdom and Self-Awareness and returned as either Badass Lone Wolf or Lone Wolf the Savior). It's more likely s/he meant it as psychological "acceptance" of one's self: time outside the group provides a chance for independence and maturation and accepting the rough edges that always seemed so awful within the original group dynamic. Part of the reason it's a bad prompt is that it's not clear which one s/he's looking for. If you can, try asking for some clarification. —

Llywelyn II

15:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of royal titles[edit]

Liu Wu was initially created prince of Dai (代王) in 178 BC. In 176, he became prince of Huaiyang (淮陽王) instead and his brother Liu Can (劉粲) replaced him as prince of Dai. Instead, following custom, Liu Che, the prince of Jiaodong, was promoted to crown prince and his mother Lady Wang to empress.

Is it grammatically correct to capitalize P where I bolded in these sentences? I intentionally excluded crown prince and empress.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (but not exclusively so.) —

Llywelyn II

15:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the usual convention is to regard "Prince" as a proper noun when it designates a particular individual (... the Prince of Wherever ...) but as a common noun when used more generally ( ... a prince among ...).
I'd tend to use capitals for Crown Prince and Empress in your last sentence, but others might disagree because the modern trend is to capitalise less. Dbfirs 16:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the cases you have given, they would not be capitalized, unless they were special titles, like the Prince of Wales, which is an honorific given to the son of the reigning British monarch. At the time the Princes in the Tower were murdered, they were princes of England, not Princes of England. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One was a prince of England. The other was the King of England. -- Elphion (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least, the rightful King of England, even if deposed by his uncle -- on the grounds that they were not in fact princes of England. A complicated example; but you're right about the capitalization. -- Elphion (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be confusing to the OP that you have switched to a separate issue, that of who was actually the king of England; Richard III, who was eventual crowned, or the nephew he presumably murdered, who never had a coronation. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of confusing, you've added an irrelevancy (posing as a clarification) to a tangent. In the British system, "the king never dies"; this means the new king/queen acquires that status instantaneously on the death or abdication of the incumbent. Coronation is not necessary to confirm this. Edward VIII was never crowned, but his kingship, while it lasted, has never been doubted. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These titles are titles over actual or nominal realms given by the emperors to younger sons and were equivalent to the titles of the former monarchs of the Warring States. There was only one Prince of Dai at any given time like Wales.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then the word Prince should indeed be capitalised in these cases. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]