Humanities desk
< May 22	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 24 >

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.

May 23

"... Forever hold your peace"?

The Book of Common Prayer wedding ceremony, as used in the Anglican Communion, contains a line rendered into modern English as "If any of you can show just cause why they may not lawfully be married, speak now; or else for ever hold your peace." [1]

What do they have in mind by "forever hold your peace"? Suppose that one of the wedding guests knows that one of the spouses is already married, and thus the marriage will be bigamous. However, the guest for whatever reason chooses not to interrupt the wedding. The guest then goes to the priest a few days later and says, "I was at Alan and Betty's wedding, and I know that Alan already has a wife in another city and has never gotten divorced from her. Is there anything that can be done about this?" I would think that the priest would want to know that information in order to take whatever action was appropriate, rather than to ignore Alan's bigamy on the grounds that the guest should have forever held their peace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually an identical question was asked (by yours truly) on 29 April. Best look at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 April 29#Or forever hold your peace to see what was canvassed there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, "forever hold your piece" could refer to a shotgun wedding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically addressing your scenario, it means that if you don't stop the wedding at that early stage, there's no going back without court proceedings. The upshot of the long conversation linked above was that the phrase is largely obsolete in most legal jurisdictions. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just now read the thread posted by JackofOz, so I think that will cover this question. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the previous thread, I think the conclusions reached there are somewhat incomplete. One thing you need to understand about the Anglo-Christian wedding ceremony is just how much of it incorporates elements of the English law related to real property. Note the presence of the phrase "to have and to hold" (habendum et tenendum). In many ways, the entire ceremony and its trappings—the presence of witnesses, the delivery of the bride by the father, the ceremonial exchange of rings—mirror in many ways the old English practice of livery of seisin as a mechanism for the transfer of real property. Livery of seisin was not mere ceremony and formality, either, but was a means of ensuring that, should an assize be required to determine the rightful possessor of the property, it was probable that the witnesses to the livery of seisin would be selected for the assize (juries and assizes of the period being the sources of evidence rather than presentations and testimony at trial). While it may seem odd to apply real property concepts to things like marriage, this was not uncommon in the period: Intangible real property, such as the advowson, hardly conduces itself to livery of seisin.
So what about this "Speak now or forever hold your peace"? Certainly, when dealing with real property, the fact that someone failed to raise an objection or impediment at the time of the conveyance wouldn't prevent the person with rightful title from retaking possession through the judicial system. That said, I suspect there's a connection to the ecclesiastical side of things here. The ecclesiastical courts were the origin of equity in the English legal tradition, and one of the core principles in equity is the concept of laches: That one who fails to assert his rights in a timely fashion may be denied those rights. In the Anglo-Christian marriage tradition, one could also point out that the marriage ceremony has many of the trappings of an in rem action: One that seeks to declare the rights of the subject matter (the marriage of the parties) with respect to the whole world. Consider the publication of the banns of marriage, similar to service by publication. In fact, looking at the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the banns of marriage, I would suggest that the admonition to "speak now or forever hold your peace" is essentially a fourth publication of the banns, and represents a final warning to all interested parties to provide their objections. Consider this passage:
Whoever is morally certain either by his own knowledge or through reliable persons, of an impediment (e.g. consanguinity, affinity, previous marriage) to an intended marriage, is conscience bound to reveal it to the parish priest of the contacting parties; it then becomes the duty of such parish priest to investigate the statement made to him (usually under oath) and decide to the character of the evidence; if a grave suspicion be aroused in him, he must refer the case to the bishop, who decides whether a dispensation can or cannot be granted.
Note the legalistic aspects of this; statement made usually under oath, referral to the bishop only if it arouses a "grave suspicion" in the parish priest, and even then the bishop may grant a dispensation. I hope that helps illuminate things. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-specific names

Are there societies without the concept of gender-specific names?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.23.101 (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All six kinship systems have gender differentiated kin names i.e. Iroquois, Crow, Omaha, Inuit, Hawaiian and Sudanese.
Sleigh (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Yoruba people traditionally had given names which were not gender-specific, however this began to change with the introduction of Islam and Christianity in the 19th century. See What Gender is Motherhood?: Changing Yorùbá Ideals of Power, Procreation and Identity (Chapter 6). Alansplodge (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese and a lot of Asians are like a 3rd category - most names are genderless. But some names are masculine and some feminine. I'd say at least 90% of names in Chinese can be for any gender. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Does that factoid come from the same source that says the speed of light is 186,000 miles per hour? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those bewildered by Bugs' question, see the query "Digestion" recently posted by this IP querant on the Science Ref Desk. (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.35.198 (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese given name says: "It is frequently the case that children are given names based on gender stereotypes, with boys acquiring 'masculine' names implying strength or courage while girls receive 'feminine' names concerning beauty or flowers. Since doubled characters are considered diminutives in Chinese, many girls also receive names including a doubled pair of characters or two characters with identical pronunciation". Alansplodge (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

90% is a ridiculous number. Most of the time it's not difficult to tell what gender someone is from hearing their name for the reasons that Alansplodge quoted. There are a good number of unisex names, but the masculine/feminine connotations of the characters in a name are pretty strong. There's a reason why the table in Chinese given name doesn't need to include the gender of the most common names, and it's not because they're all unisex. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistically, it would not surprise me at all, though I’m not aware of any specific instances of cultures lacking the concept. My feeling is that the cultures you’d most likely find this phenomenon would be ones where the language spoken lacks any sort of grammatical gender, or at least lacking any form of gender in morphology (a counterexample would be Romance languages). The example of Chinese above is actually relevant given there is very limited support for grammatical gender in most Chinese languages (or dialects, if you prefer). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki article Sikh names claims that all given Sikh names are gender neutral. However, the culture does have the concept of gendered names since there are two Khalsa (baptismal) names; one is masculine and one feminine.

The wiki article Tibetan name says only a very few names in this culture are gendered (which means the concept does exist, even if it is rare). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POTUS as federal employee

According to [2], Trump gets paid quarterly ($100K per quarter) and opts to donate the amount (he can afford it). But I thought all federal employees got paid twice a month. Is it different on the Executive Schedule? I notice that the POTUS is not listed there. Is he not under the federal labor code, whatever it's called?

I had also heard that room and board at the White House is deducted from the president's pay--and it's a lot, like being in a fancy hotel, so new presidents are always surprised when they see how large the deduction is. So that's at odds with the check in the picture being for the full $100K. 2601:648:8202:96B0:3567:50D5:8BFF:4588 (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The president's compensation appears to be set by 3 US Code § 102 or chapter 2 of Title 3 of the United States Code. This is separate from 5 U.S.C. §§ 5311–5318 which set the executive schedule. Note that the word compensation is as given in the code. This compares to the salary of the vice-president which also refers to the general schedule [3]. While Title 5 of the United States Code [4] does say "The pay period for an employee covers two administrative workweeks" (so not twice a month!), the president doesn't seem to meet the definition of employee

(1) The term “employee” means— (A) an employee in or under an Executive agency; (B) an employee in or under the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Botanic Garden, and the Library of Congress, for whom a basic administrative workweek is established under section 6101(a)(5) of this title ; and (C) an individual employed by the government of the District of Columbia.

and of course as we've established presidents don't actually receive a salary according to the US code anyway. Also, the president or first family appears to pay for "board" (although only really part of it), but not "room" [5] [6]. In fact, we saw earlier that 3 US Code § 102 specifically "He shall be entitled also to the use of the furniture and other effects belonging to the United States and kept in the Executive Residence at the White House" which admittedly doesn't clearly address the issue of the White House itself. We also saw that "expense allowance of $50,000 to assist in defraying expenses relating to or resulting from the discharge of his official duties", and obviously the salaries of the various people are also paid by the federal government [7], so I don't think you can really compare it to a fancy hotel. I don't know precisely how these expenses are recovered by many reports seem to refer to the first family and many also refer to the "first lady", so I expect receiving the bill and getting it paid may be part of her managing the White House job [8] [9]. (To be fair, while I find the first lady concept somewhat sexist, you probably do want someone other than the president worrying about stuff like that.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that it's also possible that the president can access for expenses to be deducted from their compensation and probably some or even most do, but President Trump or someone involved recognised that boasting you're donating your $400,000 "salary" when you've asked for expenses to be deducted first would come across poorly in the press and so didn't ask for this to happen. It's also possible these expense are deducted on a different schedule from quarterly and so there was none coming out of that particular cheque. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the IP get the "I have heard" info about supposed deducting for room and board? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the internet, of course. A quick web search shows that it's just for board though: they don't pay for housing.[10][11] 2601:648:8202:96B0:3567:50D5:8BFF:4588 (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing sources. Though I have to wonder about a source that indicates the Obamas took office in 2007. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be suspicious about a source that indicates they both "took office" at all. Fortunately, what the marketplace.org page actually says is that they moved into the White House then. --76.71.5.208 (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton is famous for her "We are the president". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an interesting quote or title but I couldn't find any reference to it, when did she say or write that? --TZubiri (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you've looked. I just found literally 87.7 million google hits for it in the simplest possible search. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for that writeup, it was 2009, not 2007. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However that's not really correct either as I already noted. They don't pay for any Whitehouse staff who cook and serve the food which would generally be part of "board". (I guess for presidents who like to order McDonald's and KFC, maybe it seems like they do pay for food in its entirety. Although I'm fairly sure that such food is being brought in by security vetted staffers and not Uber delivery drivers, so even then.....) Nor for the table they eat the food on or any of the other shared living spaces. Arguably utility bills, especially the non fixed portions (electricity or other fuels costs, and maybe water usage) may be part of board as well, again especially those use for cooking the food and the shared living space, which they also don't pay. (To be clear, this isn't criticism of the US arrangement for presidents, I'm simply suggesting the comparisons are misleading.)

BTW I somehow completely missed that 3 US Code § 102 says "aggregate amount of $400,000 a year, to be paid monthly" (emphasis added). So maybe you will get some poor federal employee worrying about whether to apply 5 U.S. Code § 5504 or 3 US Code § 102 for the payment schedule of the president, but probably not and they just pay him monthly. Especially given the definition of employee and the fact the compensation is explicitly not referred to as a salary and I'm fairly sure there's nothing in the law suggesting 5 § 5504 should take precedent over 3 § 102 which explicitly refers to said compensation.

As for how this fits with the suggestion Trump is paid quarterly, I don't know for sure. But if you look at the details [12], this is not a cheque from the government to the president. (I guess Americans really do still pay their president by cheques?) It's a cheque from Trump to the HHS. While the press secretary does appear to suggest the money is going "direct" from Trump from his salary that he does not take, it seems easily possible this is a simplification and the Guardian perhaps guided by this is simply wrong. These earlier discussions [13] [14] do suggest he is paid monthly.

So most likely Trump is paid $33333.33 a month and $33333.34 on the third month or something, and he is then paying someone quarterly. Although assuming the president is really paid by cheque, I guess it's possible he just doesn't cash his cheques until he gets 3. And those cheques could be less, we still don't know how personal expenses are paid. If they are coming directly from the compensation, this simplification may explain why he seems to pay the entire $400,000 in four parts [15] [16]. If so, I sort of think he hasn't realised he's doing that, given the lack of boasts about it.

While this could mean Trump is earning interest on for the 2 + 1 month or so between receiving his cheque and donating it, frankly even putting aside low interest rates at the moment, this seems to be a lame criticism compare to all the other issues [17] [18] for what's mostly an administrative simplification. That said, I don't know why it wasn't made clearer by the press secretary that he is paid monthly and then pays out quarterly if this is really what is happening especially since it was a press conference and not a 280 character limited Tweet. In at least some previous cases involving press releases [19] and Tweets like [20] and [21]/[22] stuff like 2019 Q4 salary or simply donating his salary "thoroughout the year", rather than suggesting the money is going direct from his salary he doesn't take. So reduces the chance of misleading people into thinking he is only paid quarterly.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]