February 17

I know you're not supposed to actually give an honest answer, but what should you say? Some answerish thing like "Fine, thank you" or could you also say something like "Hi, so nice to meet you", acknowledging that it wasn't really a question at all? Just "Fine, thank you" leaves me with a feeling I should somehow show interest, too. Joepnl (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standard response is, "I'm fine, thanks. How are you?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article is phatic expression... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I absolutely hate, hate, hate this custom. But about one in fifty people including register clerks (!) will get really nasty if you don't say "fine thanks, how are you." I try to stave this off with a peremptory "Happy Monday!" (Insert appropriate day of week) which usually gets a chuckle, a "Happy Monday!" in return, and throws the compulsive how-are-you-ers off balance. grumble...grumble...μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. If you answer "Fine, thanks", "Good, thanks", or "Well, thanks", they'll like as not come back with "That's good", as if they really were enquiring about your state of being, which they weren't. In the good old days, people didn't go in for this silly pretend-caring about total strangers. They'd say "How do you do?", to which the one and only proper response was "How do you do?". Nobody ever felt it was appropriate to take the question literally. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with the moment in The Wizard of Oz when Dorothy and the scarecrow formally meet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This topic was discussed here within the last year or so. As for "How do you do?" it always makes me want to respond, "Nooo. How do you do?" μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago there was a beer commercial where these big-city types were sitting around the bar, continually saying, "How ya doin'?" with no expectation of an answer - until the friendly Texan walks in and starts a minute-by-minute of his trip so far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are North Jersey types. You do realize, every commercial ever is at youtube pt. 1, pt. 2. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I usually say: "Horribly! My miserable life is going straight to the hell! Don't you lend me some money until the next Monday? Please, I swear I'll return! Of course, if they don't kill me before that..."--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, yes, very East European. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this has something to do with Eastern Europe particularly. Do black humour and satire exist only there? I don't think so. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a point I want to argue, or offend you with, but it is considered stereotypical from an English-speaking point of view. See these hits at google, as well as references to black humor in our articles

Black Humor:

The term [Black Humor like; I say what, what in the butt] was part of the language before Freud wrote an essay on it -- 'gallows humor.' This is middle European humor, a response to hopeless situations. It's what a man says faced with a perfectly hopeless situation and he still manages to say something funny. Freud gives examples: A man being led out to be hanged at dawn says, 'Well, the day is certainly starting well.' It's generally called Jewish humor in this country. Actually it's humor from the peasants' revolt, the thirty years' war, and from the Napoleonic wars. It's small people being pushed this way and that way, enormous armies and plagues and so forth, and still hanging on in the face of hopelessness. Jewish jokes are middle European jokes. And the black humorists are gallows humorists, as they try to be funny in the face of situations which they see as just horrible.

and google "dark Jewish humor". μηδείς (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Medeis, we have had conversations many times, that I almost consider you my pen-pal, you should try very hard to offend me. Moreover you are partly a Slav that adds my sympathies for you. I just think that when everybody everyday asks you about how you are doing not caring really about how you are really doing and expecting "Fine!" or something it's sometimes funny to respond unexpectedly and humorously. Obviously nobody will think these absurd things as true, it's just a joke. And I really think that black humour is international, at least Pan-European. What I sometimes don't like is to hear about "the uniqueness of Russians" especially from Russians themselves.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat that there was no intent to offend you, and that if you read the quote of the very famous writer Kurt Vonnegut, I was neither only speaking of Russian humor, nor making a point others haven't before. Nor did I say that you don't find black humor everywhere. But your comment reminds me of something the very funny Jackie Mason would say, and I have paid to see him perform. You made me laugh. I hope that's clear, and you can have the last word if you want. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My last (in this conversation!) words will be: I'm glad I've made you laugh. It is always interesting to speak with you. :) --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Yiddish, the habit of over-the-top complaining like above is known as kvetching, a word Americans should be familiar with. It's as stereotypically German as it is stereotypically Slavic or Eastern European, I suspect, which would cause Eastern European Jews to be doubly predisposed to it. (Or triply, if it is also rooted in ancient Jewish culture.)

Personally, I'm annoyed by empty phrases like "How are you?" just like you, but I've finally started to overcome my discomfort and answer "Fine, thank you" when it's not a close friend. I'm not surprised that in a geeky place like Wikipedia, this discomfort is shared by many. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also this archived question "How are you? Ça va? etc."". ---Sluzzelin talk 03:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could always use the George Carlin line, "I am not unwell, thank you". He claimed it made the other person stop and figure out what he meant. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While responding with your life story is certainly inappropriate, I do think you can give some short answers besides "I'm fine". Some examples are "Tired", "Hungry", "Ready to go home", etc. StuRat (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, but I try and inject a little (Northern) humour into my response, using phrases such as "fair to middlin" or "Fair to crap". Another phrase to use is "I'm very well thanks, how are you?" if you don't want to engage the questioner. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this question either, because I am compulsively honest, but honesty isn't really wanted. Rather than reveal or conceal whether or not I'm "fine" to someone who doesn't care, I prefer a noncommittal and minimal "Okay, and you?" This works really well because it says, "My well-being isn't important, but what about yours?" Also, unless you are dying, you're in some sense okay, so it isn't dishonest, either. Marco polo (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must try responding with

I'm OK, You're OK and see where that leads us. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

God, that book nearly drove me to suicide. "Your mother drank, so you're fucked up for life." Probably true, but having it spelled out like that is rather more than one cat can take... Tevildo (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a coward. I read the opening sentence of M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Travelled: "Life is hard". Then I closed the book and never reopened it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Very sensible. "And see ye not yon narrow narrow road, so thick beset with thorns and briars? That is the path of righteousness, but after it but few enquires." Considering the identity of one's interlocutor, is "spelled" preferable to "spelt"? Tevildo (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one to ask. I always spelled it "spelled" (reserving "spelt" for the grain) until after I became a regular here, but I'm now convinced that "spelt" is a valid way of spelling the past tense verb. But that doesn't mean that "spelled" is invalid.

However, I do believe "spelled" is the only valid past tense of spell meaning to give a team player a rest: "Watson was spelled for the first test, but now he's fresh and ready to bowl again". You can't have "Watson was spelt ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I habitually say "So far so good" or sometimes "Can't complain." If the question comes in the form "How's it going?", I answer "Bit by bit!". —Tamfang (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, I guess I'll be saying "I'm fine, thanks. How are you?" though I'm glad also native English speakers don't like it either. Only today I realized my native language, Dutch, does have the exact same expression "Hoe maakt u het" ("how do you do"), which is also supposed to be answered by "Goed, dank u", "Fine, thank you" no matter what horrible disease the doctor just told you about. But that's a phrase you would find in books called "Dutch for dummy's", it's really old fashioned. For English, I'll stick to the approved dialogue. Joepnl (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking nonsense. There is another expression "Hoe gaat het", "How is is it going" that is still in use and when I google it the exact same answers come up. Joepnl (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not that unusual to answer the question with something like "unfortunately, not so good". So, it's not really true that you are not supposed to give an honest answer. Count Iblis (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what situations is either word the better usage choice over the other? Gullabile (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would avoid using "prefigure" for the "predict" or "foretell" sense unless there was some aspect of shaping the future, but perhaps I am being unduly influenced by the obsolete meaning of "shaping at the front"? I think that most people regard the two words as synonyms, and I can't give a general rule about which is better. Have you some sample sentences? Dbfirs 15:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would use "foreshadow" for the literary technique, where an author provides hints or symbols of events to come. I would use "prefigure" for an analysis of history, where one event is seen (in retrospect) as pointing the way to a later event or trend or state of things. I would not use either for a prediction of future events. But that may be just my own personal prejudices. DES ^(talk) 17:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are trying to avoid repeating the same word, feel free to use prefigure to do it. There are also the helpful nouns premonition and foreboding depending on the connotation. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is any problem with the use of "at random" in "The boys pissed against the bushes at random."? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.216.54 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't, although it implies that the random element is the selection of the bush as a micturition-target; if you intend to emphasise the random nature of the excretory act itself, "pissed randomly against the bushes" might be better. Tevildo (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminately would probably be a better word for what is most likely intended. But the whole statement isn't particularly useful anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking of a sentence in The Old Man and the Sea that referred to him standing up and "urinating indiscriminately over the side" or something similar, but I can't seem to track that down online. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why in the U.K. accents are so diverse, within just a stone's throw, and people can fail to even understand each other sometimes. Whereas in English-speaknig N. America,

A) you would be hard-pressed to find average people speaking in a normal way as they learned in school, but NOT being able to understand someone from a different area

B) Even if that were to happen, it would be a very large geographic divide. A given small area (as small as the UK) would have one accent, not 400....

Why this difference? Why is N. America so homogenous. I didn't even realize someone was Canadian until they told me! They sound the same as people from coast to coast in the U.S., and even regional variations are over a much larger area, and a smaller effect overall.... --91.120.14.30 (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely due to the amount of time for regional development of dialects.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. But that would not explain why the people who emigrated in the first place didn't maintain the lineage to any extent...are all the immigrants from the same homegenous very small pool, and cut out all the rest of the history (of dialects) instead of continuing them? --91.120.14.30 (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobility? Lack of communication? Long periods of immobility, and lack of extensive inter-communication, would tend to create regional peculiarity in culture and in cultural artifacts like language, which over-time would be self sustaining. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colonialism. Australian is one language, different to American but similarly uniform because it was made at approximatly one time by people who moved around the continent. New World Spanish is descended from Andilucian, with somewhat greater regional (now national) differences than American English, developed during the somewhat longer time since the major foundation colonists arrived. Brazilian Portuguese, similar. Eastern American English, being founded some three centuries ago, has some diversity but beyond the Alleghenies you find 19th and eventally 20th century colonies of mixed ancestry (Texan is mostly but not entirely Dixie; Michigander shows Yankee roots) and Southern Californian became thoroughly blended at its foundation a century ago. This is also when Hollywood became the capital of the United States, thus its dialect is the standard or "neutral" language of mass media. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, so. Even though, technically 100 years ago Hollywood was silent. Radio was probably the first extensive mass communicator of spoken language, although many Americans would have some experience talking on the telephone by then, or listening to recordings. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating response, Jim, thank you. But does this mean that before the advent of mass communciation, regional differences would have been more pronounced? (e.g. bostonian accent was stronger pre hollywood)--91.120.14.30 (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1930s, the Margaret Dumont type of dialects (East Coast, upper class, non-rhotic, slightly influenced by British) were still considered prestigious by many. It was TV which helped set the seal on a non-eastern "

General American" type of dialect becoming the prestige standard. AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, in the past, areas of the UK had very stable populations with only a very few people moving between regions. Over the last 150 years (since the coming of the railways, then easy road transport, then broadcast speech, then films & TV), there has been incresing mixing of populations and accents, so regional accents are gradually disappearing. Despite this, I still have difficulty in understanding a strong Glaswegian accent (from less than a hunderd miles away, though it might soon be a different country). Dbfirs 15:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the answers so far, but I would also say that, as in Britain, North American accents were in fact more diverse before the era of mass communications, especially on the east coast, though even here the differences were seldom enough to impede mutual intelligibility. For example, there used to be differences in the pronunciations of different neighborhoods of Boston. These have virtually disappeared among people aged under 40 or 50. There are still recognizable differences between the working-class accents of Rhode Island and the Boston area, just 50 miles away. But differences from General American are diminishing, I think under the influence of TV and increased mobility, with each generation. While it is unusual for me to have trouble understanding another native-born North American whose first language is a version of English, it has happened. My own accent is an idiolect that is close to General American, but with a few small regional variations from places I've lived (New York, northern California, and Massachusetts). The one place I had serious trouble understanding people was rural eastern Tennessee. Southern Appalachian speech diverges rather far from the standard. This is a community that was settled about 220 years ago, mostly from western Virginia and Maryland and largely by people of Ulster Protestant descent, and that was then relatively isolated until well into the 20th century, with very little in-migration even since then. One other comment I'd make is that, while California developed a koine close to General American when it had a rapid influx from different parts of the United States 100 or so years ago, California has, in fact, developed a subtle regional accent, or maybe two or three (more along ethnic lines than regions of the state). Having lived there, I can recognize a (relatively) strong Californian accent. Marco polo (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If one thinks of the voices of

Obama, including a father and son), while all mutually intelligible (most the time), their accents seem distinct. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• American dialects are not converging. This is a common assertion among laymen, but it is not born out by researchers such as William Labov. Dialects are changing, so certain old stereotypical accents from movies of the 1930's may no longer be common. People who speak with strong accents like Rosie Perez, or the typical brooklyn dialects of Seinfeld's George Costanza ("Mom's downsteahs, I just soaw huh") or Joe Pesci's Cousin Vinny ("Da tree yutes ennid da stoah") or various deep southern accents will change their speech when the move up in class or out of their home area.

But in older and more densely populated areas "urban vernaculars in different regions of the United States are diverging from one another, so that the varieties of American English spoken in New York, Chicago, Houston and Los Angeles are phonologically more different from one another than they were a century ago." U of Penn. Look at the accents of Sarah Palin, Frances McDormand in Fargo, John Goodman's Chicago (with the a in the city's name pronounced as in cat) "Da Bears" skit from SNL, Indianans saying Harry to rhyme with hairy, not marry, so that the had to scrap the name of the Harry Baals Government Center, named after the longtime governor.

A Pittsburgh accent differs greatly from a Philly accent. A Buffalo accent from a New York City one. We just heard the "How ya doin?" Bud commercial knock-off of the Sopranos. In NYC you can tell Brooklyn from the Bronx, and Harlem from Queens by the accent. This is distinct still from Long Guyland.

You run into the same, with what are called Southern Dialects vastly different from Texas, to Louisiana, to Appalachicola, to Atlanta, to Charleston, to Roanoke, the from Baltimore to Scranton, to Albany and up the coast of New England from the Rhode Island of Family Guy through Boston and into the Maine of Jessica Fletcher and Stephen King. "Researchers say most regional accents are alive and well, even in the digital age, but they're always changing." NPR on paper by William Labov

μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!! This was an amazing write-up, Medeis, a tour de force. Loved every word and line, a lot of it made me laugh / I hadn't heard before. How do you know all this?? Did you travel a lot, or read about it, or just pay a great deal of attention or what? Many of your references are from media, past Presidents even... So do you pay much better attention, and keep better track, than the average person does? How did you learn things like the "Harry Baals Government Center"? Very good write-up and examples. Do you live in New York, where you gave particular specific examples? On your basic point, count me among those who thought American accents were converging. Simply very, very interesting write-up. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I was born in and live in NY, although I grew up in NJ near Philly. It was actually Alan who mentioned the Presidents, but a very valid point. Reagan and Nixon both had "General Western" style California accents, although hugely different voices. But listen to the difference Between the Bushes, or between GWB and Clinton in neighboring Southern states, and Carter in Georgia. Harry Baals was in the news, and it's just not the sort of thing you forget. Regarding the accents diverging, it is mostly due to the

caught-cot merger, fronting of long o and tensing of short a, as well as Canadian raising. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not so sure, Medeis. The neighborhood accents in Boston are definitely merging, most kids in the working-class suburb where I live, unlike their parents, are speaking rhotically, without upward social mobility, and all of the eastern New England accents seem to be fading in the direction of General American. It would be interesting to see some citations. Marco polo (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking Boston neighbourhoods versus the country as a whole. And I did give you citations which you obviously didn't follow. Of course gentrification breaks up old working class accents in small areas, and rhotacism has been spreading since independence. But the old arhotic Mainline Philly/FDR/Boston Brahmin accent is gone (since the death of

Pat Moynihan) and is split up into regional Philly, NY and Boston accents. The NPR piece you ignored has recordings of older and newer Philadelphia accents--they are not moving towards, but are moving away from General American. Jerry Stiller, Jerry Seinfeld, and Rosie Perez are all from New York, and have hugely different dialects, although Stiller's is disappearing, with, perhaps, the exception of Hasidim who speak with a similar accent. California used to have one accent, now, in addition, it has Valley Girl, East L.A. (for an early version, think Cheech and Chong) with its diphthongs monophthongized and its voiceless finals, and the surfer speak common with Hawaii, versus the Western speech of Napoleon Dynamite. But don't take my word for it, take the most famous working linguist in America's, that of William Labov. For an artistic take, listen to the beginning of the absolutely brilliant Fires in the Mirror by Anna Deavere Smith. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Medeis, if you look at the classic mid-20th-century U.S. dialect atlases, you'll see all kinds of old-timey pronunciations which are now semi-defunct or insignificant. It's true that the rise of television etc. has not resulted in the near-total homogenization of U.S. speech, in the way that some people in the 1960s thought would happen. On the other hand, I would be rather suspicious of any claim that overall there's much more localistic dialect particularity in the United States than, say, 100 years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "if one looks" or are you actually aware of what I have read and haven't, AnonMoos? Your constant condescension is extremely tiresome, and you might point out where I have said things like saying "how?" to mean "what did you say?" are still common in the Philadelphia dialect after 100 years, for example, before expressing your suspicion of claims that I haven't made. There's very little point in denying that people still talk like John Facenda or W. C. Fields and even less in denying there's been a continuing divergence of dialects in the US and a great divergence in the West since WWII. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually no contradiction whatsoever between the idea that many prominent current U.S. speech varieties are diverging somewhat (at least in their "basilectal" forms) and the idea that many former speech varieties have now been effectively eliminated, or are just barely hanging on until their last few speakers die. I strongly suspect that the majority of dialect historians of American English would not agree with the idea that overall dialect diversity in the United States has increased over the last hundred years. If I'm sometimes "condescending", it could be because you sometimes present stuff which is not mainstream in linguistics as the undisputable truth (such as on the Nostratic front). I'm sure that you know much more than I do about several subjects, but when it comes to having received a well-rounded linguistics education which helps in discerning what is part of the accepted scholarly consensus in linguistics, you unfortunately do not surpass me. AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, for evolutionary processes (like language evolution), diversity is greatest in the oldest populations. The main reason is the founder effect - the group that establishes a new colony only exhibits a subset of the diversity in the original population. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That analogy is basically valid as far as it goes, but there are significant linguistic processes for which there is no real parallel in evolutionary genetics (for that matter, the basic mechanism of language transmission is quite different from the basic mechanism of genetic inheritance)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Oberst (Colonel) von Bismarck was killed in an attack on the French held town of Namur on 20 June 1815 at the head of his regiment, the 1st Elbe Landwehr.

• " 1st Elbe LWIR: In 1814, Oberst-Lt von Bismarck,Uncle of the future Chancellor of Imperial Germany.... Their commander, Oberst von Bismarck, was killed at Namur (20 June). ( Prussian Napoleonic Landwehr Infantry and Cavalry 1808-1815: Landsturm, Volunteer Cavalry and Streifkorpsmore by Stephen Summerfield, page 46)
• "Also killed was Colonel von Bismarck, commander of the 1st Elbe Landwehr and uncle of the future Chancellor of united Germany" (On the Fields of Glory: The Battlefields of the 1815 Campaign, by page 313)

Two sources that note his death also mention that he was an uncle of the famous Iron Chancellor. The trouble for me is because he died the year his more famous nephew was born I have been unable to find out what his full name was or when he was born. I would appreciate it if someone can have a look at German sources and seeing if they can find his date of birth and his first name(s). -- PBS (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• PBS, It's Ernst Ludwig Wilhelm von Bismarck, who this source says was "felled by the enemy in an attack on Namur". I found this searching for "20 Juni 1815 von Bismarck Oberst" in google. He doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in English or German wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and he was born April 7, 1772 in Magdeburg, same source. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

ISBN 1148231285)), but hopefully you have given me enough information so I can find another source. -- I am working on a several detailed articles based on a PD source, I have just written a stub for Colonel Alexander Heinrich Gebhard von Zastrow who was killed in the same attack -- PBS (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• The entire entry is rather small, less than half a page, but it is in a fancy Fraktur script, and I can't make it all out with 100% certainty. You might ask User:Klimov, User:Favonian, or User:Drmies, who are some of our German experts if they would translate the material at this link on him for you. I can take a snapshot of the entry and mail it to someone if necessary. The entry gives a bit of the military career and the names of family and offspring. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's a little bit: "Ernst Ludwig Wilhelm, Son of Georg Wilhelm I. and Frederike Luise Eleonore v. Alvensleben, born in Magdeburg 7 April 1771, felled by the enemy at the attack on Namur 20 June 1815, Colonel, and since 4 July 1800 Johanniteritter [...?] [Don't understand the 1785 sentence'] 1799 Grenadier-Captain in the regiment of Kleist in Magdeburg. 1811 "Sergeant-Chef" ("Oberwachtmeister") in His Majesty "Fußgarde" (infantry?) in Potsdam. 1815 Oberleutnant and very shortly thereafter Colonel." Drmies (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Fußgarde" would be

Foot Guards wouldn't it? Most likely the 1st Foot Guards (German Empire), which was formed in 1809. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

...since 4 July 1800 Knight of the Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg) of Briest and Demker. (These may have been places in Prussia. There is a city in Germany named Briest. I can only find Demler as a last name.)

Note, the effs and esses are almost indistinguishable, so the instances of "auf" and "aus" are unsure. The numbers refer to entries in the book, of which this is entry 225. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Briest and Demker are localities associated with the Bismarcks (see here). The "expectoration"(?) apparently took place at the Kommende of Werben. Iblardi (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Demker must be right, the ells and kays are also almost indistinguishable. I am not even going to guess what is meant by expektoriert, although he would have been 13. Maybe it's a Prussian sort of coming out? μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the transliteration:

Ernst Ludwig Wilhelm, S. des Georg Wilhelm I (Nr. 174) und der Friederike Luise Eleonore v. Alvensleben, geb. zu Magdeburg 7. April 1772, gefallen vor dem Feinde beim Sturm auf Namur 20. Juni 1815, Oberst und seit 4. Juli 1800 Johanniterritter auf Briest und Demker. — 17. Oktober 1785 wurde er auf die Kommende Werben expektoriert. 1799 Grenadierkapitän beim Regiment v. Kleist in Madgeburg. 1811 Oberstwachtmeister in Regiment Fußgarde Sr. Majestät zu Potsdam. 1815 Oberstleutnant und sehr bald darauf Oberst. Gemahlin: zu Bittkau 10. November 1807 Sophie Charlotte v. Plotho, T. des Edlen Herrn auf Bittkau und der Charlotte v. Itzenplitz a.d.H Grieben.

And the translation:

Ernst Ludwig Wilhelm, son of Georg Wilhelm I (No. 174) and Friederike Luise Eleonore von Alvensleben, born in

Kommende of Werben [the headquarters of the Order of Saint John]. 1799 grenadier captain in the regiment of Kleist in Magdeburg. 1811 major in the regiment foot guard of his majesty in Potsdam. 1815 lieutenant colonel and soon thereafter colonel. Wife: In Bittkau 10 November 1807 Sophie Charlotte von Plotho, daughter of Edler

Lord Bittkau and of Charlotte von Itzenplitz of the house of Grieben. [Medeis correctly conveyed the names of the children.]

Marco polo (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Bittkau, not Bittlau? What were those typesetters thinking? μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can see his ancestry (actually that of his brother Levin, but nonetheless also his) at Leo van de Pas's Genealogics website. - Nunh-huh 06:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the meaning of expektoriert at http://www.littre.org/definition/expectorer

Terme de cour romaine. Rendre publique une nomination qui est in petto ("Term of the Roman court. Make public a nomination that is in petto"). See also In pectore. I am still not sure how this is meant to be understood in this particular case. Maybe he was proclaimed/"disclosed" to be a (prospective) member (in some form or another) of the Kommende on that occasion? Still rather vague... Iblardi (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your help. I have more than enough to write a small article, but one question: Is the information taken from page 155? What seems to be the same source (But scanned by the University of California instead of the Harvard University) is available to me in snippet format ([1]) -- PBS (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is page 155 of the original source I quoted: Das Geschlecht von Bismarck, Georg Schmidt, E. Trewendt [Pub.], 1908, http://books.google.com/books?id=IDoPAAAAYAAJ&dq=von+bismarck+20+juni+1815+oberst&source=gbs_navlinks_s. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again thank you all. The article now exists see Ernst Ludwig Wilhelm von Bismarck. I look forward to seeing it improved and copied over to de:Ernst Ludwig Wilhelm von Bismarck and his name added to de:Bismarck (Adelsgeschlecht) -- PBS (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I cannot access the referenced volume from where I am located, nevertheless the claim in the article that he is an uncle of the famous chancellor is unsubstantiated. He seems to be a rather distant relative, see Bismarck family or the family of his father in relation to the family of the chancellor. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]