|
Grand Fromage posted:Sounds like it's just nonspecific then. Yep, I also want to say the usage "corn" for non-maize grains persisted at least into the 18th or 19th century outside the Americas too. It's been a long time but iirc this was the case during the Irish potato famine or one of the other famines that was caused by English commodity fuckery.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Yep, I also want to say the usage "corn" for non-maize grains persisted at least into the 18th or 19th century outside the Americas too. It's been a long time but iirc this was the case during the Irish potato famine or one of the other famines that was caused by English commodity fuckery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Yeah, in older writings you have to train yourself to read corn as meaning grain. For instance, the Corn Laws of nineteenth century Britain had nothing to do with maize.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
"Corn" didn't become exclusively maize in US usage until the 20th century - many regions of the country would still use it to refer to all common grains up til then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Corned beef is beef salted with corns of salt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
homullus posted:Corned beef is beef salted with corns of salt. and it's the best
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
homullus posted:Corned beef is beef salted with corns of salt. Huh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Old black powder for cannons was graded on how fine the "corns" were too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Most other Germanic languages also use a variant of "korn" to mean cereals so it's understandable that a German would use that word. It's essentially a false friend at this point if you're dealing with American English.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:pretty sure i've heard the english say that now? Yeah, corn for wheat is still a thing. Like, cornfields for eg. You crazy Americans  Edit: Um this also applies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland btw. Please dont make me talk about crazy Yankees in retaliation or something. :p feedmegin fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Peppercorns too!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Grevling posted:Most other Germanic languages also use a variant of "korn" to mean cereals so it's understandable that a German would use that word. kernel
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
For the actual historians here- I've been studying in a lab tech program in Canada for the past two years and was totally not fulfilled, so now I'm kinda back in the US and finishing up for a history degree and want to continue with it, because I love it. But this was my initial hesitation to do a history degree, what the gently caress are you guys doing with it? Do you have any advice on how to actually survive and make money? Canadian lab techs get recruited but I doubt any high-paying jobs will come my way no matter how many semesters of greek I take.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
You say 'one korn of hop, salt, maize etc.' when referring to the individual kernel in Danish as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:kernel Der digitale Grimm posted:Kern und korn sind aus éinem stamm, durch ablaut i : u unterschieden, zu dem auch a träte, wenn es in der nebenform karne echt ist. der reine vocal bei kern war i, wie das mhd. adj. kirnîn, verbum kirnen, erkirnen enucleare, ahd. kirnjan zeigen, s. unter DWB kernen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:For the actual historians here- The history job market is mega hosed and you're a chump if you pursue a higher degree in history. I say this as a history PhD who can only pay the rent because his wife has a real job. Edit: seriously every semester we have the conversation about whether it would be a better use of my time to just get a retail job. My poo poo employment is also the reason we haven't done a bunch of other life milestones type poo poo we had wanted to do. DO NOT GET AN ADVANCED DEGREE IN HISTORY. I can not be emphatic enough you are literally throwing your life away. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Sep 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:For the actual historians here- Go back to the lab tech program and make history your hobby. You'll be happier and also able to purchase food. E: You may not feel it's fulfilling but there is nothing less fulfilling than getting your paycheck, parceling out student loans/rent/utilities/etc and staring at the remaining $400 and trying to decide what food you can buy which will also leave enough to go out and have fun with your friends once, perhaps twice, that month, looking at your perpetually empty bank account which means you can't afford to quit your job and go somewhere else and thinking that yep, this is your life forever. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Sep 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Keep in mind your best case scenario for finding a job with a history degree is convincing someone of the value of the research/information analysis/reporting angle of it and getting a job that has nothing at all to do with history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:For the actual historians here- I'm in local government leaving electronic records and ordinances for historians to ponder over a thousand years from now. The pay is good. Edit*. Had to go back to grad school for an MPA and was a ski bum for seven years so yeah. Don't major in History unless you can go to law school or grad school in a different field.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Also don't go to law school unless you want to be even more in debt when you have no job. Law school is the final trap door for the history major.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Also don't go to law school unless you want to be even more in debt when you have no job. Law school is the final trap door for the history major. Can confirm there are too many lawyers from too many bad schools.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
I had that epiphany in the second semester of my junior year/first semester senior year, so after a good bunch of upper division stuff but not yet working on a thesis or anything. Took a break from school, got a token business degree while building a resume in financial investigation, now I have a big boy job in a proper bank and enough money and spare time to read all the scholarly works I can handle, with the job scratching the research/narrative construction itch real good. On some level I resent not finishing a 'legitimate' degree because of how piss-easy this bachelor's in business was. On the other hand, I really like what I do and not just as a replacement for historical scholarship. But the business degree is a real bitter chip on my shoulder even if I'm happy with my career and all the bills are on auto pay and anything under $100 is "impulse buy" territory. If contributing meaningfully to a better understanding of ourselves is what you want to pursue in life, stick with the history degree and keep working at it. Dr. FAUXTON has a PhD in pharmacology and experimental neuroscience. In about 10 years she's published a good two dozen or so papers, most of which are on work towards protecting the brain from HIV and developing drugs that can actually reach the tissue of the brain to knock out one of the last existing viral reservoirs in the human body. Until recently she made roughly half of what I do, for work that literally will help save the world one day. I mean, my work has meaning too - I used to chase down child pornographers - but it isn't doing poo poo about curing a hellish virus and the only new thing I learned about humanity is that we possess the capacity to do crushingly evil acts to the most vulnerable members of our society, that I'm never going to have children and that I sometimes need to drink myself to sleep when I can't stop certain memories from flailing around in my head. If you spend a decade compiling source material and noting the consistencies and debating the various interpretations preceding you, and at the end of it you produce evidence of a past cultural phenomenon or some massive world-changing event though which people find they share a story with others and discover a new context for their own lives then that's a hell of a lot more meaningful than my spreadsheets, even if they pay the bills with lots of room to spare. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Sep 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/major-underwater-roman-ruins-discovered-tunisia-170831185305715.html Divers found a Garum factory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:For the actual historians here- I have a masters degree in history (nobody stops after a BA in the Netherlands, so a masters is the normal end point) and i work in IT. Looking at people i had class with who didn't went on to do a PhD (which are all fully funded, but almost impossible to get into), nobody is doing anything remotely related to history. Most are in poo poo jobs like call centers or work for a bank in some administrative job. A few retrained into becoming programmers. The few that ended up with a PhD either dropped out of academia soon after, or are stuck in postdoc hell where they have to move every year for 1-year contracts at different universities around the country, waiting for some professor to retire to get a shot at a tenure-track position. Like Grand Fromage said, history is a hobby, not a career.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
i love it when someone comes into this thread asking if they should get a history degree and all the regulars go all bronze-age-collapse
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
When does the Iron age end and the early medieval period begin?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:When does the Iron age end and the early medieval period begin? Um, well, usually there's 'the ancient world' inbetween. We don't count the Romans as Iron Age for example. As for when ancient turns to mediaeval that's fuzzy (like all these periods) and depends on a) who you ask and b) where you're asking about. The end of the ancient period in Britain would generally be counted as when the Romans pulled out for example, while by the time Saxon England is a thing it's mediaeval. Edit: I have a history degree! It has been zero use to me professionally (except getting hired at the one very snooty consulting place, and what they cared about there was seeing 'Oxford' rather than 'History'), other than giving me 3 years of relative peace and quiet in which to teach myself to program, which is what I've been doing for a living for the last twenty years. Graduating into the middle of the 90s dotcom boom kinda helped, there. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Sep 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
The more you learn the more you realize every "era" ends in a long squishy transition period that resembles both what came before and what came after very closely. That's not to say eras are completely worthless concepts; someone (or, at least, a non-peasant) living in 600 AD France would have a very different experience than someone in 400 AD Gaul to a greater extent than comparing 600 to 800 (400 to 200 is a bit more ambiguous because our hypothetical frenchman would be a pagan in 200 and a christian in 400 and it's basically impossible to quantify whether than would change their life more or less than being a Roman). To the extent that some people like assigning precise years to era boundaries 476 is a popular one for the end of antiquity because it's when the last western roman emperor was deposed. But, to add to the narrative of it being a messy transition, the German king who conquered Italy didn't officially declare himself king of Italy--he sent a letter to the eastern emperor saying "hey I know in the past it made sense to have two emperors but these days one is probably enough. To that effect, I volunteer to be your governor in Italy." Everybody knew what was really going on, but people all over the west kept considering themselves Romans for varying periods of time. Venice considered herself a vassal of the Roman empire right up until they sacked the Roman capital of Constantinople in 1204. Part of the pope's motivation in crowning Charlemagne roman emperor in 800 was that obviously he had to be subject to the roman empire but he really didn't like the one that actually existed, so he invented a new one. I believe the origin of modern Romania's name is that the people living there basically never stopped calling themselves Romans until linguistic drift turned the name into Romanians. e: proud holder of a STEM degree who alternately reads pop history books and semi-scholarly books during bus commutes. I'm glad enough people sacrificed themselves to keep the book writing flowing. cheetah7071 fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Sep 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
Most admin/finance people in the UK get jobs based on their initially limited work experience or, if lucky, by being accepted as one of the yuppie lads by a graduate recruiter. Degree subject is almost an afterthought. Connections help ofc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I believe the origin of modern Romania's name is that the people living there basically never stopped calling themselves Romans until linguistic drift turned the name into Romanians. It's more direct than that, Romania was one of the names used by the Roman Empire for itself. It's the most common one in eastern documents by the 700s or so. The country itself didn't exist until more recent times but you are correct that the locals have been calling themselves Romans since antiquity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
I thought it went Stone- Bronze/Antique- Classical - Iron - Medieval. Have I been getting it in the wrong order?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I thought it went Yep. Paleolithic Neolithic Bronze Iron ---Hellenistic (if in eastern Mediterranean through Afghanistan) Classical/Antiquity Late Antique/Early Medieval/Dark Ages (rarely used anymore in scholarship) Medieval High Middle Ages Early Modern/I'm not sure if Renaissance is even used anymore in academia? Modern (keep in mind in historical ages modern is like 1500s) Bunch of neologisms for current times. I think Information Age may survive, I believe computers/internet mark a significant break from what has come before. All of these can be broken up further by region and are Europe/North Africa/Middle East-centric. There are also other systems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
All knowledge is worth pursuing. Not all knowledge has a great ROI. Figure out where your priorities are and do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yep. Tossed in yet another one to help illustrate how many of these there are
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
yeah its worth emphasizing that I varies a lot by region, even outside of obvious things like the Renaissance being a European phenomenon (although you do hear about e.g. early modern Asia)- lots of regions skipped over the bronze age entirely for instance, since they got iron at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
The most recent two eras are modern age and modern age collapse hth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The most recent two eras are modern age and modern age collapse hth. Personally it makes me feel better if I think of it as transition and continuity rather than decline and fall
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Bunch of neologisms for current times. I think Information Age may survive, I believe computers/internet mark a significant break from what has come before. This just made me realize that in 200 years, if you're right there will be(hopefully) historians arguing about when the information age started, and some people saying directly after WW2, some people putting it In the 1970s with early Internet, 90s with growth if home computing, 2007 with the first smartphones. 20XX with (future tech here) etc Really wierd to think about how future historians will think of now. Historians. Historians never change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:This just made me realize that in 200 years, if you're right there will be(hopefully) historians arguing about when the information age started, and some people saying directly after WW2, some people putting it In the 1970s with early Internet, 90s with growth if home computing, 2007 with the first smartphones. 20XX with (future tech here) etc There will also be douchebags like me arguing it starts in 1837.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
The American Civil War heavily involved military communication via electric telegraph line, so you'd at least need to start a "telecommunication age" before that point. Plus you have the first temporarily working transatlantic telegraph line laid in 1858 though it broke after a few months, ad then in 1866 you had a transatlantic cable that finally lasted long enough to ensure continuous service. By 1867, you could tap your telegraph key in San Francisco and within a few minutes have your message arrive to Sri Lanka or deep into Africa. And by 1872, all continents and most major island nations were connected for near-instant communication. And you have the 1900s/1910s especially World War I for radio communication being extremely important, even though practical voice communication over it didn't exist yet and certainly you didn't have nationwide voice networks with radios any average person could afford. I mean like, we don't determine when a place entered the "bronze age" by when bronze tools and weapons were so widely available that every average peasant could have one (which was often never!). We determine usually by when the rich and powerful start having to seriously factor it into their decisions as something they could use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 16:25
|
|