November 11

What is "a rose in a fisted glove" in reference to? We have lyrics to Love the One You're With which include "Well there's a rose in a fisted glove, And the eagle flies with the dove, And if you can't be with the one you love, honey, Love the one you're with". Here is a complete list of lyrics. Does "rose" signify something? Does "fisted glove" signify something? Almost definitely it is not the literal meaning but rather the interpretation that is of significance here. Another possibility is that this is just meaningless gibberish that sounds like it it would mean something but upon further analysis defies sensibility. The term "rose", to me, signifies a thing of beauty, albeit a thing notable for its thorns. A "fisted glove" is a reference that implies the presence of a hand without actually mentioning a hand; gloves do not generally form fists without hands within them. Much more can be said about "roses" and "fisted gloves" but I'm hoping the context of the song can provide most-likely interpretations. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The line about the eagle and the dove reminds me of the thing about the lamb lying down with the lion. So maybe contrasting the threat of a fisted glove with the gentleness of a rose (the petals, anyway). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly eagle and dove signify dissimilarity as does lion and lamb. The symbolism seems clear in this literary reference; it is a reference to the two genders: male and female. Is a fisted glove always symbolic of a "threat"? A fist is also a formation of the hand which grasps. The meanings associated with a glove dovetail with the implied characteristics of a rose insofar as a rose has thorns and a glove would protect against thorns. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I think you're onto it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That song was written in 1970, when the Black power movement was at it's zenith, and a raised, gloved fist (as is shown in the 1968 Olympics: [1]) was the symbol for this. So, this makes me think it's about violent resistance to racism, contrasted with the rose, symbolizing peaceful resistance (an olive branch would have worked better metaphorically, but not fit as well in the song). Note that Martin Luther King, Jr., the chief advocate of peaceful resistance to racism in the US, had been assassinated just two years prior. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fisted glove reminds me of the boxing glove in general - being a symbol for violence, and it is contrasted with the rose - being a symbol for peace; Just as the eagle - being a violent raptor, is contrasted with the dove - being a symbol for peace. Anyways, I think the OP's question has been resolved. HOOTmag (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "rose"? What is a "fisted glove"? The song is about affection based on proximity, is it not? We can assign the value "woman" to the word "rose". But what value can we assign to the words "fisted glove" in the context of the song? "Fisted glove"? What does that mean? I'm not faulting the poetry. I'm pointing out that it doesn't make logical sense. Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some pop music does not stand close scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few years back I cooked up this image of a "peace nazi". Maybe a similar idea to the "rose in glove" - or the eagle and the dove. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be a visual counterpart to wording that might be indecipherable. But even as a visual entity, I would observe that it stands alone. It is not a part of a visual presentation in which it plays a partial role. "Fisted glove" presumably somehow relates to the rest of the words in the song and to its overall understood theme, which I think is loving that female entity that is proximal under the circumstances that the primary love object is distal. Bus stop (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thing the "fisted glove" is possibly a adaptation of the well-known phrase "an iron fist in a velvet glove", meaning something harsh and unfeeling disguised as something gentle. As befitting a song which is a misleadingly romantic-sounding plea to eschew sentimentality and fidelity and take your pleasure where you can. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at the entire lyrics which the OP posted Here, the theme is that the man's sweetheart is not present, and the advice given by the singer is to love another girl who is present, as an alternative. I think the 'rose in the fisted glove' represents the sweetheart who is unable to be present as though she were being held against her will, trapped in the fisted glove. There is no hand in the glove, which means it's not a threatening situation for her. The 'eagle flies with the dove' is an encouragement to the man (eagle) to consort with the girl (dove), and because it's worded as a fait accompli, also conveys approval. Akld guy (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I misunderstood the lyrics until recently, thinking I was hearing "there's a road, and a distant love, and the eagle flies with the dove". Bus stop (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I had always assumed that Mr Stills had made a poetic contraction of the well-known phrase "iron fist in a velvet glove". The origin of that phrase is not entirely clear, however, with some attributing it to Napoleon. But it seems that Boney may have been just adopting a much older Latin phrase. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Prosody (music) and rhyme. Songwriters often choose words because they "fit" the intended meter and rhyme of the song, rather than because they mean anything. For our purposes "fisted glove" fits the songs rhythm pattern, and "glove" rhymes with "dove" and "love" in the next two lines. It doesn't have to have any more meaning that "it rhymes and it fits the meter" --Jayron32 14:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, that's against the rules?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you're driving on the wrong side of the street. --Jayron32 16:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And just what are you insinuating, dear? How very Fred Astaire you! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

[question moved here from Humanities desk 20:09, 11 November 2015]

The following is a question I initially asked at the Humanities desk:

Is the usage of 'white' and 'black' for skin colour more recent than writing i.e. can it be dated? Munci (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Αἰθίοψ ("burnt face") as a Greek term for dark-skinned Africans predates Herodotus, so was in circulation as a term as far back as recorded history goes. ‑ iridescent 21:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while the etymology is a bit disputed, it has been proposed that the Greek word μαύρος (mauros) meaning "black" is the root of the name for the Mauri people, from whence Mauretania, Mauritania, Moors, Morroco, etc. Strabo apparently used the term, which dates back to 1st century AD. --Jayron32 21:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the OP to continue their research, I did find this paper from Howard University titled "Blacks in the Ancient Greek and Roman World". Maybe something there. --Jayron32 21:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herodotus does not nearly represent earliest written records, which is what the OP is inquiring about. In order to determine if such a usage predates all written language, one would have to make an argument based upon co-utility in comparative reconstructions, and I know of no such research or claims, nor have my searches yet turned any up (though honestly, it would not altogether surprise me if some scholar had tried to make the argument). I'd strongly recommend, however, that this inquiry be moved to the linguistics desk (or repeated there if it runs its course here without turning up substantial sourcing) as this seems the ideal space to attract the attention of more of the variety of editor whose skills will be most germane in answering this question. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Ancient Egyptian race controversy is relevant, as some scholars have claimed that ancient Egyptians referred to themselves as "black" people. This does not appear to be a widely accepted claim though. - Lindert (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interesting responses thus far. If it gets archived without a clear answer, I'll copy it into the language desk, as Snow Rise suggested. Munci (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit words for black and white, Krishnaa and Gauri, respectively, are used as epithets for Draupadi and Parvati in specific reference to the colour of their skin. Dating the references is harder but the names could be as old as the Greek examples already given. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, verbal distinction of many different shades of color is very much a modern thing. My guess is that "white" and "black" skin were first so called before writing. —Tamfang (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is likely. I does seem to be what is evidenced on WALS. So the terms I use (and used as child) such as 'peach' and 'pink' are too specific. Munci (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Help:IPA for Italian, the following claim is made:

The nasals always assimilate their place of articulation to that of the following consonant. Thus, the n in /nɡ/~/nk/ is a velar [ŋ], and the one in /nf/~/nv/ is a labiodental [ɱ] (though for simplicity /m/ takes its place in this list). A nasal before /p/ and /b/ is always the labial [m].

This is being put into practice with pronunciation guides like [mamˈfreːdi] for Nino Manfredi.

I am not a native speaker, but I find these kind of distracting and misleading. It may be true that Manfredi is pronounced [maɱˈfreːdi] at least in fast speech (note the hook on the second m), but I don't think it's literally [mamˈfreːdi] ever, and I think a foreigner who says [manˈfreːdi] will sound "less wrong" than one who says [mamˈfreːdi]. I also kind of suspect that the "reference form" is [manˈfreːdi].

I would be interested to hear what people here have to say. If you are interested in contributing to the practical discussion rather than (or in addition to) enlightening me, please hop on over to Help talk:IPA for Italian#Assimilated_.5Bm.5D and say your piece. --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't unhat the above, but I think the relevant point is well illustrated in Spanish, in words like infeliz or anfora ("amphora") the /m/ is realized as [ɱ] (like an en pronounced with the upper teeth and lower lip in the eff position) and to clearly pronounce an [m] here would sound odd. There don't seem to be any words where the VnB and VmB (vowel-en-labial and vowel-em-labial) sequences show up as contrasting minimal pairs in either language. The lack of contrast doesn't mean that [mamˈfreːdi] is at all acceptable as a guide, since it is simply inaccurate, if not misleading. Are there any actual native -VmC- (vowel-em-consonant) sequences in standrad Italian?

A transcription between [square brackets] is supposed to be narrow, and show the proper allophones, not to simplify. It would be as bad as suggesting, for example, that the Japanese fugu is phonetically fugu for the convenience of English speakers simply because f and ɸ and u and ɯ don't clash phonemically in Japanese. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are certainly VmC sequences, when the C is either b or p. But I don't believe there are any where it's f or v, which are the cases at issue. --Trovatore (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I called up a friend, a native Italian speaker who has taught Italian diction to opera singers, and asked her pronuncia, lentamente e con cura, la stagione dopo autunno. To my ear, she quite distinctly said [in'verno] (or I suppose it could have been [in'vɛrno]; I wasn't listening for that detail). I did not hear [iɱ'verno], though now I'm not quite sure what the [ɱ] means; where is the tongue when pronouncing that sound? She absolutely did not say [im'verno]. --Trovatore (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tongue position is relevant for the proceeding vowel, but not for this consonant, as it is for n and ŋ. The difference between m and ɱ is that m is made with both lips together as for p and b, while ɱ is made with the upper teeth, not the upper lip, touching the lower lip, as in f and v. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore: can you give an actual native Italian example of a word with Vmv- or Vmf-? Inverno is not one. Also, I would not be surprised if you had trouble recognizing ɱ, which is an allophone of /n/ in English. It's like the h in huge and human. Those English speakers who don't drop the sound don't pronounce it as [h] either, but rather as [ç] like in German Ich. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of one, no.

An allophone of /n/ in English? The labiodental nasal page says that ɱ is the em in "symphony", which is certainly not phonemically an /n/, unless I'm missing something? --Trovatore (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make sense of it with my ears or mouth, but the article also says "...it is a typical allophone of /m/ and /n/ before the labiodental fricatives [f] and [v], as in English comfort, circumvent, infinitive, or invent." SemanticMantis (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I definitely use a different first nasal in "infinitive" than I do in "circumvent". Which of course doesn't refute the claim, because that's how *I* pronounce it; there might be others who do use the [ɱ], whatever it is exactly, in free variation.

But it does make it awfully difficult to figure out exactly what sound [ɱ] is supposed to be. --Trovatore (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, [ɱ̩] is a normal allophone of /n/ before [f] or [v] in relaxed spoken English. You will hear it in convert, as opposed to comfort on one hand and contort on the other. If, however, one is speaking intentionally clearly and slowly (see citation form) the /n/ in convert will be pronounced [n]. (I am leaving aside the fact that English /n/ is alveo-dental, rather than strictly dental. You can ignore this caveat, as it is not relevant to the point being made.) A good example would be the difference between "the players got information" and "the players got in formation". In the first case [ɱ̩] is typical, in the second case the use of [n] would be expected. Note that [ɱ̩] is not a normal allophone of /m/ in English. Words like comfortable and empty (form Anglo-Saxon ǣmtig) have a plain [m], and a p sound has emerged between the two. Were we to assimilate the /m/ in empty to the following /t/, the pronunciation */ɛɱti/ (British RP /ɛɱtɪ/) would sound almost like "enfty".

This video on the nasals isn't the best=produced, and the speaker hems and haws, but he does clearly make a distinction first between [m] and [ɱ], as well as all the mouth-internal nasal articulations, as well as between [ɱ] and [m] when he reverses course. He hums the sounds, rather than saying them between vowels. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's possible that this is all about citation forms versus transcriptions of fast speech. That's a hypothesis I had considered, but there are so many other issues floating around that I never got around to really carefully interrogating the other parties about that point.

You can take it for granted that everything I'm saying in this discussion, unless otherwise noted, is about citation forms. I believe it is conventional to give citation forms as pronunciation guides (I think the contrary policy would be seriously ill-advised, especially when addressing non-native speakers, as we do in articles that give Italian pronunciations).

So is it possible that the Italian transcriptions using [m] before [f] or [v], as an approximation of [ɱ], are actually about "relaxed speech" as you call it? --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC) (And, following up on the idea and making it explicit, that the citation forms would use [n]?) --Trovatore (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, this is complicated, isn't it. It would be so much easier if we could hear one another. Actually, the citation form in Italian would be man with a slight pause, then fredi, just as we would do when we clearly enunciated the players got in formation when we wanted to clarify to someone who had misunderstood and wrongly thought that we had said the players got information.

I have found a source that says that nasal clusters in Italian are always homorganic, that is, the nasal always assimilates to the following consonant, but this is reflected in spelling only with mp and mb. Hence, inferno and incauto become [iɱ̩ferno] and [iŋkauto]. ([Imbverno] does exist for "winter" in the non-standard dialects of the south, but note the appearance of the intervening -b-) See The Romance Languages, Harris and Vincent eds., Oxford, 1988, pp 281-282.

Just as in Spanish, according to my experience and communication today with a native informant) Vmf- (and Vmv-) simply don't exist. Hence I think the note on the IPA page is imprudent and does not reflect reality or scholarly usage, and that the transcription mamfredi for English speakers is particularly pernicious, because the consonants of "manfredi" would normally be pronounced [maɱfredi] in English according to the rules of English phonology.

I'll repeat that I don't speak Italian, and have not studied it formally, so my pronunciations are based on a few references and very limited experience. I hate to posit a universal negative, but it seems obvious in this case. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can hear each other, to some extent, albeit with a bit of effort. As it happens, I made sound files this morning, to indicate how I would attempt to render the transcriptions of inverno and Manfredi according to the two proposed rules, with [m] and [n]. (I am not extremely enthusiastic about explicitly using [ɱ̩], because it looks too much like m and I don't think many people know what it means, and if they did, it would still confuse them as to the citation form, which is the one we ought to be giving them IMO.)

Anyway, here they are: File:Inverno and Manfredi rendered with m.wav for the current convention, and File:Inverno manfredi rendered with n.wav for the one I'd prefer.

(Disclaimer: My accent is quite strong; please no one use these as an aid to learning Italian pronunciation per se.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Trovatore. I would say that the file you uploaded under /n/ sounds close to ɱ̩ while the one labelled m sounds too labial. The problem for me is that I am not a phonetician, and I haven't studied any language where the difference between ɱ̩ and m is a phonemic one. μηδείς (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]