Monday 25 September 2023

The Returning Soldier Effect

The first episode of Hanna Fry's new mini-series Uncharted ...

<parenthesis>
(occupying  the 15 minute slot that belongs BY RIGHT to The World at One – hankering for the good old days? moi?)
</parenthesis>

 ... dealt with a strange phenomenon whereby the ratio of male babies to female babies increases during and after a war.

<grandparental-note>
(And incidentally, I am of course delighted with my four grandsons, but – while not meaning to put undue pressure on my children – it is possible to have too much of a good thing).
</grandparental-note>

An article with a strange title (Big and tall soldiers are more likely to survive battle: a possible explanation for the ‘returning soldier effect’ on the secondary sex ratio)  provides more background...

<oh-yeah>
This strikes me as a questionable assertion; at the very least, it surely depends on the sort of warfare. Big and tall soldiers had an advantage at Stamford Bridge, but not in Sniper's Alley. Still, life's too short to explore this strange claim.
</oh-yeah>

... with an extensive overview of the more recent research.

MacMahon and Pugh (1954) were among the first to observe the effect. They demonstrate that the sex ratio among whites in the USA rose during World War II, but not during World War I. Others have since documented the phenomenon repeatedly (Lowe and McKeown, 1951van der Broek, 1997Ellis and Bonin, 2004). In one of the most comprehensive demonstrations, Graffelman and Hoekstra (2000) conclusively show that the secondary sex ratio (sex ratio of live births) increased during and immediately after World Wars in all belligerent nations (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, USA and UK), except for Italy and Spain. In the succinct words of the scientist who has studied sex ratios (of both humans and other animals) more than anybody else, ‘there can be no reasonable doubt that sex ratios (proportions male at birth) have risen during and just after major wars’ (James, 2003, p. 1133).

That 'among the first' does no justice to the seventeenth-century German pastor Johann Peter Sussmilch, who (without reference to twentieth century wars, obvs)   explained everything by reference to Himself:  to repair the loss of young male life in a war, divine providence intervened in the reproductive process to make sure that a majority of boys was born. 

In  Uncharted one of Hanna Fry's main sources is the level-headed David Spiegelhalter, who points out that sex earlier in the mother-to-be's menstrual cycle is more likely to make a male baby, and that – given that if a male baby's already in the works – a female baby isn't going to get a look in. So more sex is going to make more boys. And more sex is going to be on the cards during and after a war. I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but this explanation seems to me more likely than either divine intervention or the size of the father.

<small-print>
The  obvious conclusion (if you want a boy, have more sex) doesn't work though. Professor Fry said that the tendency was so slight that it was impossible to "game the system"...

<tangent>
Interesting word; It seems to me that "game" as a transitive verb (and with the typical object "the system"PS: *
) has only become fashionable in  the last twenty or thirty years. For Further Study (FFS); perhaps it'll make an update – but don't hold your breath.                                         </tangent>

.... That  said, I'm surprised that the obvious research topic "The production of male offspring at the beginning of  a baby-making relationship (when sex is likely to be more frequent)" hasn't been snapped up. Maybe it has. (FFS again).
</small-print>

But this doesn't explain the one big outlier in the data. the biggest spike ever (more than after any war) occurred in 1973. And what about the Falklands War? Was there a spikelet in 1982? Questions, questions.

L'Envoi

Inaction Man has really excelled himself in the last few weeks. Perhaps he's going to put the HS2 question to the party faithful at the conference. You'd think he'd've learnt after his failure against  Liz Truss. Perhaps he's progressing from rolling the pitch on HS2 to polling the rich on how far to row back on his predecessors' green policies.

b

Search for the string game the system

Update 2023.09.29.11:30 – Added footnote    

* My parenthetical surmise was half right. At first I looked in the British National Corpus, and had this unpromising response:

But I couldn't believe I dreamt the usage (or that Professor Fry had been so linguistically innovative), so I looked in the much bigger – and more recently updated – Corpus of Contemporary American English, where the news was much more as I had expected:


Of course, a recent update is necessary to catch a recent language change.

And with a bit of recourse to the Help (as I just searched for game the *) I'm sure I could clarify the (already quite clear) picture of "system"'s supremacy as an object of "game", by wording my search string so as to make "game" a transitive verb; I imagine that in some of the other cases "game" is a noun (in, for example, sentences such as "he wasn't sure he was playing the game the way his teacher would have preferred"). And even if some of those "game the way" do involve a transitive verb, "game the system" is more than twice as common – getting on for three times as common.

Monday 18 September 2023

It ain't necessarily so

In this post I wrote some time ago about my initial attitude to Ira Gershwin's "home in/abdomen" rhyme.

<pre-script>
...[A]nother song we're singing in our forthcoming concert is It ain't necessarily so – which includes the words "He made his home in that fish's abdomen". The underlay forces stress on the second syllable [HD 2023: of  'abdomen'], which – on a first hearing many years ago – I put down to American English. But many dictionaries give both (though always, in my experience, with abdomen having pride of place). I had previously assumed that the British English stress was the one given unequivocally in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary:


No option given there,  whichever side of the Pond you're on.
</pre-script>

In an update, having surmised that speakers with mother tongues other than British English used – when speaking English – the stress-pattern used for the cognate word in their own mother tongue, I added:.

<pre-script>
Come to think  of it, you can bet your life that Moishe and Rose Gershovitz's native language had stress on the -do-, so naturally their son Ira pronounced it that way.
</pre-script>

This week's Pick of the Week (@ 32'36" for about 5 minutes ) reminded me of this. I knew that the words of the song were somewhere on the irreverent/blasphemous spectrum,  but it was news to me that the tune itself was equally (if not more) shocking to a believer – particularly a Jewish  believer. Guy Garvey, on his Radio 6 show, discussed the background of this song, and ended with a Jewish scholar describing the ritual reading of the Torah, using the same melody as that used in the first two lines of Ira Gershwin's song.

<autobiographical-note type="choral">
The words were vaguely familiar to me, from snatches of The Chichester Psalms, set by another immensely talented American Jew: "Baruch", "Adonai", "Elohim"...
</autobiographical-note>

The whole thing (only 5 minutes' worth) is well worth a listen. I particularly enjoyed an  unpublished (unsung?) verse:

Way back in 5,000 BC
Old Adam and Eve had to flee
Sure they did that deed in the Garden of Eden
But why chasterize you and me?

This hasn't made it into the canon. Perhaps the unusual word 'chasterize' is the problem: 'chastize' with a metrical contribution from 'castigate'?

Another thing that ain't necessarily so – the great sensus con

I have nothing to say about the rights and wrongs of the doings of Señores Rubiales and Brand, except to note that they were both very quick to reach for that much-misused word consensual. Think about it: cum + sensus. When an activity is consensual, both parties share a feeling about it. and an understanding of its role in their relationship. It seems to me that when there is a significant difference in power between the parties, consensuality is by definition impossible.
<etymological-fallacy>
But I'm in danger of committing the Etymological Fallacy here – the belief that words can only ever mean what they originally meant (usually in another language). "Consensual" has now become the knee-jerk roué's defence.  I'm not entirely at ease with that – to use the Portuguese, which seems to me particularly appropriate – relaxação
<inline-ps> 
(≅ relaxation [of standards]; it was a word often used by a central character in Eça de Queiroz's novel A Relíquia
</inline-ps>

<etymological-fallacy>
If Señor Rubiales would look at the celebrations at the World Championships in Budapest recently after the success of the Netherlands women's 4x400m team, when the men's team came to congratulate them (about 15  minutes in), he will see how men excitedly but appropriately congratulate women after a sporting success: hint – osculation is not involved.


b

Update 2023.09.21.14:40  – Added <inline-ps />

 


Sunday 17 September 2023

Ron of the Glums

The spineless populist

In the recurring bit of intro, played every time after the pre-intro of Americast, Ron de Santis says he will "fight the woke". And whenever he does I think what a lame shadow of Churchill's "fight on the beaches" speech it is. Mr de Santis has obviously read (or perhaps just heard, in a Public Speaking for Dummies course) Churchill's speech:

...we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

Here is the de Santis version: 

We will fight the woke in education, we will fight the woke in the businesses, we will never ever surrender to the woke mob.

Oh dear. That repeated "ever" does the reverse of what it's designed to do; it doesn't reinforce, it adds banality. This man wouldn't recognize rhetoric if it bit him.

Shame. I had hopes of his sparing us from another helping of Trump, but someone else will have to do that job. He's a washout.

A bugbear (not another?)

<tangent relevance-value="0", reason="Just saying">
There is no n in restaurateur. Far be it from me to suggest that people who use the word must get the French right. If they want to neologize, they're welcome to; if they want to say 'I'm a restauranter" that's a brave choice (although I think most people hearing it would find it rather silly). But if they're using the word that ends -eur then they need to curb their enthusiasm, n-wise. 
<devils-advocacy> 
But ns with no etymological justification do crop up in word families like passage/passenger or message/messenger. The reverse seems to have happened in French with restaurant/ restaurateur, although if you go back to the verb restaurer [≅ feed, give sustenance to], the n is quite predictable (as is its absence): the place where the doing is happening ends -ant ... 
<extra-credit> 
If you go right back to Proto Indo-European, I suspect the n in -ing and the n in -ant are the same. But Etymonline only goes back to Proto-Germanic.
</extra-credit> 

...and the person doing it (Latin -ator... 
<tangent> 
When I wrote this I toyed with the idea of giving an example. There  are so many that  I decided against it. But Philip Hoare, interviewed on this morning's Broadcasting House  provided one. The Romans called killer whales Orca Gladiator (though that would work better for swordfish, as a gladium is a sword [think of the shape of the leaves of the gladiolus].) 
</tangent>
...) has no n. The question in that case is Where did the -at- come from. But given the state of the lawn, that particular item of etymological gristle will have to remain unchewed. 
</devils-advocacy> 

 </tangent>

This has nothing to do with de Santis, apart from the general background of illiteracy. Whoops, is my elitism showing?

And finally

Welcome to the world, grandson no 4, whom I'd name if I hadn't just had a lesson in social engineering (and its usefulness to scammers). Shortly after my birthday last week I received a promising looking email. "Bob", it said, "your friend Louisa has sent you a birthday card. Click here to see it."

Hmm, I thought. Anyone reading this recent post would know it was my birthday around now. Facebook would say exactly when, and would list 'Louisa' as a friend. Mix all that together and you get clickbait.

Rather than click as invited, I sent Louisa a message; and she hadn't sent the 'birthday card', which would presumably have involved a premium rate phone call, a subscription to a service I don't use, or worse.

Shame (and shame on the people who force the rest of us to be less trusting).

b

 

Saturday 9 September 2023

What's in a name?

 In PM last Wednesday Dr Shabnum Tejani ....

<whosThat>
Lecturer in Modern South Asian History at SOAS University of London
</whosThat>

... was talking to Evan Davis about the tendency in Modi's India to rename things – towns, areas, roads etc. etc.  Followers of international cricket will have noticed this perhaps 20 or 30 years ago, when Madras became Chennai, Bombay became Mumbai, Calcutta became Kolkata, Bangalore became Bengaluru and so on. These 'new' names were obviously not new; they were just new to Western ears (particularly Anglophone ears.)

<tangent>
This renaming rights the wrongs of the Raj, some would say. But what happens when a placename was created by the Raj; cases like Abbottabad, named after Major James Abbott in 1853...? For further study.
</tangent>

And Anglophone ears (those of Evan Davis, and most other native speakers of British English) are of particular note.

He started by describing an invitation to a G20 shindig...

<road-not-followed>
Wonder where that word comes from...?
</road-not-followed>

... that referred to India as something that he called /bə'ræt/   – with a schwa in the first syllable ...

<parenthesis>
(or sometimes /æ/,; his vowels varied  but his stress was consistently wrong, accentuating the second syllable)
</parenthesis>
...and the oh-so-English /æ/ in the second. But it's not the vowel sound, that caught my attention when Dr Rejani said the word; it was the initial consonant, an aspirated [bh].

Aspiration is not meaning-bearing ('phonemic') in English; which is not to say that it doesn't happen:
hold a finger to your lips and say 'pin' and 'spin' – phonemically /pɪn/ and /spɪn/. But you will notice a little puff of air after the /p/ but not after /sp/ – phonetically [phɪn] and [spɪn].

<autobiographical-note>
In my teaching days I used to refer – for an example of unaspirated initial p – to the speech of Audrey Hepburn.
<isThatRelevant>
Well yes, actually. Many languages have meaning-bearing aspiration. Acquiring British English as a mother tongue, we learn not to hear it. Learners witn aspiration as meaning-bearing in their mother tongue have to do the same unlearning, laboriously.
</isThatRelevant>

The movie executives who saw her first screen tests would have thought 'The kid has something, that makes her sound sexy'. On the contrary, it's what she didn't have. With her Dutch background, she had unaspirated plosives.
</autobiographical-note>

Evan Davis, who although a native speaker of English, knew that there was something that distinguished his /bə'ræt/ from Dr Tejani's /'bhɑrət/; ...

<brickbat-dodging>
I know almost nothing about Indian (Bharati?) phonology, but I know enough to know that that transcription is, in IPA-speak, very 'broad' (='not exhaustively accurate, but near enough'). In particular, the /t/ is very approximate, as – I suspect – is the /r/.
</brickbat-dodging>

...and he asked her to elucidate. She did, and he concluded 'More p than b [HD – sounds, rather than letter-names]?' She said (politely making a heroic effort to stifle her frustration) it was an aspirated b, and demonstrated. But like the English speakers ...

<speculation>
Tommies in the Great War? [ Another one for further study.]
</speculation>
...who heard blanc and assumed that as the initial consonant was aspirated it must be 'plonk', Mr Davis had no idea what she was talking about. (At least I don't think he did, but the interview ran out of time.)

The Bharat issue caused quite a stir. 

The FT was aghast:

Narendra Modi opened the G20 summit in New Delhi on Saturday sitting behind a sign saying “Bharat”, drawing immediate criticism from the biggest opposition party and adding to speculation that [sic – a hastily transcribed note, I guess] prime minister will propose to officially rename India.  

Some members of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata party have been calling for changing India’s name to Bharat. Both names are spelt out in India’s constitution, which refers to “India, that is Bharat”, but until now the Hindi name Bharat was mostly only used in Hindi-language communications.  

However, expectations of an official name change spread this week after delegates to this weekend’s G20 summit were invited to a dinner on Saturday evening in the name of the “President of Bharat”, Droupadi Murmu. Modi’s BJP has called a special session of parliament starting on September 18, but has not yet announced its agenda for the sitting. 

The Independent was more measured.

India could officially be renamed “Bharat” by the Narendra Modi government, according to recent reports that have been fueled by invites for the G20 summit that asked people to join the “President of Bharat” for dinner.

Various Indian media reports suggest Mr Modi’s ruling Hindu nationalist government is looking to change the country’s name during an upcoming “special session” of parliament, though this has not been confirmed by officials.

A new official document calling Mr Modi the “prime minister of Bharat” added to swirling rumours that the country could get a name change.


Good luck to them. 

b

PS It was a great relief to me, in yesterday's Last Night of the Proms, when the audience sang Jerusalem AND STUCK TO PARRY'S CHORAL LINE. It's a recurring trial, since cricket crowds started singing it, when everyone swoops up the octave as if they were a tenor soloist.

Monday 4 September 2023

Marvellous sweet music

 As a birthday treat...

<autobiographical-note> 
(72nd if you must know, and not quite yet, but the Proms season didn't extend to the actual day) 
</autobiographical-note>

...I was taken to Chineke!'s prom last week. The main work was Beethoven's Fourth Smphony (which, as so often, seemed unfamiliar until they got to the bit that everyone knows), but the most striking piece in the rest of the programme was Haydn's trumpet concerto in E flat, with the young soloist Aaron Azunda Akugbo – an old hand as a Proms peformer, as he was a member of the National Youth Orchestra at the age of 15 and played 3 Proms with them. He had also played in 2 Proms with the Chineke! ortchestra. This was his first Prom, though, as a soloist.

He was amazing, as was the music – though for reasons that I was only dimly aware of...

<autobiographical-note>
I say 'dimly' because bits of the history of music technology have filtered through to me.

<tangent>
The ensemble my son played in when he was a clarinetist once played Handel's Music for the Royal Fireworks, and MrsK said it was a shame there wasn't a clarinet part; but I knew there couldn't have been, unless Handel had a flux capacitor and a de Lorean in his garage.
</tangent>

My superficial knowledge of the development of valves in brass instruments  

dates back to the time when I worked with Barry Tuckwell on his contribution to the Yehudi Menuhin Music Guides....
<out-of-print>
The picture on the right is taken from an Amazon ad for a used copy; the series was not a money-spinner, and I'm surprised that some of them seem to be available new. Not The Horn though.
</out-of-print>

... But I hadn't taken the step from the horn to the trumpet, and realized that when Haydn wrote his concerto in 1796 it must have caused quite a stir.
</autobiographical-note>

An La Phil web-page says:

In the early 18th century, composers wrote fabulous, florid trumpet parts in the extreme high register of the instrument ... 

<HD-addition> 

It was only in the extreme high register that – on a trumpet without valves – notes get close-enough together to make a tune without huge leaps. A stand-in MD I once sang with, who plays trumpet in  Chaconne Brass had written his degree dissertation on the life expectancy of Baroque and Classical brass players. 

<irrelevant-anecdote> 

He recounted a story of the strange looks he got on public transport when he wiled [sic!] away the time practising flutter-tonguing.

<irrelevant-anecdote>  

</HD-addition> 

...(indeed, Bach’s trumpet parts remain a tremendous challenge even on the modern trumpet), but by Haydn’s day this art of “clarino” playing was largely confined to royal courts and monasteries. The orchestral trumpeter of the Classical period cultivated about ten notes — the notes of a major chord at the bottom and half of a major scale at the top. The parts they played were simple, if not dull, consisting of fanfare figures and notes thrown in for added emphasis and volume.

It is remarkable, in retrospect, how little dissatisfaction there was with this state of affairs, not only in the 18th century, but in the 19th, when many composers (Brahms among them) continued to write parts tailored to the natural trumpet long after the natural trumpet had disappeared. It was accepted that the trumpet had only ten notes, just as it was accepted that the timpani had only two, and no one expected either instrument to be melodic, just as no one expected flutes to be loud.

Still, there were attempts to make the trumpet a true chromatic instrument in the later 18th century. Some innovators took a page from the woodwind book and put holes in the instrument to change the pitch, opening and closing them with keys. The best-known advocate of the keyed trumpet was Anton Weidinger, trumpeter of the Imperial Court Orchestra in Vienna, who commissioned Haydn’s Concerto (and a few others, including one by Hummel) in 1796, and played it for the first time in public in 1800, having evidently spent the intervening years refining his keyed-trumpet technique.

Haydn responded to the capability of the instrument like a gleeful child with a new toy. At the outset he indulges in a little teasing, letting the trumpet join the orchestra in the opening tutti for a few notes, all of them playable on the natural trumpet. Only with the first solo entrance does he break new ground, with the trumpet running up the scale from its written middle C, playing notes not possible on the natural trumpet. From then on the trumpet sings, slides around chromatically, skips and jumps, and every now and then plays a fanfare figure, as if Haydn wants to remind us that this new-fangled thing really is a trumpet.

A programme note  quotes H. C. Robbins (prolific author on all kinds of music):

We must remind our readers once again of the astonishment with which musicians in 1796 heard a trumpet playing in A flat major [ed: sic, although the concerto is in E flat. A flat has one more flat than E flat, so perhaps Haydn was making a point: 'All that, and this!'] and in diatonic notes; the effect must have been so incredible as to suggest some kind of Satanic prestidigitation.

<wince>
Well I didn't write it. You can see his point though.
</wince>
And it wasn't just musicians who would have noticed. They would have been able to articulate the reasons for the strangeness of the sounds, but anyone at the time used to hearing orchestral trumpet playing would have known there was something going on.

But the seed-bed needs attention. I've more to say, but that must wait.


b

Update: 2023.09.05.12:25 – A few typo fixes ("wile" wasn't a typo though ...         

<apologia>
Elsewhere (more than once, but it was a while ago so new readers won't have seen it) I wrote:

That's 'wile', as in 'beguile', cp other pairs like ward/guard, warranty/guarantee and so on. There's a strong move towards 'while away', and most people prefer the spelling (which has the mnemonic advantage of referring to time). Far be it from me to say it's wrong; it's not. I'm just saying that when I omit 'the' h I mean to.
And it was in red, which shows how important I thought it at the time.
</apologia>

...) and a closing quote about the history of that concerto. 

That same LA Phil page goes on:

For a number of reasons, the keyed trumpet never became an orchestral instrument, though a similar instrument was, for a short time, a mainstay of military bands.... Instruments with valves were invented a few years after Haydn’s death in 1809, but did not start to make headway into orchestras for nearly a generation, by which time they had already replaced key-bugles in bands. Valve trumpets did not become standard in orchestras until about 1840. Thus there was a gap of decades between the composition of Haydn’s Concerto and a time when someone other than Weidinger could play it...

<inline-ps>
Hang on; if Weidinger was the only one who could play it, and if his first public perfomance was in 1800, then Robbins's dates are a bit out; it wasn't heard in 1796 (except by fellow performers, which saves Robbins's blushes  – I wish I handn't started this; carry on please)
</inline-ps>

... and in that interval the whole idea of a trumpet concerto, so common in the Baroque era, was now beyond the pale. The Haydn Concerto lay forgotten until the 20th century, gaining a place in the concert repertory only in the 1930s.


 Update: 2023.09.07.15:15 – Added <inline-ps />


Update: 2023.09.07.16:05 – Added PPS

PPS

When I started going to concerts in the late 1960s I was reminded of my music teacher's...

<autobiographical-note>
In the days when teachers were allowed to write what they thought in school reports – rather than cutting and pasting from a bank of politically-correct platitudes – he wrote of me 
C+ Has ability but is disinclined to use it musically
Perhaps I was just disinclined to use it while Mr Byrne was around.
</autobiographical-note>


... stern warnings not to clap between movements.

This is a feature of concert-going etiquette that seems to have developed during the twentieth century (Bach and Mozart and Beethoven's audiences had no such reticence; they clapped (and chatted) when they pleased.) Jazz audiences today even doing it during performances, after a solo.

But in the '60s the etiquette was mostly observed; this necessitated a certain amount of preparation before a concert: were there three or four movements? And people who had not done this prep could be looked down on.

<shortcuts-for-the-unprepared>

  1. at the end of a movement, listen; if only a few people are clapping, then don't
  2. watch the conductor: if they turn to face the audience, clap away
</shortcuts-for-the-unprepared>

Transgressions have been steadily increasing over the past 60-70 years though. I can remember when there was only a handful of rogue clappers, but at last Friday's concert my usual ready reckoner for those who had skimped on their prep (see 1, above)  didn't work: an estimated half of the audience were claporrheic. Maybe it's a generational thing: Baby Boomers remember what their music teachers told them; but as the Grim Reaper does his stuff we are steadily outnumbered. And by the turn of the century – if live music has survived  that long – clapping at every opportunity may be the way.