Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 8

Two Toyota RAV4 - what's the difference?

I saw these two Toyota RAV4s and took a picture. I noticed they look different. As far as I can tell from the Wikipedia article, they're second generation RAV4. The red one looks very much like File:01-03 Toyota RAV4 .jpg. The bumper on the blue one is obviously different and the grilles are somewhat different. Does anyone know what the difference is. Were there different versions of the RAV4? Any info is appreciated. The picture was taken in Sweden if that helps any. Entheta (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Parkers Guide (parkers.co.uk) and the Wikipedia article there is a version from 1996-2000, a revamp from 2001-2005 and finally a third-generation in 2006-date. These look like the 2006-date model so the Rav4 article on parkers you need is... parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/toyota/rav4-2006.aspx?page=7 (this section is the facts/figures). As you can see the XT3 doesn't have front-fogs, but the XT4 does - perhaps that is the difference? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for manufacturers to tie different trim levels to different minor variants of the vehicle. Perhaps one of them has some kind of special "off road" package or a "bad weather" package. Take a look at these two MINI Cooper's that belong to my wife and I: [1] They were bought on the exact same day at the same dealership - they are the same model year and they rolled off the production line with just a couple of digits different in the VIN numbers of each other - yet there are dozens of differences in the trim. The choice of roof and bonnet stripe colors has nothing to do with it - they could both have been identical in that regard - but notice in particular that the one on the left has a black hexagonal pattern radiator grill and the one on the right has chrome bars instead. The only 'material' difference between their option packs is that the car on the left has a turbocharger and the one on the right does not (well, actually there are more differences than that - but the differences I describe relate only to whether you buy the turbo or not). The company clearly imagine that the people who want that extra "va-voom" also prefer the 'sporty' look of black hexagons rather than chrome bars...yet the trim around the side-lights just in front of the doors is chrome on the 'sporty' model and black on the normal one...just the opposite of the radiator grill?!? The bumper is also subtly different - look at the two foglamp housings - the sporty model has soft curves leading into the light - the normal model has a hard cylindrical housing. The turbo model has a hood scoop - the regular version does not...yet the hood scoop is completely blocked off inside - it doesn't channel air into the engine or anything - it's purely decorative! If you look carefully, you'll see that the whole shape of the front of the car is more agressive in the turbo version...yet there is plenty of space under the hood of the 'normal' car to fit the turbo inside if they wanted to. I have no clue how they came to those design distinctions - and it can't be cheap to engineer their production line to make all of those subtle changes for what is basically a pretty simple engine difference. I can only conclude that they want to make sure that customers who spent the extra to have the faster car don't get confused with the cheapskates who bought the normal version. (Although - as it happens, the car on the right cost exactly the same as the one on the left because it has a bunch of other options such as a sunroof, fancier climate controls and 'barn doors' instead of a tailgate).

So in the case of your RAV4's, it could be any of a bunch of option pack differences that caused the bumper design switch...I suspect that it goes along with the foglamps - but that's just a guess. SteveBaker (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the obvious difference that one is red and the other is blue, the red one looks to be slightly older than the blue. The lights mounted in the bumper changed from the large square-ish clusters to the small round fogs around 2005 and looking at the number plates, the red one has an older style Swedish plate compared to the blue one's new style plate with the EU flag and "S" (I looked at the older version of the image). Astronaut (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Posh and Wealth

Nowadays, since consumer products are widely available, I get the impression that being posh and being wealthy are disassociated. Sometimes posh people are just office workers and wealthy people dress like anybody else. Is this just my impression or is it like that? Is it possible to recognize social class by the way we dress?--Quest09 (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Class system is not, of itself, wealth based (not in the UK anyway). For instance the Upper Class are normally wealthy but that's not what makes them Upper class. I would look at the associated links, it's an interesting read. I would agree that you cannot recognise a social-class by their clothes as easily as you perhaps could in the past. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend reading the books 'Class', by Paul Fussell, and 'The Preppy Handbook'. The outward trappings of wealth are actually considered vulgar by aristos. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Posh Spice, despite her name, could only ever be wealthy, but never really posh. The Marquess of Blandford, by contrast, could lose every penny he owns and take up residence in a squat, eating nothing but leftovers out of public bins, but would remain posh to the end, no matter how he dressed. This is not a new thing, it's just that opportunities for financial advancement have never been so plentiful, especially since the advent of the National Lottery in the UK means you don't need an iota of talent to become fantastically wealthy overnight. See nouveau riche for another take on this. --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nouveau riche might help shed some light. The issue isn't that new and at least dates back to the first Middle class people. Some descriptions of old Egyptian tombs make me think it goes back even farther. Bourgeoisie has changed meaning through the years, but has it's origins in the same sentiments. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Posh and wealth are not defined in the above discussion. But whatever the distinctions might be they are only applicable to those who subscribe to the distinctions. It has probably always been the case that classlessness is reserved for those who see themselves as outside of any such systems. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether you belief that you fit into a class-type or that you are classless is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether social-classes exist within your culture and society. In the UK the class-system still exists because it's still in the popular consensus. I admit every person that moves beyond it is another nail in the coffin of class, but ultimately this type of social-grouping is going to be difficult to remove entirely (what is less difficult to remove is the barriers that being in a certain class bring to your ability to be what you want to be - I feel the UK has made some progress on this front). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it is said to exist. Reliable sources say that it exists. But it still remains the case that it does not exist for those who remain outside of it. Class involves consciousness. And I must repeat: terms are not being defined. Such classes in the modern world, such as the UK, can probably not be defined. They are assumed to exist, by those who subscribe to them, and they subscribe to them in their consciousness -- perhaps nowhere else. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh Bus stop, if you were born in the UK and live in the UK you are still within the class system. You can deny that it applies to you, you can act as if it doesn't matter, but other people will still be affected by it when interacting with you. And you probably will be as well. This does not require being consciously aware of it, but being consciously aware of it makes it easier to separate out the influences. Class in the UK is a weird mix of all sorts of things, and I agree that it is hard to define.

For example, one element of class in the UK is attitude to education. Unconsciously being influenced by the system, people make a lot of assumptions about intelligence and prospects. Ignoring it, you ignore the influence of people's friends and family on what they choose to do, and alienate them. Being consciously aware of it, you can try to help people make the best use of their talents without alienating them or dismissing things that are important to them. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

POSH is derived from the booking request to travel from Britain to India (in the days of the Raj) Port Out - Starboard Home. i.e. Reserving a cabin on the shadier side of the ship. These cost more, so those who could afford them became a Posh person, or Posh family.86.200.1.207 (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)DT

That may not be correct. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page on everything: Port Out, Starboard Home. Acronym-based word origins are always dubious, because as our page Acronym and initialism notes, the technique of coining new words from acronyms/initialisms (at least in English) didn't start until the mid 20th century (during/after WWII). -- 128.104.112.116 (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I can almost hear Stephen Fry now. Very dubious. Anyway, on the main point, it was really the industrial revolution that separated the rich and the posh. Lots more factory owners, that sort of thing. An emergant middle class. Before that, landowners were both the rich and the posh, mostly. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 09:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, "posh" and "luxuriousness" are synonyms. Wealth simply means having a lot of money. Michael Jackson was wealthy. Being buried in a gold coffin was posh. See the difference? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, being buried in a gold coffin was ostentatious and gaudy (and somewhat tacky). Posh means conforming to a certain stereotype. You speak with received pronunciation, you wear certain clothes, you comply with certain etiquette, etc. --Tango (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, being buried in a gold coffin might be considered 'posh' by some. If those people acquire a lot of money, they are likely to be considered tacky and nouveau riche by many. The class system rears its head again. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to be buried in a gold coffin? It just guarantees you that someone is going to rob the grave eventually. Just ask King Tut. Googlemeister (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the boy king of pop. Well, at least he wasn't buried in Illinois. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Foreign full-professors in Germany

From an unreliable source I got the information that in Germany the number of foreign full-professors is less than 1%. Is that true? If yes, why i it so low? I mean, what could they have against people from other countries that are similar to them? (like Holland, Belgien, Austria).--Quest09 (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't know whether your info is correct or current or not. I do know that to use a foreign doctorate title in Germany you had to shovel out a not insignificant amount of currency units (DM/EURO) at least not very long ago. (Haven't checked recently. So maybe people just look at that and say "why bother" and go teach elsewhere. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is still true, but it has been changed to non-EU doctorate, rather than any non-German doctorate, in order to comply with EU laws about recognising qualifications from other member states. That's just to use the "Dr." title, though, you can get a job in academia without the title, as far as I know. --Tango (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the German page de:Professur. German universities are not private organizations, but rather run by the government. That makes professors government employees. The hiring procedure is rather difficult. Following a recent change in regulations professors now have to go through a phase of being assistant professors de:Juniorprofessur. They do hire guest professors from abroad, but I guess they would not count as full professors in your statistic, because they are considered part of the university system of their home country and only "on loan" to the German school. They also have s.th. called de:Lehrstuhl which is considered somehow separate. At a glance I could not quite figure out how they differ. So you'd need someone who was not a German resident, but had made it through the German system to the level of professor. That makes a low figure rather likely. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Matorano Mafia family

My husband, who unfortunately died last November went to high school in East Milton with both brothers. He told me a lot about his experiences and what they did. He even went to their after-hours club a few times. I'd like to add this information to what is already been created about them. But I have no idea how to go about that. Are you interested and can someone help me?Catzeb (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's core policies is verifiability. In short, we write not what we know but only what we can document. As such, we don't use first-person accounts like your husband's but rather reliable third-party sources such as newspapers, magazines, and books. Did your husband ever provide his story to the press, perhaps? — Lomn 13:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And I hasten to add that all wikipedians are quick to show respect to such an honorable concern. Bacio lo mano!!!Rhinoracer (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Making boots fit

In an episode of Malcolm in the Middle, Francis soaks the boots he's wearing in water and refuses to take them off until they've dried. Apparently, it makes them "fit like a glove". Does this have any basis in fact, or popular belief? Vimescarrot (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure of the truth of it, but Levis used to advertise jeans where they recommended wearing them in the bath (cold) to 'shrink fit' them to you. Will have a look online and see if I can find any truth to it. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, depending on the material. In this case it's not likely the boots so much as the laces. When wet, the laces (and boots) will absorb water and thus expand. As they dry, they'll contract. As such, if you create a snug fit while wet, the fit will tighten further as the whole thing dries. Most boots don't really adjust fit directly, though, which is why wet laces are the item of interest. Note that it's possible to injure yourself by having something tighten too far during the drying process. — Lomn 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

With leather boots you can also ruin your new boots by getting them wet. [3] Leather will get brittle when it got too wet and water will leave white stains or dark rims or both. Don't know where the cold bathtub came from. We used to use warm water to shrink our jeans. (Couldn't afford Levis.) They got so cold while they were drying you'd take them off before you got into trouble Lomn described. Well, most did. One of my class mates managed to shrink hers so tight the seams burst in class. A memory for the ages :-) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This used to be one of the recommended methods. With modern construction and fitting, I would not recommend this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure my boots have a waterproof coating (well, they did when new!), so soaking them should have no effect. The tongue wasn't quite right and the shop suggested using a hair drier to heat the soft leather so that it could be manipulated into the correct position. --Tango (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

NOT a good idea to soak plain leather boots. That is why dubbin was invented, to keep the boots watertight and to protect the leather. Buy the right size and wear them in.86.200.1.207 (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)DT

Whoa, a few of you seem to have misinterpreted - I have no intention of doing this myself! I know it's a bad idea, I was just curious as to if it was based in fact at all. The explanations about recent improvements in boots (including waterproofing) quite possibly explains the results found in the episode...Anyway, thank you all for answering. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Don't try this stuff at home. But if you do, have a pair of sharp scissors handy to snip the strings if they get too tight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, don't try this at home! Tanned bovine leather is a very strong material, much stronger than live human flesh, and if it does shrink significantly would likely squeeze your feet to jelly - I believe similar methods have historically been used as a method of torture. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly some way of causing thick leather to conform permanently to a 3D shape. If you see a bag with a leather handle, for instance, those appear to be made from flat pieces pressed over a block in such a way that they keep their shape. (Because cows don't have handles.) This process might involve water, but I don't know. 213.122.53.138 (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tanning will tell you more. There are different types of leather for different purposes. The process is one way and not reversible. A Last used in Shoemaking is a lot more solid than a human foot. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It does have a basis in popular belief, at least from a few decades ago. When I was in basic training, the drill sergeants had us take our new combat boots, turn down the leather as far as it would go, then soak them in water. This made them supple enough to work by hand, allowing us to repeatedly bend / unbend the leather. We then wore them while they dried to allow them to form a better fit. This forum has several people recommending the procedure the OP mentioned. Of course, that was decades ago. With the improvements in boots and leather products since then, that sort of procedure shouldn't be necessary. In fact, googling soak your boots in water brings up several websites strongly advising against soaking leather boots. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What they learn in Management schools ???

What do they teach in big business schools that lesser souls like me who could not make it can learn to improve our wisdom and life? Can anyone help please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See Management and MBA. If all you are after is "wisdom" you could certainly learn the principles of management by reading the same texts that are used in business schools, but you would still lack the "MBA" degree that is sought after by those who are hiring management personnel. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, you don't need an MBA to start your own business, and if you really work at it, you could put out of business some of those companies that expect their corporate lackeys to have MBA's. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the great bases of the MBA is the "case study" approach. You must exhaustively study real-life business challenges.Rhinoracer (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

They differ. Some work heavily on economic models (Wharton, IIRC), others on other aspects. But recall, it was folks with MBAs who made the banks fail, and GM go under. Collect (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of this variation on an old saying: "If you're so rich, how come you're not smart?" Well, they're smart enough to stay rich while thousands lose their jobs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For an opposing viewpoint, here is a WSJ article from January about eight MBAs who found that there's now a surplus of MBAs looking for work in the financial sector. Tempshill (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You could work your way through Index of management articles. You don't need an MBA to start your own company, but there are some transactions where you need s.o. with an MBA at your company. Some government contracts and big bureaucratic corporations also require that as part of their "vendor quality" profile. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth, and for whatever conclusions you might want to draw, both ex-President George W. Bush and ex-Governor Mitt Romney earned M.B.A.'s from the Harvard School of Business (commonly credited with originating the case method in management training). Romney persisted, against institutional advice, in simultaneously seeking and obtaining a law degree from the Harvard School of Law. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The most useful thing I learnt when I did my MBA was how to calculate the net present value, which particularly when combined with decision trees helps you evaluate choices between investments or projects. But now I think of it, more useful than that was how to do cash-flow forecasts and similar modelling using a spreadsheet. Reading a textbook on Management Accountancy would teach you a lot of it, but I think that much of the value is as a Rite Of Passage and a signal to others of your aptitudes. 78.146.166.2 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot get on an MBA course, then becoming qualified as an accountant is of similar worth, and covers much of the same ground. Accountancy training can often be done part time or by evening-class or home-study courses. 78.146.236.46 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nordic Championship in swimming in 1953

Where was the Nordic Championship in swimming in 1953 held? Where can I find results? Just the three best competitors would suffice. JIP | Talk 17:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Christ's Language

What was the language Jesus spoke? is there any evidence that it was Hebrew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

He spoke Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC) [Note: I grossly oversimplified the matter, as noted in various comments below. But it's believed that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]

...which, interestingly enough, is not the language the books of the New Testament were originally written in (that was Greek, which Jesus did not speak).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:43, July 8, 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The accounts of Jesus life were recorded in Greek. It was the Greeks who led the foundation of the early church. The Old Testament was in Hebrew, the New Testament in a Greek dialect calle Quoin or some such. When the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the state religion, they produced an all-Latin version of the Bible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We have Aramaic of Jesus, which goes into great detail. (The Greek dialect is called Koine, by the way.) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to look for the exact page, but AFAIK the content of the Bible was determined by a meeting of clerics such as Ecumenical council. Long after Roman Christians wrote down various parts and versions. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There were a few councils - the Synod of Hippo, the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, the Council of Rome, and much later, the Council of Trent. See also Development of the Christian Biblical canon. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC with all of the above)He most likely spoke Aramaic as his native tongue; but he was also likely fluent in classical Hebrew which would have been the language of the temple. Since he also had dealings with numerous public officials, and of course was a subject of the Roman Empire, he probably also was familiar with Greek; at least enough to get by. But in terms of what he spoke on a day-to-day basis, it was very likely Aramaic. See also Historical Jesus for more on the actual man from a non-religious point of view.

Oh, and with regards to the New Testament being in Greek originally; Jesus of course did not write any of it. The New Testament was written primarily by 3 authors, in order in terms of amount written, Paul, John, and Luke with some contributions from a few other disciples, such as Matthew, Mark, Peter and a few more. The reason they wrote in Greek was that was the main scholarly language of the day; it was quitely likely that Hebrew was reserved for Jewish religious services, and Aramaic wasn't much of a written language at the time. It was probably used as a language of commerce in both speach and writing, but if you were writing anything scholarly or important and lived in the eastern Mediterranean, you just wrote it in Greek because that was what was expected. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(Yet another Edit Conflict!) Although Aramaic and Hebrew were both members of the Semitic languages family, I think the former (which itself had several dialects, including Galilean which was likely Jesus' specific mother tongue) was sufficiently different from the latter as to be a different language, rather than just a dialect of Hebrew: I doubt the two were mutually intelligible. Although this is speculation on my part, I'd suggest that Jesus (assuming his historical existence) almost certainly also spoke and read Classical Hebrew (as he is described reading a lesson, presumably from the largely Hebrew Torah rather than the Aramaic Talmud, in a Galilean synagogue), probably spoke Koine Greek (the well-established international 'lingua franca' of the Eastern Mediterranean area since Alexander's 4th Century BCE conquests), not improbably had some Demotic/Coptic Egyptian (having been taken to live in Egypt as a child for an undetermined period), and may well have acquired some Latin (the official language of the current occupying power). If his (step-?)father Joseph was indeed a carpenter in the literal sense (other metaphorical meanings have been postulated), then the family trade could have given Jesus experience of yet other languages. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would carpentry require other languages? --Tango (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not require as such, which is why I wrote "could." Why might it give exposure to yet other languages? Because it was a (presumably) commercial trade in a geographical area which both contained a number of differently languaged cultures, was always a "crossroads" of wider trading routes, and had long been part of successive international empires. Consequently, the hypothetical firm of Ben Yakov & Sons (Timber framing, Carpentry & Joinery) Ltd would likely have had not only a polyglot clientele, but quite possibly polyglot wholesale suppliers - recall that even in Solomon's time, cedarwood (and craftsmen) had to be imported from Lebanon for certain building works. Obviously I'm well into the realms of speculation here (after all, "carpenter" might actually have been a then-current metaphor for "one renowned for intricately-constructed logical Talmudic reasoning" as I believe scholars have suggested), but I like to think it's not unreasonable speculation. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

But they wouldn't have needed to be polyglots - that's why everyone already spoke Koine Greek! Adam Bishop (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone did not speek Greek. For example it would be far from certain that anyone in a relatively poor carpenter's family in Judea would speak Greek. Any dealings with officials that did not know the local languages would have been through interpreters or scribes who knew both languages. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the assumption of "relative poverty?" Does anything in the canonical accounts actually suggest that Yussuf's business was a self-employed one-man outfit? Lord Sainsbury could reasonably be described as a grocer, but he's not short of a bob or two. Re not needing customers'/suppliers' own languages given lingua francas (which Aramaic and Koine Greek both were): yes, these overcame the need for learning, say, Phoenician, but if you (already a polyglot) regularly deal with a Phoenician, you might well acquire some of his language out of friendship, diplomacy and intellectual interest - by some accounts, young Yeshua ben Yussuf was quite a bright and enquiring kid, leaving aside any inherent sophiac gifts. .195, posting from 87.194.161.147 (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I concede that it can be argued whether his family was poor (though the birth myth certainly suggests it). My point was more to stress the fact that it was most likely a minority (a large minority, but still a minority) in that area in that period of time that actually spoke Koine. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He was actually born in a log cabin, out back of the Inn that was run by Gould, Frankenstein and Meier. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The birth myth may suggest poverty, but it was likely a late invention and insertion intended to bolster the long-post-facto claim that Jeshua's birth (whose date and circumstances were unimportant to the early church) was in accordance with supposed Torah prophesies, including poverty (or at least obscurity) and location (Bethlehem in Judea, rather than the more likely Bethlehem in Galilee), so its argument is self-referential. In any case, the suggestion worked (and works) only for those unfamiliar with the local culture: the concept of an "inn" was largely a Roman import to the area (and contemporary "inns" may only have been available to Roman citizens) - indigenous travellers would as a norm stay with relatives, family acquaintances, or other hospitable locals, on the upper floor of private houses whose ground/cellar levels were (and within the past century in this region still were) routinely used as stables/byres; all this does not reflect poverty, merely practical customs in a cultural context unfamiliar to "the West." Having to sleep in the "stable" of an "inn", if not complete invention (remembering the supposed reason for the journey is demonstrably spurious), may be a distorted/mistranslated interpretation of the unremarkable consequences of a late arrival at an already crowded home.

With regard to your language argument, Saddhiyama, you seem to be missing the direction of my thrust. No, of course Jeshua's speaking Koine isn't proven - nothing around this topic can be, and we can only discuss lesser or greater likelihoods. Whether or not you're correct that Koine was only spoken by "most likely a . . . large minority" (which I'd question, given that the region had been Greek-ruled for most of the previous 3 centuries), my point is that Jeshua may well have been part of said "large minority", and given his alleged background (family in commercial trade and of Royal descent), the likelihood of his being so is increased. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A Jews for Jesus girl handing out religious tracts once informed me that Jesus spoke Armenian. I asked if she meant Aramaic, and she said "What's that?" How truly different was Aramaic from Hebrew? Edison (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you inform her that you speak in tongues? That might have caught her interest (see another section, farther down). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the writeup, Aramaic is merely in the family of languages that includes Hebrew, and there has been a fair amount of cross-blending, but they are not the same. It's like if you were Julius Caesar and came through a time warp, could you speak English? Some of it might sound familiar, but that's about as far as it could go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)