Humanities desk
< January 8	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

January 9

"Fingerings of a piano"

I have Casio keyboard at my house of which I do not know how to play correctly through fingering (after six months) and cannot play two staves at once. I'm having trouble playing chords on the right side of piano using my left hand on chords that don't require no more than five fingers. Can anyone help? I also having seem to have to stop in the middle piece of music whenever the notes on ledger lines above or below the staff.

Writer Cartoonist (forgot to log-in; I didn't want this information lost for me to write again) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.175.113 (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll solve the easy problem first. Before you play the piece of music, look through it and write in the names of the notes on the ledger lines. That way, you can simply read the letter you wrote instead of stopping to count the number of lines/spaces.

Also, a little more clarification is needed on the first question. When you are trying to hit chords on the right side of the keyboard with your left hand, is it a crossover (where your left hand plays notes that are higher than your right hand)? If so, then that just takes practice and conditioning. If it isn't a crossover, then you probably ought to scoot down on the bench ;-] Hope I could help 71.57.26.126 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Torah scrolls

Do any denominations of Judaism allow the permanent or interim liturgical use of a Torah scroll printed on ordinary paper (rather than handwritten on kosher parchment)? Neon Merlin 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Jewish, but I did used to study it as a hobby. I can't give you a definitive answer, but based on what I know of their overall Torah philosophies, it's highly likely that Reform Jews will say "anything goes", Orthodox Jews have say, "Torah scrolls MUST be handwritten by an Orthodox Rabbi," and Conservative Jews are somewhere in the middle. If nobody can answer your question, what I would do is check these results on Google. If they only mention Orthodox Jews and\or Conservative Jews, the answer is probably not, though they might not do that in practice.

Things like requirements for Torah scrolls to be handwritten fall under halakha. Reform Jews do not consider halakha binding. Again, I don't know if they do this in practice, just noting that they do not forbid it. Zenwhat (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen any Jewish congregation, even the most liberal, use anything but a real Torah written on parchment by a sofer. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that a Sofer is not required to be a rabbi. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis G. Kaufman

Louis G. Kaufman was one of the original investors in the Empire State Building. I know he lived in Michigan before New York but where was his place of birth? 71.194.190.11 (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Graveraet Kaufman was born on November 13, 1870 in Marquette, Michigan. [1][2] Rockpocket 07:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.11 (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Arts Instruction

Is there any perfect reference in internet wide web of instruction of chinese martial arts? Flakture (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What martial art? Shaolin Kung Fu? Tai chi chuan? Qi Gong (although I don't think this is technically a martial art)? I'm sure it varies by the martial art you are interested in.--droptone (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little hard to learn martial arts online, but there are sites where you can buy books and videos of martial arts, try here http://maols.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlo2012 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economists: How do I draw indifference curves?

I posted this question in the math forum, because it's an economics question, but it's about the specific mathematical models they use. Please answer it there if you can. Thanks. Zenwhat (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are the relatonships between centre and states in USA?

I am in 10th grade in india and have to compare federalism in india and USA. i assure you i have already tried my best and am asking the question here only as a last resort.

can the federal govt dissolve a state govt? is the federal govt more powerful than the state govts?

pls can u write a corresponding version for USA like the one for India below? :

"In India, legislature, executive and judiciary are present in a 3 tier system. The jurisdiction of all the 3 levels is clearly specified in the constitution. The subjects on which each level of legislature can make laws are clearly specified through the union list, state list and concurrent list.

The central government tends to be slightly more powerful than the state governments.

Earlier, it was a common practice for the central government to dissolve any state government formed by the opposition party. However, the evolution of coalition governments and a Supreme Court ruling in 1990, made the states more powerful."

Anajus (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Anajus[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate to write a homework sentence for you, but some references may help you understand the situation. Federalism_in_the_United_States may help. I would say that the federal government in the US was originally less powerful than the state governments but that balance is now reversed. But the federal government does not go around dissolving state governments, it generally just pressures them to do what it wants. We have a similar 3-branch setup in the federal government, see Separation of powers under the United States Constitution. Friday (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going a bit further, "Can the federal government dissolve a state government" is an interesting question. Unlike parliamentary systems, the US doesn't have any provision for government dissolving (at least not in the style of the UK; I'm not familiar with Indian particulars). The majority in legislative houses can change hands via party defections -- for instance, in 2001, senator Jim Jeffords defected from the Republican party, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage. This allowed the Democrat Minority Leader to become Senate Majority Leader. While this sounds somewhat like a new Prime Minister being appointed, there's not nearly as much practical importance to the position. Slightly more significant would be a change in the Speaker of the House of Representatives due to party defection, as the Speaker is second in the presidential line of succession. I am not personally aware of a party shift in Speaker control without an election, though, and the line of succession has not yet gone that far in any event.

Now, circling back to dissolving state governments: As far as I know, all state governments are structured similarly enough the federal government that the "dissolving does not apply" provision holds true -- though any state could adopt such a parliamentary system if they so chose. Further, some states (none of which I've lived in) have provisions for recall elections such as those that made Arnold Schwarzenegger the Governor of California, and that seems somewhat like dissolution. Even in that case, though, recall elections are initiated by voters, not a higher level of government. Should the federal government attempt to dissolve a state government, the matter would undoubtedly be taken to court, and the 10th Amendment would likely be used to resolve the dispute: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States...." — Lomn 16:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US federal government has the authority to grant statehood to an area or to withhold it. They admitted each of the states to the US, beyond the initial 13 colonies which revolted against the British King. During the US Civil War, statehood was granted to West Virginia, perhaps to punish Virginia for attempting to secede from the US. Statehod was withheld from Franklin, which was later included in Tennessee. I cannot think of an instance where there was a proposal for withdrawing statehood from an existing state, but if circumstances warranted, a state could probably be merged into another state, sold to a foreign power, or made into a territory. Other countries (France, in the Louisiana Purchase, and Mexico have ended the ownership and power over areas formerly under their control. The argument against residents giving up their statehood in favor of merger (for instance North Dakota and South Dakota merging into "Dakota") is that the residents would lose the extra voting power they had in the federal government due to the 2 US Senators allowed each state, in addition to the US Representatives who are apportioned according to equal representation. I can't think of any provision for the federal government doing this unilaterally. In a parliamentary country, "dissolving a state government" might mean declaring that new elections are required, as opposed to dissolving the statehood. I can only think of the context of the US Civil War, in which the elected governors and state representatives in the Confederate States were thrown out of office and replaced under the guns of federal troops when the Confederacy lost, but they had never claimed to be governing the state as part of the US. They still claimed to be the elected government of the state as such, although as part of a different nation. In 1861 the US government recognized officials from future West Virginia as representing the entire state of Virginia, annd accepted the Senators selected by this rump legislature as those for the state of Virginia. Then there was a statehood plebescite which was an irregular election (see History of West Virginia#separation) in what became West Virginia, conducted under the guard of federal troops, with perhaps 5% of the eligible voters casting votes, in which statehood was voted for. This was basically a federal action removing the jurisdiction of the Virginia state officials over a substantial part of Virginia, but not actually removing the statehood of Virginia. This might be an instance close to what the questioner described. Edison (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US Constitution has a requirement that the federal government must assure that all states have a republican form of government. I don't know how this would ever be enforced, short of armed intervention, though. Corvus cornix_talk 19:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two instances of a state attempting to withdraw statehood. One is self-imposed - seceding from the Union (as Edison pointed out). The Federal government does not allow states to secede (which was the point of the Civil War - forcing the south to remain in the Union so Federal laws and especially taxes would be enforced). Another is a state attempting to have the Federal government withdraw their statehood. That is the point of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Again, this is not allowed by the Federal government. Once a state becomes a state (even if it is done through illegal means) it must remain a state. -- kainaw ™ 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the US had ever suffered a military defeat, it is quite possible that the victors might have nibbled away some of the states. In WW1 the Germans offered Mexico the return of some of their former land if they would aid Germany. Many countries have had to cede land, and if it had ever come to that, I am sure a Constitutional means would have been found. Edison (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall the US suffering a military defeat in the War of 1812. Oh, and Vietnam. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The War of 1812 was not a defeat but a draw and the Vietnam War did not affect the territory of the United States. We briefly lost the Aleutian Islands in World War II but Alaska was still a territory, not a state and Japan lost the war in the end. Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people outside the US would agree with your assessment on the War of 1812. Perish the thought that the United States could ever lose a war! When they are defeated, they call it a "draw". 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard Vietnam described as a draw, although those who visit the country nowadays would have trouble figuring out who really won. As far as 1812 goes, while the United States failed in its attempt to capture Canada, it did succeed in achieving its stated goals of ending British harassment of American shipping and British influence among the Western Indians. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent>I didn't suggest that Vietnam was a draw but that the loss did not involve the territory of the U.S. See the War of 1812 article for more on this war which ended status quo ante bellum. Rmhermen (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the withdrawal of British claims to the Northwest Territory a return to the status quo. Corvus cornix_talk 22:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that dissolving a state government in the sense that the original poster meant does not refer to causing the state to cease to exist, but rather to dismissing the incumbent executive leadership of that state, in the context of a parliamentary system. I would recommend that the original poster compare the articles parliamentary system and presidential system for context, as well as reading the Constitution of the United States and looking out for the provisions with phrases such as "The Congress shall have power to..." and "No state shall...", as well as the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

michigan law

on a webpage for Holds of an inmate in a michigan jail, it states the crime as U&P (uttering and publishing) but it is followed by X3 (f/w). Can u possibly explain to me what the these stand for in the charge? looks like U&P X3 (f/w). Thanks. [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.194.255 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a legal question to me. I would say that you need to pay the fee and talk to a lawyer. Any advice you get over the Internet is not going to serve as legal advice, at least not through this web site, according to the guidelines at the beginning of Wikipedia Reference Desk (below). Also, you might try searching the web site you refer to, to see if they have some table or glossary or index to explain the codes.

See Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer.

-- Mitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.118.76 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't a request for legal advice, it is a request for translation of a term used by a prison. DuncanHill (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following does not constitute legal research or advice, but Google book search shows some results containing the word "Michigan" and the phrase "uttering and publishing." [3] Edison (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"U&P" is indeed "uttering and publishing". Interesting usage. It means knowingly passing forged documents (checks, deeds, etc.) with intent to defraud or cheat. Since the same document uses the "x3" for a few other charges (and x2 and x4 elsewhere), it's probably the obvious -- three charges of U&P. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves "f/w". "Federal warrant" would make sense, if the charge had an inter-state element of some kind, but I'm just guessing on this. --Anonymous, 05:52 UTC, January 10, 2008.

Wally dugs

I'm trying to find out about the history and significance of wally dugs. Wally dugs are pairs of china dogs that sit on the mantlepiece. This is a common practice in Scotland (according to my dictionary, from the 20th century onwards), and is sometimes said to bring good luck. The name comes from the Scots for "china dogs". A couple of pictures: [4][5] Bovlb (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always seen it written wally dogs. The online Dictionary of the Scots Language doesn't seem to have any relevant definition of wally. Similar dogs were made in Staffordshire and elsewhere in England [6] [7], so I don't think the wally dog (and cats were common too) is something specifically Scottish. As to the significance, I'm not sure it had any. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. DSL does mention both "wally dogs" and "wally dugs" but it is vague on the meaning.[8] I've mostly encountered "wally" in the sense of dentures or false teeth, but I've always understood that to be derived from the china/porcelain sense. My dictionary, BTW, is The Concise Scots Dictionary, Aberdeen University Press. Bovlb (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source suggests "wally" comes from "wallow", meaning faded. Rockpocket 18:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same source, however, suggests that the current meaning of "wally" is "made of china" (and lists "wally dug" under that sense). Bovlb (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of that is that the etymological origin of wally meaning "made of china" is from wallow (as in faded china). Rockpocket 18:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but my main interest is in finding out when, where, how and why people started putting these paired dogs on the mantle. Bovlb (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically for Scotland, it might be worth trying to contact the Museum of Scotland. Their curators would be as likely to know as anyone why these were popular. If you have a large library near you, books that might be useful would be the History of Everyday Life in Scotland series. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First saw the expression today. Here's a polite suggestion Lowland Scots pronunciation. 'Wally' pronounced Worly i.e. to do with a wall. These items, Staffordshire dogs, were made to decorate a mantelpiece. Mantelpieces in poorer homes were often quite (shallow) so some dogs (dugs) were made with, and called flatbacks (because they had a flat back.)so that they could stand against the wall.

The oldest map

Hi. Does someone know when did the first map make and where the map is located nowadays? I have heard that it is located in one museum in Dubai, is that correct? I tried Google, but I founded map which is made 2300 BC but it is propably located in London. 213.186.255.115 (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The History of cartography page might be useful. It appears there may not be a definitive "oldest map". Pfly (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the really old maps (pre-1000 B.C.) seem to have been either small-scale agricultural field surveys or city plans, or else abstract cosomological diagrams... AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Gay" vandalism

As an admin, I revert quite a number of "... is gay" vandalism every day. I couldn't help but wonder: why are those kids so fascinated with gay stuff? Is it just because that it's the simplest way to insult others, or is there something more than that? It is an interesting phenomenon in cultural perspectives, I think. I live in Asia and it is uncommon for kids here to resort to homosexual stuff when they need derogatory names. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has much to do with sexuality, but more to do with a way of referring to someone whose actions are different in some way from the perceived norms of the relevant peer group. The people who are prone to doing this type of vandalism are the very people who are strongly attached to conforming to peer group pressure, usually as a way of demonstrating their independence from their parents, who are usually perceived as tyrannical. In all their rampant teenage rebelliousness and truculent Declarations of Personal Independence, all they generally succeed in doing is swapping one source of tyranny for another, because that's all they've ever known. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think for many American kids saying that someone is gay is just derogatory. They are probably finding fun in including sexual connotations into articles as well. When I'm patrolling new pages, I occasionally find such vandalisms, too (although adding Mario or names of male/female organs isn't unusual either) Pundit|utter 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's interesting from a cultural perspective, and I think it's related to the social taboo on homosexuality. I live in Amsterdam, Netherlands, probably the most LGBT liberal place in the world, and the use of "gay" (well, the Dutch translation) as an insult is very common here. Perhaps the words associated with homosexuality retain the negative connotations they had before, when actually being homosexual or talking about it is no longer a taboo? This would mean that you have A) a word that means what you want to say (supposing you want to insult someone), and B) you aren't immediately taken to the inquisition or embarrassed when uttering it. This may just be the reason why people thought up "LGBT" in the first place. The previous is all speculation though. User:Krator (t c) 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The derogatory use reveals an underlying homophobic cultural background. See also Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. --Lambiam 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did they used to say? "He's a square!"? Wrad (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this trend to be both annoying and troubling. It used to be that people would use "gay" to describe things that were particularly effeminate, gaudy, or corny. Not particularly nice, but possibly humorous in a "South Park" kind of way. Now it's an all-purpose insult. I was talking to this guy the other day and he said, "Oh, that's so gay -- g-h-a-y." Apparently the "h" is supposed to make it acceptable. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not the easiest journal article to track down a copy of, but "That's So Gay: A Contemporary Use of Gay in Australian English"[9] is an interesting read, and also seems to be the only result on a Google Scholar search for the term that isn't directly about homosexuality and/or homophobia. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, the word "gay" as an all-purpose insult has been partially endorsed by the BBC, in that their governors did not uphold the complaints made against star DJ Chris Moyles when he described a ringtone that he disliked as gay. See here. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify something: the use of the term 'gay' no longer really means homosexual. The OP asks "What is the inherent obsession with homosexuality?", but I say it has completely lost its meaning and now also means "lame" or "uncool" (uncool, boring, etc) and a whole bunch of other descriptions. Gay can apply to not just people, it can apply to school itself. I would think that this trend probably came to be when 'gay' started to lose its impact and meaning the first place, that is, when homosexuality became more acceptable and less taboo (as it is in some cultures and places that is). Once it lost its impact and meaning, coupled with the fact that there are so many other words to label someone as actually homosexual (e.g. fag, queer, homo, lezbo, etc), the door was opened to use 'gay' as a new buzzword. Rfwoolf (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lovesickness

If you are suffering from lovesickness and abstain for sex for a period of time - like in 40_Days_and_40_Nights, can you cure it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.3.246 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As love sickness is commonly understood, no. A "cure" has nothing to do with intercourse, and you can't make any meaningful comparison between this and, for example, taking aspirin to relieve pain. That said, in someone's specific case, it might act as a mental focus and be successful -- but not for any underlying medical reason. — Lomn 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst not directly related to the answer you may be interested by Helen Fisher's TedTalk (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/16). She is an anthropologist and discusses love/love-sickness and the chemical things that are happening. Whilst it won't show you how to 'cure' it, it does discuss the effects, her interpretation/findings on its purpose etc. ny156uk (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yates

Are Peter Yates and David Yates related? zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of their IMDB entries mention it in the 'trivia' section and I would suspect this would be mentioned if they were related in any meaningful manner. I suspect that they therefore are not related (though that's hardly the deepest 'research'!). ny156uk (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnashing of teeth: some questions

Tooth-gnashing seems to be one of the most important expressions of grief and distress in the Bible--second only to weeping/wailing and more significant than breast-beating or garment-rending or hair-pulling. I have seen very upset people strike themselves, tear their clothes, and pull out their hair, but have never even heard of such a person actually gnashing her teeth. How can this be?
Putting aside the abundance of information on bruxism (since bruxism seems to be practiced unconsciously)--can anyone point me to contemporary writing about tooth-gnashing as it pertains to grief or distress?
Is there something I should know about "gnashing" in biblical translation? Could the greek or hebrew mean something slightly different, for example by referring to a figure of speech not present in english?
Does anyone know of strictly historical (as opposed to biblical or literary) instances of tooth-gnashing?

Thanks, Cyrusc (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was done in anger, not in grief. Our ENT guys see many people with tooth and jaw problems due to grinding their teeth during perpetual road rage. -- kainaw ™ 23:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dictionary only gives "gnashing" as translation for βρυχω (accents are a pain in Unicode, sorry). Most likely because this is the most commonly used translation for that specific use in the Bible, so that doesn't reflect much of any original figure of speech you're looking for. If it helps, it is suggested to be related to βρυκω, meaning "to devour", "to crush with one's teeth" and " to consume". Random web links such as [10] note a meaning related more to anger than anything else, suggesting a connection with the contemporary sayings to "show one's teeth" and "gritting teeth". This may be as close to contemporary usage as you can get. Googling around gives [11] among others, which may contain the answer to your question. User:Krator (t c) 23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, gnashing your teeth means roughly what was said above: showing your teeth. I picture it as someone who is grieving deeply wailing loudly, and baring their teeth in frustration and anger at themselves, at the world, at God... take your pick. I believe this happens every day. I also think that many of us have done it ourselves, if we think about it, though maybe not to the extreme the bible communicates. Wrad (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is very helpful, although I don't feel that "show one's teeth" is an acceptable gloss, and I don't think that gritting one's teeth, as in road rage, is so much an expression or a gesture as it is a private and mostly invisible response. To see gnashing as angry rather than mournful really helps me understand it better, though. Cyrusc (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a short story I read from a Victorian periodical where a ghost suffering in hell visits a Pastor to warn him of his wicked ways (I know, sounds like A Christmas Carol). Anyway, there is a moment where this ghost, who is obviously unhappy and very creepy pulls back her lips very far, so far that the pastor can hardly believe it, to gnash her teeth at him. That's about when he realizes she's from hell. I agree, "showing your teeth" isn't quite as extreme as the Bible means. I almost associate it with a kind of hissing, personally, like when a cat gets mad. Wrad (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read this with some interest. I had always assumed "gnashing" involved some noise, like suddenly biting or snapping one's teeth -- perhaps it was the association with "wailing", a very noisy pursuit. But what you have turned up above reminds me of the Maori haka, not only a war dance, but a historical and contemporary performance artform that can involve a lot of facial contortions, including sticking out the tongue and showing the teeth. It can be used to express strong emotion, as with wailing and gnashing. A cross-cultural parallel? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think that most of us coddled modern folks have ever come close to experiencing the sort of anguish that would drive a person to tooth-gnashing. This was supposed to happen upon being cast into Hell, mind you. I'll bet that if any of us was dipped in molten sulfur we'd gnash like nobody's business. I'll also bet that emergency-room doctors have seen it. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially related, in the Old Testament at least the expression "his nose turned red" is used to be "he was angry". It's often translated as "his anger was kindled". An example is in Numbers 11:1. D aniel (‽) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]