Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a
transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the
current reference desk pages.
I think the distinction is between "John Smith" and "man"; where "John Smith" is used (by the speaker) to designate a specific man, and only a specific man, where as the term "man" is general and could refer to any number of men, without specificity. But I also do admit that after reading that article, it is obtuse and arcane, and I as well had a hard time extracting meaning from it. --
Jayron3211:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
I didn't even really try, but one thing which jumps out to me is I don't quite understand the "Proper names and definite descriptions" bit. It seems to suggest "first Chancellor of the German Empire" is not a rigid designator because the person who is the first Chancellor of the German Empire could have died in infancy. But even assuming for some reason we set birth as a cut off, not everyone is given a name at birth. Sometimes it may be days, weeks or even months. And precisely how that name comes about will vary. You can obviously easily find examples where if something different had happened, the person would have a different name. Also, if Bismarck had died in infancy, he wouldn't have been a ruthless politician. The Johnny Depp things seems even more confusing. It seems his parents called him John Christopher Depp II. I don't know whether they ever called him Johnny or it was something he later adopted. It seems to me it could have been either. And someone's parents could have called him Johnny but they hated that name and asked others to call them Christopher. And again, different chains of events could have affected whether this happened. To say nothing of those who completely abandon the names given to them by their parents for whatever reason. One example would include if a child was somehow lost or kidnapped or whatever and didn't even know the name given to them by their parents, and again different chains of events would affect whether this happens, and for that matter what their new names are. Maybe it has something to do with the fact there could have been a different first chancellor of Germany (although there also could have been none), but if this was a different person, they may not have been ruthless so I don't understand the point. And of course if Johnny Depp was switched at birth, he would also be a different person. (If someone is switched at birth, by the time they are say 5 years old, I suspect that everyone would agree the boy who has spent his life being Johnny Depp is Johnny Depp. The other child is whatever name his parents gave him. Yet under different circumstances, the other child would be Johnny Depp.) The only thing I can think of is there could be a dispute over who the first chancellor of Germany is even if everything is the same, but the article doesn't seem to say anything like that and I don't get the relevance of the first chancellor dying in infancy then.
Nil Einne (
talk)
14:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Fixing, or at least investigating, things that ain't broken is the stock-in-trade of pure mathematicians, scientific researchers and their ilk, to whom we all owe a great debt. --
Jack of Oz[pleasantries]20:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Good morning, request for more information on General Chiappe.
General di Armata Chiappe is described as Corps Commander and Commander Florence Corp, 'a good soldier and great gentleman'
Source: CARTON DE WIART, Sir Adrian, 'Happy Odyssey' Pen & Sword, 2007 ISBN 978-1-84415-539-2 pages 199, 205, 222
Aslo confirmed by Neame, Lt. Gen Sir Philip, 'Playing with Strife' George G Harrap, London 1947 pages 308, 314
Hope this adds a little to your research. Regards
Long Ben Every (
talk)
10:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
A search for "generale Chiappe" (without quotation marks) gives as first hit a figure of speech, proprio dietro le chiappe del generale, which means "right behind the butt cheeks of the general". That made me kind of suspicious, but a search with the double quotes does seem to find a general, though it's curious that it's not easy to find details. I still wonder a bit if there might have been a joke that got taken seriously, somewhere, and it slipped into the sources.
See for example
this page on "the young and fascism", where if you search in the page for "chiappe" you'll find a letter from a Resistance fighter to his parents, where he refers to "lieutenant general Chiappe", with the annotation "in the epistolary style, even moderately trivial terms are allowed". --
Trovatore (
talk)
08:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
On the other hand, there are a handful of bios on it.wiki of persons with this surname. Most of them seem to be French or Spanish versions of the name, so pronounced differently, but there's
Giovanni Battista Chiappe, who also makes it into en.wiki. I can't find any mention of the good general.
I am still a bit suspicious but there's nothing concrete to go on. Maybe I'll ask a question at the Oracolo and see if anyone's heard of him there. --
Trovatore (
talk)
16:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
So for example, what was his first name? I'm far from a military historian; is it normal to have so much trouble finding out minimal details about a figure that important? --
Trovatore (
talk)
18:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
this document mentions General Chiappe as "chief of staff" in December, 1943, in the RSI province of Vercelli. The index gives him as Umberto, but that doesn't seem to be a helpful search clue, because Umberto Chiappe is a men's clothing store and that swamps the search results. --
Trovatore (
talk)
18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a
transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the
current reference desk pages.
I think the distinction is between "John Smith" and "man"; where "John Smith" is used (by the speaker) to designate a specific man, and only a specific man, where as the term "man" is general and could refer to any number of men, without specificity. But I also do admit that after reading that article, it is obtuse and arcane, and I as well had a hard time extracting meaning from it. --
Jayron3211:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
I didn't even really try, but one thing which jumps out to me is I don't quite understand the "Proper names and definite descriptions" bit. It seems to suggest "first Chancellor of the German Empire" is not a rigid designator because the person who is the first Chancellor of the German Empire could have died in infancy. But even assuming for some reason we set birth as a cut off, not everyone is given a name at birth. Sometimes it may be days, weeks or even months. And precisely how that name comes about will vary. You can obviously easily find examples where if something different had happened, the person would have a different name. Also, if Bismarck had died in infancy, he wouldn't have been a ruthless politician. The Johnny Depp things seems even more confusing. It seems his parents called him John Christopher Depp II. I don't know whether they ever called him Johnny or it was something he later adopted. It seems to me it could have been either. And someone's parents could have called him Johnny but they hated that name and asked others to call them Christopher. And again, different chains of events could have affected whether this happened. To say nothing of those who completely abandon the names given to them by their parents for whatever reason. One example would include if a child was somehow lost or kidnapped or whatever and didn't even know the name given to them by their parents, and again different chains of events would affect whether this happens, and for that matter what their new names are. Maybe it has something to do with the fact there could have been a different first chancellor of Germany (although there also could have been none), but if this was a different person, they may not have been ruthless so I don't understand the point. And of course if Johnny Depp was switched at birth, he would also be a different person. (If someone is switched at birth, by the time they are say 5 years old, I suspect that everyone would agree the boy who has spent his life being Johnny Depp is Johnny Depp. The other child is whatever name his parents gave him. Yet under different circumstances, the other child would be Johnny Depp.) The only thing I can think of is there could be a dispute over who the first chancellor of Germany is even if everything is the same, but the article doesn't seem to say anything like that and I don't get the relevance of the first chancellor dying in infancy then.
Nil Einne (
talk)
14:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Fixing, or at least investigating, things that ain't broken is the stock-in-trade of pure mathematicians, scientific researchers and their ilk, to whom we all owe a great debt. --
Jack of Oz[pleasantries]20:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Good morning, request for more information on General Chiappe.
General di Armata Chiappe is described as Corps Commander and Commander Florence Corp, 'a good soldier and great gentleman'
Source: CARTON DE WIART, Sir Adrian, 'Happy Odyssey' Pen & Sword, 2007 ISBN 978-1-84415-539-2 pages 199, 205, 222
Aslo confirmed by Neame, Lt. Gen Sir Philip, 'Playing with Strife' George G Harrap, London 1947 pages 308, 314
Hope this adds a little to your research. Regards
Long Ben Every (
talk)
10:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
A search for "generale Chiappe" (without quotation marks) gives as first hit a figure of speech, proprio dietro le chiappe del generale, which means "right behind the butt cheeks of the general". That made me kind of suspicious, but a search with the double quotes does seem to find a general, though it's curious that it's not easy to find details. I still wonder a bit if there might have been a joke that got taken seriously, somewhere, and it slipped into the sources.
See for example
this page on "the young and fascism", where if you search in the page for "chiappe" you'll find a letter from a Resistance fighter to his parents, where he refers to "lieutenant general Chiappe", with the annotation "in the epistolary style, even moderately trivial terms are allowed". --
Trovatore (
talk)
08:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
On the other hand, there are a handful of bios on it.wiki of persons with this surname. Most of them seem to be French or Spanish versions of the name, so pronounced differently, but there's
Giovanni Battista Chiappe, who also makes it into en.wiki. I can't find any mention of the good general.
I am still a bit suspicious but there's nothing concrete to go on. Maybe I'll ask a question at the Oracolo and see if anyone's heard of him there. --
Trovatore (
talk)
16:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
So for example, what was his first name? I'm far from a military historian; is it normal to have so much trouble finding out minimal details about a figure that important? --
Trovatore (
talk)
18:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
this document mentions General Chiappe as "chief of staff" in December, 1943, in the RSI province of Vercelli. The index gives him as Umberto, but that doesn't seem to be a helpful search clue, because Umberto Chiappe is a men's clothing store and that swamps the search results. --
Trovatore (
talk)
18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply