The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XLI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Question for anyone: I noticed that in Europe real estate is often referred to as "this-thing-does-not-move" i.e. immobile or the Polish nieruchomosc. Is that just a language thing or is it a cultural thing? We just call it real estate here in North America as far as we know. When I first heard the Polish term, I was confused what they were advertising, since only humans, animals, and some plants move. Any idea where this way of referring to real estate originates? (the linguistic origins - Latin?, or historic)

I used to think that's a silly Polish thing, but now I've seen it in other European countries too.

Well, here it's a legal distinction between '[bene] mobile' ('movable good') and '[bene] immobile' ('immovable good'); and yes, it all comes from Latin ('mobilis/immobilis bonum').

In our Civil law (art. 815), basically, immovable goods are 'land, streams, waterways, buildings and other constructions, and generally whatever is naturally or artificially tethered to land [...] all others are movable'. So, movable goods are defined by exclusion.

The difference from what I can see is that all immovable goods have a registered owner (if they don't, for example should anyone die without heirs and leave fields and houses behind, they'd become state property by default) and change of property has to be documented. This isn't true for a lot of immovable goods, but some of those (like cars) are by law on par with immobile ones.
 
Well, here it's a legal distinction between '[bene] mobile' ('movable good') and '[bene] immobile' ('immovable good'); and yes, it all comes from Latin ('mobilis/immobilis bonum').

In our Civil law (art. 815), basically, immovable goods are 'land, streams, waterways, buildings and other constructions, and generally whatever is naturally or artificially tethered to land [...] all others are movable'. So, movable goods are defined by exclusion.

The difference from what I can see is that all immovable goods have a registered owner (if they don't, for example should anyone die without heirs and leave fields and houses behind, they'd become state property by default) and change of property has to be documented. This isn't true for a lot of immovable goods, but some of those (like cars) are by law on par with immobile ones.

That's a great explanation, thanks. It sort of leads me to wonder whether mobile homes are considered mobile or immobile in this case, but that seems like a nuanced classification question rather than anything really related to what I was initially wondering.
 
Not sure thats accurate. Hydrogen runs a fuel cell to make electricity. It is, to all intents, an electric car with a different battery. No combustion, no moving parts.


It didn't specify between a hydrogen internal combustion or fuel cell. :dunno:
 
Question for anyone: I noticed that in Europe real estate is often referred to as "this-thing-does-not-move" i.e. immobile or the Polish nieruchomosc. Is that just a language thing or is it a cultural thing? We just call it real estate here in North America as far as we know. When I first heard the Polish term, I was confused what they were advertising, since only humans, animals, and some plants move. Any idea where this way of referring to real estate originates? (the linguistic origins - Latin?, or historic)

I used to think that's a silly Polish thing, but now I've seen it in other European countries too.
A bonum (good) can be classified as mobile or immobile in Latin, as Sofista says.
This is the definition of movable (noun) on Wiktionary:
  1. Something which is movable; an article of wares or goods; a commodity; a piece of property not fixed, or not a part of real estate; generally, in the plural, goods; wares; furniture.
while immovable (adjective) is defined as:

4. (law) not liable to be removed; permanent in place or tenure; fixed
an immovable estate

Effectively, English word uses a mixture of alternate pronunciations of French and Latin words but chattel is moveable property and real estate is immoveable i.e. land or land-attached property. In Castilian* ‘derechos reales’ still means ‘real <estate> law). From res: thing, object.

Also see their entry on thing:

The word originally meant "assembly", then came to mean a specific issue discussed at such an assembly, and ultimately came to mean most broadly "an object". Compare Latin rēs, also meaning "legal matter", and same transition from Latin causa (“legal matter”) to "thing" in Romance languages. Modern use to refer to a Germanic assembly is likely influenced by cognates (from the same Proto-Germanic root) like Old Norse þing (“thing”), Swedish ting, and Old High German ding with this meaning.​

Res publica: the public thing → ‘republic’

I could go on and on a bit further but I don't know whether it'd be worth it at this point.

*Españish for the unenlighted
 
Anyone want to play guess the organ? Unfortunately unless anyone is really good at it there will not be an authoritative answer. I have been getting into liver and kidneys that my butcher sells as dog food, as they are really cheap. I got a pack of the organ in the images below, and I know enough to say it is neither liver or kidneys, but it is really tasty. Anyone want to guess what it is?
Spoiler Organ in question :
 
I am not familiar with internal organs' shape, but it looks a bit like a tongue :)
It is nothing like tongue. Tongue is basically a solid muscle, and this is not muscle tissue at all. It has a texture more like fat, but tastes much more meaty.
 
Hmm... pinkish-grey, slightly convoluted "external" surface, spongy-looking "internal" texture, fatty.

Imma guess brain...
 
The lower picture looks more like brain, the upper more like stomach.

But what... tasty? You shouldn't eat something which you don't know... you know...?
If the stuff is sold for dogs, it's probably also not necessarily made for human consumption.
 
Hmm... pinkish-grey, slightly convoluted "external" surface, spongy-looking "internal" texture, fatty.

Imma guess brain...
Not brain, not the gray and white layers.
The lower picture looks more like brain, the upper more like stomach.

But what... tasty? You shouldn't eat something which you don't know... you know...?
If the stuff is sold for dogs, it's probably also not necessarily made for human consumption.
Nothing like stomach, that is principally gristle/collagen while this is not tough at all. This is at a really quite posh butchers I go to because it is about the closest shop, and I am assured it is all suitable for human consumption. Just not exactly packaged that way.
 
Not brain, not the gray and white layers.
If it's not liver, kidneys, brain or stomach — and I know it's not intestines, lungs or heart (I know what those look like), and I'm pretty sure it's not testicles or uterus — then the only (major) mammalian organs left are the spleen and pancreas.

I know where those organs fit, but I'd forgotten what the mammalian versions look like (it's a long time since I did the mouse dissection class for Biology A-Level!). But based on a quick look at the few photos in the Wiki entries, my next guess would be pancreas.
 
If it's not liver, kidneys, brain or stomach — and I know it's not intestines, lungs or heart (I know what those look like), and I'm pretty sure it's not testicles or uterus — then the only (major) mammalian organs left are the spleen and pancreas.

I know where those organs fit, but I'd forgotten what the mammalian versions look like (it's a long time since I did the mouse dissection class for Biology A-Level!). But based on a quick look at the few photos in the Wiki entries, my next guess would be pancreas.
I think you are probably right. It looks quite like this:
Spoiler Pancreas :

from here, and like this cooked:

from here
 
What's the chance of Rittenhouse getting sentenced to be locked up for a few years?
I think he should be in prison for at least 5 years; he had no business being there and people were killed due to his decision. It seems the police helped things reach a boiling point by driving the protesters to the street where the militia were most active in the first place.
 
Is there a word for the rhetorical tactic of finding a category that is generally considered then manipulating the definition of the category to include something the speaker does not like with the aim of criticising the thing because of its membership of the category, rather than the inherent value of the thing itself?

This is perhaps most commonly used with the category terrorism, with examples of things such as [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Other examples include racism [5], [6] and riot [6].
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom