explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2905: Supergroup

2024-03-20T23:53:27Z

MGoSeth: added 10,000 maniacs to the list

;Title text
Isn't the sum in the title text wrong? It should be ''99 Luftballoons'' (or the English cover ''99 Red Balloons'') + ''101 Dalmatians'' + ''I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)'' = 700 balloons, dalmatians and miles (not 1,200).--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.103|141.101.69.103]]
::Really?! 1000 miles is "wrong" because the ''only'' song ever written about miles is that one that mentions 500 of them in the title?! Wow. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 10:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe it's about Vanessa Carlton's "A Thousand Miles"? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.65.245|172.69.65.245]] 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:Note that ''I'm Gonna Be'' is actually about walking 1000 miles, not 500 miles. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.39.41|172.70.39.41]] 08:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::Right! "I-hai would walk five hundred miles, and I-hai would walk five hundred more..." [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 15:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::So what though, really? The title only contains 500, regardless of what the lyrics say, and it's about forming composites of songs' names. Lionel Richie would only count as contributing "''Three''" Times a Lady, despite singing about once and twice as well. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 10:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Like Yorkshire Pudding said... Comic is all Group NAMES, title is about song TITLES. "I would walk 500 more" simply isn't part of the title. It might be worth a passing mention, but less so and fewer times than it currently is. It's an interesting associated fact, but doesn't deserve to be treated like it's a potential candidate. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:First and only song I thought of as well, but of course this is referring to Vanessa Carlton's "1,000 Miles", I didn't think of it until I saw the description. :) He DID get the title wrong, though. It's LUFTballoons (or "Red Balloons" for the English version). [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

"cover" implies that the combined song already exists and was performed by some other group. I would expect that this supergroup would have created the medley themselves, to fit their particular genre. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"101 Dalmations" isn't a well known song AFAIK. It was written as the title song of the Disney movie, but wasn't actually used. Wikipedia says it got released on other albums. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like he REALLY wanted it in order to round off the 99 from 99 Luftballons. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::You'd have the same result if you added 101 {{w|Twenty Four Hours from Tulsa|Hours From Tulsa}}, {{w|Seventy-Six Trombones|Trombones}} and {{w|One Vision|Visions}}, instead?
::(Am pleased enough to include Queen, in any such medley, but originally was wondering if the sountrack from "(The) ... Sense" should combine with "... Finger, Left Hand" and "... A Sixpence", at that point.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.225|172.69.43.225]] 16:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
A supergroup cover of ''99 Luftballons'' would probably be ''awesome.'' --[[User:The-Daleks|The-Daleks]] ([[User talk:The-Daleks|talk]]) 20:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know all the bands, but it looks like they are: 21 Pilots, 5 Seconds of Summer, 4 Non Blondes, 2 Live Crew, 100 GEC, 3 Doors Down, 9 Inch Nails, 1 Republic, 1 Direction, 30 Seconds to Mars.

;Missed Opportunity (to n3rd about maths)
I am surprised there were no references to orthosymplectic or superunitary groups.
:That's what I originally thought the joke would be about. This is much more mundane. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:Well if ''G'' and ''H'' are groups and ''G'' ⊇ ''H'', then ''G'' is a supergroup of ''H'', isn't it? --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 13:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::If you know the math, could you please check my edit? All I know about it is the name, and that it has something to do with supersymmetry in string theory. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 14:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that the description misses the connection to math:
* Group is a mathematical concept (**set** of elements with some properties and operations)
* Sub-group is a subset of a group that retains the properties; Super-group can be constructed similarrly;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics) ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subgroup ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergroup_(physics)
--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.132|141.101.105.132]] 18:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:I added a sentence about supergroups in mathematical physics, feel free to add anything that's missing for a good explanation. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 14:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

;Other Bands/Artists/Movies/Songs with Numbers
throw in:
* {{w|23 Skidoo (band)|23 Skidoo}}
* {{w|400 Blows (British band)|400 Blows}}
--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.76|162.158.63.76]] 07:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:{{w|Five Finger Death Punch}}
:{{w|Six Feet Under (band)|Six Feet Under}} --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::No one's mentioned {{w|Three Days Grace}} yet? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.101|172.68.2.101]] 05:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Or 3 Colours Red? Or 9 Days? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 10:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I remember a great film, ''The Magnificently Dirty Nineteen''. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.155|172.69.195.155]]
:Don't forget the sequel ''The Fantastic Ocean's Taking of Pelham Slaughterhouse 143'' [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::And the supercut "The Fast and the Furious 41" --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 15:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I like the alternate cut: 108 Dalmation Nation Army. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.48|172.69.247.48]]

I'm going to hold out for The Blink and Ben Folds 2162. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.189|162.158.159.189]] 22:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:{{w|10,000 Maniacs}} could have gotten the numbers up, and I'm guessing a lot of readers would have gotten that reference? [[User:MGoSeth|MGoSeth]] ([[User talk:MGoSeth|talk]]) 23:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Not to be confused with the album Greatest Discount Hits with classic songs like Two Bridges Road, Twelve Ways to Leave Your Lover, and 1 Legit 1 Quit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.57|172.69.247.57]] 06:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

; WHO THE FUCK REMOVED MY GOOGLE-INFESTED WIKILINKS

[[User:Jupitale|gay jupitah (he/they)]] ([[User talk:Jupitale|talk]]) 14:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.174|172.70.86.174]] 16:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it only me, or is there no actual edit in [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2905:_Supergroup&diff=prev&oldid=337351 this diff]? (Every now and then I see edits that indicate a paragraph gets replaced ''with itself'', and not even an extra space removed, or a missing one added, which at least should highlight yellow or blue in the appropriate block of text.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.190|172.71.178.190]] 02:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

:There's actually a spaces difference. "100/2=50" was edited into "100 / 2 = 50". --[[User:DukeBG|DukeBG]] ([[User talk:DukeBG|talk]]) 19:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

::Well, that's strange. I (thought I) had checked every line-end to look for different rewrapping. Which is definitely there now. But I honestly believe was not at time of posting. I accept that I'm probably more likely to be wrong about that than the backend code being strangely capricious, but - seriously - I did everything but copy the two texts to a notepad window. Would have done, if I was on a desktop (which would let me line things up horizontally and even search-and-replace strings until the diff reveals), but that's not so easy to juggle on my touchscreen device. And, regardless, I would normally expect even subtle spaces (added/removed) to be highlit.
::But now I know. End of that query, at least. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2567: Language Development

2022-01-18T15:00:24Z

MGoSeth: But they're right!

Has a small, child-size, stick figure been used before? I did not find a category on explainxkcd. This might be an interesting trivia to add. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.129|198.41.242.129]] 18:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
: There have definitely been kids on xkcd before. For example: [[1145: Sky Color]] (but I'm sure there are others). --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:::That is not a baby. There have been several comics talking about or depicting babies, and lots with kids. The kid you showed there has her own category [[Science Girl]] and has thus been used alot. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
:: Other examples are [[674: Natural Parenting]], [[441: Babies]] and [[1650: Baby]] [[User:Kvarts314|Kvarts314]] ([[User talk:Kvarts314|talk]])
:::Yes nothing odd there, but we could of make a category for comics with babies or mentioning babies, but not like a character page... Could that be relevant? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
:::: I think it would be relevant. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.133|172.68.110.133]] 12:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::Created: [[:Category:Comics featuring babies]] --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually words linguists use when they try to talk in very old languages sometimes sound like the things my little son might say between his first perfectly pronounced single words.--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 18:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone needs to say “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.151|172.70.206.151]] 18:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Wiktionary, I believe the child is saying "[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/milk#Etymology_1 Milk] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/please#Etymology_1 Please]" See also [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%82mel%C7%B5- Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂melǵ-] [[User:Bpendragon|Bpendragon]] ([[User talk:Bpendragon|talk]]) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully he won't say the proto-Indo-European word for "bear". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.26|162.158.74.26]] 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Pat
:You mean *hrktos? 20:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:: Oops. I think a brown one ate my IP address.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.92|162.158.187.92]] 20:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:::I think you mean [[2381: The True Name of the Bear|Arth?]] ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The pace of early stage development isn't necessarily an indicator for continued development pacing. I didn't start Proto-Indo-European until I was almost 2, but had completed full vowel shift before second grade. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.73|108.162.237.73]] 21:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:I corroborate this. I hadn't made many full sentences in Proto-Indo-European until around 4, but by 3rd grade I had fully changed to modern english. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.215|172.70.126.215]] 23:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Though the explanation eventually touches on this (perhaps multiple editors got in there and shuffled this nearer the end) I believe it should really have ''started'' with something about how Language Development (in a child) is being confused/conflated with Language Development (in human (pre)history). It would get straight to the point, I believe. It could then continue to go the further mile in getting into the deconstruction of it all. I'm leaving it unedited by myself, for now, because it deserves a lot more text-shuffling and refining than I can promise to do myself right now, but putting this idea out there to pique the interest of other possible editors. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 21:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:I have done this now. Originally I and someone else both submitted a really long description at the same time and my "merge" in my limited time was just to put my text after his. Now that I have more time, I've gone through and tried to weave the two in a more logical way, and have it starting with the basic explanation of the joke. I'm new to contributing at this level so if someone wants to check it over to make sure it looks good, feel free. [[User:Levininja|Levininja]] ([[User talk:Levininja|talk]]) 00:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Old English developed out of Proto-Germanic. Modern English developed out of Old English with many additions from French..."<br>According to John McWhorter, English is the product of Germanic tongues (spoken by Angles or Saxons?) creolized with the local Celtic languages such as the ancestors of Welsh and Cornish. That involved a blending of grammar and some vocabulary. Later came pidginizing with Norse speech of the Vikings, where details like case inflections were blurred or lost. Romance borrowings came yet a bit later, with 1066 and all that Norman Conquest business.<br>
McWhorter's ''Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English'' is perhaps worth a read; hope I haven't mutilated the gist of it too much. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.245|172.70.110.245]] 01:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I second a mention/explanation of the whole "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" idea mentioned above. In biological evolution that turned out to be an error, and it's obviously an error here, too. [[User:Mschmidt62|Mschmidt62]] ([[User talk:Mschmidt62|talk]]) 02:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If the baby is speaking Proto-Indo-European (with some emerging Germanic) at age 1, and Elizabethan English by age 2, is anyone able to work out by what age they would be speaking our present form of English? --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 10:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The awesome subtext of this comic--and I'm not sure if it was intentional--is that English-speaking children really do learn proto-Indo-European words first, then proto-Germanic, then Middle English, then Norman French, and so on. Our simplest words are our oldest words, and Pa/Ma are relatively unchanged from a possible pre-PIE language (because similar sounds appear in Semitic languages). Our most basic words are usually our oldest words. Our pronouns and articles are proto-Germanic, and the next level of complexity are Anglo-Saxon in origin--mostly animal names and common items and actions. Only when we get into complexity do we encounter the French influences, and then newer words or compounds. The reason for this goes back to how languages change. As a new language "takes over" the first words they replace are legal (because who's running the courts), and high-end goods. Then commercial language shifts, and if there's a religious aspect or educational systems set up you'll see that come over as well. The hardest things to penetrate are the furthest from the invading speakers' influence: farm animals (why we use Anglo-Saxon "cow" for the animal but French "beef" for the meat from it, etc.) and finally the home. And yes, when you have a couple of parents interested in linguistics, they really do point out to each other the origin of their children's speech. Uh...should I be admitting this? [[User:MGoSeth|MGoSeth]] ([[User talk:MGoSeth|talk]]) 15:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)