Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 May 1

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.

May 1

Statues on interior columns of Berlin's Marienkirche

Are they perhaps seen here?

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Question I previously asked on Commons, but without success: all I really know about these statues is that they are attached to the interior columns of Berlin's Marienkirche. They look to me to be late medieval, and I suspect that there is some significance to them as a group. Both English- and German-language WP articles on that church are pretty lightweight. The German-language article does mention that „Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg gelangten zahlreiche Kunstgegenstände aus der zerstörten Nikolaikirche und der ebenfalls zerstörten Franziskanerklosterkirche in die Marienkirche.“ (“After the Second World War, numerous works of art from the destroyed Nikolaikirche and the also destroyed Franziskanerklosterkirche has been brought into in the Marienkirche.”) These might be some of those. Or they might not. Speravir thought they might be the ones in the background at File:Berlin Franziskaner Klosterkirche BusB.jpg, but I doubt it: (1) none of the ones I photographed have halos, whereas the ones at top in the Franciscan church do; (2) the ones I photographed seem to be statues, while the Franciscan ones are almost certainly high reliefs; (3) although it's hard to tell for sure in a grainy photo, I think the Franciscan ones are not so finely worked.

Thoughts? - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A thorough Google search didn't help, but a German speaker might have more success. The first statue might be St George with his crossed shield, the second St Michael who is typically depicted in this pose - see Archangel Michael in Christian art. Alansplodge (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

They have a homepage with the contact buero@marienkirche-berlin.de. If help with translation is required, please ping. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: I more or less agree, but then the lack of any halos is surprising. - Jmabel | Talk 14:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM: Ich habe ganz gut Deutsch (oder veilleicht ganz gut Auslanderdeutsch); ob niemand hier hat ein Antwort, erste frag ich in de-wiki, und wenn das fehlschlägt, solche e-mail wird ich senden. (Ich lese und schribe viel besser als ich sprechen kann.) - Jmabel | Talk 14:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The third statue is St Barbara, and the fifth is probably St Anthony of Egypt (assuming that's a pig), if that's helpful. See Saint symbolism. Tevildo (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• The first is almost certainlytsomeone associated with the Teutonic Order, as a warrior with a sword and a black crossed shield and the peculiar red hat, it almost perfectly fits a Grand Master of the order, see for example the portrait of Hermann von Salza, an early Grand Master who has the same iconography. You can see the same iconography at Michael Küchmeister von Sternberg a much later Grand Master. So I'm 99% certain that statue is of a Grand Master. I have no idea WHICH Grand Master that is, but he's wearing the appropriate garb. --Jayron32 18:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  The fourth may be Catherine of Alexandria, who is usually depicted with a quill and book as her iconography, but is sometimes carrying the sword upon which she was martyred. i.e. Here in a picture by Rubens. --Jayron32 18:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  The sixth is obviously a Bishop of some sort; wearing a traditional bishop's mitre and carrying the staff of office. You can see examples of this in both art and in real life at Bishop in the Catholic Church. --Jayron32 18:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  The last appears to be a monk of some sort; the lack of head covering, simple dress, etc. seem to indicate a member of a mendicant order. --Jayron32 18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• All of that is useful (and some of that was what I already conjectured); what I'm most hoping for is to date these, work out where they came from (always in the Marienkirche? Moved from the Nikolaikirche? from somewhere else?), etc. Remarkably little about the art in the church either on en-wiki, de-wiki, or the church's own web site. - Jmabel | Talk 22:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Kim Jong-nam's body

Why was Kim Jong-nam's body released to the DPRK instead of his immediate family? When some country's citizen dies abroad who's, in principle, according to international law, entitled to the body? The immediate family or the country? Was international law followed here?

I remember reading in some news outlets that Malaysia said the body would be released to the DPRK after the autopsy as long as and after they receive a letter from Kim Jong-nam's family requesting that his body be returned to the DPRK. Was such a letter ever received? Did Malaysia ever present such a letter? Was the Malaysian statement an implicit acknowledgement (leaving aside whether such a letter was ever actually received) that it's normally the family that has the last word according to international law?

I couldn't find any answer to any of this in Assassination of Kim Jong-nam.

Thanks. Basemetal 13:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Read this article. --Jayron32 16:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I've read most of the obvious stuff from about a year ago (including that BBC article) but still haven't found answers. For anyone going to the BBC article look for the amusing equivocation of the Malaysian authorities as to who they consider the next of kin and which family did made the request for the body come from. They refused to say. Apparently some of the Malaysian spokespeople pretended they consider Kim Jong-un to be the next of kin. Then there should've been no problem, right? I was hoping a year on some things may have become clearer. Anybody's got anything else? Basemetal 18:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well as per the AFP source, the Malaysian PM said they received a letter. I don't believe it was ever publicly presented. I don't believe they ever suggested they would publicly reveal the letter. I'm not even aware they ever said the letter would have to be from his immediateclosest family. (I do think it's obvious that when North Korea decided to hold Malaysian citizens hostage they decided the body wasn't worth fighting over, even if it's not something they would ever say.) I'm not convinced this is something really dealt with in international law. Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I found [1] which mentions article 34 of additional Protocol I (which Israel hasn't ratified, not noted in the previous source) of the Geneva Conventions. If you look at it here [2], you'll see it only deals with bodies either dying in conflict or from detention (that is part of conflict or occupation). Also it requires the return of bodies to the home country if either the home country or the next of kin requests it. It seems to preclude the body being returned if the home country objects even if the next of kin wants it, but it doesn't even preclude the return if the next of kin objects but the country requests it, let alone require them to request it. (There would seem to be obvious reasons for this. After widespread conflict, requiring approval of next of kin for every body would seem to be very unwieldy.) Also I don't know if it's defined somewhere else, but it doesn't define next of kin. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth remembering that as sort of reflected in the above sources, 'international law' is not exactly a clear in a lot of cases. To give an slightly related example, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction deals with child abductions by one parent to another country by requiring the child is returned to their country of Habitual residence under most circumstances rather than considering most details of the custody dispute. But developing countries particularly those in Asia and Africa have been slow to adopt it, it only has 98 parties according to our article. So it's something that comes up every now and then when there is a high profile case. I'm sure some would suggest that all countries should adopt and apply it, as reflective of customary law etc. But I'm also sure others would suggest there is no clear international law, and countries are free to reject it and continue to apply their own laws in such cases perhaps because they consider that the other countries laws are biased against their citizens or whatever. International law also tends to deal best with things that arise a lot. I'm not sure 'home country including some of his family wants someone's bodies but his closest family in hiding in some other country maybe doesn't want them to have it but because they're in hiding they probably can't actually say anything about it very easily' is something likely to be well dealt with. Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. It seems the Malaysian authorities felt they had to justify who they were gonna release the body to. If it had been just a bilateral matter between the DPRK and Malaysia I don't see why Malaysia felt they had to explain anything. In the event, since Kim Jong-nam's family lives in China, and were, I'd assume, shit scared then (and probably still are), the Chinese were I'm sure very capable of letting them know they'd better not make a fuss, so in the end it did work out as a deal between the DPRK and Malaysia. But it was my impression the Malaysians were concerned about the opinion of the world watching what they were going to do and it was only North Korean blackmail that forced them into this deal. Basemetal 20:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well Malaysia had already said they needed a letter from the Kim Jong-nam's family to release the body, so they had to then explain why they released it later and they did this by saying they received a letter. This doesn't seem that surprising. The fact they weren't willing to say they were blackmailed into it isn't something that seems surprising or uncommon in the world. As for why they made the letter request in the first place, I don't think Malaysia really wanted to hand over the body to North Korea not just because the world was watching, and not just because his son didn't want them to but also because they were almighty pissed off that North Korea had decided to pull that shit in Malaysia. It doesn't seem that surprising you'd be fairly annoyed that a pariah country which you're one of the few in the world to have any sort of relations with decides to murder someone in your countries main airport using a nerve agent and now wants his body back without an autospy. Since it's not something dealt with in international law, they're free to apply whatever local laws they feel suitable and so they said they needed a letter from the family. The fact that the victim was also the half brother of the president, but this was being denied, was also convenient in a number of ways. You could try and force the North Koreans to actually accept the identification, or maybe even cooperate in to if they wanted to get the body. And the wording may have been purposely ambiguous since that way they could refuse to hand over the body even if Kim Jong-un sent a letter because they were waiting his closer family. Or they could also hand over to Kim Jong-un if they wanted to. In the end the blackmail forced their hand. Whether they actually received some letter like they said they did, I don't know. But I wouldn't be completely surprised if they did stick to that demand since it doesn't seem that hard for North Korea to comply. It didn't have to even be from Kim Jong-un, there is a sister and I'm guessing other family members that Kim Jong-un hasn't killed. And of course since AFAIK/R the Malaysians didn't say they would demand DNA or other definite evidence that the person demanding it was a family member, the North Koreans could just send some random letter anyway. I'm not convinced that Kim Jong-nam's children and wives actually wanted to make more of a fuss than they did about the body and were stopped by China. I admit unlike I presume you were, I wasn't aware when I wrote the above (hence the strike out and replace) that it was confirmed at least one son had made it clear that he didn't want the body returned to North Korea. He obviously wouldn't have been happy about the Malaysians returning the body to North Korea. On the other hand, making a more public fuss is unlikely to have stopped Malaysia returning it, but it probably would have soured his relations with the Malaysians who were the ones investigating his father's death and even if there wasn't much they were likely to be able to do, he may very well seen it as better to keep them on his side. Nil Einne (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I probably should have read better before posting. I just remembered and confirmed here [3] he was carrying a diplomatic passport. This complicates things since it's generally expected diplomats are much more protected. Although I think we can be sure he was never specifically accredited to Malaysia which in many ways makes it more up to them whether they want to actual grant the protections etc normally reserved for diplomats. In any case, getting back to what I said earlier, the international rule book sort of falls apart when the 'diplomat' was going under a pseudonym and was murdered by the country they're a diplomat of, on the order of his half brother the president-dictator. Still I note that they did say they felt free to perform an autopsy because North Korea never formally protested so there probably was some level of recognition of that. Maybe also because desecration or mutilation if bodies is something dealt with in international law although again I think mostly relating to conflicts [4]. BTW, I don't know if you've read the earlier source or the details are mentioned in our articles (unlike the other stuff I mentioned I got it only from searching). But I find it revealing. I wouldn't be completely surprised if the North Koreans were hoping to just get the body back no questions no autopsy before the Malaysians realised what happened and this fell out the window partially because the Malaysians were told by the South Koreans who the victim was when they sent the details to them by accident. Although I have doubts this would have happened, I suspect they would have at least reviewed CCTV footage and realised something fishy was up. Nil Einne (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

'home country including some of his family wants someone's bodies but his closest family in hiding in some other country maybe doesn't want them to have it but because they're in hiding they can't actually formally claim it and so have told you to cremate it however you want and handle the ashes yourselves, just don't hand it over to the home country' Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I replaced immediate with closest above since of course Kim Jong-un would often be considered part of Kim Jong-nam's immediate family. Also one thing I forgot to mention, IIRC one of the initial problems was that North Korea was denying the person was even Kim Jong-nam. Kim Jong-un couldn't claim the body of his brother if he was saying that the person wasn't actually his brother. So IIRC, the letter thing was as much as anything probably about forcing North Korea to actual accept the identification. Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Addendum: Has it become clearer one year on why Kim Jong-nam was even in Malaysia? There was some speculation in the Japanese and Thai press a few months ago that, apparently, he had met a US intelligence officer in Malaysia and was going back to Macao. The Telegraph says he was carrying an antidote to the nerve agent. Then why didn't he use it? Many questions still remain. Are you (Nil) able to Google the press in Malay and see if there's anything more in Malay that there is in English? The Japanese and South Korean press must also be a good source for anyone able to handle the languages. Although I do understand some Japanese it is very very far from what would be required in order to read the Asahi Shimbun say. And there could be sources in other languages of the area (Thai, Indonesian) that may have more information. The Philippines too, but it is my impression most of the press there is in English so Google would have brought me results from sources from the Philippines if they had anything more to say on the matter than international sources. Thanks. Basemetal 21:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

While I could search in the Malay press, I don't think it's likely there will be more information. English is widely used enough in Malaysia, especially among the middle and upper classes who are the ones most likely to be interested in this kind of thing, that it's unlikely there will be anything significant in Malay but not in English.

The investigating officer confirmed that he traveled to Langkawi, stayed at the Westin Hotel and met a Korean-American. And also that data was accessed from a USB device plugged into a laptop on the day of the meeting [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. He claims however they were not able to identify the Korean-American person who Kim Jong-nam met, and also that they don't believe that the $138000 money that Kim Jong-nam had had anything to do with the murder.

From what I can tell, most of this concurs with the earlier Japanese report except they specifically claim the person was an American intelligence agent and that the Malaysians were already following him. (Which would suggest to me they would probably have been following Kim Jong-nam, which if true, makes me wonder if sending his passport to South Korea was actually a mistake.) They also claim the money was given by the agent. It's possible both the investigator's and the Japanese claim could be true depending on the specific statements in court. (E.g. if the investigators were told not to look into the identity of the Korean-American further. And about the money, even assuming the murder was because of the meeting and not just because of an existing plan, it's probably technically true the money didn't relate to the murder as the North Koreans would have cared about the meeting not the money.)

I'd note that one or more of the sources also mention Kim Jong-nam staying at a Kuala Lumpur shopping district before he went to Langkawi and I seem to recall reading suggestions before despite the threats on his life that he possibly regularly traveled to Malaysia and Singapore (and possibly Indonesia?). This source sort of mentions that [10]. Well it could be any country a North Korean 'diplomat' could freely visit. (He evidently did have four passports and I didn't read what countries they were from. So he might have theoretically had a wider travel range. OTOH, traveling with an illicit passport to countries less friendly to North Koreans carried risks from wherever he was visiting.) And the earlier source on Kim Jong-nam fearing for his life also appears to be describing an earlier trip to Malaysia. So I wouldn't completely put aside the possibility he was there for a holiday and was approached for the meeting rather than travelling there for it. I.E. even if he did meet with an American agent in Malaysia, it doesn't mean that's why he was in Malaysia.

BTW, him carrying atropine was confirmed by the toxicologist [11]. This mentions vials which suggests to me a liquid, although the Washington Post seems to think they were tablets and potentially useless [12] [13]. This source [14] sort of suggests what I understand namely even with an injection your chance of survival may not be that high. As to why he didn't use it, well speaking on a personal level on the few times I've dealt with far lesser emergencies and stuff I can say that it's very easy to be able to think of what you should do in the abstract but when you're actually dealing with a situation it's easy for any such thoughts to never happen. And the nature of the attack may have delayed Kim Jong-nam's recognition of what happened plus you have an additional complication that he was likely soon affected. (Although I have seen it suggested that Kim Jong-nam's case doesn't seem to have been a typical VX attack possibly because it was degraded [15]. So perhaps he had more opportunity. That said, none of the earlier sources even confirm that he didn't try to use the atropine although I didn't really look properly, I'd have though I'd have seen a source if it had ever been confirmed he did try.)

Nil Einne (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nil. All this is extremely interesting. I'll spend an hour or two now to delve into all of this. You're very good at finding sources. One day you'll have to show me how you come up with such effective Google search strings. Again, thanks a lot. Basemetal 00:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Legitimate vs illegitimate children

Nowadays, are there any financial or material benefits that legitimate children over illegitimate children? When the parents die, are legitimate children given higher priority than the illegitimate children over inheritance unless the parents have explicitly made a will? SSS (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

1) It depends on what jurisdiction you are in 2) Answers to questions such as these are often easily answered in Google, without having to involved anyone else. All you need to do is type a related phrase (maybe try 2 or 3) into Google and see what you get. For example, when I type "benefits of legitimizing your child" in Google, I get these results, which brings up a wide array of answers based on different legal jurisdictions. Depending on where you live, you can refine that search by adding the name of your local legal jurisdiction, as is relevent for you. --Jayron32 17:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite Legitimacy (family law), the term "illegitimate child" went out with the ark. If it's really necessary to state that a child's parents weren't married at the time of his/her birth, we say just that, or make it clear from the timeline. We don't label a child with the perceived sins of omission of the parents. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I wish that were true, but the term is still in use, and the fact is of material importance, when it comes to matters of citizenship. See "Legitimation and domicile" by the UK government, with an appendix of other countries' laws. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Even in Australia while the term may have largely fallen out of favour by the government largely replaced with the term ex-nuptial in modern contexts [16], this doesn't stop the media using it [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] (okay the last one is I think mostly a joke). Also I suspect there is at least one area in Australian law where legitimacy and not ex-nuptial would still be used namely Heirs of the body that is part of the Act of Settlement 1700 and covers royal succession [22].

Incidently while illegitimate may not be that common in the Australian media any more especially with reference to modern children, it's not ex-nuptial or 'child's parents weren't married at the time of his/her birth' but the term love child. Just take a look at all of the many, many, many, many, many references to the former Australian deputy PM and the child which he said may or may not be his.

Outside of Australia, the Malaysian constitution still refers to illegitimacy in relation to citizenship, and legitimacy in relation to which areas of law Islamic and native courts may be involved in [23] and this is something that comes up in real life [24] [25]. As mentioned there, there is also the Legitimacy Act 1961. Tthe situation arises in various aspects of Indian law too e.g. [26] is about a Supreme Court case which ruled that if the father and mother are living together the child is not illegitimate even if the parents weren't married, but implicit in this is that the child would still be illegitimate if the parents were neither married nor living together. This was in 2014, but I'm not sure there has been a more recent judgement applying it to all. I'm fairly sure there must be some references in US law too e.g. [27] [28]

Note also regardless of the term used, it isn't just in citizenship that the issue can come up. In reference to the earlier question, a number of countries do still have differences in inheritance rights for children born to parents who weren't married, generally in relation to the father's property; and possibly even for maintenance. See e.g. this RS discussion of the situation in Malaysia [29] and this non RS discussion for India [30] (I came across on RS mention of one specific case [31] which seems significant. I think when it comes to maintenance India has largely abandoned any distinction [32] [33]). The US at least is like much of the West in removing much of the distinction even if the term may still arise in law www.nolo .com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/living-together-book/chapter7-5.html . (The earlier refs were mostly to do with how to handle such cases and not in proscribing different rights.)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I largely restricted my above examples to places where English is common to avoid disputes over whether the local language term is equivalent to the English terms. But I did notice a reference to Japan during my research. Some more research finds [34] [35] [36] [37] which mention amongst other things that legitimacy is listed in the Koseki. From what I can tell [38] [39], it still is although the later source does mention it no longer affects inheritance rights since a Supreme Court case in 2013 (I'm guessing the one mentioned in some of the earlier sources).

One point mentioned in the Malaysian law discussion in relation to Islamic law, which would seem to come up in Japanese law [40] too. There can be a forced public notification of the 'illegitimacy' if the child is prevented from taking the name of their father when it is the norm in their culture. (Be it a patronym or a surname.)

Although there's an obvious difference between a child being forced to adopt a patronym generally given to 'illegitimate' children like in Malaysia, and a child taking some other patronym or surname perhaps their mothers. The later means it will only be known if the father's name or perhaps mother's name is known. The issue for Muslims in Malaysia has recently come up in court [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. One thing which I've never actually seen discussed is what it's like if your father's name is Abdullah. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for example has two children although I doubt it was ever a problem for them, and there are various ways the name could be styled to avoid 'confusion'.

And to be clear, I'm not saying I agree with any of these practices simply that they exist. And so while perhaps it would be better to avoid such terms on the RD where possible, they are stil a reality for many.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

We also have Birthright citizenship in the United States#Children born overseas out of wedlock. Loraof (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Profit flows between countries

The people of country A have money invested in country B, and vice versa. What's the statistic that describes the net flow of the profits between the two countries? What are the implications of this figure?--Questionaboutprofits (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Start with Current account and see where that leads you. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Czechs learning Slovak, or vice versa

[Asking here because it seems like more of a historical question than a linguistic one:] In post-WW2 Czechoslovakia, were Czechs and Slovaks formally taught each other's language in school, or were the two languages considered similar enough that children could "wing it"? Or was there an asymmetric situation, with Slovaks being taught Czech but Czechs not being taught Slovak? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

According to The World's Major Languages (1987), "The two languages...are on average 90 percent mutually intelligible. ...Czechs and Slovaks are constantly exposed each to the other's language". It really would not have made much sense to teach the Czech language to Slovak-speaking students using the methods for teaching a foreign language (an hour a day for three years, or whatever), and vice versa... AnonMoos (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I had a Czech friend who told me that half of the movies were dubbed in Czech and half in Slovakian. So they are always exposed to the other language. Learning the other language would be like learning American English in a British school. They don't need to learn it, they will get it no matter what. Ericdec85 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The differences between Ameircan and British language is much smaller than 10% (if the data above is correct); the small differences in vocabulary and pronunciation do not represent one in ten utterances between the two languages; a 90% mutual intelligibility means that one out of every ten exchanges is still misunderstood. Between standard American and standard British dialects, they seem far closer than that! The vocabulary differences are so minor that you can conveniently list them all on a few pages of text, see Comparison of American and British English. --Jayron32 12:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how the 90% figure was calculated, but I would assume that it refers to basic natural mutual comprehensibility (i.e. the ability of a speaker of language A who knows nothing about language B to understand a speaker of language B, and vice versa), while the practical mutual comprehensibility between average Czech and Slovak speakers in the conditions obtaining in post-WW2 Czechoslovakia would have been higher... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Also, even though people talk of "mutual" intelligibility, intelligibility between speakers of two different languages may not be symmetrical: anecdotally, Portuguese speakers are said to be able to understand Spanish better than the other way round. The Australian linguist Robert M. W. Dixon who (among others) was making that observation (in The Rise and Fall of Languages), also calling it "anecdotal", so apparently never rigorously verified, was speculating that this may be because Spanish is more conservative. I don't know if that applies in the case of Czech and Slovak but it is my (again, anecdotal) impression that Slovaks understand Czech better than the other way round. But that may have to do with the specific historical and political conditions, which AnonMoos alludes to, rather than purely linguistic factors. Basemetal 14:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)