Sign Word for Administrative Later

rubs hands togetherBecause, in short, they hadn’t invented accountants yet.This, while it might seem unlikely, is a very good question. The obvious answer, which the other three answers have given more pithily than I can ever hope to be capable of doing, is that there is no evidence of those records. Our earliest examples of writing come from the Sumerians in Mesopotamia in roughly 3500 BC, as covered here.An early cuneiform tablet, from somewhere around 3000 BC.Before that, there’s no evidence of written language. Cuneiform, the Mesopotamian writing system, is the first script we can point to and say, “Yes, that’s definitely a written language.” There are a few potential (though extremely, absolutely, very not at all likely) contenders, e.g. the Vinča symbols, but, even if they did represent a language, those only date to maybe a couple millennia earlier. Again, there’s no records on the scale presented here.But there’s another question, a fun question, below that. Sure, it’s unlikely that there ever were lost written languages - but is it impossible that there were? Could - not was, but could - there have been a written language, invented 100 000 years ago, that was lost to time?It’s not immediately unthinkable. Some writing systems, like Brahmi in India and Phoenician in, well, Phoenicia were originally written on bark or leaves or papyrus, which decay quickly, so we have few records of early Brahmi or Phoenician writing. Maybe our hypothetical lost writing system was written on bark or leaves or animal hide or some other quickly-compostable material, hence why we’ve got no records of it. Come to think of it, the idea of a lost, ancient, etc. writing system isImpossible. I’ll stop the suspense there. It’s not possible. There could not have been a writing system from before 4000-5000 BC at most, and most likely none before Mesopotamian cuneiform in 3500 BC. Why this is the case is an excellent question; to answer it, I’m going to talk about wheels.The wheel is the archetypal simple invention. It’s a ubiquitous round thing that moves stuff: how hard could it be to come up with it? Any group of people who hasn’t come up with it must be stupid or backwards or uncivilized or some variant thereof, right? Except it’s a harder than that. There’s more to inventing the wheel than inventing, um, the wheel.Invent the wheel. Great. In fact, invent three more.Now what? You’ve got four wheels, sure - what are you going to do with them? A modern person would say transportation, but that isn’t obvious. Most early wheels were instead used for pottery, as pottery wheels.Stumble upon the idea of using them for transportation.Alright, sure. How do you plan to go about doing this? In order to invent the cart, you first have to have invented the box, and, again, that isn’t an obvious invention.Invent the box. You’ve got your cart now!Nail the wheels to the side of the cart and you’re - oh, hey, uh…It turns out that if you nail a wheel to the side of a cart, all the cart has now is a circular piece of wood with a hole in the middle nailed to it. In order for the wheels to turn, you have to connect them.Invent the axle. Invent another one, if you’d like.Connect the wheels to the axles.Nail them to the bottom of the cart and you - no, not again…It turns out that if you have stationary wheels, you can move your cart in exactly one direction, excepting some pushing and pulling. It’s finicky. You can either limit your cart to two wheels or else you have to come up with a way to make the front wheels turn.Either limit your cart to two wheels or come up with a way to make the front wheels turn.Congratulations! You’ve got a functioning cart! It’s complete with box, wheels, axle(s), and optional wheel-turny-bit! Now all you’ve got to do is…oh, well, now, um, you see…You’ve got to make the cart move. Without a way to make the cart move, it’s useless. You could pull it yourself (time-consuming and tiring), or buy a slave (expensive, and also time-consuming and tiring for the slave). Or you could get an animal to pull it. That sounds like a great idea: get a horse or ox, then…uh…about that horse…You need to have domesticated animals. If you’re in a civilization that happens to have animals that are a.) domesticated, b.) large, c.) willing to pull things, and d.) of a body structure that can support pulling heavy things over long distances, great! If your animal is missing any of those elements, though, you’re not going to be using your wheeled cart much. But let’s say you do have that horse.Just strap the horse to the cart andYou have to invent a way of attaching the horse to the cart. This, like everything else so far, is harder than it sounds. A bad harness can come undone or break, be horribly inefficient, and/or harm the animal it’s attached to.Invent a good harness.And with that, you dedicated wheel-inventor, you have a box on wheels that can turn which is itself full of stuff and also attached well to your pack animal of choice. Your cart is ready. There are no more problems with your cart.Set off on your journey and…well, this might be the biggest problem of them all.You need a flat, cleared surface. Your cart can’t go through the bush or the rain forest. Basically, if you’re not on a perfectly flat, clear plain, you need roads. If you haven’t got roads, you can’t drive your cart very far.Invent roads.There you are. Finally. The wheel will be improved from then on, with things like spokes and rubber and motors, but that’s all you need for a primitive wagon sort of vehicle. (Edit: This is not entirely true; see Alan Dillman’s comment here.)If you’re an observant person, you may have noticed that there are an awful lot of steps to inventing a proper wheeled vehicle. To us, we with the wheels, the wheel appears obvious. But it’s only obvious because we’ve had it for so long. Without box, axle, pack animal, or roads, the wheel has no purpose, no necessity to produce it, and thus no invention, or at least no large-scale implementation.Wheel usage, then, is independent of technological advancement. The Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas, who were advanced and civilized by any standard, never made much use of the wheel: their terrain was often mountainous, and their pack animal, the llama, of the wrong build for cart-pulling. The only place wheels were ever used was in children’s toys.There are a lot of steps, conditions, and so on needed to make the wheel useful. Without these conditions, you don’t get wheels.To take it back on topic: it’s a similar case with writing systems.Writing is, like the wheel, ubiquitous. It’s easier for your average literate urban person to imagine a world without farming than one without writing. You write symbols for the sounds you say: how hard could it be to come up with that? Any group of people who hasn’t come up with it must be stupid or backwards or uncivilized or some variant thereof, right?Except, once again, it’s harder than that. Writing has been invented four times: in Mesopotamia; in Egypt; in China; and in Mesoamerica. Every other writing system comes from one of those four. (Our own alphabet is from Egyptian, as covered here.) Each of those four times, writing has developed in the same way, which is as follows:In the beginning, civilization is created. (ahem: This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.)Now you have cities, and people in the cities, and people making and buying and selling food and livestock and slaves and things, and governments taxing people, and a great big stew of transactions that need to be taken care of. There’s a need for administration, for keeping track of records.So, people - and this is the great unsung invention of humanity, ultimately responsible for all of history, art, culture, literature, mathematics, and tradition in the civilized world from five thousand years ago through to today - invent accountants.Then they invent bureaucrats. Administrators. Record-keepers. The people who sit at desks and write things down.And it’s that “write things down” bit that revolutionizes the world. In order to keep track of purchases, taxes, trades, who sold cows to who in exchange for what amount of barley, things that no human can hold in their mind, they come up with a system: draw pictures to represent different things. Write, say, “[BOB][2][COW][to][JAMES][for][300][unit][BARLEY]”, using pictures for “cow” and “barley” and dots and lines for “2” and “300”.But how do you write “Bob” or “James” or “to” or “for”? You can’t draw a picture of a preposition! What you can do, however, is draw a picture of a thing that sounds like “to” or “for”. We still do a version of this: “2” sounds like “to”, so you can write “Bob sold 2 cows 2 James 4 300 units of barley”. Substitute the rest of the words for pictures, numbers, or pictures that sound like another word for the thing they represent, and you have a way to keep track of anything.As the civilization would eventually realize, you can do more than accounting with this system. Add some more pictures for the rest of written language and you can write anything you’d like. You can write letters. You can write stories. You can write down the poems that have been floating around orally for centuries. The pictures steadily become more stylized until they no longer look like pictures but rather like abstract symbols.Writing has been invented. By accountants. (In fact, the first name we have record of isn’t the name of a king, or of a legendary hero, or of a poet: it’s of an accountant named Kushim, signing his name on a receipt to file away.)The so-called Kushim tablet, dating to the 3400s BC. It reads: “29 086 units of barley were received over the course of 37 months. Signed, Kushim.”Writing is only practical in a situation where a large amount of information, too large for any one person or even group of people to remember and too boring and specific for any of them to need or want to, has to be recorded for a long period of time. In a tribal hunter-gatherer society, you really only need to remember:edible and poisonous plants and animals: This is something you need to remember, so it’s a.) unlikely anyone would forget it, b.) something practical that needs to be immediately retrieved, and c.) visual in any case. It doesn’t benefit from writing, so writing does not need to be invented to keep track of what you can or can’t eat.histories/stories/traditions: These could benefit from being written down, which is why, when writing was invented, they were some of the earliest things to be written down. In a tribal society, they were passed down orally instead. This didn’t require a superhuman memory, and so worked well enough that writing wasn’t necessary.In an early agricultural societies, writing wasn’t needed, either, for much the same reason; nor in proper towns, because trade was not yet so complicated that it required accountants. It’s like the wheel: it’s useless if you’re missing any of the right parts, the right context, the right environment. Necessity is the mother of invention; inversely, lack of necessity is the, er, contraceptive of invention.The earliest that writing could have arisen is the earliest that complex cities with administration existed, with the oldest surviving records dating from a few centuries later, with the older ones having been lost or destroyed.When is that? It’s about 4000–5000 BC, if you’re stretching the estimate, in Mesopotamia and Egypt, whose governments evolved roughly parallel. From there, they developed accountants, then writing. And when are the earliest records of writing? From just a little after that period. Writing would have been invented in 4000–5000 BC, which is the earliest it could have been invented.The only way writing could have been invented in 100 000–25 000 BC is if there were complex cities with administration back then. It’s easy for writing materials to decay; it’s a lot harder for an entire civilization (and, necessarily, agriculture itself, which is only thought to have been invented 10 000 years ago) to go unnoticed.To answer your question, it isn’t possible that any writing systems existed before 4000-5000 BC at the earliest, because writing (and thus the entirety of literature, and so forth) was invented by accountants. In order to have writing, you need accountants; to have accountants, you need cities; to have cities, you need civilization; to have civilization, you need agriculture.Thanks for asking!

Ah yes, if it’s on Facebook it must be true. Just like all of the Cosmic PingPong “there is a child sex ring being run in the basement” posts! Or how the Sandy Hook ES shooting never took place—those children were just crisis actors.Here’s the deal: part of the Federal Govt. was funded. They’re functioning (mostly—I say mostly because even though the Military was funded, you get a whole range of programs and activities that are not funded that provide support for the military). But a big chunk of the USG was not funded. They were supposed to by a CR (or Continuing Resolution). A CR basically says “let’s take the existing programs, existing budget, pro-rate it 1–2 months and extend it for that time so we have a little more time to resolve the next budget.” A CR agreement was on the table and Donald Trump in December said “I ain’t signing it unless you add this new program and new budget item.”As a result, multiple Federal agencies are unfunded and shut down. For instance, here’s the front page on the website for the National Zoo: Help Save Animals And here’s the Small Business Administration (SBA—they provide loans to small businesses and startups): Small Business AdministrationNone of the employees in the agencies and in DHS (who oversees border security. so yeah, the US Coast Guard, UCSIS, the Border Patrol)—none of them are getting paid. Some are required to show up for work (and don’t get paid). Some of them are non-exempted and are prohibited from coming to work. But none of them are getting paid. Don’t take my word for it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/l... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/g... and Government recommends employees struggling to pay rent to work as carpenters for their landlords The Coast Guard even recommended that their members hold “garage sales” in help pay the mortgage.Even President Trump admits people aren’t getting paid: Trump: ‘I Can Relate’ to Federal Workers Not Getting Paid During Shutdown So unless the person who posted that on Facebook is accusing Trump of being a liar (oh wait, let’s not go there on this issue), I think it’s pretty safe to say—there are hundreds of thousands of Federal employees who aren’t getting paid.Also, there are plenty of Federal contractors not getting paid. And they won’t get back pay. And if this goes on, many will be laid off: Not Expecting Back Pay, Government Contractors Collect Unemployment, Dip Into Savings

Neither (and no, Aramaic didn’t evolve from Arabic).Syriac is a variety of Aramaic, and Arabic definitely didn’t develop from it or any other varitey of Aramaic (notwithstanding a couple of others here who think Aram and Arab sounding similar is somehow evidence. It isn’t—not once you know what Aram meant in ancient times (i.e, what is now Syria: Aramaya literally means “of Syria”—a reflection of the Syrian origin of the language):Aram (region) - WikipediaIt also starts with an Aleph; Arabic’s name starts with a Ayin (and no, Aramaic didn’t lose its Ayins in ancient times, nor did Arabic gain Ayins).Arabic lacks the Northwest Semitic innovations common to both Hebrew and Aramaic (such as word-initial mutation of w to y). It also lacks Aramaic’s suffix (which then became the language’s equivalent to the definite article EDIT: I’ve found other interpretations, such as an extension of the feminine, or as an inversion of the ha pronoun—think “noun+ha”, instead if “ha+noun” (Pat-El, 2009, “The development of the Semitic Definite Article: a Syntactic approach), or its use of dhu as a purely genitive marker (Frozen itself in a genitive form).Arabic also doesn’t have Aramaic’s tendency of turning n’s to r’s ( bar in Aramaic, bin in Arabic, for example), not did it share the trend toward spirantization (so it can’t even be said to very influenced by Aramaic, beyond some loanwords. EDIT: and apparently, they got those from writing, since the pronounciation is too archaic, or just plain off***). Finally, Arabic largely lost the originaly conceptive derivation (this takes some explanation: in PS, you got a concept for a root—say m-l-k, by adding an ūt ending. So m-l-k = malkūtum* “kingship”. Arabic borrowed this word from Aramaic, but beyond a few loanwords of this form from it and Hebrew, this form was lost early in Arabic’s evolution; concepts are instead done in other ways: most commonly, like this: 3-S-b > 3aSabiyyah).Similarly, Aramaic lacks the following features that Arabic exhibited since the earliest attestations in text (as complete sentences, anyway)1-fi (Arabic for “in”)2-inna and anna (I forget the technical term in English, but they look like this in Arabic: إن، أن(.3-the use of the maf’ul form.4–negative ma (this is partly shared with Hebrew, but in Hebrew’s case it’s largely a poetic device, and is not used at all in regular speech or writing (it’s in the bible); Arabic’s ma no longer just means “what”, but also means “not”)5-broken plurals (this btw isn’t as helpful in figuring out where Arabic belongs; we’ll return to this).Finally: both are first attested withing a century of each other—not enough time for Aramaic to become Arabic (and certainly not enough to develop the complex case system Proto-Arabic had, which survives in our writing to this day: that system btw is more complex than what PS had).Arabic is currently classified as a Primary branch of Central Semitic (the other is NW Semitic—Aramaic goes here, along with Hebrew, Amorite, and possibly Sabaean and its kin, though Sabaean and its kin might themselves form a primary offshoot of Central Semitic). So the features it does share with Aramaic are typically those it inherited from proto-central-Semitic, spoken sometime before 2000BC. Keep in mind that Semitic languages exhibit signs of constant contact for long period before they split off from each other: this is why Moabite—a Canaanite dialect—has features similar to those in Aramaic and Arabic (the use of n instead of m for plurals comes to mind).So Arabic didn’t evolve from Aramaic. While we’re at it, it sure as heck didn’t evolve from Sabaean** or any other Epigraphic South Arabian Language (Arabic lacks the bizarre turn those fellows took with the case system, which uses m, n, and null to indicate various states of definitiveness; the specifics have prompted one linguist to propose that Aramaic and Sabaean are somehow related more closely than previously believed (Sabaean doens’t have the w-y change though, so…)).Additionally, the broken plural system used there and in Arabic are different in form anyway, with slightly different strategies (the differences are even greater with Ethio-Semitic). It’s now being proposed (notably by Huehnergard and al-Jallad), that all broken plurals are in fact derived from a PS strategy for plurals, lost in Akkadian and NW Semitic.So Arabic evolved directly from a proto-Central Semitic dialect. The only question is where?Well, I can tell you where it didn’t:1-Yemen: not attested there till c. The 1st Century BC. It has another issue—one shared by Oman (see below).2-Central Arabia: the Thamudic inscriptions there typically reveal an undeciphered language (if it were Arabic, we’d know: keep reading)3-Ihsa’: Arabic is found there, but it postdates the first record of either Arabic or Arabs.4-Oman: we know South Semitic languages were spoken there first: they all have a notable Cushitic substratum that Sabaean and Arabic lack. That should tell you something obvious, so I’ll not type up the paragraph needed to elaborate.5-Ethiopia: they did their own thing there too, and this is first attested around the same time Arabic is.6-the fertile crescent proper (obvious reasons).So where is Arabic from?Well, there’s one area left out: the marginal regions in what is now Jordan, the Sinai, and eastern Syria, and the Hijaz (particularly the north). That’s the only area that hasn’t been ruled out. Any inscriptions?well, yes: here are some inscriptions—mostly in Jordan and Hijaz (I’ll transliterate into the languages current writing system: any missing long vowels should be easy to fill in):مرد عل اجرفس كسر هسلسلة (if you know your Holy Land History, you can date this one)فيفعل لا فدا و لا اثرا فكن هنا يبغنا الموت لا ابغاه فكن هنا ارد جرج لا يردنالصعب بن وهب هسفرلشر بن نشدال بن فرس و هرق هنقة (the last part would be spelled nowadays as و هرّق هناقة(here’s a curse (can you spot the deity?)فهلت عورم عور حجر بعد سفر (with modern spelling: فهلّات عوّري ما عوّر حجر بعد سفر)A random king’s name from the area:حارثLet me put this way: I’ll let any Arab who reads the above take a stab at translation. There’s one word here that may be not so obvious, but context might clear it up (these are all rock inscriptions: that’s all the context needed)I mentioned tow people here: Huehnergard and al-Jallad. Their articles are readily available online, and they do a great job explaining the evidence. Conclusive? No. It’s possible more inscriptions could upend this, so this might make this all outdated anyway. But currently, that origin makes the most sense: the earliest mention of Arabs (or any Arabic word), are as soldiers fighting in Northern Syria at Qarqar, 853BC, as part of a coalition of a dozen princes against Shalmaneser III. As gindibu—their leader—is listed as a prince, this suggest they’ve been around long enough to form at least a proto-state.Anyone arguing for a Yemeni origin (or anywhere else) for the language would have to explain the earlier mention in the North, and also explain how a people in Yemen were able to bring a contingent all the way to Northern Syria—and not be noted for this by anyone. Finally, why no evidence of Arabic in the south till centuries later—by which time the Arabs produced three polities in the north (Gindibu’s Arabs, Qeder, Nabataea)?EDIT: I’ve fixed so typos, and added suggestions for further typos to be fixed.**there are two branches of Semitic represented in these inscriptions: South and Central (Ethiosemitic traditionally under the former, though it might in fact be separate). Sabaean is in the latter, as are a few of the other Old South Arabian languages.***It seems strange, until you consider that even in many Arab areas, Aramaic was used for administration (the Nabataeans were Arab, and spoke Arabic, but used Aramaic for administration. This was a pro-business policy: the Nabataeans—much like Arabs later on, and into the present—have always appreciated business: they were as much merchants as nomad and warriors.)

DAZZLING DIVINE DAMSELS AND FLASHING FISH SIGNSவிசும்பு வழங்கு மகளிர் உள்ளும் சிறந்தசெம்மீன் அனையள் நின் தொல் நகர்ச் செல்விAmong the celestial maidens, the chastity and virtueof your wife from the ancient cityagnate with Arundhathi, the red star – Padhitruppathu 31Father henry Heras, a Spanish priest, historian and archeologist was the first to promote the idea of the sign of Indus script as Meen which indicate both fish and star in most of the Dravidian languages. Later eminent experts like Asko parpola, Kamil Zvelebil, Yuri Knorozov and Iravatham Mahadevan endorsed this theory and rei...

Credentials: I am a Texas License To Carry (LTC) Instructor. The State required curriculum addresses this issue specifically, although Texas has specific rules on the matter. I am also quite familiar with general requirements of the Common Law.Your Question is complicated and the exact correct answer varies from state to state.Generally: The General Theory In this matter is that a property owner has the legal right to control the character of activity his property. Unless the control of his open -to-the-public property involves exclusion based on race, creed, color, national origin, previous condition of servitude, discrimination is allowed. A sign that says “no alcohol” is enforceable. So is “no smoking”. As is a sign that says “Shirts and shoes required for service”. A “no firearms” sign expresses the wishes of the proprietor, owner or landlord. If a person carrying a firearm does not comply, in most cases that means they have committed the tort of Civil Trespass. If they are discovered, they can be ordered to leave and potentially at some later date, sued. If they are asked to leave and refuse, their action becomes criminal trespass, and they can potentially be arrested.Some jurisdictions have imbued a private “no firearms” sign with greater power, some have not.As an example:The Oklahoma Self Defense Act, Title 21 Section 1290.22 .Paragraph C explicitly states that a property owner may prohibit the carry of firearms on their premises. To do so they must post signage “on or about” the property as notification of the prohibition.Paragraph D : the carrying of a firearm by a licensee in violation of the signage “….shall not be deemed a criminal act…”, but carrier may be refused entrance or required. to leave. If the carrier refuses to leave and a peace officer is summoned, the carrier may be issued a maximum $250 citation .Oklahoma also flatly prohibits lawful carry in a city hall or government owned building, a casino or a bar.That’s Oklahoma. Paraphrased except for the quotes. Any kind of sign is allowed. Ignoring the sign is not a crime but refusal to leave is equivalent to a speeding ticket.Texas , on the other hand, has three “notice” means. 1) oral notice “ we don’t allow concealed firearms here” from a greeter or clerk or maitre’d or someone clearly speaking for management 2) a card or printout or flyer with the required statutory wording ( described below in English and Spanish) which is handed to EVERY entrant or most commonly 3) a special sign. To prohibit legal concealed carry, Texas Penal Code 30.06 specifies that the sign have one inch high block letters, be in both English and Spanish, in contrasting colors, and have the exact statutorily specified long-winded wording . The sign must also be apparent and the law implies that it must be located at all public entrances. In order to accommodate the required text, the sign will be about 24”x 36” in size. An exactly similar sign is required to prohibit open carry under TPC 30.07. If the sign fails to comply exactly with any of the TPC 30.06 specifications, or the proprietor has cut corners by simply placing a “No Guns” sign , such a sign is not legal notice; a non-compliant sign is not legally enforceable and has no legal effect. An LTC holder can ignore it.If a Texas LTC holder carries past a statutorily compliant TPC 30.06 sign , there can be two very different legal implications and results , depending on where the action occurs.If the TPC 30.06 sign location is a private business or premises generally open to the public , the LTC holder may be refused entrance or asked to leave. They may be cited for a Class C misdemeanor -a $200 fine. If they are verbally instructed to depart and subsequently refuse to do so, the offense becomes a Class A misdemeanor, potentially punishable by a year in jail.If the TPC 30.06 sign location is a hospital, nursing home, parimutuel betting horse or dog racetrack , a place of worship or a meeting of a political or administrative body subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act- such as a city council, county commission, zoning commission, parks board, mosquito control district board, etc. ( during the course of the meeting , gavel to gavel only) , ignoring the sign is a FELONY. If the TPC 30.06 sign is NOT posted, carry by an LTC holder at the meeting is completely legal. As noted, unlike in Oklahoma, in Texas an LTC holder can carry legally in city hall and government offices even in the Texas State Capital; a City CANNOT post a legally enforceable TPC 30.06 sign, except during public meetings as noted above. It is even a criminal infraction for a city to attempt to do so. The Texas Attorney General will take any city attempting to infringe on a citizens right to carry to court; scofflaw city officials will pay heavy criminal fines.Beyond the provisions of TPC 30.06, Texas Bars are a prohibited place for LTC holders under any circumstance; any establishment that derives more than 51% of its income from sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption is a “Bar.”A bar must post a red Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission “51%” warning sign ; LTC carry in a bar is a felony.This has been a brief a comparison of Texas and Oklahoma. Next door to each other and fairly similar, but still different in numerous ways.A very brief look at gun friendly Alabama finds that Alabama prohibits lawful concealed carry in psychiatric hospitals or mental health facilities, police stations or city council meetings and the State House. On the other hand , Alabama has no laws against hospital carry, house of worship carry, bar carry, casino carry or polling place carry although there may be legally enforceable administrative rules in that regard.What am I saying? Various states have different rules and regulations . Pay attention to the laws of your state. You cannot afford to be wrong.A helpful resource is http://Handgunlaws.US , the NRA Concealed Carry site or the Attorney General of your state or as in Texas, The Texas Department of Public Safety.As for your original question and the situation you describe: in Oklahoma ignoring the sign is “not a criminal offense” but the carrier could be given the equivalent of a traffic ticket. In Texas, the simple “No Guns” sign is not in compliance with TPC 30.06 and is thus absolutely legally meaningless.This was necessarily long winded. I hope it provided some insight.

Are you ready for a ride?If you do not like long answers, this one is definitely not for you. It is the longest I wrote on Quora so far.In total, I have managed to find 67 Treaties of Paris as well as two Peace Accords, eleven Conventions, five Protocols, one Charter, one Declaration and two Agreements - in total, 89 international agreements concluded in Paris (it seems that over the last decades the word “treaty” is out of fashion). My list is much fuller than anything you would find in an English or a French Wikipedia. I still might have missed a treaty or a convention. Any suggestions are therefore welcome.Treaty of Paris (1214) was signed on 24 October 1214 by Philip II August, the King of France, and Jeanne de Constantinople, Duchess of Flanders. It was the aftermath of the great battle of Bouvines, in which the French King managed to crush a united army of English, Germans and Flemish. Jeanne’s husband Ferrand was taken prisoner. The young woman (she was somewhere between 15 and 20 at the time) came to Paris to find King and signed a treaty. She agreed to demolish all fortresses in Flanders, give back all the property confiscated from the King’s supporters and appoint King-approved baillis (governors). In exchange, she would get her husband back. Flemish Estates (parliament) never ratified the Treaty. Jeanne’s husband spent 13 years in captivity.Treaty of Paris (1229) was signed on 12 April between Blanche of Castile, mother of the King Louis IX, and Raymond VII, Count of Toulouse. It marked the end of 20 years of crusades against the heretics in Southern France. Seeing his domains systematically looted, his people slaughtered, their houses burned, Raymond agreed to all the conditions. He agreed to join the fighting against the heretics, to destroy the walls of his capital, Toulouse, to marry his daughter to the King’s brother and to agree that after his death, all his land would be annexed to the Crown of France.Treaty of Paris (1259) was signed on 4 December between Louis IX of France (Saint Louis) and Henry III of England. After fifty years of military failures, the English Kings were still reluctant to recognise that they have lost almost all their domains in France. However, Henry, plagued by rebels at home, who received French assistance, agreed to back down. He renounced to everything save Gascony, part of Aquitaine, Ponthieu and Channel Islands and agreed to recognise the French King as his suzerain in his French domains.Treaty of Paris (1295) was signed on 23 October between Philip IV the Fair of France and the representatives of John Balliol, King of Scotland. It was a defensive alliance against England. The treaty started the Auld Alliance of Scotland and France that would continue until 1560. However, even after that date French residing in Scotland and Scots residing in France could automatically get dual citizenship (and many exiled Jacobites used the possibility in the 18th century). This disposition would only be revoked in 1906.We can see that in all four treaties signed in Paris in 13th century, France was the dominant party. So it was just natural that people came to Paris to bow to the French King.Raymond VII’s ratification of the Treaty of Paris (left). A WW1 propaganda poster (right).5. Treaty of Paris (1303). Signed between Philip IV the Fair of France and Edward I of England on 20 May, ended a nine-year war between two countries in a compromise way. The reason of this compromise was the great defeat inflicted on French knights by Flemish in the Battle of Golden Spurs in 1302. Gascony, seized by French, was returned to Edward, he recognised Philip as his suzerain, and two Kings decided to marry their kids. This measure of reconciliation would lead a very big war when the son of Edward’s son and Philip’s daughter will decide to claim the throne of France.6. Treaty of Paris (1310) between Henry VII of the Holy Roman Empire and Philip IV the Fair of France mediated by Pope was supposed to make them friends. It did not work.7. Treaty of Paris (1320) finally concluded the French-Flemish war.8. Treaty of Paris (1323), signed on 6 March, ended the war between the Count of Flanders and the Count of Holland. Louis of Flanders recognised the sovereignty of his rival over Zeeland.9. Treaty of Paris (1327), signed on 31 March, ended one more war between England and France. Badly beaten by the French, the English lost several provinces and had to pay a large war indemnity. 14-year-old Edward III, son of the French princess, did not appreciate this humiliation. Ten years later, he would start the Hundred Years’ War.10. Treaty of Paris (1355), signed on 5 January, ended the conflict between France and the County of Savoy. It involved a complicated exchange of lands between two countries. Besides, John the Good, King of France, renounced any claims to Geneva. He wanted his hands free for a big fight against the English invaders. The treaty allowed him to assemble a large force, that would be decisively defeated by the English next year.In 14th century, as we can see, it became a tradition that all treaties involving France should be signed in Paris. However, the 1323 treaty was an innovation because France was not a party to the treaty - and Paris still was chosen to sign it. However, because of the Hundred Years’ War, the tradition would be abandoned for almost a century and a half.When you are Edward I of England, conqueror of Scotland, Wales and Ireland, it is awfully humiliating to kneel to Philip of France for your French domains. But you have to do it. Edward III did not want to do it anymore.11. Treaty of Paris (1498). As Louis XII was preparing to invade Italy, Philip the Fair, Count of Flanders and son of the Emperor Maximilian, concluded a treaty with him (on 2 August), which meant he would not interfere with King Louis’s plans.12. Treaty of Paris (1515). On 24 March, Charles, the 15-year-old Count of Flanders, concluded alliance with Francis I, King of France. They agreed that he would later marry Francis’s daughter, the 4-year-old princess Renée. The marriage would never be concluded. Within four years, the young Count would become both the King of Spain and the Emperor of the Holy Empire, the strongest power in Europe. Charles and Francis would forever be enemies.13. Treaty of Paris (1600). Signed on 27 February 1600 between Charles-Emmanuel I of Savoy and Henry IV of France. The Duke of Savoy wanted to keep Saluzzo, a French possession he seized. Henry pressed him to sign the treaty. Back to Savoy, the Duke started a new war.14. Treaty of Paris (1623). France, Venice and Savoy signed an alliance against Spain. However, France did not fight Spain. Spain was struggling against a great Protestant alliance and Cardinal Richelieu feared to alienate French Catholics if he started fighting against His Catholic Majesty.15. Treaty of Paris (1626) was signed on 5 February between King Louis XIII and the Huguenots (Protestants) of the city of La Rochelle. They could preserve religious freedom but had to destroy two key forts and could not keep a war fleet. After this treaty, a new war erupted, leading to the capture of La Rochelle in 1628 and liquidation of the last Protestant enclave in France.16. Treaty of Paris (1634) was signed on 1 November between France, Sweden and Heilbronn League of Protestant princes in Germany. France promised them money and military assistance to fight Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. The treaty was never ratified because Swedish chancellor wanted better terms. A Franco-Swedish alliance would finally be signed at Compiègne a year later.17. Treaty of Paris (1635), signed on 25 February, established a Franco-Dutch alliance against Spain, both offensive and defensive. France entered the Thirty Years’ War.18. Treaty of Paris (1657) concluded by the Cardinal Mazarini and Oliver Cromwell meant an Anglo-French alliance against Spain. As a result, England conquered Dunkirk, later ceded to France.19. Treaty of Paris (1662) established a defensive Franco-Dutch alliance. During the Anglo-Dutch war of 1664–1667, France would also fight England.Siege of La Rochelle (left). Cardinal Richelieu and his cats (right).20. Treaty of Paris (1718), signed on 21 January between Philip of Orleans, Regent of France, and his brother-in-law Leopold, Duke of Lorraine and Bar, was just a landswap allowing for more contiguous borders of France and Lorraine (later in the century, Lorraine will become part of France).21. Treaty of Paris (1749), signed on 15 August, specified borders between France and Geneva.22. Treaty of Paris (1761) aka Third Family Compact, signed on 15 August, was an alliance between France and Spain, both ruled by Bourbon Kings. Spain honoured this treaty in 1761 and in 1779, entering wars with England to help France. It became obsolete during the French Revolution.23. Treaty of Paris (1763), signed on 10 February, ended the Seven Years’ War aka French and Indian War. France lost Canada, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tobago and Senegal to Britain. It also lost Western Louisiana to Spain and Eastern Louisiana (lands between Mississippi and Thirteen Colonies) to Britain. Spain lost Florida to Britain.24–26. Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolutionary War. In fact, there were three separate treaties, signed on 3 September 1783 in Paris. The Thirteen Colonies became independent and received all the former territories of East Louisiana. France gained Saint Lucia, Tobago and Senegal. Spain gained Menorca and Florida.27. Treaty of Paris (1783), signed on 8 October, was the American-Dutch treaty of amity and commerce.28. Treaty of Paris (1784), signed on 20 March, ended the fourth Anglo-Dutch War. The Dutch surrendered the Indian city of Negapatnam to Britain and allowed British to sail in their seas (it would lead to the establishment of British colonies in Singapore and Australia).29. Treaty of Paris (1786), signed on 21 May, settled territorial disputes between France and Wurtemberg.Family Compact. Allegory (left). The General Peace. English cartoon, 1783 (right).30. Treaty of Paris (1796), signed on 15 May between France and Piedmont, resulted from the first campaign of the young Napoleon Bonaparte. France obtained Savoy and Nice - and the right of passage through the territory of Piedmont.31–32. Treaties of Paris (1796) were signed on 7 and 22 May respectively with Wurttemberg and Baden, German states that chose to make separate peace with France seeing Napoleon’s prowess.33. Treaty of Paris (1796) was signed on 5 November with the Duchy of Parma that agreed to let French armies in its territory and pay a huge war indemnity.34. Treaty of Paris (1801), signed on 24 August, was a Franco-Bavarian treaty of peace and alliance. Bavaria has lost some lands because of having fought against Napoleon; thanks to this treaty, it would get other lands.35. Treaty of Paris (1801), mediated by France and signed on 4 October, ended the Russian-Spanish war. It was a weird war: no shot was fired during two years. Finally, Spanish and Russian ambassador agreed to restore the traditional amity of two countries.36. Treaty of Paris (1802), signed on 20 May, regulated new borders of Wurttemberg.37. Treaty of Paris (1802), signed on 25 June by Talleyrand and Mehmed Said Galip Pasha, ended the French-Ottoman war after the failure of Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign. Interestingly, this treaty used three systems of dating: the French Revolutionary calendar, the Islamic calendar and the Gregorian calendar.38. Treaty of Paris (1802), signed on 26 December between France and Austria, also dealt with territorial changes. Duke of Tuscany, brother of the Austrian Emperor, gave his territory to Napoleon and received a newly created Duchy of Salzburg in exchange. France then transferred Tuscany to the Duke of Parma, close relative of the Spanish King, because France wanted to keep Parma. In exchange for Tuscany, Spain surrendered not only Parma but Louisiana as well, that Napoleon would sell to Thomas Jefferson.39. Treaty of Paris (1806), signed on 24 May by Talleyrand and the representatives of the Batavian Republic, sanctioned the transformation of the latter into the Kingdom of Holland under Napoleon’s brother Louis Bonaparte.40. Treaty of Paris (1806), signed on 12 July by Talleyrand and the representatives of sixteen German princes, established the Confederation of the Rhine that replaced the Holy Roman Empire. Curiously, one of these sixteen princely states still survives today. It is Liechtenstein.41. Treaty of Paris (1810), signed on 6 January and mediated by Russians, ended Franco-Swedish war of 1808–1809. Sweden accepted to become part of the Continental Blockade against Britain. Swedes would elect renowned Napoleonic marshal Bernadotte to be their next King, in hopes he would guarantee French support for a new war against Russia. Bernadotte would ally with Russia and turn against Napoleon.42. Treaty of Paris (1810), signed on 28 February between France and Bavaria, dealt with exchanges of territory. As a result, Bavaria would lose lots of land in one place and get lots of land in another place.43–45. Treaties of Paris (1810) signed between Bavaria and Wurttemberg, Baden and Hessen and Wurttemberg and Baden, regulated their borders.46. Treaty of Paris (1812), signed on 5 March, established Franco-Prussian alliance against Russia. Prussia was obliged to assist Napoleon in his invasion of Russia, giving him half of its army, provisions, munitions and horses and wagons to transport them. A quarter of Prussian officer corps (300 officers) resigned their commissions when hearing of this treaty: most of them would go to Russia to help defend it against Napoleon, including a young officer Carl von Clausewitz who would become a famous military writer.47. First Treaty of Paris (1814), signed on 30 May, ended the war between Napoleonic France and the Sixth Coalition. Napoleon was removed from throne and replaced with Louis XVIII Bourbon. In general, due to Czar Alexander’s patronage and to Talleyrand’s skill, the conditions were very lenient. France kept some of its conquests and did not pay any indemnity.48. Second Treaty of Paris (1815), signed on 20 November, definitely ended the war between France and the Sixth Coalition. It was necessary because of Napoleon’s brief return to France (the Hundred Days). New terms were much harsher. France lost more land, had to pay 700 million francs in indemnities and was subjected to Allied occupation. It was also - why do I think of Donald Trump? - obliged to finance defensive fortification of its neighbours against itself. An additional article and an act signed on the same day had important consequences. The former was a declaration to stop the slave trade and the latter recognised neutrality of Switzerland.49. Treaty of Paris (1816) restored the Bonaire island to the Dutch after nine years of British administration.50. Treaty of Paris (1817), signed on 20 June by the representatives of European Big Five and Spain, gave the Empress Marie-Louise, Napoleon’s wife, three duchies in Italy - Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla to live peacefully with her lover.During Napoleon’s time, Paris was the capital of Europe. After 1815, France lost its leading role in European politics. That is why the next Treaty of Paris will be signed only four decades later.If you chop a piece too big, you may sometimes choke with it.51. Treaty of Paris (1856), signed on 30 March, ended the Crimean War between Russia and the alliance of Britain, France, Ottoman Empire and Sardinia. Russia lost South Bessarabia and its status of protector of Ottoman Christians (it was given to France). Both Russia and the Ottoman Empire were prohibited from keeping fortresses or war fleet in the Black Sea.52. Treaty of Paris (1857), signed on 4 March, ended the Anglo-Persian War. Iran had to abandon its plans to annex the city of Herat.53. Treaty of Paris (1857) between Prussia and Switzerland was mediated by France and signed on 26 May. The King of Prussia renounced to all claims to the Swiss city of Neuchâtel that belonged to Kings of Prussia since 1708.54–55. Treaties of Paris (1879) were signed on 14 and 21 August between Spain and respectively Peru and Bolivia, ending the war between these countries.56. Treaty of Paris (1898), signed on 10 December, ended the Spanish-American War. Cuba became independent. The Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico were annexed by the USA. Spain received a $20 million compensation.57. Treaty of Paris (1900), signed on 27 June between France and Spain, settled the borders of Río Muni, the future Equatorial Guinea, and Río de Oro (future Western Sahara).58. Treaty of Paris (1918), signed on 17 July, defined relations between France and Monaco, barring the possibility of German princes becoming Monégasque souverains.59. Treaty of Paris (1920), signed on 28 October between France, UK, Italy, Japan and Romania, recognised Romanian annexation of Bessarabia. USA refused to sign the treaty. Finally, the treaty never came into effect because Japan did not ratify it.60. General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy aka Briand-Kellogg Pact (1928). It was signed by most countries of the world. It should however be remarked that, as the war became illegal, signatories to the treaty started to invade other countries without declaring war.61–65. Paris Peace Treaties (1947) between Allies, on the one side, and Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland, on the other side, formally established peace between these countries. The five allies of Nazi Germany had to pay reparations and, in some cases, surrender parts of their territory.66. Treaty of Paris (1951), signed on 18 April by France, West Germany, Italy and Benelux countries, established the European Coal and Steel Community.67. Treaty of Paris (1952), signed on 27 May, established European Defence Community. It never came into effect because France failed to ratify it (other five signatories did).Since Napoleon III, Paris has become a place for all kinds of treaties and conventions. I think people started coming to Paris to sign something simply because they liked to come to Paris.Hawaii, Cuba and Philippines happy about US domination. An American cartoon, 1899 (left). An anti-Communist poster for European unity, 1951 (right).Ok. So these were the Treaties of Paris. Now comes an Appendix. As if 67 was not enough.Peace Accords:1 (68). Paris Peace Accords (1973) aka Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam, signed on 27 January by USA, North Vietnam, South Vietnam and Viet Cong, marked the end of active American involvement in Vietnam War.2 (69). Paris Peace Accords (1991), signed on 23 October, marked the end of the Vietnamese-Cambodian War.Lê Ðức Thọ and Kissinger in Paris. They were the main negotiators of the Paris Peace Accords of 1973. They were awarded Nobel Peace Prize but Lê Ðức Thọ declined it.Conventions:1 (70). Paris Convention (1858) united the Danube principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia into the United Provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia (later to become the Kingdom of Romania). The new country was to be an Ottoman vassal but to enjoy the guarantees of the Great Powers.2 (71). Paris Monetary Convention (1865) established the Latin Monetary Union, bringing currencies of France, Belgium, Italy and Switzerland to the same bimetallic (golden and silver) standard. Later, Greece also joined the Union. Other countries (Spain, Romania, Austria-Hungary, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Finland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Papal States) did not join but tried to conform their currencies to the LMU standard.3 (72). Metre Convention (1875) signed in Paris by representatives of 17 nations. The treaty set up an institute for the purpose of coordinating international metrology and for coordinating the development of the metric system. Ironically, United States were among the first 17 signatories.4 (73). Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) is still in force. It was one of the first international conventions on intellectual property, covering patent applications and trademarks.5 (74). Paris Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture (1902) was the first international treaty on protection of birds.6 (75). Paris Convention (1904) concluded by France and Spain specified the border between the French and the Spanish zones in South Morocco.7 (76). Paris Convention of 1919 aka Convention Relating to the Regulation of Aerial Navigation decided that every country owns its airspace and demanded that all aircraft be registered in one country or another.8 (77). Paris Convention (1920) providing for the relations between Poland and the Free City of Gdansk, signed on 9 November.9 (78). Paris Convention on the Organisation of International Expositions (1928) established the Bureau International des Expositions.10 (79). Paris Convention on the Protection of Birds (1950) had a purpose to protect the birds in the wild state as well.11 (80). Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (1960) regulated liabilities and compensations in the case of nuclear energy accidents.12 (81). Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR), signed in Paris on 22 September 1992.13 (82). International Convention Against Doping in Sport which was adopted at the General Conference of UNESCO in Paris on 19 October 2005 and empowered the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).Early aerial navigationProtocols:1–4 (83–86): Protocols of Paris (1941), signed on 27 and 28 May between Vichy France and Nazi Germany, granted Germany facilities in Syria, access to a railway in Tunisia and to ports in Tunisia and Senegal.5 (87): Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany, signed on 21 October 1954 by West Germany, USA, UK and France, put the end to the occupation of West Germany.Charter:1 (88). Charter of Paris for a New Europe (1990), signed by a number of European countries, USA, Canada and Soviet Union, served as a basis for the establishment of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.Occupation zones of Germany (left). Soviet stamp dedicated to the Charter of Paris (right).Declaration:1 (89): Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, signed in February 2005, contains a number of commitments from different countries on making international aid more effective.Agreements:1 (90): Gruber - De Gasperi Agreement, signed on 5 September 1946 by Italy and Austria, granted the German-speaking population of the Province of Alto Adige/Südtirol the right to autonomy and preservation of their language, cultural identity and customs.2 (91): Paris Climate Agreement, signed on 12 December 2015, addresses the issues of global warming, with every country taking obligations to limit the temperature increase.This map indicates per capita responsibility for current anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphereEDIT: Yes, in case there are question, I did not include any Treaty of Versailles (or Trianon, St Germain, Sevres, Neuilly, Meaux) to the list. Environs of Paris deserve a separate answer.EDIT 2: Thank you, Jesus Rueda Rodriguez and Bob Gluck for adding two more conventions to my list.

There is no gap because the transition from ape to human is the product of a continuous progression. Since there's no gap, there's no need to bridge a gap.As with the progression from apes to humans, it is often the case that types are related along a spectrum or a progression. A simple example is the progression from infancy to childhood to adolescence to adulthood. The questions "How does an adolescent turn into an adult?" and "At exactly what age does that occur?" sound difficult and mysterious if we allow these terms to lead us to suppose this must take place at a specific time, and there must be specific criteria that define the difference. But "adolescent" and "adult" are really just broad characterizations of parts of a continuum that have paradigms but no definite natural boundaries.A continuum has no gaps, so while there are differences between the two stages, there's no gap between adolescence and adulthood that needs to be bridged.One thing that makes this especially confusing is the need to establish conventional boundaries, say, in legal contexts. If you have to be an adult to drink alcohol legally, then the law has to define what an adult is. There's no natural boundary to rely on, yet the choice can't be entirely arbitrary: "two years of age" and "90 years of age" are both clearly wrong answers. Within a reasonable range, there's no way to decide: we simply adopt a convention. Is it 18 years old? 21? somewhere in between? There's just no way to answer these questions definitively, either for a general population or for an individual. Not every jurisdiction is going to come up with the same definition, and the definitions they do come up with are going to remain revisable.None of this means that there's no such thing as an adolescent or an adult, nor that adolescents don't turn into adults. In fact, it's the most ordinary of transitions, not at all mysterious, at least conceptually. It happens all the time. Every adult was once an adolescent. It doesn't happen by running up to a gap between the two that has to be bridged.The same thing applies to the transition from ape to human. Like adolescence and adulthood, these are types that characterize broad parts of a continuous progression. There are points in this progression at which pretty much everyone would agree we're looking at apes, and there are points at which we'll agree we're looking at humans. But there's an enormous indefinite zone in between, thousands of years, within which there are apes and there are humans, or ape-humans if you prefer, with only fuzzy criteria for application of any of these labels to a given individual.As with the difference between adolescence and adulthood, there are contexts in which it's convenient to adopt a conventional boundary, a more or less definite point at which we'll say that the first humans have emerged from apehood. But to infer that there was a specific gap to bridge to get to the individual first human, or a definite hour of a definite day on which humanness first occurred, is simply to fall under the spell of language, to try to read the relative clarity of words and concepts back into the realities to which they refer.The reality of evolution is a continuous progression: no gaps, no bridges needed.

I had an English teacher who, for anonymity’s sake, we’ll call Mrs. Fartright.Mrs. Fartright walked down the aisles, handing out our final written exam. She slides my paper onto my desk. I sign my honor pledge (no cheating etc) and open to the first page and begin conjuring my best responses.After the last question, I page back through and review. I find several typos and sentences that need rewording. I get my eraser out and scrub out bad sentences and reword them. No big deal right? I am one of the last people done. I walk up the aisle and lay my paper on the stack of know-nothings, in-betweens, and superstars.Fast forward 2 weeks. Our teacher, I mean Mrs. Fartright, hands back our papers. I get mine. I have an 89%. Which isn’t bad? But a nuisance, B’s and C’s require explanations back at the home front.I begin paging through and see -1 deductions all over the pages with no explanation. I look for patterns, but only notice the deductions are located where all of my eraser marks are. Perhaps I had worded it correctly the first time?I walk up front and kindly say “Excuse me, Mrs. Fartright, I noticed I lost points on my paper, a lot of -1 deductions, but there is no explanation?”I hand her my paper.She smiles and says “Oh yes, those deductions were for the erase marks, you may have cheated so I took a point off for those”W-w-w-w-wait a minute.I turn my head sideways, “Excuse me?”She says “Was that not clear?”, clearly irritated that I am challenging her.“No. Not clear at all. Say it one more time please”She reiterates “I took points off because your eraser marks mean you may have been copying your peers’ paper”.Blood rushes to my head. But I find a happy place and diplomatically make a case to her that this is not fair a) because it was not disclosed initially that we would lose points for erase marks and b) that is ridiculous? to take points because I “may” have cheated.We go back and forth. At this point we are sort of making a scene. I may even look like a fool up there arguing with her. But I don’t care. And neither does she, and she will not give an inch.I finally state “I am taking this to the administration, if you’d like to accuse me of cheating, go right ahead. I will not accept these deductions, on principle.”The points were awarded back to me.I thanked the gods I didn’t have to see her again.Because Mrs. Fartright clearly didn’t Graderight.(100+ edit suggestions later - Graderight was intentional. It is a joke people. But I do appreciate it)

The Mongolian khan is a title and the Indian Khan is a surname.The Mongolian khan is more a tittle.And you got it. Its more like a Military or administrative title and no way related to Islam. I don't know the exact language will update if I come to know. Mongolian Khan means Leader.We call them by thier military title. Like 'sir' ,OBE, Padma sri, padma bhushan they are khan.On the other hand the likes of Shah Rukh and Zaheer have  Khans as surname associated with Islam. Its more a surname and not a title. Like Sharma, Mishra, Baneerjee they are surnames but with a different religion.So by now the you must have decoded the fact that there's no connection to Chengis Khan and Shah Rukh Khan I hope.So the answer is No.Courtesy Glimpses of World History.