On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:03:40 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote
this crap:

Horvath wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:24:08 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote
this crap:

what's Latin for ''POS that doesn't belong on the ocean''?

"Pars excrementi, quae non oportet esse in mari."


Close!

"Mare."

Nope. The ablative for "sea" is "mari," not "mare."

You said, "in Mari," the "in" puts it in the accusative case, not
ablative. And "esse" should have been in the back.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

Horvath,

in w/ acc: direction
in w/ abl: location
= Ablative.

If you throw something in marem, then it in mare est.
Don't know about the -i locativ.

And, btw, "piece of" does not translate to "Pars something-i".





On Jul 21, 5:39 pm, Horvath wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:03:40 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote
this crap:

Horvath wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:24:08 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote
this crap:

what's Latin for ''POS that doesn't belong on the ocean''?

"Pars excrementi, quae non oportet esse in mari."

Close!

"Mare."

Nope. The ablative for "sea" is "mari," not "mare."

You said, "in Mari," the "in" puts it in the accusative case, not
ablative. And "esse" should have been in the back.



I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

Horvath wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:03:40 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote
this crap:

Horvath wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:24:08 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote
this crap:

what's Latin for ''POS that doesn't belong on the ocean''?

"Pars excrementi, quae non oportet esse in mari."

Close!

"Mare."

Nope. The ablative for "sea" is "mari," not "mare."

You said, "in Mari," the "in" puts it in the accusative case, not
ablative. And "esse" should have been in the back.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.
Brian's comment: I wasn't miffed. Honest....:-)

Anyway, the way I wrote it was correct. It is "in mare."

"In" as a preposition with a noun in the ablative case can (among its
possible meanings) mean "on." Though with a Mac 26X it could well be
that it's meaning with the accusative ("into") could work also. ;-)

"Mari" is the ablative for "sea." This word does not follow the normal
3rd declension pattern for ablatives. (If my memory serves me, this is
called an "i-stem" noun, but my Latin grammar is not in front of me as I
write this and I am going by memory.)

Vale,
Alan

Brian Whatcott wrote:
Scotty (SV) asked:
what's Latin for ''POS that doesn't belong on the ocean''?

Alan Gomes responded with finesse:
"Pars excrementi, quae non oportet esse in mari."

Horvath interjected in a scholarly way:
Close!

"Mare."


Alan Gomes, somewhat miffed, contradicted in this way:

Nope. The ablative for "sea" is "mari," not "mare."

--AG

So I looked it up.....

...from About.com:
Latin nouns of the third declension (such as mare)

here are the consonantal endings.

The endings of the Third declension masculine or feminine/neuter are
singular
nominative -/-
genitive -is/-is
dative -i/-i
accusative -em/-
ablative -e/-e

plural
nominative -es/-a
genitive -um/-um
dative -ibus/-ibus
accusative -es/-a
ablative -ibus/-ibus

Using rex, regis, m. (king), here is the paradigm:

singular
Nominative - rex
Genitive - regis
Dative - regi
Accusative - regem
Ablative - rege
Locative regi or rege
Vocative rex


The facts speak in favor of Horvath, it appears for the ablative.
Perhaps Gomes had in mind the locative?

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Brian,

I replied to the rest of this elsewhere. But I did not intend the
locative. But if I had, it would still be "mari," since I think the
locative follows the same endings as the dative, and the dative for mari
is the same form as is the ablative for mari.

Cheers,
Alan

wrote:
snip

And, btw, "piece of" does not translate to "Pars something-i".


Sure it does!

Pars = "A part, portion, piece."
--Alan

Horvath wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:03:40 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote
this crap:

Horvath wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:24:08 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote
this crap:

what's Latin for ''POS that doesn't belong on the ocean''?

"Pars excrementi, quae non oportet esse in mari."

Close!

"Mare."

Nope. The ablative for "sea" is "mari," not "mare."

You said, "in Mari," the "in" puts it in the accusative case, not
ablative. And "esse" should have been in the back.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.
"In" can go with either the ablative or the accusative, with a
difference in meaning, of course.

Esse could be at the end, though it need not be.

--AG

Alan Gomes wrote:
Horvath wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:03:40 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote
this crap:

Horvath wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:24:08 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote
this crap:

what's Latin for ''POS that doesn't belong on the ocean''?

"Pars excrementi, quae non oportet esse in mari."

Close!

"Mare."

Nope. The ablative for "sea" is "mari," not "mare."

You said, "in Mari," the "in" puts it in the accusative case, not
ablative. And "esse" should have been in the back.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.
Brian's comment: I wasn't miffed. Honest....:-)

Anyway, the way I wrote it was correct. It is "in mare."

"In" as a preposition with a noun in the ablative case can (among its
possible meanings) mean "on." Though with a Mac 26X it could well be
that it's meaning with the accusative ("into") could work also. ;-)

"Mari" is the ablative for "sea." This word does not follow the normal
3rd declension pattern for ablatives. (If my memory serves me, this is
called an "i-stem" noun, but my Latin grammar is not in front of me as I
write this and I am going by memory.)

Vale,
Alan
Dang! How embarrassing to have to correct the above typo.

Correct the above to read, "Anyway, the way I wrote it was correct. It
is "in mari," not "in mare."

Sorry,
AG

Alan Gomes wrote:
Brian Whatcott wrote:
Scotty (SV) asked:
what's Latin for ''POS that doesn't belong on the ocean''?

Alan Gomes responded with finesse:
"Pars excrementi, quae non oportet esse in mari."

Horvath interjected in a scholarly way:
Close!

"Mare."


Alan Gomes, somewhat miffed, contradicted in this way:

Nope. The ablative for "sea" is "mari," not "mare."

--AG

So I looked it up.....

...from About.com: Latin nouns of the third declension (such as mare)

here are the consonantal endings.
The endings of the Third declension masculine or feminine/neuter are
singular nominative -/- genitive -is/-is dative -i/-i accusative -em/-
ablative -e/-e
plural nominative -es/-a genitive -um/-um dative -ibus/-ibus
accusative -es/-a ablative -ibus/-ibus
Using rex, regis, m. (king), here is the paradigm:
singular Nominative - rex Genitive - regis Dative - regi Accusative -
regem Ablative - rege Locative regi or rege Vocative rex

The facts speak in favor of Horvath, it appears for the ablative.
Perhaps Gomes had in mind the locative?

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Brian,

I replied to the rest of this elsewhere. But I did not intend the
locative. But if I had, it would still be "mari," since I think the
locative follows the same endings as the dative, and the dative for mari
is the same form as is the ablative for mari.

Cheers,
Alan
Dang! I'm full of mistakes. (Engage brain before fingers are in gear....)

Correct the above to read, "... and the dative for mare is the same as
the ablative for mare, i.e., mari."

Sorry!
AG

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:16:23 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote:


Brian's comment: I wasn't miffed. Honest....:-)

Anyway, the way I wrote it was correct. It is "in mare."

"In" as a preposition with a noun in the ablative case can (among its
possible meanings) mean "on." Though with a Mac 26X it could well be
that it's meaning with the accusative ("into") could work also. ;-)

"Mari" is the ablative for "sea." This word does not follow the normal
3rd declension pattern for ablatives. (If my memory serves me, this is
called an "i-stem" noun, but my Latin grammar is not in front of me as I
write this and I am going by memory.)

Vale,
Alan

Salve!

It appears you are saying that 'in mare' implies mare is in the
accusative case, suggesting 'into the sea'.

It appears you are saying that 'in mari' implies mari is in the
i-form ablative case, suggesting 'upon the sea'. And I confirm that
your memory of the i-form neuter serves you well enough.
Though it looks like you are wriggling a little on the hook,
it is my pleasure to relay a paragraph below from the following Latin
grammar.

This Latin grammar URL [below] offers some rules for detecting i-form
3rd declension nouns.

Why a Hong Kong site, I wandered? My best guess is that this is a
legacy of a British colonial past that educated children in the
classics, so that like Indian students they too have lofty educational
objectives at times: for similar reasons....


************************************************** ***********************
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Wheelock-Latin/lat14.txt
I. Rule for Detecting Neuter i-stem Nouns

(a) If a third declension noun is neuter, and
(b) if its nominative case ends in "-al", "-ar", or "-e",
THEN the noun is a neuter i-stem.

This is fairly easy. You look up a noun and the dictionary tells
you this: "animal, -is (n)". "Animal" is the nominative case.
The next entry tells you the genitive, from which you spot any
stem changes and learn the declension of the noun. The "-is"
entry tells you there are no stem changes and that the noun is
third declension (since "-is" is the genitive ending in the third
declension). The final entry is, of course, the gender, and for
"animal" it's neuter. Therefore, you have a neuter noun of the
third declension whose nominative ends in "-al". So the noun is
an i-stem. Simple, isn't it. So if you remember this rule,
you'll be able to spot, from the dictionary entry alone, all
neuter i-stem nouns of the third declension: if it's a neuter
noun which ends in "-al", "-ar", or "-e", then it's an i-stem.
And how do neuter i-stems decline? They differ from non-i-stem
nouns in four cases:

(1) the ablative singular is a long "-i" instead of the
normal short "-e";
(2,3) the nominative (and therefore the accusative) plural
is "-ia" instead of just plain "-a";
(4) the genitive plural is "-ium" instead of "-um".

Let's have a look. Decline the following neuter i-stem nouns,
and compare them to a regular neuter noun of the third declension
"corpus, -oris (n)":

corpus, -oris animal, -is mare, -is exemplar,-is

************************************************** *************************

On this basis, I conclude that Alan Gomes is no worse at Latin Grammar
than he appears to be.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:16:23 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote:


Brian's comment: I wasn't miffed. Honest....:-)

Anyway, the way I wrote it was correct. It is "in mare."

"In" as a preposition with a noun in the ablative case can (among its
possible meanings) mean "on." Though with a Mac 26X it could well be
that it's meaning with the accusative ("into") could work also. ;-)

"Mari" is the ablative for "sea." This word does not follow the normal
3rd declension pattern for ablatives. (If my memory serves me, this is
called an "i-stem" noun, but my Latin grammar is not in front of me as I
write this and I am going by memory.)

Vale,
Alan

Salve!

It appears you are saying that 'in mare' implies mare is in the
accusative case, suggesting 'into the sea'.

It appears you are saying that 'in mari' implies mari is in the
i-form ablative case, suggesting 'upon the sea'. And I confirm that
your memory of the i-form neuter serves you well enough.
Though it looks like you are wriggling a little on the hook,
it is my pleasure to relay a paragraph below from the following Latin
grammar.

This Latin grammar URL [below] offers some rules for detecting i-form
3rd declension nouns.

Why a Hong Kong site, I wandered? My best guess is that this is a
legacy of a British colonial past that educated children in the
classics, so that like Indian students they too have lofty educational
objectives at times: for similar reasons....


************************************************** ***********************
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Wheelock-Latin/lat14.txt
I. Rule for Detecting Neuter i-stem Nouns

(a) If a third declension noun is neuter, and
(b) if its nominative case ends in "-al", "-ar", or "-e",
THEN the noun is a neuter i-stem.

This is fairly easy. You look up a noun and the dictionary tells
you this: "animal, -is (n)". "Animal" is the nominative case.
The next entry tells you the genitive, from which you spot any
stem changes and learn the declension of the noun. The "-is"
entry tells you there are no stem changes and that the noun is
third declension (since "-is" is the genitive ending in the third
declension). The final entry is, of course, the gender, and for
"animal" it's neuter. Therefore, you have a neuter noun of the
third declension whose nominative ends in "-al". So the noun is
an i-stem. Simple, isn't it. So if you remember this rule,
you'll be able to spot, from the dictionary entry alone, all
neuter i-stem nouns of the third declension: if it's a neuter
noun which ends in "-al", "-ar", or "-e", then it's an i-stem.
And how do neuter i-stems decline? They differ from non-i-stem
nouns in four cases:

(1) the ablative singular is a long "-i" instead of the
normal short "-e";
(2,3) the nominative (and therefore the accusative) plural
is "-ia" instead of just plain "-a";
(4) the genitive plural is "-ium" instead of "-um".

Let's have a look. Decline the following neuter i-stem nouns,
and compare them to a regular neuter noun of the third declension
"corpus, -oris (n)":

corpus, -oris animal, -is mare, -is exemplar,-is

************************************************** *************************

On this basis, I conclude that Alan Gomes is no worse at Latin Grammar
than he appears to be.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Hi, Brian!

Was the "wiggling" to which you referred my typo (subsequently corrected
immediately after I hit "send"--you saw that correction, right?), in
which I (wrongly) typed, "It is in mare" rather than my intended "It is
in mari"?

Anyhow...here's the bottom line:

(1) The ablative for the word "sea" in Latin (mare) is
"mari."

(2) The way you would say "on the sea" in Latin is "in mari."

So my original translation, which started this discussion, is correct.

Regards,
Alan Gomes