|
Pround Mac26X owner again
Scotty wrote:
wrote in message oups.com.. . If you intend to support your statements on the Ocean Crossing capabilities of the McGregor, I would suggest "Vera". (Latin for "True".) what's Latin for ''POS that doesn't belong on the ocean''? SV "Pars excrementi, quae non oportet esse in mari." |
Pround Mac26X owner again
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." I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
Pround Mac26X owner again
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." I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. Nope. The ablative for "sea" is "mari," not "mare." --AG |
Pround Mac26X owner again
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. |
Pround Mac26X owner again
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. |
Pround Mac26X owner again
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 |
Latin Declensions (was Pround Mac26X owner)
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 |
Pround Mac26X owner again
|
Pround Mac26X owner again
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com