|
Pround Mac26X owner again
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 |
Pround Mac26X owner again
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 |
Pround Mac26X owner again
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 |
Pround Mac26X owner again
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:20:31 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote:
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"? I had not seen your correction until now. Anyhow...here's the bottom line: (1) The ablative for the word "sea" in Latin (mare) is "mari." Yes... (2) The way you would say "on the sea" in Latin is "in mari." Yes... So my original translation, which started this discussion, is correct. Regards, Alan Gomes It seems to me that either form would be usable. I was exceptionally disappointed to not find an instance of either usage from the classical authors at Perseus/Tufts however. The wine-dark sea, and all that.... Ah well. Brian W |
Pround Mac26X owner again
"Alan Gomes" wrote in message ... 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 In a thousand years, will students of Ancient English be debating over the correct form of, "Yo, dog, wassup?"? |
Pround Mac26X owner again
Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:20:31 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote: 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"? I had not seen your correction until now. Anyhow...here's the bottom line: (1) The ablative for the word "sea" in Latin (mare) is "mari." Yes... (2) The way you would say "on the sea" in Latin is "in mari." Yes... So my original translation, which started this discussion, is correct. Regards, Alan Gomes It seems to me that either form would be usable. I was exceptionally disappointed to not find an instance of either usage from the classical authors at Perseus/Tufts however. The wine-dark sea, and all that.... Ah well. Brian W Thanks, Brian. This has been fun (for us, at least), but apologies to the rest of the group for morphing this thread into a discussion on the joys of i-stem nouns!!! But at least Scotty, who asked the original question that REALLY got all this going, got his money's worth! --AG |
Pround Mac26X owner again
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:20:34 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote
this crap: But at least Scotty, who asked the original question that REALLY got all this going, got his money's worth! I was going to let this drop, but this has proven to be an interesting discussion. We should agree on three things: Number One: The Romans had no word for "Oceans," so "Mare," or "Maris," should suffice. Number Two: Does the preposition "in," cause the noun to be ablative or accusative? I say accusative. Number Three: All Gaul is divided into three parts. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
Pround Mac26X owner again
"Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:20:34 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote this crap: But at least Scotty, who asked the original question that REALLY got all this going, got his money's worth! I want a refund! Scotty |
Pround Mac26X owner again
On Jul 23, 4:27 pm, Horvath wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:20:34 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote this crap: But at least Scotty, who asked the original question that REALLY got all this going, got his money's worth! I was going to let this drop, but this has proven to be an interesting discussion. We should agree on three things: Number One: The Romans had no word for "Oceans," so "Mare," or "Maris," should suffice. Number Two: Does the preposition "in," cause the noun to be ablative or accusative Number Three: All Gaul is divided into three parts. .. I've abstained til now but here's my $.02. 1. The Romans used the personification of the god Oceanus to refer to the sea/ocean. (And that's where we got the current English word, obviously.) So, there's one accurate substitute for mare; and as a bonus, it has an indisputable ablative singluar ending. grin There's also the commonly used pontus. Sailors might prefer aequor which implies being on the surface of it. And poets like profundus, implying the unknowable depths. All perfectly fine substitutes for mare. 2. and 3. "In" can certainly take an accusative, like your example from Caesar (in partes tres). However just as often it takes an ablative of place, which is what I'd consider appropriate in this case. IMO, this one is definitely ablative of place. Example, the classic Latin tongue-twister: in mari meri miri mori muri placet. I freely admit that if I'd gone to the effort to create a Latin version of this phrase, I'd have used "mare" forgetting about the irregular "-i" ablative singluar. But it's definitely ablative not accusative. I'd be more inclined to argue about the overall construction as a literalist translation of the English words instead of a rethinking of it in Latin. But the basic idea was fun and funny and I'm in no mood to quibble. Frank |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com