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

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 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

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 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.

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.
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

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 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?"?