Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
and ready to come back to lead England to victory in its time of crisis?
)I am still a bit puzzled at the assertion that the beheading of Edmund
of Woodstock was evidence that Edward II was really dead.
that if someone came forth after the JFK assassination claiming JFK was
still alive and LBJ had them executed it would be more suspicious than
if he just ignored them. Of course, I don't know the details, maybe
Edmund tried to overthrow Edward III in order to promote Edward II
coming back or maybe they thought Edmund wanted the throne himself.
As to why Edward II wouldn't have attempted a restoration, maybe he'd
had enough. His life as King wasn't all that pleasant, after all. Maybe
they made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Sort of like the witness
protection program.
Just guessing, I don't really have a dog in this fight.
"The natural assumption must be that once the king's death
had been made public and his corpse had been handed over for burial at
St Peter's in Gloucester, the local worthies who would have seen him
alive were summoned to verify that he was now really dead."
local worthies being "... a number of abbots, priors, knights and
burgesses from Bristol and Gloucester"
But do we actually know that these people would have known what Edward II
looked liked in order to be able to ascertain that the corpse was his,
I'm not sure I'd be able to verify a corpse sans hair even of someone I
knew well.
Will Johnson
Canada is a monarchy and has had its own constitution since 1982.
There was the basis of a constitution in the 1867 BNA act passed by the
British Parliament.
"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
We have a bill of rights and magna carta. Will that do?
Hmmmm.... have you read the Magna Carta recently?
Especially the bits about 'wardships' being the sole property of the crown
until the ward comes of age, and the stuff about not allowing women to give
uncorroborated testimony in court is a touch out of date as well...
Oh, and what's considered a 'knight of the shire' these days...
"> Are you suggesting there's a source that quotes a myth that Arthur is alive
and ready to come back to lead England to victory in its time of crisis?
Of course there is, "rex quondam, rexque futurus" - remember the book
"The Once and Future King".
Peter Stewart"
Let me rephrase.
Are you suggesting that is a work, that is not conciously FICTION, that suggests that Arthur will rise again, or is alive but in hiding.
"The natural assumption must be that once the king's death
had been made public and his corpse had been handed over for burial at
St Peter's in Gloucester, the local worthies who would have seen him
alive were summoned to verify that he was now really dead."
local worthies being "... a number of abbots, priors, knights and burgesses from Bristol and Gloucester"
But do we actually know that these people would have known what Edward II looked liked in order to be able to ascertain that the corpse was his, having been shorn and all.
I'm not sure I'd be able to verify a corpse sans hair even of someone I knew well.
"fantasies or sci-fi books) in which the
major plot line is just that, or close. An example, is "The Drawing of
the Dark" by Tim Powers "
The challenge however was to back up the statement that "...most medieval kingdoms had a idea of a concealed king...". Without source back-up than this statement cannot stand. And we're talking factual and contemporary sources, not sources that are obviously intended to be read as fiction, or sources that are pseudo-historical or retro-historial (if that's a word).
John R. and Others,
In May 2004, you posted a message postulating that the wife of Robert de
Chaucombe was Juliana de Gournay. You characterized Robert as
"little-known," and indicated he was the son of Hugh de Chaucombe and
Amabilis. I'm wondering if the line can be taken further back?
I've not found much on this line, but DD (page 392) identifies a Matthew
de
Chaucombe and provides the following description:
"Held six fees of the Bishop of Lincoln in 1166. In 1208/9 Robert de
Chaucumbe held three parts of a fee of the bishopric in Burton."
The Robert cited would appear to be the same as the one you describe. It
is
not clear what the relationship of Matthew is to Robert; although it seems
possible he could be the father of Hugh and grandfather of Robert. If
this
is so, perhaps the DD paragraph should be amended to cite the
relationship?
Is more known about this family?
Thanks for any assistance you can provide.
Sincerely,
Gordon Kirkemo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: This constitutional non-sequiter
From:
[email protected]
Date:
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:58:03 EDT
To:
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/6/2004 4:46:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Canada is a monarchy and has had its own constitution since 1982.
There was the basis of a constitution in the 1867 BNA act passed by the
British Parliament.
Who da king?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
It is a Queen at the moment Queen Elizabeth of Canada, represented by
[email protected] wrote:
"fantasies or sci-fi books) in which the
major plot line is just that, or close. An example, is "The Drawing of
the Dark" by Tim Powers "
The challenge however was to back up the statement that "...most
medieval kingdoms had a idea of a concealed king...". Without source
For goodness sake, how much more tedious is this going to get before you
will take the statement of someone who knows something you don't as a
point of departure & undertake some research of your own?
Here are just a few examples of royal survival legends that spring to
mind, from before and after Edward II:
England: Arthur, Harold Godwinson, Richard II, Edward V
Scotland: James IV
France: Charlemagne, St Louis IX, Henri IV, Louis XVII
Portugal: Sebastian
Spain: Carlo V
Germany: Henrich I the Fowler, Friedrich I Barbarossa
Hungary: Louis I, Sigismund
Russia: Dmitri
Serbia: Marko, Vukashin
There are dozens more.
Peter Stewart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: This constitutional non-sequiter
From:
[email protected]
Date:
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:58:03 EDT
To:
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/6/2004 4:46:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Canada is a monarchy and has had its own constitution since 1982.
There was the basis of a constitution in the 1867 BNA act passed by the
British Parliament.
Who da king?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
It is a Queen at the moment Queen Elizabeth of Canada, represented by
Governor General Adriane Clarkson
You are doing just what Parsons did. You think listing royal survival
legends suffices to answer all objections on the subject of RM. You are
saying that it is just nuttery. I don't know if y ou have a historyh PhD,
but to just list royal survival legends would not be considered a proper
"thesis".
"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[email protected] wrote:
"fantasies or sci-fi books) in which the
major plot line is just that, or close. An example, is "The Drawing of
the Dark" by Tim Powers "
The challenge however was to back up the statement that "...most
medieval kingdoms had a idea of a concealed king...". Without source
back-up than this statement cannot stand. And we're talking factual and
contemporary sources, not sources that are obviously intended to be read as
fiction, or sources that are pseudo-historical or retro-historial (if that's
a word).
For goodness sake, how much more tedious is this going to get before you
will take the statement of someone who knows something you don't as a
point of departure & undertake some research of your own?
Here are just a few examples of royal survival legends that spring to
mind, from before and after Edward II:
England: Arthur, Harold Godwinson, Richard II, Edward V
Scotland: James IV
France: Charlemagne, St Louis IX, Henri IV, Louis XVII
Portugal: Sebastian
Spain: Carlo V
Germany: Henrich I the Fowler, Friedrich I Barbarossa
Hungary: Louis I, Sigismund
Russia: Dmitri
Serbia: Marko, Vukashin
There are dozens more.
Peter Stewart
I am still a bit puzzled at the assertion that the beheading of Edmund
of Woodstock was evidence that Edward II was really dead.
It would seem
that if someone came forth after the JFK assassination claiming JFK was
still alive and LBJ had them executed it would be more suspicious than
if he just ignored them.
Of course, I don't know the details, maybe
Edmund tried to overthrow Edward III in order to promote Edward II
coming back or maybe they thought Edmund wanted the throne himself.
As to why Edward II wouldn't have attempted a restoration, maybe he'd
had enough. His life as King wasn't all that pleasant, after all. Maybe
they made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Sort of like the witness
protection program.
Just guessing, I don't really have a dog in this fight.
Uh Oh, Peter, you left out Vlad.
"a.spencer3" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Yes, that's one of your Great Problems.
You don't actually have a Written Constitution per se -- and you
need
one.
We Americans saw that deficiency in your Governmental Structure --
so,
after breaking away from you -- we wrote one for ourselves -- and
it
has
served us very well for over 200 years now.
DSH
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| John Parsons,
|
| Thanks for your further comments and examples on this subject.
|
| I suppose the trick is to apply contemporary laws and customs,
rather
than
| impose today's rules, all the same I detect that The Complete
Peerage
is guilty
| of this error, all those _de jure_ peers. Not having it written
down,
| understanding the British/English constitution is a bit like
pinning
down a blob of
| mercury, you think you have it sussed, but then it has changed
shape.
|
| Adrian
We have a bill of rights and magna carta. Will that do?
Hmmmm.... have you read the Magna Carta recently?
It's gotta be better than the US Constitution. They keep having to amend
theirs all the time!
Surreyman
Dear Surreyman,
It isn't being formally "amended" "all the time." The amending
process was made difficult precisely to make amendments relatively few
in number. The only thing more difficult to accomplish would be the
redrawing of state boundaries, which modern settlement patterns have
rendered almost totally obsolete.
What's going on with the U.S. Constitution is that the Federal
Government lacks any constitutional authority at all to do a lot of
things which they are now doing.
Because the amendment process is so difficult, they simply make it up
as they go along, and the Supreme Court either looks the other way, or
declines to rule their actions unconstitutional.
If we prosecuted politicians for failing to carry out their oaths to
"preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, we'd overload the
federal prisons.
)Dear Rosie and others
Fascinating stuff!
You mention here that Eleanor de Segrave was married to Roger la Zouche.
Leo on his Genealogics site has Eleanor's husband as Alan la Zouche. Are
they the same person?
Merilyn Pedrick
Mylor, South Australia
snip
Another issue arising out of the fines is that Millicent and her heirs
were
to have the manor of Great Dalby in Leicestershire. Because this manor
later
appears in the hands of the Segrave family (as Dalby Chalcombe in the IPM
of
John de Segrave d. 1325), perhaps Millicent died without issue and was not
the mother of Simon Basset. A search of the archives reveals a posting by
Alan B Wilson in 1996 who recorded that Eleanor Segrave had Great Dalby as
her maritagium on her marriage to Roger la Zouche, citing AR7 line 31-29.
It
is included in the 1314 IPM of Roger de la Zouche as Chaucombe Dalby, but
it
appears to have reverted the Segrave family as above and appears in 1326
in
the hands of John, son of Stephen de Segrave (C 143/233/11). Listed as
Dalby
Chacombe it was held by Thomas, duke of Norfolk in 1428 (Feudal Aids, v.3
p.
119), and passed to Isabel Mowbray, wife of Viscount James de Berkeley. If
the manor was not sold back to the Segraves, this has implications for the
maternity of Roger de la Zouche's daughters, Maud and Ellen. I've not
traced
what happened to the 2 carucates of land in Strubby. It does not appear
later in the hands of either the Segraves or the Bassets.
Cheers
Rosie
The correct term is non sequitur, an idiomatic
expression from the verb sequor, to follow. Sequitur
est... means, remains to [say, etc.]
Non sequitur, nothing follows.
) Quicherat, 1869 edition, p. 1081.) Quicherat, 1869 edition, p. 1081. Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
The correct term is non sequitur, an idiomatic
expression from the verb sequor, to follow.
Sequitur
est... means, remains to [say, etc.]
Non sequitur, nothing follows.
I've no idea what misquotation or misspelling
prompted your remarks, but
"non sequitur" means quite literally "it does not
follow" and certainly
not "nothing follows".
Peter Stewart
"non sequitur" means quite literally "it does not follow" and certainly
not "nothing follows".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: This constitutional non-sequiter
From:
"David Webb" <[email protected]
Date:
Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:24:04 GMT
To:
[email protected]
I thought it was "Adrienne"
"Bernard Schulmann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: This constitutional non-sequiter
From:
[email protected]
Date:
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:58:03 EDT
To:
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/6/2004 4:46:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Canada is a monarchy and has had its own constitution since 1982.
There was the basis of a constitution in the 1867 BNA act passed by the
British Parliament.
Who da king?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
It is a Queen at the moment Queen Elizabeth of Canada, represented by
Governor General Adriane Clarkson
Peter,
Do check your Latin, please. I first went to le père
des ânes,
Sequitur hunc annum pax. This year is followed by
peace.
Sequitur is rex qui... Remains to talk about the king
that...
Non sequitur, nothing remains, nothing to be said,
nothing to be debated.
I wonder whether there isn't some structural
disharmony that makes some Latin terms and expressions
so hard to understand to English-speaking people. My
guess - just a guess - goes as follows: we have long
used a language full of nuances, hidden implications,
innuendos, perhaps. There is always a measure of
ambiguity in Latin languages, even in its everyday
usage, while English strives for clear-cut
definitions, black or white characterizations. This is
not our way.
Best, chico
--- Peter Stewart <[email protected]> escreveu:
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
The correct term is non sequitur, an idiomatic
expression from the verb sequor, to follow.
Sequitur
est... means, remains to [say, etc.]
Non sequitur, nothing follows.
I've no idea what misquotation or misspelling
prompted your remarks, but
"non sequitur" means quite literally "it does not
follow" and certainly
not "nothing follows".
Peter Stewart
Peter,
Do check your Latin, please. I first went to le père
des ânes,
Sequitur hunc annum pax. This year is followed by
peace.
Sequitur is rex qui... Remains to talk about the king
that...
Non sequitur, nothing remains, nothing to be said,
nothing to be debated.
I wonder whether there isn't some structural
disharmony that makes some Latin terms and expressions
so hard to understand to English-speaking people. My
guess - just a guess - goes as follows: we have long
used a language full of nuances, hidden implications,
innuendos, perhaps. There is always a measure of
ambiguity in Latin languages, even in its everyday
usage, while English strives for clear-cut
definitions, black or white characterizations. This is
not our way.
"a.spencer3" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Yes, that's one of your Great Problems.
You don't actually have a Written Constitution per se -- and you
need
one.
We Americans saw that deficiency in your Governmental Structure --
so,
after breaking away from you -- we wrote one for ourselves -- and
it
has
served us very well for over 200 years now.
DSH
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| John Parsons,
|
| Thanks for your further comments and examples on this subject.
|
| I suppose the trick is to apply contemporary laws and customs,
rather
than
| impose today's rules, all the same I detect that The Complete
Peerage
is guilty
| of this error, all those _de jure_ peers. Not having it written
down,
| understanding the British/English constitution is a bit like
pinning
down a blob of
| mercury, you think you have it sussed, but then it has changed
shape.
|
| Adrian
We have a bill of rights and magna carta. Will that do?
Hmmmm.... have you read the Magna Carta recently?
It's gotta be better than the US Constitution. They keep having to amend
theirs all the time!
Surreyman
Dear Surreyman,
It isn't being formally "amended" "all the time." The amending
process was made difficult precisely to make amendments relatively few
in number. The only thing more difficult to accomplish would be the
redrawing of state boundaries, which modern settlement patterns have
rendered almost totally obsolete.
What's going on with the U.S. Constitution is that the Federal
Government lacks any constitutional authority at all to do a lot of
things which they are now doing.
Because the amendment process is so difficult, they simply make it up
as they go along, and the Supreme Court either looks the other way, or
declines to rule their actions unconstitutional.
If we prosecuted politicians for failing to carry out their oaths to
"preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, we'd overload the
federal prisons.
)"Kelly Graham" <[email protected]> 10/07/04 12:29PM
"Daniel MacGregor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
"a.spencer3" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Yes, that's one of your Great Problems.
You don't actually have a Written Constitution per se -- and
you
one.
We Americans saw that deficiency in your Governmental
Structure --
after breaking away from you -- we wrote one for ourselves --
and
has
served us very well for over 200 years now.
DSH
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| John Parsons,
|
| Thanks for your further comments and examples on this
subject.
|
| I suppose the trick is to apply contemporary laws and
customs,
rather
than
| impose today's rules, all the same I detect that The
Complete
Peerage
is guilty
| of this error, all those _de jure_ peers. Not having it
written
down,
| understanding the British/English constitution is a bit
like
down a blob of
| mercury, you think you have it sussed, but then it has
changed
shape.
|
| Adrian
We have a bill of rights and magna carta. Will that do?
Hmmmm.... have you read the Magna Carta recently?
It's gotta be better than the US Constitution. They keep having to
amend
theirs all the time!
Surreyman
Dear Surreyman,
It isn't being formally "amended" "all the time." The amending
process was made difficult precisely to make amendments relatively
few
in number. The only thing more difficult to accomplish would be the
redrawing of state boundaries, which modern settlement patterns have
rendered almost totally obsolete.
What's going on with the U.S. Constitution is that the Federal
Government lacks any constitutional authority at all to do a lot of
things which they are now doing.
Because the amendment process is so difficult, they simply make it
up
as they go along, and the Supreme Court either looks the other way,
or
declines to rule their actions unconstitutional.
If we prosecuted politicians for failing to carry out their oaths to
"preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, we'd overload the
federal prisons.
)Peter,
Do check your Latin, please. I first went to le père
des ânes,
Sequitur hunc annum pax. This year is followed by
peace.
Sequitur is rex qui... Remains to talk about the king
that...
Non sequitur, nothing remains, nothing to be said,
nothing to be debated.
I wonder whether there isn't some structural
disharmony that makes some Latin terms and expressions
so hard to understand to English-speaking people. My
guess - just a guess - goes as follows: we have long
used a language full of nuances, hidden implications,
innuendos, perhaps. There is always a measure of
ambiguity in Latin languages, even in its everyday
usage, while English strives for clear-cut
definitions, black or white characterizations. This is
not our way.
Best, chico
--- Peter Stewart <[email protected]> escreveu:
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
The correct term is non sequitur, an idiomatic
expression from the verb sequor, to follow.
Sequitur
est... means, remains to [say, etc.]
Non sequitur, nothing follows.
I've no idea what misquotation or misspelling
prompted your remarks, but
"non sequitur" means quite literally "it does not
follow" and certainly
not "nothing follows".
Peter Stewart
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
Spencer,
Thanks. You're right.
Now, re the medio-passive form of the verb; this is
another detail that is lost in English, but is quite
clear in some Latin languages. The verb sequor exists
in the medio-passive form; again we have (nearly) the
same verb in Portuguese: sequor, seguir-(se). Between
(..) is the reflexive, analytic, form that stands for
the original medio-passive synthetic form.
fa
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]
escreveu:
""Sequor" primarily means "to follow", and
"sequitur" is the third
person indicative active, present tense, meaning
"he/she/it follows"."
Peter Stewart
Actually, Peter, _SEQUITUR_ is third person,
indicative, PASSIVE,
present tense -- meaning [literally, among other
meanings] "he/she/it is
[is being] followed."
Actually, we learned in second year Latin that that noble language had a
Sorry Chico, it's you who need to do some checking.
Latin is a complex language, and of course words and
phrases can be used
variously - that is why machines can't translate
very well.
But it isn't Esperanto, and speaking Portuguese
rather than English does
not give any advantage in understanding classical
and medieval usages.
"Sequor" primarily means "to follow", and "sequitur"
is the third person
indicative active, present tense, meaning "he/she/it
follows".
"Non" negates the verb, but cannot literally change
its subject from the
third person singular to "nothing".
I gave the literal meaning, "it does follow". There
may be contexts
where you could render "non sequitur" as "nothing
follows", but you
can't reasonably offer this as a definition of the
term.
I suggest you equip yourself with a better work of
reference - since you
read & speak French and this is a medieval forum, I
would recommend
either Jan Frederik Niermeyer's _Mediae Latinitatis
lexicon minus_
(Leiden, New York & Cologne, 1993) or Albert
Blaise's _Lexicon
latinitatis medii aevi_ (Turnhout, 1975).
Or you could always look up Du Cange, available on
Gallica.
Peter Stewart
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
Peter,
Do check your Latin, please. I first went to le
père
des ânes,
Sequitur hunc annum pax. This year is followed by
peace.
Sequitur is rex qui... Remains to talk about the
king
that...
Non sequitur, nothing remains, nothing to be said,
nothing to be debated.
I wonder whether there isn't some structural
disharmony that makes some Latin terms and
expressions
so hard to understand to English-speaking people.
My
guess - just a guess - goes as follows: we have
long
used a language full of nuances, hidden
implications,
innuendos, perhaps. There is always a measure of
ambiguity in Latin languages, even in its everyday
usage, while English strives for clear-cut
definitions, black or white characterizations.
This is
not our way.
Best, chico
--- Peter Stewart <[email protected]> escreveu:
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
The correct term is non sequitur, an idiomatic
expression from the verb sequor, to follow.
Sequitur
est... means, remains to [say, etc.]
Non sequitur, nothing follows.
I've no idea what misquotation or misspelling
prompted your remarks, but
"non sequitur" means quite literally "it does not
follow" and certainly
not "nothing follows".
Peter Stewart
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
I agree with Peter Stewart when he says:
"non sequitur" means quite literally "it does not
follow" and certainly
not "nothing follows".
John Townsend, B.A. Hons. (Latin)
Genealogist/Antiquarian Bookseller
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk
""Sequor" primarily means "to follow", and
"sequitur" is the third
person indicative active, present tense, meaning
"he/she/it follows"."
Peter Stewart
Actually, Peter, _SEQUITUR_ is third person,
indicative, PASSIVE,
present tense -- meaning [literally, among other
meanings] "he/she/it is
[is being] followed."
So, NON SEQUITUR literally means -- "it [the logic]
is NOT being
followed" -- but your original, correct, "it does
not follow" parses
better.
Cheers And Aloha,
Spencer
"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
Sorry Chico, it's you who need to do some checking.
Latin is a complex language, and of course words and
phrases can be used
variously - that is why machines can't translate
very well.
But it isn't Esperanto, and speaking Portuguese
rather than English does
not give any advantage in understanding classical
and medieval usages.
"Sequor" primarily means "to follow", and "sequitur"
is the third person
indicative active, present tense, meaning "he/she/it
follows".
"Non" negates the verb, but cannot literally change
its subject from the
third person singular to "nothing".
I gave the literal meaning, "it does follow". There
may be contexts
where you could render "non sequitur" as "nothing
follows", but you
can't reasonably offer this as a definition of the
term.
I suggest you equip yourself with a better work of
reference - since you
read & speak French and this is a medieval forum, I
would recommend
either Jan Frederik Niermeyer's _Mediae Latinitatis
lexicon minus_
(Leiden, New York & Cologne, 1993) or Albert
Blaise's _Lexicon
latinitatis medii aevi_ (Turnhout, 1975).
Or you could always look up Du Cange, available on
Gallica.
Peter Stewart
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
Peter,
Do check your Latin, please. I first went to le
père
des ânes,
Sequitur hunc annum pax. This year is followed by
peace.
Sequitur is rex qui... Remains to talk about the
king
that...
Non sequitur, nothing remains, nothing to be said,
nothing to be debated.
I wonder whether there isn't some structural
disharmony that makes some Latin terms and
expressions
so hard to understand to English-speaking people.
My
guess - just a guess - goes as follows: we have
long
used a language full of nuances, hidden
implications,
innuendos, perhaps. There is always a measure of
ambiguity in Latin languages, even in its everyday
usage, while English strives for clear-cut
definitions, black or white characterizations.
This is
not our way.
Best, chico
--- Peter Stewart <[email protected]> escreveu:
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
The correct term is non sequitur, an idiomatic
expression from the verb sequor, to follow.
Sequitur
est... means, remains to [say, etc.]
Non sequitur, nothing follows.
I've no idea what misquotation or misspelling
prompted your remarks, but
"non sequitur" means quite literally "it does not
follow" and certainly
not "nothing follows".
Peter Stewart
Spencer,
Thanks. You're right.
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
Spencer,
Thanks. You're right.
No, Spencer is completely wrong. "Sequor" is a deponent verb, that is
irregularly having passive forms for active meanings. "Sequitur" is the
third person singular INDICATIVE.
Question for extra credit: When someone says, "Marc parle francais"
why doesn't "francais" require a definite article, the way nouns
always do (as in "Le francais est une langue simple et clair.")
So, like us, your constitution is now unwritten?
Surreyman
"a.spencer3" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Yes, that's one of your Great Problems.
You don't actually have a Written Constitution per se -- and you
need
one.
We Americans saw that deficiency in your Governmental Structure --
so,
after breaking away from you -- we wrote one for ourselves -- and
it
has
served us very well for over 200 years now.
DSH
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| John Parsons,
|
| Thanks for your further comments and examples on this subject.
|
| I suppose the trick is to apply contemporary laws and customs,
rather
than
| impose today's rules, all the same I detect that The Complete
Peerage
is guilty
| of this error, all those _de jure_ peers. Not having it written
down,
| understanding the British/English constitution is a bit like
pinning
down a blob of
| mercury, you think you have it sussed, but then it has changed
shape.
|
| Adrian
We have a bill of rights and magna carta. Will that do?
Hmmmm.... have you read the Magna Carta recently?
It's gotta be better than the US Constitution. They keep having to amend
theirs all the time!
Surreyman
Don't forget Magna Carta was amended too! Edward's version is not the
same as John's. Still both are riviting reads
John Kane
Perth
No, Spencer is completely wrong. "Sequor" is a deponent verb, that is
irregularly having passive forms for active meanings. "Sequitur" is the
third person singular INDICATIVE.
Again, I agree entirely with Peter Stewart when he says:
No, Spencer is completely wrong. "Sequor" is a deponent verb, that is
irregularly having passive forms for active meanings. "Sequitur" is the
third person singular INDICATIVE.
My view is that people whose Latin is so weak that they do not recognize a
deponent verb should not try to speak authoritatively about Latin
translation.
I must apologize because I am guilty of having started
this, hum, rather inadequate thread.
I'm not an expert on languages, old and new. I speak
and read and write many of them - badly. My parents
used to talk to each other in French at home; my
grandmother taught me some Italian and German, and
I've lived with my family for long stretches in the
US. Yet my translations stand, when confronted to
expert translations (I've done several, from all sorts
of texts). At worst they have, as a friend once told
me, a rather exotic flavor
Just pay attention to terms like superficialiter -
such terms may have a metaphorical meaning, and
therefore it is risky to base one's argument on it.
As for non sequitur, the sequent discussion was... a
non sequitur
negation is actually a complex word. If I rightly
recall, non < ne + omnis, which is, etimologically,
``not + all.'' My question is, does that meaning still
sounded in educated Roman ears when they used this
negation? Like, say, alétheia, truth in Greek,
actually ``uncovering'' ?
(The indo-european negation system was complicated,
but follow ups - sequences to this thread - to
alt.talk.linguistics or whatever
fa
Professor of Communications, Emeritus, Federal
University at Rio de Janeiro
PhD, math phys - but even after publishing nearly a
hundred papers, book chapters, and being quoted in
many books and papers, I certainly prefer to see
myself in the field as a lucky amateur...
(If you are interested, one of my most recent papers
is due in a book edited by K. V. Velupillai on
Computational & Constructive Economics, Blackwell,
Oxford, March 2005.)
)) Oh, before I conclude: the Latin))John A Rea wrote:
snip
Question for extra credit: When someone says,
"Marc parle francais"
why doesn't "francais" require a definite article,
the way nouns
always do (as in "Le francais est une langue
simple et clair.")
But in French nouns don't "always" require an
article. There are several
reasons for this, and in the case of "parler
francais" the rule is that
the article is omitted when a noun stands as the
direct complement of a
verb.
In phrases with a preposition and no article the
noun might be a
circumstantial complement, as in "avec raison".
There are other usages that are more readily
remembered by learners, as
in dates and numerations.
Has this something to do with deponent verbs in
Latin that I have
missed? I hope SGM won't go into more dicussions of
grammar, in any
language - I have removed the cross-post address
just in case.
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter,
I close my participation here on this thread. I will
simply restate my position:
- superficialiter: it had the metaphorical
(figurative) meaning even in classical times. So, that
meaning must be taken into account.
- non, where from? Meillet-Vendryes gives ne + unus,
from an archaic form ne + oinos. I once saw a long
discussion of that, perhaps in a plaquette by Vendryes
himself on the restored Latin pronunciation, that
takes ne + omnis into account, especially because
there are forms like ``nenhum'' (ne(m) + um) in the
Latin languages, which would mean that the analytic
construction ne + unus would have survived through
classical times (through ne + c + unus, in some
instances).
Nenhum homem é uma ilha.
No man is an island.
OK, never mind where it comes from...
- Marcus latine loquor. How about the following?
Marcos é loquaz latinamente, or Marcos é loquaz em
latim. loquor is medio-passive, and the `flavor' of
the medio-passive usage is kept in the Portuguese -
colloquial
But that's irrelevant...
- Non sequitur: não se segue. We could even say, um
não se segue, in the substantive usage.
- My titles. A deliberate red herring; they are of
course irrelevant, in this discussion and in any
discussion. Even my name is irrelevant; the argument
stands if I'm João da Silva, John Doe, or whomever.
(But I saw a post with some titles listed after the
signature, and decided to play the game...)
----------
The point is, again: the metaphorical meaning in
superficialiter ***must be taken into account*** since
it is there from classical times. As for the rest,
just an irrelevant digression
--- Peter Stewart <[email protected]> escreveu:
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
I must apologize because I am guilty of having
started
this, hum, rather inadequate thread.
I'm not an expert on languages, old and new. I
speak
and read and write many of them - badly. My
parents
used to talk to each other in French at home; my
grandmother taught me some Italian and German, and
I've lived with my family for long stretches in
the
US. Yet my translations stand, when confronted to
expert translations (I've done several, from all
sorts
of texts). At worst they have, as a friend once
told
me, a rather exotic flavor
Just pay attention to terms like superficialiter -
such terms may have a metaphorical meaning, and
therefore it is risky to base one's argument on
it.
As for non sequitur, the sequent discussion was...
a
non sequitur
negation is actually a complex word. If I rightly
recall, non < ne + omnis, which is,
etimologically,
``not + all.'' My question is, does that meaning
still
sounded in educated Roman ears when they used this
negation? Like, say, alétheia, truth in Greek,
actually ``uncovering'' ?
Your memory has let you down again - the older form
of "non" was
"noenum", that is "ne oenum" = not one, not any, not
AT all - and I'm
afraid your "ne omnis" = not + all has nothing to do
with it at all.
And if you would take the trouble to read my posts
you would find that
my arguments about "superficialiter" in this context
are somewhat more
thorough and apposite than your harping about a
metaphorical sense.
(The indo-european negation system was
complicated,
but follow ups - sequences to this thread - to
alt.talk.linguistics or whatever
fa
Professor of Communications, Emeritus, Federal
University at Rio de Janeiro
PhD, math phys - but even after publishing nearly
a
hundred papers, book chapters, and being quoted in
many books and papers, I certainly prefer to see
myself in the field as a lucky amateur...
(If you are interested, one of my most recent
papers
is due in a book edited by K. V. Velupillai on
Computational & Constructive Economics, Blackwell,
Oxford, March 2005.)
With respect, Chico, trotting out irrelevant
qualifications and
publications - rather than just admitting that you
have gone wrong while
trying to correct someone else when when you didn't
know what you were
talking about - is the bad habit of some other SGM
participants, but
disappointing from you.
Peter Stewart
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
) - usage. )Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
I must apologize because I am guilty of having
started
this, hum, rather inadequate thread.
I'm not an expert on languages, old and new. I
speak
and read and write many of them - badly. My
parents
used to talk to each other in French at home; my
grandmother taught me some Italian and German, and
I've lived with my family for long stretches in
the
US. Yet my translations stand, when confronted to
expert translations (I've done several, from all
sorts
of texts). At worst they have, as a friend once
told
me, a rather exotic flavor
Just pay attention to terms like superficialiter -
such terms may have a metaphorical meaning, and
therefore it is risky to base one's argument on
it.
As for non sequitur, the sequent discussion was...
a
non sequitur
negation is actually a complex word. If I rightly
recall, non < ne + omnis, which is,
etimologically,
``not + all.'' My question is, does that meaning
still
sounded in educated Roman ears when they used this
negation? Like, say, alétheia, truth in Greek,
actually ``uncovering'' ?
Your memory has let you down again - the older form
of "non" was
"noenum", that is "ne oenum" = not one, not any, not
AT all - and I'm
afraid your "ne omnis" = not + all has nothing to do
with it at all.
And if you would take the trouble to read my posts
you would find that
my arguments about "superficialiter" in this context
are somewhat more
thorough and apposite than your harping about a
metaphorical sense.
(The indo-european negation system was
complicated,
but follow ups - sequences to this thread - to
alt.talk.linguistics or whatever
fa
Professor of Communications, Emeritus, Federal
University at Rio de Janeiro
PhD, math phys - but even after publishing nearly
a
hundred papers, book chapters, and being quoted in
many books and papers, I certainly prefer to see
myself in the field as a lucky amateur...
(If you are interested, one of my most recent
papers
is due in a book edited by K. V. Velupillai on
Computational & Constructive Economics, Blackwell,
Oxford, March 2005.)
With respect, Chico, trotting out irrelevant
qualifications and
publications - rather than just admitting that you
have gone wrong while
trying to correct someone else when when you didn't
know what you were
talking about - is the bad habit of some other SGM
participants, but
disappointing from you.
Peter Stewart
"JRKRideau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"a.spencer3" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
We Americans saw that deficiency in your Governmental Structure --
so,
after breaking away from you -- we wrote one for ourselves -- and
it
has
served us very well for over 200 years now.
DSH
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| John Parsons,
|
| Thanks for your further comments and examples on this subject.
clip
We have a bill of rights and magna carta. Will that do?
Hmmmm.... have you read the Magna Carta recently?
It's gotta be better than the US Constitution. They keep having to amend
theirs all the time!
Surreyman
Don't forget Magna Carta was amended too! Edward's version is not the
same as John's. Still both are riviting reads
John Kane
Perth
wasn't there a magna carter foisted on any king/queen they could get to sign
one and that it died with that him/her a new king a new charter.
"raymond o'hara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<Tbq9d.326225$mD.9592@attbi_s02>...
"JRKRideau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"a.spencer3" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
clip
We Americans saw that deficiency in your Governmental
Structure --
so,
after breaking away from you -- we wrote one for ourselves --
and
it
has
served us very well for over 200 years now.
DSH
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| John Parsons,
|
| Thanks for your further comments and examples on this
subject.
clip
I may have messed up the attributions here
We have a bill of rights and magna carta. Will that do?
Hmmmm.... have you read the Magna Carta recently?
It's gotta be better than the US Constitution. They keep having to
amend
theirs all the time!
Surreyman
Don't forget Magna Carta was amended too! Edward's version is not the
same as John's. Still both are riviting reads
John Kane
Perth
wasn't there a magna carter foisted on any king/queen they could get to
sign
one and that it died with that him/her a new king a new charter.
AFAIR there were only two Magnae Cartae, John's and Edward's but it
has been some time since I read anything about it.
John Kane
Perth Ont
"Sequitur" is the third person singular INDICATIVE." [sic]
Peter Stewart
----------------------
Incomplete On Two Counts.
Ergo Indubitably Wrong And Misleading.
Of course it is INDICATIVE. It is certainly not IMPERATIVE or
SUBJUNCTIVE, so there is no need to write INDICATIVE in all caps.
Indeed that is simply a red herring -- an amusing one -- designed to
divert the reader.
But the verb also has a PASSIVE ending -- which, because the verb
_SEQUOR_ is deponent, is essentially translated into English in the
ACTIVE rather than the PASSIVE voice.
It is also PRESENT TENSE and that has been left out of the description
supra.
Specifying the TENSE is critical.
Now we finally have it right.
And yes, Virginia, METAPHORICAL meanings are indeed important and should
be considered in the scope of any COMPLETE, LOGICAL and SCHOLARLY
ANALYSIS.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
))))))Good, Chico -- And On Point.
Peter simply doesn't understand the points you are making and willfully
ignores them -- as is obvious.
Bad Form & Bad Show On His Part.
I Expected Far Better From Him.
One of his MAJOR ERRORS is to see everything in terms of Latin
translations into ENGLISH -- while ignoring translations into OTHER
[Romance] Languages.
Further, as you restate and I emphasized before, METAPHORICAL MEANINGS
must be taken into account in this discussion.
Peter Stewrat
: You don't actually have a Written Constitution per se -- and
you need
: one.
Why not write us one? I'm sure it'd come in useful.
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Good, Chico -- And On Point.
Peter simply doesn't understand the points you are
making and willfully
ignores them -- as is obvious.
Bad Form & Bad Show On His Part.
I Expected Far Better From Him.
One of his MAJOR ERRORS is to see everything in
terms of Latin
translations into ENGLISH -- while ignoring
translations into OTHER
[Romance] Languages.
Further, as you restate and I emphasized before,
METAPHORICAL MEANINGS
must be taken into account in this discussion.
This is blather - both digging yourself deeper into
the hole of
ignorance about elementary Latin grammar.
My points about "non sequitur" and "superficialiter"
are absolutely NOT
bound up in any question of translation into
English, they are about the
sense made Latin, which - quite obviously - Chico
and Spencer cannot
read and understand without making laborious and -
as we have all seen -
crudely mistaken attempts at translation.
Chico has tried to make a series of quite irrelevant
points about
Portuguese words and constructions. In so far as
these are worth noting
at all I understand them quite well and have
responded: as to Latin, he
is simply wrong about the etymology of "non" and
hasn't produced a scrap
of evidence to back up his peculiar claim about "non
omnis".
The plain issue about "superficialiter" is whether
of not this means
that people were permited to view the corspe
"outwardly" as displayed or
to push the investigation of rumours to the extent
of viewing the
underside, that is specifically the backside, of the
deceased. Any other
reading put forward in this discussion so far lacks
any cogent
explanation of why local notables would be summoned
to waste their time,
travelling to & fro but not getting a proper look at
the corpse which
was the cause of their trouble, and how that could
conceivably achieve
anything useful for the summoner/s or for the
summoned.
Chico's points that Spencer endorses are pushing the
bounds of absurdity
even for SGM - that the etymology of "non" in Latin
is "obscure" because
forms similar to the satndard derivaiton are still
current in
Portuguese; that a discussion of the meaning of "non
sequitur" is one;
that "superficialiter" can mean "superficially"
(which no-one has
denied); and that a metaphorical meaning "must" be
taken into account by
which he means it must remain there long after is
has been considered
and rejected, just to salve his carping pride after
making some
elementary blunders.
And the best Spencer can do is to pretend to correct
an already
acknowledged slip on my part, adding nothing to my
previous full &
correct statement (in a post to which he had
replied) that '"sequitur"
is the third person indicative active, present
tense, meaning "he/she/it
follows"'.
The active meaning of deponent verbs is not
"apparent" but actual. This
is simply not open to debate, much less from a
quarter that until
yesterday didn't know enough to recognise one.
Two people for whose opinions I and others had
respect are busy wasting
this, to gain nothing but patent avoidance of
admitting error. Feeble.
Peter Stewrat
You are likely right, as most people in Canada, I could care less about
her or the woman she represents.
As opposed to the Australians that have a strong repulican movement and
a strong monarchist movement, here in Canada no one cares about the head
of state and the find the concept of having one a quaint anachnorism.
The Canadian monachist league is overwhelmingly immigrants. There is
no republican movement here are all - but then that is mainl y because
our US neighbour makes almost all Canadians blanch at the thought of
being a republic. The political and social culture in the US around
its republicanism is seen as bizzare and wierd.
People only care about the current GG because she spends money like crazy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: This constitutional non-sequiter
From:
"David Webb" <[email protected]
Date:
Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:24:04 GMT
To:
[email protected]
I thought it was "Adrienne"
"Bernard Schulmann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: This constitutional non-sequiter
From:
[email protected]
Date:
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:58:03 EDT
To:
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/6/2004 4:46:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Canada is a monarchy and has had its own constitution since 1982.
There was the basis of a constitution in the 1867 BNA act passed by the
British Parliament.
Who da king?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
It is a Queen at the moment Queen Elizabeth of Canada, represented by
Governor General Adriane Clarkson
Well Said, Chico.
I, for one, am VERY interested in how various LATIN
PHRASES relevant to
Genealogy and Logic are translated into Portuguese,
Spanish, French and
Italian -- not just into English.
Why? Because in doing Mediaeval Genealogy I
research folks who are
Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian -- not just
the English.
Further, I have long considered Peter Stewart to be
a fine fellow, a
stalwart of sound mind, good temperament and a good
friend -- the best
sort of Brit.
But I'm sure many of us are disappointed at his
performances of late.
Peter is clearly sick and off his feed and my heart
goes out to him.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
"Francisco Antonio Doria"
[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
| I'm not going to answer this irrelevant blah blah
| blah. Please feel free to correct my English
anytime -
| it's my second, or third language, and I'm
perfectly
| aware that I make mistakes in it all the time.
|
| But to be haughtily lectured on the fine points of
the
| history of my own language...
| --- Peter Stewart <[email protected]> escreveu:
baldersnip
I'm not going to answer this irrelevant blah blah
blah. Please feel free to correct my English anytime -
it's my second, or third language, and I'm perfectly
aware that I make mistakes in it all the time.
But to be haughtily lectured on the fine points of the
history of my own language...
(Anyway, if you wish to learn about how difficult and
shady are indo-european etimologies, take a look at
the reconstruction by August Schleicher, ``Avis
akvasas ka,'' The Sheep and the Horse, a small tale
which Schleicher dared to write in indo-european - as
he conceived that language. Both Hermann Hirt's
revision of 1939 and the joint work by Lehmann and
Zgusta, 1979, use a phonetic system for i.-e. which
includes the vowel a (pronounced as in Italian), which
isn't believed to be part of the phonetics of i.-e.
anymore.)
So much for a sure derivation of Latin `non.' The only
secure thing here is that it comes from ne +
[something hidden in the mists of the past].
(I'm already back to the banu Qasi, where btw I'm
acknowledging several mistakes I've made. One makes
them all the time - as my father used to say, you are
alive, you make mistakes... But not those below.)
fa
--- Peter Stewart <[email protected]> escreveu:
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Good, Chico -- And On Point.
Peter simply doesn't understand the points you are
making and willfully
ignores them -- as is obvious.
Bad Form & Bad Show On His Part.
I Expected Far Better From Him.
One of his MAJOR ERRORS is to see everything in
terms of Latin
translations into ENGLISH -- while ignoring
translations into OTHER
[Romance] Languages.
Further, as you restate and I emphasized before,
METAPHORICAL MEANINGS
must be taken into account in this discussion.
This is blather - both digging yourself deeper into
the hole of
ignorance about elementary Latin grammar.
My points about "non sequitur" and "superficialiter"
are absolutely NOT
bound up in any question of translation into
English, they are about the
sense made Latin, which - quite obviously - Chico
and Spencer cannot
read and understand without making laborious and -
as we have all seen -
crudely mistaken attempts at translation.
Chico has tried to make a series of quite irrelevant
points about
Portuguese words and constructions. In so far as
these are worth noting
at all I understand them quite well and have
responded: as to Latin, he
is simply wrong about the etymology of "non" and
hasn't produced a scrap
of evidence to back up his peculiar claim about "non
omnis".
The plain issue about "superficialiter" is whether
of not this means
that people were permited to view the corspe
"outwardly" as displayed or
to push the investigation of rumours to the extent
of viewing the
underside, that is specifically the backside, of the
deceased. Any other
reading put forward in this discussion so far lacks
any cogent
explanation of why local notables would be summoned
to waste their time,
travelling to & fro but not getting a proper look at
the corpse which
was the cause of their trouble, and how that could
conceivably achieve
anything useful for the summoner/s or for the
summoned.
Chico's points that Spencer endorses are pushing the
bounds of absurdity
even for SGM - that the etymology of "non" in Latin
is "obscure" because
forms similar to the satndard derivaiton are still
current in
Portuguese; that a discussion of the meaning of "non
sequitur" is one;
that "superficialiter" can mean "superficially"
(which no-one has
denied); and that a metaphorical meaning "must" be
taken into account by
which he means it must remain there long after is
has been considered
and rejected, just to salve his carping pride after
making some
elementary blunders.
And the best Spencer can do is to pretend to correct
an already
acknowledged slip on my part, adding nothing to my
previous full &
correct statement (in a post to which he had
replied) that '"sequitur"
is the third person indicative active, present
tense, meaning "he/she/it
follows"'.
The active meaning of deponent verbs is not
"apparent" but actual. This
is simply not open to debate, much less from a
quarter that until
yesterday didn't know enough to recognise one.
Two people for whose opinions I and others had
respect are busy wasting
this, to gain nothing but patent avoidance of
admitting error. Feeble.
Peter Stewrat
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
Well, this seems to be one of the situations when the
other part wants to have the last word - no matter the
reasons. So be it...
(And I stand by what I've said - btw, I spent the
afternoon over some textbooks on the indo-european;
it's fascinating, the bright side of this absurd
discussion...)
fa
PS:
neither of you has
the cohones to admit it.
I never use such a foul language in educated society.
But since you went that far, let me go back to my
magisterial times and teach you a lesson in the
linguistics of foul language: cohones, balls (in the
vulgar sense) are culhões, in Portuguese. Cohones is
Spanish; in Brazil we speak Portuguese, not Spanish.
The correct word is culhões - you can read it in, say,
D. Pedro's great lineage book, btw, iirc...
Surely Peter is an Aussie - I think he lives in Melbourne. We have some
erudite people here too you know!
neither of you has
the cohones to admit it.
)This is rubbish - no-one has lectured you about the
history of Portuguese.
You foolishly tried to correct me, not knowing
anywhere near as much
about Latin as you imagined and wished to represent
to the newsgroup.
You and Spencer got it utterly, absolutely wrong,
and neither of you has
the cohones to admit it. That pooch is well & truly
screwed - 'Nuff said.
My post was not irrelevant at all, but your
pretentious and silly
response below certainly is.
If you want to make out the case that a form in
Portuguese similar to
"ne oenum" is other than a coincidence of
effectively circular
development, and that this was somehow adopted
directly from the
antecedent of "non" in Latin, then you are up
against the entire weight
of history and linguistic science. Go to it.
But then you will of course make an extra difficulty
for yourself in
explaining your equally misconceived idea that "ne
omnis" is somehow
behind "non" anyway, rather than "ne oenum".
Better stick to mathematics. "Non sequitur" does NOT
mean "nothing
remains to be said" in any language, and if used in
this way the Latin
term is corrupted, not defined.
Peter Stewart
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
I'm not going to answer this irrelevant blah blah
blah. Please feel free to correct my English
anytime -
it's my second, or third language, and I'm
perfectly
aware that I make mistakes in it all the time.
But to be haughtily lectured on the fine points of
the
history of my own language...
(Anyway, if you wish to learn about how difficult
and
shady are indo-european etimologies, take a look
at
the reconstruction by August Schleicher, ``Avis
akvasas ka,'' The Sheep and the Horse, a small
tale
which Schleicher dared to write in indo-european -
as
he conceived that language. Both Hermann Hirt's
revision of 1939 and the joint work by Lehmann and
Zgusta, 1979, use a phonetic system for i.-e.
which
includes the vowel a (pronounced as in Italian),
which
isn't believed to be part of the phonetics of
i.-e.
anymore.)
So much for a sure derivation of Latin `non.' The
only
secure thing here is that it comes from ne +
[something hidden in the mists of the past].
(I'm already back to the banu Qasi, where btw I'm
acknowledging several mistakes I've made. One
makes
them all the time - as my father used to say, you
are
alive, you make mistakes... But not those below.)
fa
--- Peter Stewart <[email protected]> escreveu:
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Good, Chico -- And On Point.
Peter simply doesn't understand the points you
are
making and willfully
ignores them -- as is obvious.
Bad Form & Bad Show On His Part.
I Expected Far Better From Him.
One of his MAJOR ERRORS is to see everything in
terms of Latin
translations into ENGLISH -- while ignoring
translations into OTHER
[Romance] Languages.
Further, as you restate and I emphasized before,
METAPHORICAL MEANINGS
must be taken into account in this discussion.
This is blather - both digging yourself deeper
into
the hole of
ignorance about elementary Latin grammar.
My points about "non sequitur" and
"superficialiter"
are absolutely NOT
bound up in any question of translation into
English, they are about the
sense made Latin, which - quite obviously - Chico
and Spencer cannot
read and understand without making laborious and -
as we have all seen -
crudely mistaken attempts at translation.
Chico has tried to make a series of quite
irrelevant
points about
Portuguese words and constructions. In so far as
these are worth noting
at all I understand them quite well and have
responded: as to Latin, he
is simply wrong about the etymology of "non" and
hasn't produced a scrap
of evidence to back up his peculiar claim about
"non
omnis".
The plain issue about "superficialiter" is whether
of not this means
that people were permited to view the corspe
"outwardly" as displayed or
to push the investigation of rumours to the extent
of viewing the
underside, that is specifically the backside, of
the
deceased. Any other
reading put forward in this discussion so far
lacks
any cogent
explanation of why local notables would be
summoned
to waste their time,
travelling to & fro but not getting a proper look
at
the corpse which
was the cause of their trouble, and how that could
conceivably achieve
anything useful for the summoner/s or for the
summoned.
Chico's points that Spencer endorses are pushing
the
bounds of absurdity
even for SGM - that the etymology of "non" in
Latin
is "obscure" because
forms similar to the satndard derivaiton are still
current in
Portuguese; that a discussion of the meaning of
"non
sequitur" is one;
that "superficialiter" can mean "superficially"
(which no-one has
denied); and that a metaphorical meaning "must" be
taken into account by
which he means it must remain there long after is
has been considered
and rejected, just to salve his carping pride
after
making some
elementary blunders.
And the best Spencer can do is to pretend to
correct
an already
acknowledged slip on my part, adding nothing to my
=== message truncated ===
"...the cohones [sic] to admit it."
Peter Stewart -- Flummoxed, Self-Appointed Master of Languages
--------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------
Hilarious!
Peter Stewart is no more literate in Spanish than he is in Portuguese.
He's just continuing to dig a deeper hole for himself.
Peter Stewart is doing an absolutely marvelous job at trying to convince
Douglas Richardson, et alii, that Peter and I are the same person.
You've got to give him that.
Credit where credit is due.
How Sweet It Is!
It's COJONES in both Spanish and English -- no matter what errant
gibberish Peter Stewart, The "Defrocked Master Of Languages", alleges.
What is the Portuguese again, Chico?
The Latin is TESTES.
Peter just continues to dig himself a deeper hole and surely is in muck
up to his cojones by now.
Sad, Very Sad...
Britannicus Traductus Sum.
No, actually Peter Stewart is an Englishman who lives in Australia.
Ah, at last, the voice of Sanity. It would be interesting to find out how
many other Monarchies have a constitution! I doubt there is going to be a
huge number out there with one, so why should we. Perhaps if we were a
republic the need for a constitution might stand, but we are not - and
hopefully won't be. Why would you need a constitution when we have the
most
stable form of government around - a Monarchy.
If a monarchy is the most stable form of government, how come so many of
them have been overthrown/replaced?
"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If a monarchy is the most stable form of government, how come so many of
them have been overthrown/replaced?
Timescale...
--
"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If a monarchy is the most stable form of government, how come so
many of them have been overthrown/replaced?
Timescale...
--
Just the 20th century will do
"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Cybernaut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If a monarchy is the most stable form of government, how come so many
of
them have been overthrown/replaced?
Timescale...
--
Just the 20th century will do
We have a saying in my country: if you have a bitter
lemon, make a lemonade out of it.
Then out of this discussion on the etimology of
four-letter words in my own (and related languages),
why not discuss the genealogy of that dynasty of
condottieri, the Colleoni? It means `testes' (in
Latin), and is said to refer to their semi-mythical
sexual vigour. They bore armes parlantes, d'argent à
trois coeurs renversés de gueules (draw it and you'll
see what I mean)...
Indeed They Are -- Stalwarts, In The Main.
Although They Have Their Leftover Left-Wing Loons Too.
DSH
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| In a message dated 10/9/2004 4:24:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
| [email protected] writes:
|
| Latham even LOOKS the part of the Pasty-Faced Wimp He IS: ---- DSH
|
|
| Medieval genealogy it ain't, but thanks for it Hines. I have always
| thought the Aussies were the closest thing to Yanks there was in
| the world. Good people.
|
| Gordon Hale
| Grand Prairie, Texas
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
It's COJONES in both Spanish and English -- no
matter what errant
gibberish Peter Stewart, The "Defrocked Master Of
Languages", alleges.
What is the Portuguese again, Chico?
The Latin is TESTES.
Peter just continues to dig himself a deeper hole
and surely is in muck
up to his cojones by now.
Sad, Very Sad...
Britannicus Traductus Sum.
Not so, Spencer. Cheap pedantry doesn't become you
and won't wipe the
egg off your face - the word in its plural form (but
not singular) has
been adopted into everyday English, and is quite
correctly spelled
phonetically in our language. It will be found under
cohones in
up-to-date dictionaries for that reason.
You could try a Google search, and no doubt this
will turn up uses in
current American journalism, as well as some pompous
twits in other
newsgroups trying to correct it to cojones.
It is even found as "cohones" in Spain, a common
Andalucian spelling
variant as far as I recall.
Even Chico wasn't silly enough to quibble over this.
Peter Stewart