Calling all grammar nazis

bonus cuspis! tamen mos they agnosco?

I have no idea if this is right but some translator said it is!

having fun!

If we speak in a dead language it will not change. If we expect a live language to stay the same we are delusional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cangooner

That's an advantage of being a mediaevalist - the Latin books are never far away. :)

---

Cangooner, are you getting all medieval on his a$$?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Cangooner, are you getting all medieval on his a$$?

---

Not at all - while the Latin books are nearby, the pliers and blowtorch are down in the garage... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cangooner

Not at all - while the Latin books are nearby, the pliers and blowtorch are down in the garage... :)

---

Maybe we should start calling you Torquemada...:deadhorse:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Maybe we should start calling you Torquemada...:deadhorse:

---

No, I prefer the Ximinez school of inquisition. :)

Attachment 105999

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cangooner

No, I prefer the Ximinez school of inquisition. :)

Attachment 105999

---

Whilst I prefer Mr. Brooks' interpretation...
Mel Brooks´ Spanish Inquisition - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 32t

bonus cuspis! tamen mos they agnosco?

I have no idea if this is right but some translator said it is!

having fun!

If we speak in a dead language it will not change. If we expect a live language to stay the same we are delusional.

---

:soapbox:

That raises an interesting point about when a language becomes 'dead'. Because of my academic background, I could name dozens of people whom I know personally who use Latin on a day-to-day basis. So for me and for my friends, it is still a living language because it is a language that is still in use. Certainly not in use by many people and not in an everyday, conversational sort of way, but I'd argue it's still alive. Incidentally, I can't stand Latin, but it still has its uses in surprising situations. :)

Interestingly, Latin was (is?) itself a constantly evolving language. To pick an historiographical example: compare the writings of Tacitus (died 117 CE) and, say, the chronicler Thomas Walsingham (died early 15th century). They both wrote history and they both wrote in Latin, but the language of Tacitus was *not* the same as the language of Walsingham. If they had been pen pals, they would have understood most of what the other wrote, but I'm sure Tacitus would have been scratching his head at certain points wondering what the hell Walsingham meant by 'furellis', 'impenno', or 'sroudura' as they were not Classical Latin words. And that's without even considering the abbreviations, but that's a whole other story!

I don't expect any language to stay the same. Languages change and evolve with time, as new concepts are developed, and as they mingle with and borrow from other languages. However, that doesn't obviate the need for clarity of expression. In the example that started this whole thing, "She said that she has dinner with her sister" and "She said that she had dinner with her sister" are two different statements that mean two different things. This is why precision of language matters. If you mean A but say B, do not be surprised if your audience should misunderstand you.

Words matter.

/:soapbox:

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cangooner

:soapbox:

That raises an interesting point about when a language becomes 'dead'. Because of my academic background, I could name dozens of people whom I know personally who use Latin on a day-to-day basis. So for me and for my friends, it is still a living language because it is a language that is still in use. Certainly not in use by many people and not in an everyday, conversational sort of way, but I'd argue it's still alive. Incidentally, I can't stand Latin, but it still has its uses in surprising situations. :)

Interestingly, Latin was (is?) itself a constantly evolving language. To pick an historiographical example: compare the writings of Tacitus (died 117 CE) and, say, the chronicler Thomas Walsingham (died early 15th century). They both wrote history and they both wrote in Latin, but the language of Tacitus was *not* the same as the language of Walsingham. If they had been pen pals, they would have understood most of what the other wrote, but I'm sure Tacitus would have been scratching his head at certain points wondering what the hell Walsingham meant by 'furellis', 'impenno', or 'sroudura' as they were not Classical Latin words. And that's without even considering the abbreviations, but that's a whole other story!

I don't expect any language to stay the same. Languages change and evolve with time, as new concepts are developed, and as they mingle with and borrow from other languages. However, that doesn't obviate the need for clarity of expression. In the example that started this whole thing, "She said that she has dinner with her sister" and "She said that she had dinner with her sister" are two different statements that mean two different things. This is why precision of language matters. If you mean A but say B, do not be surprised if your audience should misunderstand you.

Words matter.

/:soapbox:

:)

---

The evolution of Latin has a lot to do with the adoption of the language by the early Church. I'm sure that Tacitus would be thouroughly confused by all the J's and W's.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cangooner

:soapbox:

That raises an interesting point about when a language becomes 'dead'. Because of my academic background, I could name dozens of people whom I know personally who use Latin on a day-to-day basis. So for me and for my friends, it is still a living language because it is a language that is still in use. Certainly not in use by many people and not in an everyday, conversational sort of way, but I'd argue it's still alive. Incidentally, I can't stand Latin, but it still has its uses in surprising situations. :)

---

I'm one of those poor bastards who back then had to study latin for 8 years at middle school and high school. Nowadays it's optional.
At first i questioned it all, what is the point in reading dead language? Howevers, pretty soon i realized that it was very logical and easy language to learn. And as it is related to so many modern languages, it helped me a lot to study and learn those. Not that i remember much of Latin itself, it was about 30 years ago. Still have my school books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sailor

I'm one of those poor bastards who back then had to study latin for 8 years at middle school and high school. Nowadays it's optional.
At first i questioned it all, what is the point in reading dead language? Howevers, pretty soon i realized that it was very logical and easy language to learn. And as it is related to so many modern languanes, it helped me a lot to study other languages.

---

I think it's extremely useful for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately the first four Latin profs I had were all *terrible* and so I developed a healthy loathing for the language. I still use it, but I usually cringe. :)