I just happened to hear an editor of the new edition of the Concise Oxford
English Dictionary say on the radio that obsolete words get removed to make
way for new ones. Her two examples were Snobol and Cobol. Is this a valid
definition of a dead computing language?

Regards,

Mike Metcalf

Michael Metcalf wrote:
> 
> I just happened to hear an editor of the new edition of the Concise Oxford
> English Dictionary say on the radio that obsolete words get removed to make
> way for new ones. Her two examples were Snobol and Cobol. Is this a valid
> definition of a dead computing language?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike Metcalf

Well, even if these two are "dead" computing languages, they have very 
little reason to be in a dictionary in the first place:
We do not list all the first names and surnames, do we?

I would say, such names (they are proper names, not ordinary words)
should go in an encyclopedia. If taken to the extreme: she should renew
her view of what a dictionary is all about or take another job :D

Regards,

Arjen

Well,  the Oxford Dictionary folks better tell Google to quit referencing so many thousand
links on these two languages lest they appear to be alive!

Skip

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:04:37 +0100, "Michael Metcalf" <michael.metcalf@t-online.de> wrote:

-|I just happened to hear an editor of the new edition of the Concise Oxford
-|English Dictionary say on the radio that obsolete words get removed to make
-|way for new ones. Her two examples were Snobol and Cobol. Is this a valid
-|definition of a dead computing language?
-|
-|Regards,
-|
-|Mike Metcalf
-|


   Herman D. (Skip) Knoble, Research Associate
   (a computing professional for 38 years)
   Email: SkipKnobleLESS at SPAMpsu dot edu
   Web: http://www.personal.psu.edu/hdk
   Penn State Information Technology Services
    Academic Services and Emerging Technologies
     Graduate Education and Research Services
   Penn State University
     214C Computer Building
     University Park, PA 16802-21013
   Phone:+1 814 865-0818   Fax:+1 814 863-7049

"Michael Metcalf" <michael.metcalf@t-online.de> wrote in
news:ccjk7j$1qo$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com: 

> I just happened to hear an editor of the new edition of the Concise
> Oxford English Dictionary say on the radio that obsolete words get
> removed to make way for new ones. Her two examples were Snobol and
> Cobol. Is this a valid definition of a dead computing language?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike Metcalf
> 
> 

She is obviously a doof.  COBOL and SNOBOL are self-defining acronyms.  
But the dictionary folks have been adding "cultural" terms to the 
dictionary for the last few years.  The last time I bought a dictionary 
was in 1981.  I find it useful from time to time.  Mine actually had a 
seperate section for the etymology of proper names of english, french, 
and germanic origins.

lurkerBob

Herman D. Knoble wrote:
> Well,  the Oxford Dictionary folks better tell Google to quit referencing so many thousand
> links on these two languages lest they appear to be alive!
> 
> Skip

Also, a quick search on Monster.com shows over 800 jobs using or related 
to COBOL.  I would say that it's far from dead.

-- 

I'm Mike Walters, and I approved this message.

On  8-Jul-2004, "Michael Metcalf" <michael.metcalf@t-online.de> wrote:

> I just happened to hear an editor of the new edition of the Concise Oxford
> English Dictionary say on the radio that obsolete words get removed to make
> way for new ones. Her two examples were Snobol and Cobol. Is this a valid
> definition of a dead computing language?

That's silly.   If CoBOL isn't #1 anymore, it is still in the top 5 (probably
top 2) languages in use today.

But did that dictionary get rid of the word "Latin", to make way for "Java"?  
CoBOL is much more commonly used than Latin is.

In article <ccjv0q$jlv$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

[snip]

>But did that dictionary get rid of the word "Latin", to make way for "Java"?  
>CoBOL is much more commonly used than Latin is.

Well, this thread's probably a troll... but I've noticed that 'commonly 
used' is often dependent on where one looks; standing in a supermarket 
check-out line I've often seen tabloid headlines of '(person) Hot About 
New Latin Lover!'...

.... and I imagine exchanges like 'Britannia insula est!' 'Gallia est omnis 
divisa in partes tres!'  'Vidi, vici, veni!'

DD

docdwarf@panix.com writes:

> 'Vidi, vici, veni!'

I thought he came first.  :-)

> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'

Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
check doesn't find it in that form.  Wonder if I still have
that text around (probably not) to check whether it is my
poor memory or whether the text really had an "edited" version.

-- 
Richard Maine                       |  Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain  |  experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov              |        -- Mark Twain

Richard Maine wrote:
> docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>
>> 'Vidi, vici, veni!'
>
> I thought he came first.  :-)
>
>> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'
>
> Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
> version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
> 'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
> check doesn't find it in that form.  Wonder if I still have
> that text around (probably not) to check whether it is my
> poor memory or whether the text really had an "edited" version.

Obviously Latin follows the second path in my signature
quote.  It should never be used as a computing language.

-- 
J. Giles

"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies."  -- C. A. R. Hoare

Richard Maine wrote:

> Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
> version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
> 'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'.

There must be a missing :-) somewhere here (a more scholarly reply follows).

No, you're mixing up German with Latin.

Of course, this is not the most entertaining way in which Latin is dead. 
  The wikipedia[.org] entry for Justinian (r. 527-565), the last real 
Roman emporer:

"A group of commissioners headed by the quaestor Tribonian drafted the 
Corpus in Latin, the traditional language of the Roman Empire which most 
citizens of the Eastern Empire understood but poorly. The Authenticum or 
Novellae Constitutiones, a collection of new laws issued during 
Justinian's reign, later supplemented the Corpus. The Novellae appeared 
in Greek, the common language of the Empire."

:-)

-- 
Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
A maintainer of GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/

Michael Metcalf wrote:

> I just happened to hear an editor of the new edition of the Concise Oxford
> English Dictionary say on the radio that obsolete words get removed to make
> way for new ones. Her two examples were Snobol and Cobol. 
> Is this a valid definition of a dead computing language?

No.
These are *undead* languages.
They are uncertain about their final destination --
computer programming language heaven or hell --
so they persist in a partially decomposed state.
They are zombie languages.

Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:

|docdwarf@panix.com writes:
|
|> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'
|
|Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
|version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
|'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
|check 

Google finds many, but this seems to be the most-quoted:

Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est

found at

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-12-2003_pg3_2

Phil

Michael Metcalf wrote:

> I just happened to hear an editor of the new edition of the Concise Oxford
> English Dictionary say on the radio that obsolete words get removed to make
> way for new ones. Her two examples were Snobol and Cobol. Is this a valid
> definition of a dead computing language?

Seeing that COBOL is actually an acronym, I don't think its removal from 
a dictionary would necessarily indicate anything about the life of the 
language (although it may indicate that editors "believe the hype" about 
the newer languages...)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          LXi0007@Netscape.net          ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~         I do not read e-mail at the above address           ~
~    Please see website if you wish to contact me privately   ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:

>docdwarf@panix.com writes:

>> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'
>
>Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
>version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
>'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
>check doesn't find it in that form.

Richard is correct. Caesar actually wrote:  "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes
tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua
Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se
differunt. Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana
dividit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque
humanitate provinciae longissime absunt nium fortissimi sunt Belgae. "

In article <m18ydul5fm.fsf@macfortran.local>,
Richard Maine  <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>
>> 'Vidi, vici, veni!'
>
>I thought he came first.  :-)

I thought a gentlemen was supposed to let the lady do that.

>
>> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'
>
>Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
>version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
>'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
>check doesn't find it in that form.

Well... according to Google the form I recalled appears in a few places 
where the scholarship appears to be respectable (first link was to 
Perseus -  
<http://www.chlt.org/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0002:book=1:chapter=1>
 - and that is often a Good Sign)... but 'Alles'?

>Wonder if I still have
>that text around (probably not) to check whether it is my
>poor memory or whether the text really had an "edited" version.

One need not rule out the other... as I have admitted previously, my 
memory is porous.

DD

In article <40edb378$1$284$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net>,
Toon Moene  <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:
>Richard Maine wrote:
>
>> Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
>> version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
>> 'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'.
>
>There must be a missing :-) somewhere here (a more scholarly reply follows).
>
>No, you're mixing up German with Latin.
>
>Of course, this is not the most entertaining way in which Latin is dead. 

No, the most entertaining was that bit of doggerel:

Oh, Latin is a language,
As dead as it can be.
First it killed the Romans -
And now it's killing me!'

DD

In article <40edbea1.91853039@netnews.mchsi.com>,  <pgx@pgrahams.com> wrote:
>Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>
>|docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>|
>|> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'
>|
>|Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
>|version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
>|'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
>|check 
>
>Google finds many, but this seems to be the most-quoted:
>
>Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est
>
>found at
>
>http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-12-2003_pg3_2

'Most-quoted'?  This is confusing... if it is a mere popularity-contest 
then 
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Gallia+est+omnis+divisa+in+partes+tres%22>
.... shows 765 hits while 
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Omnia+Gallia+in+tres+partes+divisa+est%22>
.... shows 62, none of which appears to be an 'in situ' quotation from the 
work.

And now, of course, I *cannot* resist... to indulge in speculation of this 
nature without considering the original texts (or reasonable facsimiles 
thereof) shows so much pride, so much self-satisfaction, so much hubris...

.... why, it shows enough gall to be divided into three parts!

DD

In article <40edfa9c.13003756@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>
>>docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>
>>> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'
>>
>>Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
>>version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
>>'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
>>check doesn't find it in that form.
>
>Richard is correct. Caesar actually wrote:  "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes
>tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua
>Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.

Mr Wagner, this is confusing... Mr Maine wrote 'I'd *SWEAR* I remember 
this as 'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est' in response to my stating 
'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'... how does what you cite here 
support his reminisce as 'correct'?

DD

"Mike Walters" <walters@wisp.physics.YOURwisc.eduPANTS> wrote in message
news:ccjsev$4t6$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> Herman D. Knoble wrote:
> > Well,  the Oxford Dictionary folks better tell Google to quit
referencing so many thousand
> > links on these two languages lest they appear to be alive!
> >
> > Skip
>
> Also, a quick search on Monster.com shows over 800 jobs using or related
> to COBOL.  I would say that it's far from dead.
>
Not to mention that we were told at a Microsoft seminar a month ago that J++
is now a "legacy" language, with no further support, but Fortran and COBOL
will continue with full support in the Microsoft IDE.  That statement is
even more credible than that I might receive the CPU, made by a competitor
of my employer, which I won in the main drawing at that event.

"Michael Metcalf" <michael.metcalf@t-online.de> wrote:

>I just happened to hear an editor of the new edition of the Concise Oxford
>English Dictionary say on the radio that obsolete words get removed to make
>way for new ones. Her two examples were Snobol and Cobol. Is this a valid
>definition of a dead computing language?

Short answer: no, they shouldn't have removed Cobol. It's a living language.

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <40edfa9c.13003756@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>>Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>>
>>>docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>>
>>>> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'
>>>
>>>Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
>>>version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
>>>'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
>>>check doesn't find it in that form.
>>
>>Richard is correct. Caesar actually wrote:  "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes
>>tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua
>>Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.
>
>Mr Wagner, this is confusing... Mr Maine wrote 'I'd *SWEAR* I remember 
>this as 'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est' in response to my stating 
>'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'... how does what you cite here 
>support his reminisce as 'correct'?

Even more confusing is the Original Latin I remember as "Omnes Galii est divista
in tres partes." I remember it very distinctly. How many versions of Gaelic Wars
did Caesar write? What the hell's going on here? 
>
>DD
>

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On  8-Jul-2004, "Michael Metcalf" <michael.metcalf@t-online.de> wrote:

> But did that dictionary get rid of the word "Latin", to make way for "Java"?  
> CoBOL is much more commonly used than Latin is.

One of the "teach yourself a foreign language" companies here in the UK
has been running adds which state "All our tapes are made by native speakers",
and the list of languages includes Latin...

I don't know where they found this native Latin speaker ;-)
-- 
-- Jim
--
James Cownie	<jcownie@etnus.com>
Etnus, LLC.     +44 117 9071438
http://www.etnus.com

In article <40ee18af.20703229@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <40edfa9c.13003756@news.optonline.net>,
>>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>>>
>>>>docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>>>
>>>>> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'
>>>>
>>>>Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
>>>>version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
>>>>'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
>>>>check doesn't find it in that form.
>>>
>>>Richard is correct. Caesar actually wrote:  "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes
>>>tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua
>>>Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.
>>
>>Mr Wagner, this is confusing... Mr Maine wrote 'I'd *SWEAR* I remember 
>>this as 'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est' in response to my stating 
>>'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'... how does what you cite here 
>>support his reminisce as 'correct'?
>
>Even more confusing is the Original Latin I remember as "Omnes Galii est divista
>in tres partes."

What's Life without a bit of Mystery?

>I remember it very distinctly. How many versions of Gaelic Wars
>did Caesar write? What the hell's going on here? 

Ahhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when they taught Latin quotes such as 
cannot be taught by *ten* teachers, today!

DD

In message <JosHc.1780$ko3.16540766@news-text.cableinet.net>, James 
Cownie <jcownie@etnus.com> writes
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On  8-Jul-2004, "Michael Metcalf" <michael.metcalf@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> But did that dictionary get rid of the word "Latin", to make way for 
>>"Java"?   CoBOL is much more commonly used than Latin is.
>
>One of the "teach yourself a foreign language" companies here in the UK
>has been running adds which state "All our tapes are made by native speakers",
>and the list of languages includes Latin...
>
>I don't know where they found this native Latin speaker ;-)

Perhaps they dug him up somewhere?   ;-)

-- 
Alistair Maclean


Notice at an Australian wildlife park: "These animals are dangerous. Do not
leave your vehicle. Entrance $5. Poms on bicycles - free".

>One need not rule out the other... as I have admitted previously, my 
>memory is porous.

You have an UNpatched memory leak?

In article <BouPZMCpBo7AFwBo@ld50macca.demon.co.uk>,
Alistair Maclean  <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <JosHc.1780$ko3.16540766@news-text.cableinet.net>, James 
>Cownie <jcownie@etnus.com> writes

[snip]

>>I don't know where they found this native Latin speaker ;-)
>
>Perhaps they dug him up somewhere?   ;-)

Amos:  'If only your Daddy could see you now!'

Andy:  'Oh, I wouldn't want to dig him up just for *that*.'

DD

..    Am  09.07.04
schrieb  jcownie@etnus.com (James Cownie)
    auf  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
     in  JosHc.1780$ko3.16540766@news-text.cableinet.net
  ueber  Re: Dead languages?

JC> One of the "teach yourself a foreign language" companies here in the
JC> UK has been running adds which state "All our tapes are made by
JC> native speakers", and the list of languages includes Latin...
JC>
JC> I don't know where they found this native Latin speaker ;-)

   Maybe they gave a Latin Lover just a little twist ...


Yours,
L�ko Willms                                     http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Es sind nicht die Gener�le und K�nige, die die Geschichte machen,
sondern die breiten Massen des Volkes"                - Nelson Mandela

I like it when teachers of this dead language rebelled when they found out that
Cicero didn't pronounce his name the way they were taught.

On  9-Jul-2004, James Cownie <jcownie@etnus.com> wrote:

> One of the "teach yourself a foreign language" companies here in the UK
> has been running adds which state "All our tapes are made by native speakers",
> and the list of languages includes Latin...
>
> I don't know where they found this native Latin speaker ;-)

The Vatican?

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ccm7rk$chj$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> > I don't know where they found this native Latin speaker ;-)
>
> The Vatican?

Latin America?

In article <40EE8D39.99D4A034@alum.mit.edu>,
Kevin G. Rhoads <kgrhoads@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>One need not rule out the other... as I have admitted previously, my 
>>memory is porous.
>
>You have an UNpatched memory leak?

At least 'an'... how many more I've forgotten.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com writes:

> In article <40edfa9c.13003756@news.optonline.net>,
> Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:

> >Richard is correct....
> 
> Mr Wagner, this is confusing... Mr Maine wrote 'I'd *SWEAR* I remember 
> this as 'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est' in response to my stating 
> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'... how does what you cite here 
> support his reminisce as 'correct'?

I was wondering the same myself.  The closest I can come up with is
that I was correct to think that the version I recalled was wrong,
since I had come to that conclusion... But I'll agree that's
pretty unclear.

Looked last night.  As expected, no sign of my old high school
text.  And no way that I'd remember what text it was.  So I guess
I can't determine whether the failure was in my memory or in that
text...though I can make a guess.  Sigh. :-(

-- 
Richard Maine                       |  Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain  |  experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov              |        -- Mark Twain

In article <m1n029i4wg.fsf@macfortran.local>,
Richard Maine  <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>
>> In article <40edfa9c.13003756@news.optonline.net>,
>> Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>> >Richard is correct....
>> 
>> Mr Wagner, this is confusing... Mr Maine wrote 'I'd *SWEAR* I remember 
>> this as 'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est' in response to my stating 
>> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'... how does what you cite here 
>> support his reminisce as 'correct'?
>
>I was wondering the same myself.  The closest I can come up with is
>that I was correct to think that the version I recalled was wrong,
>since I had come to that conclusion... But I'll agree that's
>pretty unclear.

Seemed that way to me, too... but what is Life without a bit of 
Uncertainty?

>
>Looked last night.  As expected, no sign of my old high school
>text.  And no way that I'd remember what text it was.  So I guess
>I can't determine whether the failure was in my memory or in that
>text...though I can make a guess.  Sigh. :-(

Can't remember the quote, can't remember where the book is, can't 
remember... a whole bunch of other forgotten stuff ('Airman, I've 
forgotten more than you'll ever learn!' as my Drill Sergeant... errrr, 
Technical Instructor exclaimed, e'er-so-long ago)... hard to believe that 
some call the ability to forget the Most Blessed, neh?

''I have done that,' says my memory.  'I cannot have done that,' says my 
pride, and remains inexorable.  Eventually - memory yields.' - Nietzsche

DD

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 08:09:13 GMT, James Cownie <jcownie@etnus.com> wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On  8-Jul-2004, "Michael Metcalf" <michael.metcalf@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> But did that dictionary get rid of the word "Latin", to make way for "Java"?  
>> CoBOL is much more commonly used than Latin is.
> 
> One of the "teach yourself a foreign language" companies here in the UK
> has been running adds which state "All our tapes are made by native speakers",
> and the list of languages includes Latin...
> 
> I don't know where they found this native Latin speaker ;-)

The Vatican? 

See

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0535/_P1.HTM

for the text (which I remembered wrong).


-- 
Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC
Address spam-trapped; remove color to reply.
* Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise.
* Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement.

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <40ee18af.20703229@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <40edfa9c.13003756@news.optonline.net>,
>>>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>>Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
>>>>>version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
>>>>>'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
>>>>>check doesn't find it in that form.
>>>>
>>>>Richard is correct. Caesar actually wrote:  "Gallia est omnis divisa in
partes
>>>>tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum
lingua
>>>>Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.
>>>
>>>Mr Wagner, this is confusing... Mr Maine wrote 'I'd *SWEAR* I remember 
>>>this as 'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est' in response to my stating 
>>>'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'... how does what you cite here 
>>>support his reminisce as 'correct'?
>>
>>Even more confusing is the Original Latin I remember as "Omnes Galii est
divista
>>in tres partes."
>
>What's Life without a bit of Mystery?
>
>>I remember it very distinctly. How many versions of Gaelic Wars
>>did Caesar write? What the hell's going on here? 
>
>Ahhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when they taught Latin quotes such as 
>cannot be taught by *ten* teachers, today!

Unlike English, where normal word order is SVO (subject, verb, object), Latin,
along with Japanese, has no normal word order. One can rearrange the words in a
sentence and it still says the same thing. 

My hypothesis is that high school Latin text authors rearranged words to make it
easier for English-speaking students to understand. Thus

Caesar's "Gallia est omnis divisa in parte tres." and 
Mr Maine's "Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est." and 
My "Omnes Galii est divista in tres partes."

are linguistically equivalent, are saying the same thing and are equally valid
Latin.

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>
>On  9-Jul-2004, James Cownie <jcownie@etnus.com> wrote:
>
>> One of the "teach yourself a foreign language" companies here in the UK
>> has been running adds which state "All our tapes are made by native
speakers",
>> and the list of languages includes Latin...
>>
>> I don't know where they found this native Latin speaker ;-)
>
>The Vatican?

When I was a teenager, I worked weekends and summers as a golf caddy. Two of my
regular clients were Catholic priests who talked to each other in Latin so the
dumb caddy wouldn't understand .. they thought. When I started laughing at the
punch lines of their ribald jokes, they realized their cover had been blown.
They requested and got a dumber caddy. :)

Their Latin was very good. I'd say they qualified as native speakers.

"Michael Metcalf" <michael.metcalf@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:ccjk7j$1qo$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> I just happened to hear an editor of the new edition of the Concise
Oxford
> English Dictionary say on the radio that obsolete words get removed to
make
> way for new ones. Her two examples were Snobol and Cobol. Is this a valid
> definition of a dead computing language?
>

OED is as authorative in matters English as Stg. (sic Schulz) Maine is in
matters Fortran, secondary sources at most and best treated with the utmost
suspicion.

I used to meet a retired Prof (U of Toronto) of Classics at the gym who for
reasons best known to himself always spoke to me in Latin. I'd respond in
English and this didn't seem to bother him. Perhaps the CLF unintelligentia
who think that Latin is deader than Fortran would do well to catch up with
reality at http://www.uky.edu/ArtsSciences/Classics/aestivumeng.html.

-- 
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"The old order changeth, yielding place to new,
And God fulfils Himself in many ways,
Lest one good custom should corrupt the world." -- Tennyson, in Morte
d'Arthur.

In article <40ef1d19.87379907@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <40ee18af.20703229@news.optonline.net>,
>>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <40edfa9c.13003756@news.optonline.net>,
>>>>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>>>Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
>>>>>>version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
>>>>>>'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
>>>>>>check doesn't find it in that form.
>>>>>
>>>>>Richard is correct. Caesar actually wrote:  "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes
>>>>>tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua
>>>>>Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.
>>>>
>>>>Mr Wagner, this is confusing... Mr Maine wrote 'I'd *SWEAR* I remember 
>>>>this as 'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est' in response to my stating 
>>>>'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'... how does what you cite here 
>>>>support his reminisce as 'correct'?
>>>
>>>Even more confusing is the Original Latin I remember as "Omnes Galii est divista
>>>in tres partes."
>>
>>What's Life without a bit of Mystery?
>>
>>>I remember it very distinctly. How many versions of Gaelic Wars
>>>did Caesar write? What the hell's going on here? 
>>
>>Ahhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when they taught Latin quotes such as 
>>cannot be taught by *ten* teachers, today!
>
>Unlike English, where normal word order is SVO (subject, verb, object), Latin,
>along with Japanese, has no normal word order. One can rearrange the words in a
>sentence and it still says the same thing. 

This is similar to what I was taught about Ancient Greek, where order word 
important is very not.

>
>My hypothesis is that high school Latin text authors rearranged words to make it
>easier for English-speaking students to understand. Thus
>
>Caesar's "Gallia est omnis divisa in parte tres." and 
>Mr Maine's "Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est." and 
>My "Omnes Galii est divista in tres partes."
>
>are linguistically equivalent, are saying the same thing and are equally valid
>Latin.

All right... let's see how much I can shame myself publically with my lack 
of skill; my apologies in advance for the grievous errors.

I would say not *quite* so, Mr Wagner.  In Caesar's quote 'Gallia' is a 
nominative, in Mr Wagner's quote 'Galii' appears to be modified by 'Omnes' 
(which would make it an object, hence accusative, but 'Galii' appears to 
be a genetive).  In Mr Maine's example there is the slight problem of 
'Alles'.

DD

Gerry Thomas wrote:
> I used to meet a retired Prof (U of Toronto) of Classics at the gym
> who for reasons best known to himself always spoke to me in Latin.
> I'd respond in English and this didn't seem to bother him.

Probably because he was insane.

I had a neighbor once who insisted on speaking in PIG-Latin. I shot him.

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 02:03:13 GMT, Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net>
 wrote in <40edfa9c.13003756@news.optonline.net>:

> Caesar actually wrote:  "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes
> tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua
> Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se
> differunt. Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana
> dividit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque
> humanitate provinciae longissime absunt nium fortissimi sunt Belgae. "

	It's all Greek to me!

-- 
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering,     ___     CMS  Collaboration,
Brunel University.     Ivan.Reid@brunel.ac.uk             Room 40-1-B12, CERN
        KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:58:29 -0400, "Gerry Thomas"
<gfthomas@sympatico.ca> wrote:


>I used to meet a retired Prof (U of Toronto) of Classics at the gym who for
>reasons best known to himself always spoke to me in Latin. I'd respond in
[snip]

Is your comprehension of Latin any better than your comprehension of
English?  That could have been his reason.

Dr Ivan D. Reid wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 02:03:13 GMT, Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net>
>  wrote in <40edfa9c.13003756@news.optonline.net>:
> 
> 
>>Caesar actually wrote:  "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes
>>tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua
>>Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se
>>differunt. Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana
>>dividit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque
>>humanitate provinciae longissime absunt nium fortissimi sunt Belgae. "
> 
> 
> 	It's all Greek to me!

Nah, it's not that hard (that must be the reason why we started with De 
Bello Gallico):

The whole of Gaul is divided into three parts, of which the Belgians 
live in one, another the Aquitani and the third those who are called 
Celts in their own language, [but] Gauls by us.

Well, perhaps the recent "King Arthur" movie will throw some light on 
the history of the Celts (especially those wbo lived in that "perfidious 
Albion").
However, this can never be done by a PG-13 rated Disney movie, as the 
Celts were wont to fight stark naked.

-- 
Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
A maintainer of GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/

"Ken Plotkin" <kplotkin@nospam-cox.net> wrote in message
news:co60f0lddqspmitemoj3kjoo2t2r6v7tqg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:58:29 -0400, "Gerry Thomas"
> <gfthomas@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> >I used to meet a retired Prof (U of Toronto) of Classics at the gym who
for
> >reasons best known to himself always spoke to me in Latin. I'd respond
in
> [snip]
>
> Is your comprehension of Latin any better than your comprehension of
> English?  That could have been his reason.

My comprehension of both languages is the superlative of excellent which is
why he had his fun, he being smart enough to recognize a willing
accomplice. You'd have been ignored for obvious reasons.

-- 
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Ah, Klinger, my constant reminder that Darwin was right!." -- Maj Charles
Winchester III, the 4077th M*A*S*H

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:20:36 -0400, "Gerry Thomas"
<gfthomas@sympatico.ca> wrote:


>My comprehension of both languages is the superlative of excellent which is
>why he had his fun, he being smart enough to recognize a willing
>accomplice. You'd have been ignored for obvious reasons.

OK - so that's a "yes."

"Ken Plotkin" <kplotkin@nospam-cox.net> wrote in message
news:qan0f09i812bulvqnmufv50tkjg9c3fde2@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:20:36 -0400, "Gerry Thomas"
> <gfthomas@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> >My comprehension of both languages is the superlative of excellent which
is
> >why he had his fun, he being smart enough to recognize a willing
> >accomplice. You'd have been ignored for obvious reasons.
>
> OK - so that's a "yes."

Absolutely, Y(es).
Relatively, YMMV but that's entirely your problem, so who cares?, like ~7B
others.

-- 
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure
uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities,
that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes
the sense that there is an outside." -- Allan Bloom, in The Closing of the
American Mind.

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <40ef1d19.87379907@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <40ee18af.20703229@news.optonline.net>,
>>>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <40edfa9c.13003756@news.optonline.net>,
>>>>>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh dear!  My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
>>>>>>>version or something.  I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
>>>>>>>'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
>>>>>>>check doesn't find it in that form.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Richard is correct. Caesar actually wrote:  "Gallia est omnis divisa in
partes
>>>>>>tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum
lingua
>>>>>>Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mr Wagner, this is confusing... Mr Maine wrote 'I'd *SWEAR* I remember 
>>>>>this as 'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est' in response to my stating 
>>>>>'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'... how does what you cite here 
>>>>>support his reminisce as 'correct'?
>>>>
>>>>Even more confusing is the Original Latin I remember as "Omnes Galii est
divista
>>>>in tres partes."
>>>
>>>What's Life without a bit of Mystery?
>>>
>>>>I remember it very distinctly. How many versions of Gaelic Wars
>>>>did Caesar write? What the hell's going on here? 
>>>
>>>Ahhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when they taught Latin quotes such as 
>>>cannot be taught by *ten* teachers, today!
>>
>>Unlike English, where normal word order is SVO (subject, verb, object), Latin,
>>along with Japanese, has no normal word order. One can rearrange the words in
a
>>sentence and it still says the same thing. 
>
>This is similar to what I was taught about Ancient Greek, where order word 
>important is very not.
>
>>
>>My hypothesis is that high school Latin text authors rearranged words to make
it
>>easier for English-speaking students to understand. Thus
>>
>>Caesar's "Gallia est omnis divisa in parte tres." and 
>>Mr Maine's "Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est." and 
>>My "Omnes Galii est divista in tres partes."
>>
>>are linguistically equivalent, are saying the same thing and are equally valid
>>Latin.
>
>All right... let's see how much I can shame myself publically with my lack 
>of skill; my apologies in advance for the grievous errors.
>
>I would say not *quite* so, Mr Wagner.  In Caesar's quote 'Gallia' is a 
>nominative, in Mr Wagner's quote 'Galii' appears to be modified by 'Omnes' 
>(which would make it an object, hence accusative, but 'Galii' appears to 
>be a genetive).  In Mr Maine's example there is the slight problem of 
>'Alles'.

Modification by an adjective doesn't make Gallia an object. It is the subject of
the sentence and therefore should be nominative. In my memory it was plural.
What's the plural of Gallia? Galliae?

Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:

>Well, perhaps the recent "King Arthur" movie will throw some light on 
>the history of the Celts (especially those wbo lived in that "perfidious 
>Albion").
>However, this can never be done by a PG-13 rated Disney movie, as the 
>Celts were wont to fight stark naked.

I'm right now watching a History Channel examination of the King Arthur movie.
Scholars disagree ..what else is new? I didn't see any naked men fighting.

It's an outstanding program. If it repeats, watch it.

In message <40f02ce0$0$3003$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net>, Toon Moene 
<toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> writes
>Nah, it's not that hard (that must be the reason why we started with De 
>Bello Gallico):
>
>The whole of Gaul is divided into three parts, of which the Belgians 
>live in one, another the Aquitani and the third those who are called 
>Celts in their own language, [but] Gauls by us.
>
>Well, perhaps the recent "King Arthur" movie will throw some light on 
>the history of the Celts (especially those wbo lived in that 
>"perfidious Albion").
>However, this can never be done by a PG-13 rated Disney movie, as the 
>Celts were wont to fight stark naked.
>

I doubt if the movie will add anything new as it is based on the hotly 
disputed idea that the original King Arthur was a roman soldier serving 
on Hadrians wall.

I pointed out in this newsgroup once before, it is unlikely that any 
group identified itself with the Celtic designation but rather that, 
even from ancient Grecian times, anyone living north of the Alps was 
known collectively as the Celts.

-- 
Alistair Maclean


Notice at an Australian wildlife park: "These animals are dangerous. Do not
leave your vehicle. Entrance $5. Poms on bicycles - free".

In article <40f07d8a.177617857@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <40ef1d19.87379907@news.optonline.net>,
>>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:

[snip]

>>>My hypothesis is that high school Latin text authors rearranged words to make it
>>>easier for English-speaking students to understand. Thus
>>>
>>>Caesar's "Gallia est omnis divisa in parte tres." and 
>>>Mr Maine's "Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est." and 
>>>My "Omnes Galii est divista in tres partes."
>>>
>>>are linguistically equivalent, are saying the same thing and are equally valid
>>>Latin.
>>
>>All right... let's see how much I can shame myself publically with my lack 
>>of skill; my apologies in advance for the grievous errors.
>>
>>I would say not *quite* so, Mr Wagner.  In Caesar's quote 'Gallia' is a 
>>nominative, in Mr Wagner's quote 'Galii' appears to be modified by 'Omnes' 
>>(which would make it an object, hence accusative, but 'Galii' appears to 
>>be a genetive).  In Mr Maine's example there is the slight problem of 
>>'Alles'.
>
>Modification by an adjective doesn't make Gallia an object. It is the subject of
>the sentence and therefore should be nominative.

'He is all wet'.

'All of him is wet.'

>In my memory it was plural.
>What's the plural of Gallia? Galliae?

That depends on the case, Mr Wagner... nominative plural is not the same 
as accusative is not the same as genetive... and then there are the noun 
types, as well.  Assuming a type 1 nominative plural 'Galliae' appears to 
be correct...

.... but there isn't enough gall to demonstrate it.

DD

Robert Wagner wrote:

> Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:

>>Well, perhaps the recent "King Arthur" movie will throw some light on 
>>the history of the Celts (especially those wbo lived in that "perfidious 
>>Albion").
>>However, this can never be done by a PG-13 rated Disney movie, as the 
>>Celts were wont to fight stark naked.

> I'm right now watching a History Channel examination of the King Arthur movie.
> Scholars disagree ..what else is new? I didn't see any naked men fighting.

This is what Diodorus Siculus has to say about it 
(http://www.ibiblio.org/gaelic/celts.html) - sorry, no Latin:

     "[The Celts] wear bronze helmets with figures picked out on them, 
even horns, which made them look even taller than they already 
are...while others cover themselves with breast-armour made out of 
chains. But most content themselves with the weapons nature gave them: 
they go naked into battle...Weird, discordant horns were sounded, [they 
shouted in chorus with their] deep and harsh voices, they beat their 
swords rythmically against their shields."

Hope this helps,

-- 
Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
A maintainer of GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/

In article <40f1ad70$0$2998$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net>,
Toon Moene  <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:
>Robert Wagner wrote:
>
>> Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:
>
>>>Well, perhaps the recent "King Arthur" movie will throw some light on 
>>>the history of the Celts (especially those wbo lived in that "perfidious 
>>>Albion").
>>>However, this can never be done by a PG-13 rated Disney movie, as the 
>>>Celts were wont to fight stark naked.
>
>> I'm right now watching a History Channel examination of the King Arthur movie.
>> Scholars disagree ..what else is new? I didn't see any naked men fighting.
>
>This is what Diodorus Siculus has to say about it 
>(http://www.ibiblio.org/gaelic/celts.html) - sorry, no Latin:

Well now, Mr Moene... one person cites an program televised in America 
which shows no nudity, the other cites the works of a contemporary of 
Caesars Julius and Augustus and who travelled through Asia and Europe to 
compile information for the 'Bibliotheca Historica'.

Whom to believe?  Ti esti aleithia... errrr, quid est veritas?

DD

In article <40ef20de.88344486@news.optonline.net>, Robert Wagner 
<robert.deletethis@wagner.net> writes
>"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>On  9-Jul-2004, James Cownie <jcownie@etnus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One of the "teach yourself a foreign language" companies here in the UK
>>> has been running adds which state "All our tapes are made by native
>speakers",
>>> and the list of languages includes Latin...
>>>
>>> I don't know where they found this native Latin speaker ;-)
>>
>>The Vatican?
>
>When I was a teenager, I worked weekends and summers as a golf caddy. Two of my
>regular clients were Catholic priests who talked to each other in Latin so the
>dumb caddy wouldn't understand .. they thought. When I started laughing at the
>punch lines of their ribald jokes, they realized their cover had been blown.
>They requested and got a dumber caddy. :)
>
>Their Latin was very good. I'd say they qualified as native speakers.
>
Church Latin uses different pronunciation to "academic" Latin though. I 
was told that this is to make it easier to sing.

Catherine.
-- 
Catherine Rees Lay
To email me, use my first name in front of the "at".

robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote

> I didn't see any naked men fighting.

Did you want to ?

"Catherine Rees Lay" <spamtrap@polyhedron.org.uk> wrote in message
news:$eTHslTUPo8AFw8c@spamtram.polyhedron.com...

> Church Latin uses different pronunciation to "academic" Latin though. I
> was told that this is to make it easier to sing.

No, I don't think that's it.  Church Latin is heavily influenced by the way
Latin evolved into Italian (and can probably more accurately best be
referred to as "Medieval Latin") -- by the fact that it's been kept alive
*in Rome* for 2,000 years, and by the fact that a lot of the people who kept
it going for those two millennia lived most or all of their lives in Rome.

I don't know if Church Latin is any *easier* to sing; some would argue that
it's more mellifluous, however (to those accustomed to Church Latin,
Classical Latin sounds almost Germanic in timbre).

I got nearly perfect grades in Church Latin for two years, then transferred
to a secular school and decided to audit their Latin offerings.  I could
manage the consonantal and vocalic differences without too much trouble, but
never did manage to relearn my vocabulary with the addition of the length of
the vowels (and the rules therefor), a feature of Classical Latin which
Church Latin seems utterly to ignore.

    -Chuck Stevens

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>>Unlike English, where normal word order is SVO (subject, verb, object), Latin,
>>along with Japanese, has no normal word order. One can rearrange the words in a
>>sentence and it still says the same thing. 
> 
> 
> This is similar to what I was taught about Ancient Greek, where order word 
> important is very not.


Sound like Yoda, you do!

-- 

I'm Mike Walters, and I approved this message.

In article <cdh80o$c47$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Mike Walters  <walters@wisp.physics.YOURwisc.eduPANTS> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>>Unlike English, where normal word order is SVO (subject, verb, object), Latin,
>>>along with Japanese, has no normal word order. One can rearrange the words in a
>>>sentence and it still says the same thing. 
>> 
>> 
>> This is similar to what I was taught about Ancient Greek, where order word 
>> important is very not.
>
>
>Sound like Yoda, you do!

And some folks say that time spent studying dead languages is time 
wasted... imagine that!

DD

In article <cdh80o$c47$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>, Mike Walters
<walters@wisp.physics.YOURwisc.eduPANTS> wrote:

> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
> >>Unlike English, where normal word order is SVO (subject, verb, object),
> >>Latin,
> >>along with Japanese, has no normal word order. One can rearrange the words
> >>in a
> >>sentence and it still says the same thing. 
> > 
> > 
> > This is similar to what I was taught about Ancient Greek, where order word 
> > important is very not.
> 
> 
> Sound like Yoda, you do!

BAH!!

Yoda, sound like, you do!

In article <210720041935067106%usrr@post.no.mail>,
Joseph Katnic  <usrr@post.no.mail> wrote:
>In article <cdh80o$c47$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>, Mike Walters
><walters@wisp.physics.YOURwisc.eduPANTS> wrote:
>
>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> 
>> >>Unlike English, where normal word order is SVO (subject, verb, object),
>> >>Latin,
>> >>along with Japanese, has no normal word order. One can rearrange the words
>> >>in a
>> >>sentence and it still says the same thing. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > This is similar to what I was taught about Ancient Greek, where order word 
>> > important is very not.
>> 
>> 
>> Sound like Yoda, you do!
>
>BAH!!
>
>Yoda, sound like, you do!

Oh boy... many of funs to be having!

What about 'You, Yoda sound do, like'?

DD

Personally speaking, my favorite dead language is APL, a language that
raised word order sensivity to an art form.

/aw

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cdllt3$i2a$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <210720041935067106%usrr@post.no.mail>,
> Joseph Katnic  <usrr@post.no.mail> wrote:
> >In article <cdh80o$c47$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>, Mike Walters
> ><walters@wisp.physics.YOURwisc.eduPANTS> wrote:
> >
> >> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Unlike English, where normal word order is SVO (subject, verb,
object),
> >> >>Latin,
> >> >>along with Japanese, has no normal word order. One can rearrange the
words
> >> >>in a
> >> >>sentence and it still says the same thing.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This is similar to what I was taught about Ancient Greek, where order
word
> >> > important is very not.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sound like Yoda, you do!
> >
> >BAH!!
> >
> >Yoda, sound like, you do!
>
> Oh boy... many of funs to be having!
>
> What about 'You, Yoda sound do, like'?
>
> DD
>

In article <FIGdnX0_VOASEZncRVn-gw@comcast.com>, "Andrew Werden" <awerden@comcast.net> writes:
> Personally speaking, my favorite dead language is APL, a language that
> raised word order sensivity to an art form.

Dead?!!  I just posted some APL (transcribed into ASCII) to
comp.programming a few weeks ago.  It's my favorite language for, um,
entering "write an unreadable little program to perform some useless
calculation" contests.

Sure is purty, tho'.  Who disputes the shimmering beauty of the quote-
quad?

-- 
Michael Wojcik                  michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

Is it any wonder the world's gone insane, with information come to be
the only real medium of exchange?    -- Thomas Pynchon