GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-10 > 1097364856
From: Peter Stewart <>
Subject: Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 23:34:16 GMT
References: <toJ9d.18955$5O5.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
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.
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.
> 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.)
> --- Peter Stewart <> 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
>>>Further, as you restate and I emphasized before,
>>>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
>>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
>>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
>>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
>>anything useful for the summoner/s or for the
>>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
>>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
>>And the best Spencer can do is to pretend to correct
>>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
>>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.
> Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
|Re: Finis, Back To The Banu Qasi by Peter Stewart <>|