docoflove1974

I love MB tests...I'm either an ENFJ (which this time I am) or ENTJ. So, this time, ENFJ, which is a Teacher-Idealist...very close. I believe ENTJ is the General...both fit my personality.

Bored at home from being sick?

Thanks, MPC, for the correction on crucifixion. Saw another one last night on the History Channel's documentary on the Saxons. One of the Saxon kings was killed via (I think it was called) 'Black Angel'...while the poor soul is still alive, his lungs are cut out and splayed on his back. Fun for all! *puke*

As I recall, there's a nasality in the vowels, as well as a contouring of the vowels...I'll have to dig up the linguistic atlas for the US to give a better answer. And, hey, I always thought that us Californians didn't have an accent...until I went to Texas and got told! EDIT: Click here for the atlas projects done at UPenn, home of Prof. Wm. Labov, a big name in the world of (American) sociolinguistics.

The one last night, on the Saxons, was ok. I find that the History Channel is part of a nasty trend of late, in dumbing down and over-dramatizing events. OTOH, the fact that they had the characters speaking 'in the native tongue' (I have no idea how accurate it was) was quite interesting, and great to see. Sadly, when the Roman soldiers and elite were talking, I could barely hear them, so I have no idea what or how well they were speaking. Still, overall I'd give it a B...solid entertainment, and has me thinking on a couple of topics for the future.

I'd rank crucifixion on the list. Not only are you wasting away, you're being burnt to a crisp by the sun, and eventually suffocate. Of course, for some it's not so bad...gets you out in the fresh air

Author! Author! Brilliant display of understanding the Gloomy Writer's talent, and recreating it on an original idea! Encore!

I can't talk about the genetic argument...but it's common linguistic knowledge that English is part of the Germanic family, part of the Low German sub-group (which also includes Afrikkans, Dutch, Flemish, Modern Low German, and Frisian). As for arguing that there was a group of Germanic speakers before the Romans got there...I don't know. IIFC, there are supposed to be some similarities between Old Celtic and Proto-Germanic, but the ties between Old Celtic and Latin are supposed to be closer. Either way, the history of English, as well as the peoples who have spoken it over the years, supports much of the differences that exist. To say that English is a branch in-and-of-itself...I have my doubts. This page from a Georgetown professor's site shows the Lord's Prayer in the various Germanic languages at various stages; one can see the similarity among the languages. Furthermore, the Low German or Western Germanic subgroup has numerous similarities, particularly in the 'key' words--nouns, verbs and adjectives which are of common use--and in the syntax. I'm trying to find a page with both the written and oral versions of the text...I know it exists, and supposedly a former professor of mine (Prof. W. Benware at UC Davis) had a project going on it...but I can't find it online. If I find it, I'll edit it back into this post.

'Cept that was after the Civil War

Not just the War of 1812, but the Mexican-American War (which ended up giving about 1/3 of the Western part of the continent to the US) often gets put into oblivion. Although with that one many would chalk it up to East Coast Bias--as in, anything west of the Mississippi is 'over there'. Still, if not for that war, I would probably have learned Spanish natively (and not have to go through the gruelling grammar drills that I did!).

Stop being such a meanie. Tis not the behaviour becoming of a person of your stature

Thank you much, sir! I'll bring the Ramos Fizzes, vino, and any other tender vittles I can muster up!

Hahahahaha! You devil -- you nailed it! -- Nephele Completely! Nephele, my feelings are similar to yours, then. As for J.R.R. Tolkien, I really am quite in admiration of the languages he created; highly complex, if I recall correctly. U.Texas offers an undergraduate course from the Linguistics dept. on the languages, and I always wanted to take it, but never had the time.

I, too, am not much of an Esperanto lover (sorry, Nephele), and this Latino sine Flexione seems fun, but that's about it. --All nouns taken from the genitive??? Whoa, that's bucking tradition; in the Romance languages, most nouns are taken from the accusative, with a few nominative exceptions (particularly in Italian and Rumanian). I note that Latino 2nd declension is -o, more like the accusative...in fact, one could argue that all the endings they show for the declensions are more similar to the accusative inflexions (minus the final consonant, if there is one) than the genitive. --Nouns as verbs...eh, I guess it could work, but it's a bit simplistic. --The paring of inflection on verbs, I assume, is the Anglo side of things? I guess aspect is more Anglo-based, with the heavy reliance on adverbials. --Articles as illo or uno--this is historically correct, although the lack of gender is bothersome; again, highly important in Romance and early English --Plurality as optional...even English shows plurality... -- Ok, this probably is what bothers me more than anything else. Gender is a categorization, and nothing else. As far as the inflexion, this is determined primarily by declension and animacy--lexical gender assignment is based off of how the animate nouns are set up. If noun A (inanimate) resemble noun B (animate) in sound or form at the end of the word, then noun A will have the same gender. So, there is a reason for gender--in order to group nouns together. The rules must be learned as a type of categorization rule, and students are shown the patterns in the gender categories (well, by the good instructors, at least ) To say that there seems to be no reason for gender inflexion as it is in Latin (or any other language) show ignorance. The other aspect of ignorance: if one studies Latin, then there is an observance that there is a difference between the first and second declensions on the one hand, and the third, fourth and fifth on the other. There is a reason for this: the first and second declensions were later inventions of Proto-Indo-European, and seem to have come about once PIE went from a gender system based on animacy (animate vs. non-animate) to masculine/feminine/neuter. The Latin third declension in particular, but even the fourth and fifth, are archaic, and do not show true gender inflection (save for a masc/fem vs. neut distinction). So, again, there is a reason that muliere is as it is...it's a third declension noun. Also, for many third declension nouns, as they evolved into the Romance languages, they remained non-inflecting for gender, but follow the same gender (for the most part) in Latin. But the first and second declensions grew in their dominance, and one could argue that this is due to its obvious inflection for gender. As for poeta--the Greek borrowings into Latin for -ma, -pa and -eta came into Latin masculine (I believe without exception), and to this day the Romance languages keep most of them in the masculine. They are, for the most part, considered to be 'educated words' (cultismos in Spanish), and it is this reason that they've kept their masculine gender. I will say that, supposedly, in rural areas many have been switched to the feminine gender (e.g. la problema), but I don't have studies on hand to reference to, so I'll just chalk this up to being rumor.

Nah, he just makes the most noise

You know, some of us are humble enough not to point out the anniversary of our join date...it doesn't matter when we join, but when we make contributions! For that, I salute you, Don Tomato...for your many contributions.

You have the brass to accuse THE CONSUL of being a bisexual egomaniac! May you be cursed in waking and sleeping; in walking and talking; in eating and drinking; in dreaming and sewing; and in thinking and writing. G.O., Cos. Paglia is straw, no? Therefore, I was suggesting that you were full of other filler, and being diplomatic enough to not imply that you were full of stinky filler. That learns me to be subtle...directness is always my strength.

Oh brother Even more full of paglia than normal.

Makes sense; it's the start of spring, to signify the start of a new growing year. Although how would this fit in with sowing of seeds...wouldn't that be done often during winter?

Only a million? Don't sell yourself cheap

Sweet...something to read up on when I'm procrast...er...taking a break

Cool site...I've never gotten the whole Roman calendar idea down. Some months have ides, others not...I really can't say I understand it. So is the 'more modern' calendar of the empire (with July and August) easier to maneuver?

Appalachia I'm not so familiar with, but it was often discussed that the English spoken by both Brahmins in Bah-stan and those folks native to Martha's Vineyard were closer in linguistic pattern to the linguistic patterns of the settlers in the 16th and 17th century; I know Wm. Labov did studies on it, but I don't have the resources at this time.

Heh the funny part about the fox description is the "small to medium in stature" part...I'm not. I'm tall, and almost athletic looking (once I lose these last 20 lbs, I'll be there!). That part is lion-like. But everything else about the fox description pretty much fits!

Yes, indeed, there were different dialects or even versions of Ancient Greek. There's a (very) brief discussion of this and other Indo-European language families on the University of Texas' Linguistics Research Center site. I don't have more on-hand (most of my books are packed up right now), but the following linguistic resources are good descriptions of both Latin and ancient Greek (they are heavy in linguistic jargon, so I do make that disclaimer. But any decent introductory linguistics book should be able to help you with the processes and terms, for the most part): Buck, Carl Darling. 1933. Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sihler, Andrew. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Latin and Greek. New York: Oxford University Press. I don't know of anything that I can recommend specifically on Greek or the Hellenic languages in general--probably AD can do that--but this is a start not only on ancient Greek, but how Proto-Indo-European probably came to evolve into the Hellenic and Italic branches of language.