docoflove1974

Don Tomato, you are totally and completely correct. Sometimes we all get carried away with silliness, and don't realize that there are many others who aren't in on the joke who are reading the posts!

Generally speaking, learning a new language is something that is a skill...and like any other skill it takes a lot of hard work and practice...and accepting that you will make plenty of mistakes at first. I usually tell my students that they should find a conversation partner--someone to practice with and who can give them instant feedback. Even if it's just a couple of hours, or an afternoon, per week, it's something. As much aural input as possible--tv is best, because you can get the visual cues at the same time, but radio is a possible option as you get further along. Bottom line, do as much work as possible, and put the time in...you will be rewarded.

Wow, great stuff. Thanks, Kosmo!

You are such a sensitive boy

Me, too...the Critical History is already on my wishlist on Amazon! Acutally, any of them would do.

I admit to placing them under the rule of AdBlock

Exactly what I meant, both should be taken into consideration.. Of course they should...it's just that oftentimes we don't have the Vulgar Latin 'in testiment' and on hand...much of the time, we have reconstructions. Classical Latin is more available, usually.

Poor fish...what'd he ever do to you???

You have way too much time on your hands, Don Tomato.

Firefox here, too...sadly, the district I work in is built for IE, so I really only use that program for work. Firefox is so much better, IMO.

The only reason we often focus on Classical Latin is because we have a huge bank of it--in varying lengths and from various eras. We do have a fair amount of data from Vulgar Latin, but of varying lengths and of varying reliability--is the language that Plautus 'recreates' truly acurate? We can only guess, and assume so. Furthermore, Classical Latin is the basis from which Vulgar Latin emerged, so there is a reason to look at both.

Nope, never have heard of that one...must be an old fogie kind of thing As regards your other suggestion...S

So go to Wally World or Targ

So, to summarize, the English language is farked beyond all hope, and we should all switch to, say, Spanish?

This doesn't shock me...my comment was that the transition from Latin to the modern Romance language was a big one. My 2nd semester (college) students learn the subjunctive relatively easy, too, if given the right set up Besides, much of the present subjunctive contexts are used instead of direct commands, so that young children can and do use it is not surprising.

Actually, Ludovicus is right, if the dog is 'known'...but if it's a strange dog (not known to the people), then it would probably be your solution. Sounds horribly confusing, I know; but direct objects which are people receive the 'a'--and when 'a' and 'el' are next to each other, they're contracted to 'al'--but often times tamed animals, particularly dogs and cats, are included in the mix. That's about as clear a description as I can give. In many times, yes. Same with Spanish, depending on the clefting involved. Ludovicus: depends on which tense of the subjunctive you're talking about. Present subjunctive is no contest: it was passed onto the Romance languages as-is, and in fact is one of the few verbal constructions where the inflection and the semantics behind it remained just about the same. As for what the modern languages used for the past subjunctive, that varies: Italian derives its past subjunctive from the Latin pluperfect subjunctive, and Spanish has/had competing forms deriving from the Latin perfect subjunctive (which is really the one what has won out) and the Latin pluperfect subjunctive (which has seen significantly decreased use since the 19th century, at least). As for your word-order examples: it really depends on what it is you're saying. Yes, it's possible to have all of those orders in Spanish, and I believe that they are also possible in Italian. But it really depends on what the discourse functions are in the conversation--what the topic of discussion is, which party has already been introduced in the discourse, and what the context of the discourse is. Furthermore, I would argue that Al perro Maria ve and Maria al perro ve are highly marked, and would not occur; I would mark them as questionable at best. Bottom line: I wouldn't say that any of the modern Romance languages are 'close' to Latin in terms of syntax, because there have been such leaps in terms of word order, nominal and verbal inflection, roles of function words, and clause construction.

Heh there was some of that the other night...well, sorta...an evil ravioli filling bit. It was taken care of, tho. Thanks!

"Gaius is very stupid. My God! Why don't we have accent (marks)? Ay...." HAH! You used a translater! FOOL! Tonto = silly. Actually, it means both 'stupid' and 'silly'. And 'airheaded', in certain situations.

I don't have a full-shot of me now. Gotta take one, tho...for posterity of my posterior, if nothing else It will be up soon, I promise!

Hmmmmmm...how to put this delicately.... *BLEEEEEEEEEEP* NO!

Lubs, by the way, are what many 'round here jokingly refer to as pounds...since we wish to somehow pronounce 'lbs'. Anyway...at yesterday's weigh-in, it was 50 lost since 1 June 2006! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! :punk:

O puedes usar el mapa de car