Meredith Dixon | 1 May 2006 01:12
Picon
Favicon

Vergil's Aeneid, Book XII

The LatinStudy Vergil Group has been working its way through Vergil's Aeneid since
the fall of 1999.  At long last, we've reached Book XII.  Anyone who would like to
join us to read all or part of Book XII will be most welcome.

We'll be translating between 25 and 35 lines a week, and we expect to finish the
book (and the *Aeneid*) on February 17th, 2007.  As with all the LatinStudy
translation groups, the goal is collaborative self-study.  Each participant
translates the week's lines and sends them to me, and I collate the assignments
and make an omnibus post to LatinStudy.   For more information, see 
http://www.ravendays.org/latin/lists/vergil.html

The first Book XII assignment, which will be due May 6th, has already been posted.
If you would like to join us for the first assignment, just e-mail me and ask for
a copy.

--

-- 
Meredith Dixon <dixonm <at> pobox.com>
Check out *Raven Days*: http://www.ravendays.org
For victims and survivors of bullying.
And for those who want to help.

Ginny Lindzey | 1 May 2006 03:25
Picon

Question for university folks

How many weeks are in a college semester?  That is, how many times would a
one hour lab/course be able to meet?

Just curious.

ginny

==========================================
Ginny Lindzey, Latin Teacher, ginlindzey <at> lindzey.us

AnimaAltera: Latin t-shirts, mugs, & posters for the discerning classicist:
http://www.cafepress.com/animaaltera

The Latin Zone: Rambling thoughts of an obsessive Latin teacher:
http://ginlindzey.livejournal.com/
==========================================

Thorburn, John | 1 May 2006 03:26
Favicon

Re: Question for university folks

At Baylor a one hour lab would probably meet 14 or 15 times.
The semester lasts 15 weeks.

JET

________________________________

From: Classical Greek and Latin Discussion Group on behalf of Ginny Lindzey
Sent: Sun 4/30/2006 8:25 PM
To: CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU
Subject: Question for university folks

How many weeks are in a college semester?  That is, how many times would a
one hour lab/course be able to meet?

Just curious.

ginny

==========================================
Ginny Lindzey, Latin Teacher, ginlindzey <at> lindzey.us

AnimaAltera: Latin t-shirts, mugs, & posters for the discerning classicist:
http://www.cafepress.com/animaaltera

The Latin Zone: Rambling thoughts of an obsessive Latin teacher:
http://ginlindzey.livejournal.com/
==========================================

(Continue reading)

Aaron Foreman | 1 May 2006 06:57
Picon
Favicon

Gerunds etal

 This is likely to be a very long and rambling post in which I betray my absolute ignorance of all things classical. However, I am determined to undermine that ignorance whenever possible and I believe that you all can assist. So here goes.
  Let's say that I am assisting Samuel Goldwyn to come up with a motto. He likes "Ars Gratia Artis" but finds it too vague. He would like to specify that he MAKES art, as opposed to watching, collecting, critcizing, etc. My first thought is "Artem facere gratia artem faciendi", but am I right, and if so why, and could/should I have been right in another way?
 To be sure, I shall take a closer look, first at the "artem facere". I pause for half a second to ask myself if infinitves take accusatives. Yes, I answer myself, provided that they are infinitives of transitve verbs. Could I have said "Ars faciendus"? Although I never would have, it seems as though I could. Would this appear to be a normitive statement meaning something like "obligatory art"? Then "Ars faciendus gratia artem faciendi" could end up meaning either "Obligatory art for the sake of making art" or "Art is Obligatory for the sake of making art". I don't know which would be correct, and neither is what I want. So I shall abandon "Ars faciendus".
 I also briefly find myself wondering if a parallel structure is possible, such as "Artem faciendum gratia artem faciendi". But I have never seen this and seem to recall that there are no nominative gerunds. So I find myself back at "Artem facere". I am satisfied with it but still am not sure why it must be the only option.
 On to "gratia artem faciendi". "Facere" must be declined precisely because it cannot be declined, hence no genitive. Does "artis faciendi" work? It seems to but again I wonder if it will imply an obligatio n. (Perhaps we should go with that and suggest "Praeterea censeo artem esse faciendam" to Mr. Goldwyn). Then "Artem facere gratia artis faciendi" might be interpreted as "making art because art is obligatory" which is not at all in the spirit desired.
 So I find myself returning to my original "Artem facere gratia artem faciendi". But I still have questions. Is it simply the fact that "facere" works as a nominative that keeps the other options out of that case? And how am I to understand these constructions? "artem faciendi" seems to be an abstract verbal noun. That makes sense....
 But what about "artis faciendi". Is it an adjective? That is the way it was described to me. But I don't see it. The only difference that I can see in Latin between a noun and an adjective is that adjectives have degrees such as Clarus, Clarior, Clarissimus (Utinam gerundium esset clarissimus). This word faciendus does not seem to hav e degrees. If I take it as a normitive word then it might have degrees (faciendus - to be done, faciendior - really priority, faciendissimus - I need it on my desk by yesterday). But this is not a normitive construction. I can't say "gratia artis faciendissimus" - "for the sake of really creating the H#(l out of some art", can I? So are they really both nouns, one apposed to the other noun, the other declined separately? Or should we say that there is really just one noun that can be either apposed or declined? 
 Please help me and Mr. Goldwyn.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Neven Jovanović | 1 May 2006 10:53
Picon

Textual criticism

An addendum to James Butrica's question from last month.

Remember, the question was:

"... I wonder whether list-members find it odd to reject a conjecture in a
text on the grounds that no-one else had thought of it previously."

Said G. Thomas Tanselle, "Classical, Biblical, and Medieval Textual
Criticism and Modern Editing",  Studies in Bibliography, Volume 36 (1983)
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-sb?id=sibv036&images=bsuva/sb/images&data=/texts/english/bibliog/SB&tag=public&part=2&division=div

[Speaking about "alterations based on readings present in one or more of
the documents" and "alterations emerging from the editor's own
conjecture":]

"Of course, a reading adopted from one of the documents may be a striking
reading that the editor would not have thought of or dared introduce
independently, but the decision to consider it as worthy of acceptance
into the critical text is still an act of conjecture, always entailing the
potential danger that the reading is accorded too much credence by the
mere fact of its existence in one of the documents."

Neven Jovanovic

Department of Classical Philology
Faculty of Philosophy
University of Zagreb
Hrvatska / Croatia

david meadows | 1 May 2006 11:34
Picon

may 1 <at> rogueclassicism

This Day in Ancient History
Classical Words of the Day
Nuntii Latini
ClassiCarnival 05/01/06
Cycladic Mystery Civ.?
AWOTV: On TV Today

http://www.atrium-media.com/rogueclassicism


dm
*** Please remember to send job listings, calls for papers, and (especially) notices about local conferences, seminars, talks to me for inclusion at Classics Central ***

http://s9.invisionfree.com/Classics_Central/

Daniel Tompkins | 1 May 2006 13:15
Picon
Favicon

more on Elgin marbles

Nice letter to WSJ today, from Peter Adamczyk, Chatham, N.J.:

'... Using Mr. Boardman's logic that "cultural heritage belongs to  
the admirers who appreciate and are influenced by it," I propose that  
the British Crown Jewels be moved from the Tower of London to  
Orlando, Fla.'

Sometimes I think wide-eyed Americans are the chief supporters of the  
British monarchy.

Daniel Tompkins
Director, Intellectual Heritage Program
Temple University
214 Anderson Hall,
Philadelphia, PA 19122
215/204-4900

Michael J. Smith | 1 May 2006 13:51

Re: General Interest: the twilight of the English subjunctive?

On Sunday 30 April 2006 13:45, G.I.C. Robertson wrote:

> This reminds me of another peculiarity I've noticed here in 
> Newfoundland: the construction of past contrary to fact protases with 
> 'had to' + verb (or would it be considered 'had' + infinitive?) rather 
> than 'had' + past participle.  E.g.: 'If I had to know you were there, I 
> would have gone', rather than 'If I had known ...'.  

In Kentucky where I grew up, we had a similar locution: If I'd've known... 
not clear to me whether the "'ve" is a reflex of "have" or "of", or whether 
the"'d" is "had" or "would."  In fact since the actual phonetic shape was 
closer to "If I'd'a known..." I'm wondering if it isn't maybe just the same locution 
as the Newfoundland one. How distinct are the "had" and "to" up yonder? 

--

-- 
--Michael J. Smith
--ms <at> gf.org

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org

G.I.C. Robertson | 1 May 2006 14:06
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: General Interest: the twilight of the English subjunctive?

The 'had' and 'to' are quite distinct here, as is the use of the root form of the verb rather than the participle; that's what made me notice it when I started hearing it.  I think I've heard constructions like 'If I'd've/I'd'a known' (which seems to be a case of adding an extra auxiliary just to be on the safe side, so to speak) quite frequently elsewhere, and on TV, etc., but this was something new to me.

Cheers,

George


Michael J. Smith wrote:
On Sunday 30 April 2006 13:45, G.I.C. Robertson wrote:
This reminds me of another peculiarity I've noticed here in Newfoundland: the construction of past contrary to fact protases with 'had to' + verb (or would it be considered 'had' + infinitive?) rather than 'had' + past participle. E.g.: 'If I had to know you were there, I would have gone', rather than 'If I had known ...'.
In Kentucky where I grew up, we had a similar locution: If I'd've known... not clear to me whether the "'ve" is a reflex of "have" or "of", or whether the"'d" is "had" or "would." In fact since the actual phonetic shape was closer to "If I'd'a known..." I'm wondering if it isn't maybe just the same locution as the Newfoundland one. How distinct are the "had" and "to" up yonder?


-- G.I.C. Robertson Department of Classics Memorial University of Newfoundland St John's, Newfoundland A1C 5S7 Canada Tel. 709-737-8708 Fax 709-737-4569 robertso <at> mun.ca
Hunsucker, R.L. | 1 May 2006 14:51
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: explorator 9.1

Idle curiosity :-) :

> . . . my non-classicist (but pretty well read anyway!) 
> husband. 

Are (in the perception of Classicists?) non-Classicists 
normally (by definition?) not well-read ("well" in 
quantitative, qualitative or any other (combination of) 
sense(s) you like) ?

Are Classicists on the other hand (qualitate qua) 
always well-read ?

- L. Hunsucker

________________________________

From: Classical Greek and Latin Discussion Group on behalf of Anne Mahoney
Sent: Sun 4/30/2006 6:46 PM
To: CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: explorator 9.1

david meadows <rogueclassicist <at> GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Since we're starting our ninth year of putting this thing out, here's
> today's edition:

Wow, eight years completed!  David, I have to admire your patience and
persistence.  I look at Explorator regularly -- and so does my
non-classicist (but pretty well read anyway!) husband.  Thanks for
producing it.

--Anne Mahoney
Tufts University


Gmane