Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
taxonomia
7 views
Skip to first unread message
B. T. Raven
May 15, 2012, 7:27:27 PM5/15/12
to
Duo animalia se in silva conveniunt. Unum alteri inquit, "Caecum sum;
cuius generis animal sis tu, scire aveo?" Cui alterum respondit,
"Nescio, ego quoque sum caecum." His dictis primum suasit ut alternis
vicibus sese palparent invicem qualia sensa describentes ad comperiendum
quae animalia re vera essent. Alterum consilio hoc scito assentiens,
inquit, "videamusdum, tibi sunt aures longae, cauda plumosa; pellis
suavis vellosa per omnes partes." Cui primum replicat, "Pellis, aures
longae, cauda plumosa, eccere! cuniculus sum! Tandem scio quid sim. Nunc
tuum est vestigari: Hem, longum es, teres, lubricum, tectumque scutulis
adamantum."
"Anne teres, lubricum, scutulisque adamantum me tectum dicis?" Malum
sit! Sum itaque teleuangelista!"
cuius generis animal sis tu, scire aveo?" Cui alterum respondit,
"Nescio, ego quoque sum caecum." His dictis primum suasit ut alternis
vicibus sese palparent invicem qualia sensa describentes ad comperiendum
quae animalia re vera essent. Alterum consilio hoc scito assentiens,
inquit, "videamusdum, tibi sunt aures longae, cauda plumosa; pellis
suavis vellosa per omnes partes." Cui primum replicat, "Pellis, aures
longae, cauda plumosa, eccere! cuniculus sum! Tandem scio quid sim. Nunc
tuum est vestigari: Hem, longum es, teres, lubricum, tectumque scutulis
adamantum."
"Anne teres, lubricum, scutulisque adamantum me tectum dicis?" Malum
sit! Sum itaque teleuangelista!"
Ed Cryer
May 16, 2012, 10:16:27 AM5/16/12
to
1. Would an animal use the neuter gender when referring to it(him,
her)self? "Caecum sum" sounds weird.
2. "Adamantum"? Why not "adamantinis"? or "ex adamante"?
Ed
Message has been deleted
Ed Cryer
May 16, 2012, 1:41:26 PM5/16/12
to
B. T. Raven wrote:
> Die Wed May 16 2012 09:16:27 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
> <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> scripsit:
> of speech) don't know what they are. A cuniculus would be expected to
> say caecus sum and a vipera, caeca sum. The difficulty could be avoided
> by having them say "caecutio."
> diamond-back rattler. Also the last sentence might be more grammatical as:
> "Anne teretem, lubricum, scutulisque adamantinis tectum me esse dicis?"
>
> Eduardus
>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
We don't have your Bible Belt tele-evangelists over here. But I am
familiar with the style.
There's something that always grates with me in this area, and it's the
way that some comperes announce the president. They're ok when he's
coming to a White House press audience, but when he turns up at a dinner
there's always some licky-licky, do outright obeisance, scrape scrape
voice that says "Laydees end gennelmen, the president of the United
States of America"; curtsey, scrape scrape, exit backwards with deep
bows and cap-off licky-lackey".
Ed
> Die Wed May 16 2012 09:16:27 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
> <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> scripsit:
>
>> B. T. Raven wrote:
>>> Duo animalia se in silva conveniunt. Unum alteri inquit, "Caecum sum;
>>> cuius generis animal sis tu, scire aveo?" Cui alterum respondit,
>>> "Nescio, ego quoque sum caecum." His dictis primum suasit ut alternis
>>> vicibus sese palparent invicem qualia sensa describentes ad comperiendum
>>> quae animalia re vera essent. Alterum consilio hoc scito assentiens,
>>> inquit, "videamusdum, tibi sunt aures longae, cauda plumosa; pellis
>>> suavis vellosa per omnes partes." Cui primum replicat, "Pellis, aures
>>> longae, cauda plumosa, eccere! cuniculus sum! Tandem scio quid sim. Nunc
>>> tuum est vestigari: Hem, longum es, teres, lubricum, tectumque scutulis
>>> adamantum."
>>> "Anne teres, lubricum, scutulisque adamantum me tectum dicis?" Malum
>>> sit! Sum itaque teleuangelista!"
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>> B. T. Raven wrote:
>>> Duo animalia se in silva conveniunt. Unum alteri inquit, "Caecum sum;
>>> cuius generis animal sis tu, scire aveo?" Cui alterum respondit,
>>> "Nescio, ego quoque sum caecum." His dictis primum suasit ut alternis
>>> vicibus sese palparent invicem qualia sensa describentes ad comperiendum
>>> quae animalia re vera essent. Alterum consilio hoc scito assentiens,
>>> inquit, "videamusdum, tibi sunt aures longae, cauda plumosa; pellis
>>> suavis vellosa per omnes partes." Cui primum replicat, "Pellis, aures
>>> longae, cauda plumosa, eccere! cuniculus sum! Tandem scio quid sim. Nunc
>>> tuum est vestigari: Hem, longum es, teres, lubricum, tectumque scutulis
>>> adamantum."
>>> "Anne teres, lubricum, scutulisque adamantum me tectum dicis?" Malum
>>> sit! Sum itaque teleuangelista!"
>
>>
>> Two points.
>> 1. Would an animal use the neuter gender when referring to it(him,
>> her)self? "Caecum sum" sounds weird.
> It might sound weird but the animals (though they have an Aesopian power
>> Two points.
>> 1. Would an animal use the neuter gender when referring to it(him,
>> her)self? "Caecum sum" sounds weird.
> of speech) don't know what they are. A cuniculus would be expected to
> say caecus sum and a vipera, caeca sum. The difficulty could be avoided
> by having them say "caecutio."
>
>> 2. "Adamantum"? Why not "adamantinis"? or "ex adamante"?
>
> Yeah, I like adamantinis better now. What ever makes it sound more like
>> 2. "Adamantum"? Why not "adamantinis"? or "ex adamante"?
>
> diamond-back rattler. Also the last sentence might be more grammatical as:
> "Anne teretem, lubricum, scutulisque adamantinis tectum me esse dicis?"
>
> Eduardus
>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
We don't have your Bible Belt tele-evangelists over here. But I am
familiar with the style.
There's something that always grates with me in this area, and it's the
way that some comperes announce the president. They're ok when he's
coming to a White House press audience, but when he turns up at a dinner
there's always some licky-licky, do outright obeisance, scrape scrape
voice that says "Laydees end gennelmen, the president of the United
States of America"; curtsey, scrape scrape, exit backwards with deep
bows and cap-off licky-lackey".
Ed
Message has been deleted
Ed Cryer
May 17, 2012, 3:27:05 PM5/17/12
to
B. T. Raven wrote:
> Die Wed May 16 2012 12:41:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
> Remember though that we don't have a parliamentary system that can turn
> our government out of office on a vote of no confidence. The Prez is
> sort of our P.M./King.
> Here's another example of Bible-belt chutzpah:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/cyqntl6
>
> So now we have only 11 days to wrap up all our loose ends.
> Unaccountably, this guys thinks that a few weeks after all-out
> thermonuclear war all will be hunky dory again.
> I was tempted to have Ronald pay the postage for my free copy of his
> book but I'm not sure it will get here in time. is
>
> Eduardus
>
It is legally possible to impeach a president; especially for treason or
bribery, but there are other things such as "bringing the office into
disrepute"
Nixon resigned only when faced by a possible impeachment vote from the
House of Representatives. Clinton actually got impeached but was saved
by the senate failing to give it the 2/3 majority needed.
The world's greatest democracy certainly needs something of the kind.
You don't want to be reduced to the measures that the old Roman Empire
had to get its leaders deposed!
Ed
> Die Wed May 16 2012 12:41:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
> our government out of office on a vote of no confidence. The Prez is
> sort of our P.M./King.
> Here's another example of Bible-belt chutzpah:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/cyqntl6
>
> So now we have only 11 days to wrap up all our loose ends.
> Unaccountably, this guys thinks that a few weeks after all-out
> thermonuclear war all will be hunky dory again.
> I was tempted to have Ronald pay the postage for my free copy of his
> book but I'm not sure it will get here in time. is
>
> Eduardus
>
It is legally possible to impeach a president; especially for treason or
bribery, but there are other things such as "bringing the office into
disrepute"
Nixon resigned only when faced by a possible impeachment vote from the
House of Representatives. Clinton actually got impeached but was saved
by the senate failing to give it the 2/3 majority needed.
The world's greatest democracy certainly needs something of the kind.
You don't want to be reduced to the measures that the old Roman Empire
had to get its leaders deposed!
Ed
Message has been deleted
John Briggs
May 18, 2012, 12:16:26 PM5/18/12
to
> It is legally possible to impeach a president; especially for treason or
> bribery, but there are other things such as "bringing the office into
> disrepute"
> Nixon resigned only when faced by a possible impeachment vote from the
> House of Representatives. Clinton actually got impeached but was saved
> by the senate failing to give it the 2/3 majority needed.
>
> The world's greatest democracy certainly needs something of the kind.
> You don't want to be reduced to the measures that the old Roman Empire
> had to get its leaders deposed!
The US Constitution is based on a misunderstanding of the British
> bribery, but there are other things such as "bringing the office into
> disrepute"
> Nixon resigned only when faced by a possible impeachment vote from the
> House of Representatives. Clinton actually got impeached but was saved
> by the senate failing to give it the 2/3 majority needed.
>
> The world's greatest democracy certainly needs something of the kind.
> You don't want to be reduced to the measures that the old Roman Empire
> had to get its leaders deposed!
constitution of the time. That is why the government is appointed by the
King/President without any reference to the Legislature (the Senate do
have a theoretical veto - but even that is based on the misunderstanding
that the House of Lords is more important than the Commons, and so lacks
a democratic mandate to actually carry out this veto.) Modern
democracies just don't have this arrangement.
--
John Briggs
Message has been deleted
Ed Cryer
May 19, 2012, 7:22:57 AM5/19/12
to
B. T. Raven wrote:
> Die Fri May 18 2012 11:16:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) John
> Briggs<john.b...@ntlworld.com> scripsit:
> Not so much a misunderstanding as a complete rejection of the British
> system.
>
> According to this, Britain doesn't have a Constitution (in the American,
> French, etc. sense):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_united_kingdom
>
> Most constitutions today are, like the U. S. one, codified. UK, New
> Zealand, and Israel have uncodified ones.
>
> To learn more about British legal and constitutional history in one
> chapter than in any entire book, see chapter six here:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/cpbya8j
>
>
You lot over there don't have our long history of nation-founding. We've
had kings that burned cakes, kings that told the tides to turn back,
kings that had archbishops murdered; and the best of times appear to
have occurred when women were monarchs.
We cut a king's head off; and then dug up the remains of the person
responsible and hanged them.
We've had kings go mad, kings with more women friends than Casanova,
kings who were gay, kings who were bastards.
This sceptred isle set in a silver sea. This England.
Ed
> Die Fri May 18 2012 11:16:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) John
> Briggs<john.b...@ntlworld.com> scripsit:
> system.
>
> According to this, Britain doesn't have a Constitution (in the American,
> French, etc. sense):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_united_kingdom
>
> Most constitutions today are, like the U. S. one, codified. UK, New
> Zealand, and Israel have uncodified ones.
>
> To learn more about British legal and constitutional history in one
> chapter than in any entire book, see chapter six here:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/cpbya8j
>
>
You lot over there don't have our long history of nation-founding. We've
had kings that burned cakes, kings that told the tides to turn back,
kings that had archbishops murdered; and the best of times appear to
have occurred when women were monarchs.
We cut a king's head off; and then dug up the remains of the person
responsible and hanged them.
We've had kings go mad, kings with more women friends than Casanova,
kings who were gay, kings who were bastards.
This sceptred isle set in a silver sea. This England.
Ed
John Briggs
May 19, 2012, 10:35:37 AM5/19/12
to
On 18/05/2012 22:04, B. T. Raven wrote:
> Die Fri May 18 2012 11:16:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) John
> Briggs<john.b...@ntlworld.com> scripsit:
taken completely from newspaper reports of the impeachment of Warren
Hastings (which was taking place at the time of the Convention.)
> According to this, Britain doesn't have a Constitution (in the American,
> French, etc. sense):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_united_kingdom
>
> Most constitutions today are, like the U. S. one, codified. UK, New
> Zealand, and Israel have uncodified ones.
The idea that the US Constitution is completely codified is a myth. The
US Constitution consists of the original document, its amendments, all
the judgements of the Supreme Court, and various Acts of Congress. The
British constitution is not unwritten - it is just written in a variety
of places.
--
John Briggs
> Die Fri May 18 2012 11:16:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) John
> Briggs<john.b...@ntlworld.com> scripsit:
> Not so much a misunderstanding as a complete rejection of the British
> system.
Absolutely not - it is mostly taken from Blackstone. Impeachment is
> system.
taken completely from newspaper reports of the impeachment of Warren
Hastings (which was taking place at the time of the Convention.)
> According to this, Britain doesn't have a Constitution (in the American,
> French, etc. sense):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_united_kingdom
>
> Most constitutions today are, like the U. S. one, codified. UK, New
> Zealand, and Israel have uncodified ones.
US Constitution consists of the original document, its amendments, all
the judgements of the Supreme Court, and various Acts of Congress. The
British constitution is not unwritten - it is just written in a variety
of places.
--
John Briggs
John W Kennedy
May 20, 2012, 12:56:12 PM5/20/12
to
thirteen colonies on the morning of July 2, 1776, without which the
rest would all go to pieces. But the pernicious superstition that the
US Constitution is a set of axioms from which all of US law derives is
a common one.
> The British constitution is not unwritten - it is just written in a
> variety of places.
--
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://www.SKenSoftware.com/Double%20Falshood
0 new messages