Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Response To A Sneeze?
124 views
Skip to first unread message
David Amicus
May 13, 2016, 12:15:26 AM5/13/16
to
In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in Latin?
Evertjan.
May 13, 2016, 3:10:41 AM5/13/16
to
David Amicus <davida...@gmail.com> wrote on 13 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in
> Latin?
What a silly idea that that would need an answer or a response,
as sneezing is not a question.
Do you "response" to someone looking at his watch, picking his nose, hitting
his wife or sitting in the sun?
Don't confuse English monoglottic idiom with logic.
Perhaps just a silly as my "responsum" [= answer, response] here.
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
alt.language.latin:
> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in
> Latin?
as sneezing is not a question.
Do you "response" to someone looking at his watch, picking his nose, hitting
his wife or sitting in the sun?
Don't confuse English monoglottic idiom with logic.
Perhaps just a silly as my "responsum" [= answer, response] here.
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Ed Cryer
May 13, 2016, 5:32:17 AM5/13/16
to
David Amicus wrote:
> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in Latin?
>
There was a gazelle, according to Pliny the Elder, that used to worship
> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in Latin?
>
people who sneezed;
"orygem appellat Aegyptus feram, quam in exortu eius contra stare et
contueri tradit ac velut adorare, cum sternuerit"
Ed
John W Kennedy
May 13, 2016, 12:33:52 PM5/13/16
to
On 2016-05-13 07:10:34 +0000, Evertjan. said:
> David Amicus <davida...@gmail.com> wrote on 13 May 2016 in
> alt.language.latin:
>
>> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in
>> Latin?
>
> What a silly idea that that would need an answer or a response,
> as sneezing is not a question.
>
> Do you "response" to someone looking at his watch, picking his nose, hitting
> his wife or sitting in the sun?
>
> Don't confuse English monoglottic idiom with logic.
>
> Perhaps just a silly as my "responsum" [= answer, response] here.
A silly response, indeed. Wikipedia lists several pages of sneeze
> David Amicus <davida...@gmail.com> wrote on 13 May 2016 in
> alt.language.latin:
>
>> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in
>> Latin?
>
> What a silly idea that that would need an answer or a response,
> as sneezing is not a question.
>
> Do you "response" to someone looking at his watch, picking his nose, hitting
> his wife or sitting in the sun?
>
> Don't confuse English monoglottic idiom with logic.
>
> Perhaps just a silly as my "responsum" [= answer, response] here.
responses, from Albanian to Yoruba (including both "Gezondheid" and
"(Drie keer) morgen mooi weer") for Nederlands.
Since Italian has "Salute!" and Romanian has "Sănătate!", "Salutem!"
and "Sanitas!" would seem to be good starting points.
--
John W Kennedy
"I want everybody to be smart. As smart as they can be. A world of
ignorant people is too dangerous to live in."
-- Garson Kanin. "Born Yesterday"
Evertjan.
May 13, 2016, 5:42:59 PM5/13/16
to
John W Kennedy <john.w....@gmail.com> wrote on 13 May 2016 in
No reason to assume this was the same 2000 plus years before Wikipedia.
Methinks without evidence this is just a guess.
alt.language.latin:
> On 2016-05-13 07:10:34 +0000, Evertjan. said:
>
>> David Amicus <davida...@gmail.com> wrote on 13 May 2016 in
>> alt.language.latin:
>>
>>> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them
>>> in Latin?
>>
>> What a silly idea that that would need an answer or a response,
>> as sneezing is not a question.
>>
>> Do you "response" to someone looking at his watch, picking his nose,
>> hitting his wife or sitting in the sun?
>>
>> Don't confuse English monoglottic idiom with logic.
>>
>> Perhaps just a silly as my "responsum" [= answer, response] here.
>
> A silly response, indeed. Wikipedia lists several pages of sneeze
> responses, from Albanian to Yoruba (including both "Gezondheid" and
> "(Drie keer) morgen mooi weer") for Nederlands.
>
> Since Italian has "Salute!" and Romanian has "Sănătate!", "Salutem!"
> and "Sanitas!" would seem to be good starting points.
I don't think so, nether do I think it could not have been so.
> On 2016-05-13 07:10:34 +0000, Evertjan. said:
>
>> David Amicus <davida...@gmail.com> wrote on 13 May 2016 in
>> alt.language.latin:
>>
>>> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them
>>> in Latin?
>>
>> What a silly idea that that would need an answer or a response,
>> as sneezing is not a question.
>>
>> Do you "response" to someone looking at his watch, picking his nose,
>> hitting his wife or sitting in the sun?
>>
>> Don't confuse English monoglottic idiom with logic.
>>
>> Perhaps just a silly as my "responsum" [= answer, response] here.
>
> A silly response, indeed. Wikipedia lists several pages of sneeze
> responses, from Albanian to Yoruba (including both "Gezondheid" and
> "(Drie keer) morgen mooi weer") for Nederlands.
>
> Since Italian has "Salute!" and Romanian has "Sănătate!", "Salutem!"
> and "Sanitas!" would seem to be good starting points.
No reason to assume this was the same 2000 plus years before Wikipedia.
Methinks without evidence this is just a guess.
David Amicus
May 13, 2016, 9:49:23 PM5/13/16
to
Evertjan.
May 14, 2016, 3:37:28 AM5/14/16
to
David Amicus <davida...@gmail.com> wrote on 14 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
> On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 9:33:52 AM UTC-7, John W Kennedy wrote:
>> On 2016-05-13 07:10:34 +0000, Evertjan. said:
>>
>> > David Amicus <davida...@gmail.com> wrote on 13 May 2016 in
>> > alt.language.latin:
>> >
>> >> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them i
> n
>> >> Latin?
>> >
>> > What a silly idea that that would need an answer or a response,
>> > as sneezing is not a question.
>> >
>> > Do you "response" to someone looking at his watch, picking his nose, hi
> tting
>> > his wife or sitting in the sun?
>> >
>> > Don't confuse English monoglottic idiom with logic.
>> >
>> > Perhaps just a silly as my "responsum" [= answer, response] here.
>>
>> A silly response, indeed. Wikipedia lists several pages of sneeze
>> responses, from Albanian to Yoruba (including both "Gezondheid" and
>> "(Drie keer) morgen mooi weer") for Nederlands.
>>
>> Since Italian has "Salute!" and Romanian has "Sănătate!", "Salu
> tem!"
>> and "Sanitas!" would seem to be good starting points.
>
Don't know what "Tex-Mex" might be, a sort of petrol mix?
However, I seem to remember your Q being what was used in Latin,
imho meaning in the Latin of 2000+ years ago.
Well, I still have no reasonable evidence and logic that they would have
said anything of the kind and if they would have thought sneezing had
anything to do with health, which even nowadays i think is rather stretched.
If they said anything it could have been "dirty bastard" or "finally".
Or perhaps "idiot" if the common idea was [was it?] that your nose should be
cleaned by ingesting or using your sleeve or vingers.
Methinks the present day obsession with health was not present then, and so
the wishes of departure were more in the realm of safety against mishaps and
of peace/freedom. "Vale/Valete" we only now associate with not becoming ill,
breaking your leg on a long trip was not a health problem, but a life-
threatening accident.
alt.language.latin:
> On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 9:33:52 AM UTC-7, John W Kennedy wrote:
>> On 2016-05-13 07:10:34 +0000, Evertjan. said:
>>
>> > David Amicus <davida...@gmail.com> wrote on 13 May 2016 in
>> > alt.language.latin:
>> >
>> >> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them i
> n
>> >> Latin?
>> >
>> > What a silly idea that that would need an answer or a response,
>> > as sneezing is not a question.
>> >
>> > Do you "response" to someone looking at his watch, picking his nose, hi
> tting
>> > his wife or sitting in the sun?
>> >
>> > Don't confuse English monoglottic idiom with logic.
>> >
>> > Perhaps just a silly as my "responsum" [= answer, response] here.
>>
>> A silly response, indeed. Wikipedia lists several pages of sneeze
>> responses, from Albanian to Yoruba (including both "Gezondheid" and
>> "(Drie keer) morgen mooi weer") for Nederlands.
>>
>> Since Italian has "Salute!" and Romanian has "Sănătate!", "Salu
> tem!"
>> and "Sanitas!" would seem to be good starting points.
>
> Thanks! I have a Tex-Mex friend and she says "Salud"
To us? Thank her for that if so and give her our greetings too.
Don't know what "Tex-Mex" might be, a sort of petrol mix?
However, I seem to remember your Q being what was used in Latin,
imho meaning in the Latin of 2000+ years ago.
Well, I still have no reasonable evidence and logic that they would have
said anything of the kind and if they would have thought sneezing had
anything to do with health, which even nowadays i think is rather stretched.
If they said anything it could have been "dirty bastard" or "finally".
Or perhaps "idiot" if the common idea was [was it?] that your nose should be
cleaned by ingesting or using your sleeve or vingers.
Methinks the present day obsession with health was not present then, and so
the wishes of departure were more in the realm of safety against mishaps and
of peace/freedom. "Vale/Valete" we only now associate with not becoming ill,
breaking your leg on a long trip was not a health problem, but a life-
threatening accident.
David Amicus
May 14, 2016, 1:21:54 PM5/14/16
to
Evertjan.
May 14, 2016, 1:33:59 PM5/14/16
to
> A "Tex-Mex" is a person of Mexican heritage but was born and raised in
> the state of Texas.
So what is "of Mexican heritage",
> the state of Texas.
a slang way of saying that her parents were from Mexico?
I fail to see what that has to do with Latin,
as I don't see what that local slang proves it that sense.
I trust she is a good friend to you.
David Amicus
May 14, 2016, 2:14:22 PM5/14/16
to
My friend was born in 1930 in the Rio Grande Valley. Her mother was born in Texas and her father was born in Mexico. But the family lived in Texas.
My friend told me that at one time when a US citizen married a foreign national the US citizen lost their citizenship and took that of the spouse. She said that happened to her mother. It did not affect my friend's US citizenship nor the family being allowed to remain in the USA.
Ed Cryer
May 14, 2016, 5:00:12 PM5/14/16
to
"gesundheit" when someone sneezes. No one says anything when someone
coughs, blows their nose or burps, so why do sneezes get special
treatment? What do those phrases actually mean, anyway?
Wishing someone well after they sneeze probably originated thousands of
years ago. The Romans would say "Jupiter preserve you" or "Salve," which
meant "good health to you," and the Greeks would wish each other "long
life." The phrase "God bless you" is attributed to Pope Gregory the
Great, who uttered it in the sixth century during a bubonic plague
epidemic (sneezing is an obvious symptom of one form of the plague)."
http://people.howstuffworks.com/sneezing.htm
Ed
David Amicus
May 14, 2016, 5:13:32 PM5/14/16
to
Evertjan.
May 14, 2016, 5:14:46 PM5/14/16
to
> "Salud" is Spanish for "Health".
Yes, methinks most of us European multiglots know that.
In French, Romanian and 19th-earl.20th c. Dutch
it is "salut!" [=greetings, goodbye]
in Italian [=modern Latin] "salute!"
It comes from Latin "salus" meaning:
- safety, security
- health, well-being, welfare
- salvation, deliverance
- greeting, salutation
"Salve!/salvete!" means:
hello, welcome, farewell.
from "salvus" meaning:
safe, well, unharmed, sound, saved, healthy
... all from the same indoeuropean root.
> I thought there might be some ancient
> Roman Latin antecedents.
which perhaps/possibly/probably was not the custom to respond to,
or was not responded with aany safety-incantation at all.
Perhaps they customarily responded to a fart or nose-cleaning,
which sounds silly in many a local encironment nowadays.
> My friend was born in 1930 in the Rio Grande Valley. Her mother was
> born in Texas and her father was born in Mexico. But the family lived
> in Texas.
>
> My friend told me that at one time when a US citizen married a foreign
> national the US citizen lost their
> citizenship and took that of the
> spouse. She said that happened to her mother. It did not affect my
> friend's US citizenship nor the family being allowed to remain in the
> USA.
Evertjan.
May 14, 2016, 5:23:04 PM5/14/16
to
Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 14 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
> "Many people have become accustomed to saying "bless you" or
> "gesundheit" when someone sneezes. No one says anything when someone
> coughs, blows their nose or burps, so why do sneezes get special
> treatment? What do those phrases actually mean, anyway?
>
> Wishing someone well after they sneeze probably originated thousands of
> years ago. The Romans would say "Jupiter preserve you" or "Salve," which
> meant "good health to you," and the Greeks would wish each other "long
> life." The phrase "God bless you" is attributed to Pope Gregory the
> Great, who uttered it in the sixth century during a bubonic plague
> epidemic (sneezing is an obvious symptom of one form of the plague)."
> http://people.howstuffworks.com/sneezing.htm
Methinks such general "incantations" were used to apeace the ghosts or the
gods, because thos involuntary actions were thought to be frightening and of
external control, just as lightening and thunder were.
"God bless you" is such an incantation, not being a nice word but an
imperative to god to do what you want.
alt.language.latin:
> "Many people have become accustomed to saying "bless you" or
> "gesundheit" when someone sneezes. No one says anything when someone
> coughs, blows their nose or burps, so why do sneezes get special
> treatment? What do those phrases actually mean, anyway?
>
> Wishing someone well after they sneeze probably originated thousands of
> years ago. The Romans would say "Jupiter preserve you" or "Salve," which
> meant "good health to you," and the Greeks would wish each other "long
> life." The phrase "God bless you" is attributed to Pope Gregory the
> Great, who uttered it in the sixth century during a bubonic plague
> epidemic (sneezing is an obvious symptom of one form of the plague)."
> http://people.howstuffworks.com/sneezing.htm
gods, because thos involuntary actions were thought to be frightening and of
external control, just as lightening and thunder were.
"God bless you" is such an incantation, not being a nice word but an
imperative to god to do what you want.
Evertjan.
May 14, 2016, 5:31:51 PM5/14/16
to
> Thanks! How would one say "God bless you" in Latin?
You wouldn't,
as the presumption of monotheism was foreign to the classic Romans,
and the concept of asking for a blessing probably too.
even then you would have to specify a god or a spirit.
Even so, doing that in "response" to a sneeze
seems nonsense historically speaking.
"Deus te iuvet!" ["May god help you"] perhaps comes near,
under those terrible circumstances that your body acted
without your free will but like possessed by a demon.
Ed Cryer
May 14, 2016, 7:18:14 PM5/14/16
to
motum Eumolpus conversus salvere Gitona iubet.
(Petronius Satyricon)
(Giton sneezed three times in succession so hard that he shook the
couch. At this movement Eumolpus turned and said "salve" to Giton.)
Ed
David Amicus
May 14, 2016, 7:45:46 PM5/14/16
to
Evertjan.
May 15, 2016, 5:11:33 AM5/15/16
to
Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 15 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
> Giton... ter continuo ita sternutavit, ut grabatum concuteret. Ad quem
> motum Eumolpus conversus salvere Gitona iubet.
> (Petronius Satyricon)
>
> (Giton sneezed three times in succession so hard that he shook the
> couch. At this movement Eumolpus turned and said "salve" to Giton.)
Perceived lack of evidence now corrected indeed!
Etymology:
"sternuto" is the intensive form of "sternuo"
"sternuo" imho from the indoeu. st[e]r-no- "to stretch, extend"
cf Gr. stornynai "stretch out"
cf Latin struere "pile up"
cf construction, structure, sternum, stroma, strama, strain
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sternuo#Latin
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sternuto#Latin
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sternum
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=structure
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/salveo#Latin
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iubeo#Latin
alt.language.latin:
> Giton... ter continuo ita sternutavit, ut grabatum concuteret. Ad quem
> motum Eumolpus conversus salvere Gitona iubet.
> (Petronius Satyricon)
>
> (Giton sneezed three times in succession so hard that he shook the
> couch. At this movement Eumolpus turned and said "salve" to Giton.)
Etymology:
"sternuto" is the intensive form of "sternuo"
"sternuo" imho from the indoeu. st[e]r-no- "to stretch, extend"
cf Gr. stornynai "stretch out"
cf Latin struere "pile up"
cf construction, structure, sternum, stroma, strama, strain
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sternuo#Latin
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sternuto#Latin
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sternum
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=structure
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/salveo#Latin
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iubeo#Latin
Ed Cryer
May 15, 2016, 8:51:02 AM5/15/16
to
According to this the Greeks said "Zeus save you" and the Romans "salve".
Both peoples held it as a superstition; a sneeze foretold something bad.
Ed
Evertjan.
May 20, 2016, 11:06:29 AM5/20/16
to
> According to this the Greeks said "Zeus save you" and the Romans "salve".
> Both peoples held it as a superstition; a sneeze foretold something bad.
Indeed felt as bad, worthy of an incantation.
> Both peoples held it as a superstition; a sneeze foretold something bad.
But no, "superstition" is a modern idea,
so not those peoples,
perhaps some individuals played with the concept.
Before rationalized/scientific thinking,
all strange and scary happenings were [even reasonably] thought
to be caused by gods or demons, and an incantation
was needed to change the mood of those in your favour.
The notion that all faith is such superstition
seems a pure European concept,
seen the primary/primordial thinking in the states.
Ed Cryer
May 20, 2016, 1:10:45 PM5/20/16
to
Evertjan. wrote:
> Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 15 May 2016 in
> alt.language.latin:
>
>> According to this the Greeks said "Zeus save you" and the Romans "salve".
>> Both peoples held it as a superstition; a sneeze foretold something bad.
>
> Indeed felt as bad, worthy of an incantation.
>
> But no, "superstition" is a modern idea,
> so not those peoples,
> perhaps some individuals played with the concept.
>
> Before rationalized/scientific thinking,
> all strange and scary happenings were [even reasonably] thought
> to be caused by gods or demons, and an incantation
> was needed to change the mood of those in your favour.
>
> The notion that all faith is such superstition
> seems a pure European concept,
> seen the primary/primordial thinking in the states.
>
You should look up "superstitio" in a Latin dictionary. And then you
> Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 15 May 2016 in
> alt.language.latin:
>
>> According to this the Greeks said "Zeus save you" and the Romans "salve".
>> Both peoples held it as a superstition; a sneeze foretold something bad.
>
> Indeed felt as bad, worthy of an incantation.
>
> But no, "superstition" is a modern idea,
> so not those peoples,
> perhaps some individuals played with the concept.
>
> Before rationalized/scientific thinking,
> all strange and scary happenings were [even reasonably] thought
> to be caused by gods or demons, and an incantation
> was needed to change the mood of those in your favour.
>
> The notion that all faith is such superstition
> seems a pure European concept,
> seen the primary/primordial thinking in the states.
>
should familiarise yourself with the teachings of Epicurus; most
especially as laid out in Lucretius' De Rerum Natura.
"In Epicurean ethics physical pain is the great enemy of happiness and
is to be avoided in almost all cases. Mental anguish is even more
threatening and potentially debilitating. It follows that the fear of
death - and especially the superstitious belief in an after-life of
eternal torment - can be particularly devastating source of anxiety and
take a terrible toll on humanity, which is why Epicurus sets out so
determinedly to crush it."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lucretiu/
Ed
Ed Cryer
May 20, 2016, 1:51:12 PM5/20/16
to
Evertjan. wrote:
> Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 15 May 2016 in
> alt.language.latin:
>
>> According to this the Greeks said "Zeus save you" and the Romans "salve".
>> Both peoples held it as a superstition; a sneeze foretold something bad.
>
> Indeed felt as bad, worthy of an incantation.
>
> But no, "superstition" is a modern idea,
> so not those peoples,
> perhaps some individuals played with the concept.
>
> Before rationalized/scientific thinking,
> all strange and scary happenings were [even reasonably] thought
> to be caused by gods or demons, and an incantation
> was needed to change the mood of those in your favour.
>
> The notion that all faith is such superstition
> seems a pure European concept,
> seen the primary/primordial thinking in the states.
>
Euripides (480–406 BCE), in his play Bellerophon, had the eponymous main
> Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 15 May 2016 in
> alt.language.latin:
>
>> According to this the Greeks said "Zeus save you" and the Romans "salve".
>> Both peoples held it as a superstition; a sneeze foretold something bad.
>
> Indeed felt as bad, worthy of an incantation.
>
> But no, "superstition" is a modern idea,
> so not those peoples,
> perhaps some individuals played with the concept.
>
> Before rationalized/scientific thinking,
> all strange and scary happenings were [even reasonably] thought
> to be caused by gods or demons, and an incantation
> was needed to change the mood of those in your favour.
>
> The notion that all faith is such superstition
> seems a pure European concept,
> seen the primary/primordial thinking in the states.
>
character say:
“Doth some one say that there be gods above?
There are not; no, there are not. Let no fool,
Led by the old false fable, thus deceive you.”[13]
Aristophanes (ca. 448–380 BCE), known for his satirical style, wrote in
his play the Knights: "Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don't believe in the
gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?"[14]
http://tinyurl.com/hkmamsc
Ed
Evertjan.
May 21, 2016, 4:31:01 AM5/21/16
to
Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 20 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
> You should look up "superstitio" in a Latin dictionary. And then you
> should familiarise yourself with the teachings of Epicurus; most
> especially as laid out in Lucretius' De Rerum Natura.
>
> "In Epicurean ethics physical pain is the great enemy of happiness and
> is to be avoided in almost all cases. Mental anguish is even more
> threatening and potentially debilitating. It follows that the fear of
> death - and especially the superstitious belief in an after-life of
> eternal torment - can be particularly devastating source of anxiety and
> take a terrible toll on humanity, which is why Epicurus sets out so
> determinedly to crush it."
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/lucretiu/
>
Since when do the ideas of a people's criticasters, jokers and other
extremists [like Epicurus] reflect the ideas of the people as such.
No, they often speak in contrasts.
> You should look up "superstitio" in a Latin dictionary.
Don't presume, please.
You know as well as I do, I hope, that all translation stinks.
So, expecting that Latin "superstitio" is the exact equal to the English
derivative, well, that would suggest an anosmia totalis.
alt.language.latin:
> You should look up "superstitio" in a Latin dictionary. And then you
> should familiarise yourself with the teachings of Epicurus; most
> especially as laid out in Lucretius' De Rerum Natura.
>
> "In Epicurean ethics physical pain is the great enemy of happiness and
> is to be avoided in almost all cases. Mental anguish is even more
> threatening and potentially debilitating. It follows that the fear of
> death - and especially the superstitious belief in an after-life of
> eternal torment - can be particularly devastating source of anxiety and
> take a terrible toll on humanity, which is why Epicurus sets out so
> determinedly to crush it."
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/lucretiu/
>
extremists [like Epicurus] reflect the ideas of the people as such.
No, they often speak in contrasts.
> You should look up "superstitio" in a Latin dictionary.
You know as well as I do, I hope, that all translation stinks.
So, expecting that Latin "superstitio" is the exact equal to the English
derivative, well, that would suggest an anosmia totalis.
Ed Cryer
May 21, 2016, 5:41:50 AM5/21/16
to
Do you think "superstition" only includes things like walking on cracks
in the pavement, or not going out on Friday 13?
Have a taste of Cicero;
"horum sententiae omnium non modo superstitionem tollunt, in quā inest
timor inanis deorum"
Ed
Evertjan.
May 21, 2016, 6:03:01 AM5/21/16
to
Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 21 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
> Evertjan. wrote:
>> Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 20 May 2016 in
>> alt.language.latin:
>>
>>> You should look up "superstitio" in a Latin dictionary. And then you
>>> should familiarise yourself with the teachings of Epicurus; most
>>> especially as laid out in Lucretius' De Rerum Natura.
>>>
>>> "In Epicurean ethics physical pain is the great enemy of happiness and
>>> is to be avoided in almost all cases. Mental anguish is even more
>>> threatening and potentially debilitating. It follows that the fear of
>>> death - and especially the superstitious belief in an after-life of
>>> eternal torment - can be particularly devastating source of anxiety and
>>> take a terrible toll on humanity, which is why Epicurus sets out so
>>> determinedly to crush it."
>>> http://www.iep.utm.edu/lucretiu/
>>>
>>
>> Since when do the ideas of a people's criticasters, jokers and other
>> extremists [like Epicurus] reflect the ideas of the people as such.
>>
>> No, they often speak in contrasts.
>>
>>> You should look up "superstitio" in a Latin dictionary.
>>
>> Don't presume, please.
>>
>> You know as well as I do, I hope, that all translation stinks.
>>
>> So, expecting that Latin "superstitio" is the exact equal to the English
>> derivative, well, that would suggest an anosmia totalis.
>>
>
> Don't be silly and pedantic.
Please don't try to justigy your arguments with ad hominem remarks.
> Do you think "superstition" only includes things like walking on cracks
> in the pavement, or not going out on Friday 13?
Don't presume, please.
> Have a taste of Cicero;
> "horum sententiae omnium non modo superstitionem tollunt, in quā inest
> timor inanis deorum"
So you have a good argument,
better than quoting a dictionary as a dogma,
so why the adhominenisms?
alt.language.latin:
> Evertjan. wrote:
>> Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 20 May 2016 in
>> alt.language.latin:
>>
>>> You should look up "superstitio" in a Latin dictionary. And then you
>>> should familiarise yourself with the teachings of Epicurus; most
>>> especially as laid out in Lucretius' De Rerum Natura.
>>>
>>> "In Epicurean ethics physical pain is the great enemy of happiness and
>>> is to be avoided in almost all cases. Mental anguish is even more
>>> threatening and potentially debilitating. It follows that the fear of
>>> death - and especially the superstitious belief in an after-life of
>>> eternal torment - can be particularly devastating source of anxiety and
>>> take a terrible toll on humanity, which is why Epicurus sets out so
>>> determinedly to crush it."
>>> http://www.iep.utm.edu/lucretiu/
>>>
>>
>> Since when do the ideas of a people's criticasters, jokers and other
>> extremists [like Epicurus] reflect the ideas of the people as such.
>>
>> No, they often speak in contrasts.
>>
>>> You should look up "superstitio" in a Latin dictionary.
>>
>> Don't presume, please.
>>
>> You know as well as I do, I hope, that all translation stinks.
>>
>> So, expecting that Latin "superstitio" is the exact equal to the English
>> derivative, well, that would suggest an anosmia totalis.
>>
>
> Don't be silly and pedantic.
> Do you think "superstition" only includes things like walking on cracks
> in the pavement, or not going out on Friday 13?
> Have a taste of Cicero;
> "horum sententiae omnium non modo superstitionem tollunt, in quā inest
> timor inanis deorum"
better than quoting a dictionary as a dogma,
so why the adhominenisms?
Ed Cryer
May 21, 2016, 7:40:49 AM5/21/16
to
the densest troll, drive me to utter frustration trying to get home to
you the simplest point.
However, I persevere in the hope that others with more open minds will
read what I write.
Did I not tell you that history is written by the winners?
(Historia a victoribus scripta est)
Here's a typical example.
"inter Stoicos et Epicuri sectam secutos pugna perpetua est regaturne
prouidentia mundus,"
(Between the Stoics and the followers of Epicurus' school there is an
unending battle whether the world is governed by Providence)
(Quintilian, 1st century AD)
Who won? And why? Well, consider that both Cicero and Horace declared
themselves Epicureans; consider how many books of Plato and Aristotle
survive, and how many of Epicurus or Democritus. Consider our English
language itself; "bear it stoically" is synonymous with "bear it
philosophically", whereas an "epicure" loves stuffing his belly.
Ed
Evertjan.
May 21, 2016, 2:05:01 PM5/21/16
to
> Because you break all the rules of fair argument, sometimes behave like
> the densest troll, drive me to utter frustration trying to get home to
> you the simplest point.
Imho I do not.
> the densest troll, drive me to utter frustration trying to get home to
> you the simplest point.
What is "unfair argument" after all?
Argument is a statement of evidence and logic, not for the purpose of
winning, but for the reason to comair it to counter-argument and to learn
from it, and for the pure joy of discussion.
This utter frustration surely is yours, not mine.
What you think is a simple point might not be so after due consideration of
evidence and logic. There is in discussion no need to accept the points of
an opponent on the grounds that it is perceived "simple" by that opponent,
and tthat therefore it must be "unfair" not to take it for granted.
But even if it were true, quod non, it seems to me not a good reason to
lower yourself to ad hominem remarks.
Ed Cryer
May 21, 2016, 3:42:14 PM5/21/16
to
Either that or a woman trapped in a man's body.
That explains a lot. The whole feel of how you and I relate falls into
place now.
Well, take some advice from me. Don't live in our men's world. It's
powerful, yes. It calls the shots. But I love women. I love their
gentleness, the way they love children, the nurturing goodness of women.
I love Joan of Arc; far, far closer to God than I'll ever be.
I'm more like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great; conquer the world in
order to understand it. And then when you get it all, you have to start
over.
I need women to keep me sane; to keep alive the child in me, to make me
see the hedgerows blooming into greenness each spring, and the renewal
of it all.
Ed
Evertjan.
May 21, 2016, 5:57:52 PM5/21/16
to
> Blow me. You're a woman.
> Either that or a woman trapped in a man's body.
> That explains a lot. The whole feel of how you and I relate falls into
> place now.
I don't know why you are so ill-tempererd that you cannot have a decent
> Either that or a woman trapped in a man's body.
> That explains a lot. The whole feel of how you and I relate falls into
> place now.
discussion without wanting to win, and resort to demeaning habits like ad
hominem remarks, where you try to make the other look bad.
And your methods are clumsy to say the least, as I am not at all offended
when you call me a woman, and were I a woman trapped inside a man's body, as
you say, why shoulld that expain anything about feelings or actions in the
sense of tryijg to have a meaningfull discussion with you?
And why should I blow you?
You are acting in a ineffective offensive manner as you ineffectively try to
offend me.
I hope you are more human than that, Ed, and are only temporary affected by
illogical puberal rage.
Ed Cryer
May 22, 2016, 8:46:24 AM5/22/16
to
I'll call it the Yin-Yang Test.
(:-
What we need here is a referee; an umpire; someone trained enough in
interpersonal relationships to be able to present an objective view of
where and how we go wrong.
I have my view, you have yours. But those views clash; and I apply my
experience in my real relationships to try and resolve it, and you apply
yours. But here again there's a clash.
I don't like the clash either. It offends my general practice in life.
Ed
Ed Cryer
May 22, 2016, 9:16:51 AM5/22/16
to
replaced him with Jose Mourinho.
This has left me with some guilty feelings towards Dutch people. Van
Gaal has a superb managerial history. I'm half hoping that Mourinho will
also be thrown out after a couple of years.
Ed
Evertjan.
May 22, 2016, 10:00:43 AM5/22/16
to
Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 22 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
> What we need here is a referee; an umpire; someone trained enough in
> interpersonal relationships to be able to present an objective view of
> where and how we go wrong.
> I have my view, you have yours. But those views clash; and I apply my
> experience in my real relationships to try and resolve it, and you apply
> yours. But here again there's a clash.
> I don't like the clash either. It offends my general practice in life.
Only a clash if you want to win.
Why should a discussion [with arguments] need to lead to resolvement?
Why should authority [even if it is your so-called experience] be a factor
to be consideresd by the other party?
Why should offending principles be a factor?
I strongly oppose offending people by getting ad hominem,
but respect for people should not extend to respect for their ideas,
where "principles" are just ideas with a dogmatic twitch.
So, while I respect you, I don't respect your principles, convictions,
believes, hypotheses or other ideas in principle.
alt.language.latin:
> What we need here is a referee; an umpire; someone trained enough in
> interpersonal relationships to be able to present an objective view of
> where and how we go wrong.
> I have my view, you have yours. But those views clash; and I apply my
> experience in my real relationships to try and resolve it, and you apply
> yours. But here again there's a clash.
> I don't like the clash either. It offends my general practice in life.
Why should a discussion [with arguments] need to lead to resolvement?
Why should authority [even if it is your so-called experience] be a factor
to be consideresd by the other party?
Why should offending principles be a factor?
I strongly oppose offending people by getting ad hominem,
but respect for people should not extend to respect for their ideas,
where "principles" are just ideas with a dogmatic twitch.
So, while I respect you, I don't respect your principles, convictions,
believes, hypotheses or other ideas in principle.
Evertjan.
May 22, 2016, 10:06:53 AM5/22/16
to
> P.S. I've just heard that Man U F.C. have sacked Louis van Gaal and
> replaced him with Jose Mourinho.
> This has left me with some guilty feelings towards Dutch people.
Well, don't extend your guilt to me.
> replaced him with Jose Mourinho.
> This has left me with some guilty feelings towards Dutch people.
No disrespect to you as a person, but I am not interested in sports in
general, let alone someone elses sports.
And then, I don't feel characterized by being Dutch by default.
> Van
> Gaal has a superb managerial history. I'm half hoping that Mourinho will
> also be thrown out after a couple of years.
Ed Cryer
May 22, 2016, 2:28:27 PM5/22/16
to
In the absence of some arbiter, something akin to scientific method that
might allow us to quantify the facts and hold them up to the mirror of
empirical procedure, reason and peer-group comments; how about making
war on the following?
1. Bad Latin.
2. Red herrings in arguments.
3. Bullying and taunting David Amicus, whom I uphold as a very angel of
patience, good manners and broad interest in all matters. He's a role
model for us both here.
Ed
Evertjan.
May 23, 2016, 6:44:43 AM5/23/16
to
Do you know what war is?
War is attacking and maiming people.
> 1. Bad Latin.
What that is, is very subjective and relative too, it stipulates authority.
In a discussion always one of the parties knows more about a subject than the
other, so using the first as an authority is bad manners, chalenging the
conflict of ideas should be don on merits of ideas.
> 2. Red herrings in arguments.
Playing devil's advocate can be very iluminating by being challenging.
> 3. Bullying and taunting David Amicus,
Do you mean David, or yourself by proxy?
> whom I uphold as a very angel of patience,
not a role-model of patience?
> good manners and broad interest in all matters. He's a role
> model for us both here.
arguments. Despizing my lack of interest for sports or sportive national
feelings, for instance, does that deter in your view being a role-model?
Both argumented and unargumented points of view should be challenged in a
discussion.
People should never be attacked, but respected.
Respecting arguments, ideas, faith or convicions is ludicrous.
Methinks David sees the difference.
=======================
Seems you still want [someone] to win.
Seems you still do confuse attacking wrong ideas with attacking people.
Seems you still think the truth should be determined by majority vote
and by peer pressure.
Ed Cryer
May 23, 2016, 7:03:37 AM5/23/16
to
theory.
It must be some kind of socially generated faith.
I sure hope it's not a blind prejudice.
Ed
Evertjan.
May 23, 2016, 7:21:25 AM5/23/16
to
Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 23 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
> God alone knows how you came to believe in the Big Bang or evolutionary
> theory.
You are wrongly presuming, Ed.
I am fairly sure there is no God, so he or she is not alone.
I could argue about that, though I will not argue someting else on the
presumption that there is one.
I do not BELIEVE IN a Big Bang, nor IN an evolutionary theory.
I think the concept of "believing in" is ludicrous.
I am not at all sure there was a big bang.
I am, however, sure there IS "an evolutionary theory",
and I am able to prove THAT.
I am fairly sure the concept of evolution works
and is a powerful and logical force in the universe, just like 1 + 1 = 2.
I do not BELIEVE IN anything!
alt.language.latin:
> God alone knows how you came to believe in the Big Bang or evolutionary
> theory.
I am fairly sure there is no God, so he or she is not alone.
I could argue about that, though I will not argue someting else on the
presumption that there is one.
I do not BELIEVE IN a Big Bang, nor IN an evolutionary theory.
I think the concept of "believing in" is ludicrous.
I am not at all sure there was a big bang.
I am, however, sure there IS "an evolutionary theory",
and I am able to prove THAT.
I am fairly sure the concept of evolution works
and is a powerful and logical force in the universe, just like 1 + 1 = 2.
I do not BELIEVE IN anything!
Simius
May 26, 2016, 1:40:38 PM5/26/16
to
Il giorno venerdì 13 maggio 2016 06:15:26 UTC+2, David Amicus ha scritto:
> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in Latin?
The reason why "Bless you" was offered to the person sneezing is thus:
When one sneezes, the body and "soul" is in its most vulnerable state, hence, the God-fearing folk of yore wished that God blessed you, thereby, preventing the Devil entering the body or "soul".
Regards
Simius
> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in Latin?
The reason why "Bless you" was offered to the person sneezing is thus:
When one sneezes, the body and "soul" is in its most vulnerable state, hence, the God-fearing folk of yore wished that God blessed you, thereby, preventing the Devil entering the body or "soul".
Regards
Simius
Evertjan.
May 26, 2016, 2:28:00 PM5/26/16
to
Simius <simius...@googlemail.com> wrote on 26 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
> Il giorno venerdì 13 maggio 2016 06:15:26 UTC+2, David Amicus ha
> scritto:
>> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in
>> Latin?
>
> The reason why "Bless you" was offered to the person sneezing is thus:
In ancient Rome? Was "Bless you" offered there, I thought it was "Salve".
> When one sneezes, the body and "soul" is in its most vulnerable state,
Is that so? Perhaps there are far more fulnerable states.
> hence, the God-fearing folk of yore wished that God blessed you,
> thereby, preventing the Devil entering the body or "soul".
Seems to me it was Devil-fearing folk.
alt.language.latin:
> Il giorno venerdì 13 maggio 2016 06:15:26 UTC+2, David Amicus ha
> scritto:
>> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in
>> Latin?
>
> The reason why "Bless you" was offered to the person sneezing is thus:
> When one sneezes, the body and "soul" is in its most vulnerable state,
> hence, the God-fearing folk of yore wished that God blessed you,
> thereby, preventing the Devil entering the body or "soul".
Ed Cryer
May 27, 2016, 6:58:55 AM5/27/16
to
Evertjan. wrote:
> Simius <simius...@googlemail.com> wrote on 26 May 2016 in
> alt.language.latin:
>
>> Il giorno venerdì 13 maggio 2016 06:15:26 UTC+2, David Amicus ha
>> scritto:
>>> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in
>>> Latin?
>>
>> The reason why "Bless you" was offered to the person sneezing is thus:
>
> In ancient Rome? Was "Bless you" offered there, I thought it was "Salve".
>
>> When one sneezes, the body and "soul" is in its most vulnerable state,
>
> Is that so? Perhaps there are far more fulnerable states.
>
>> hence, the God-fearing folk of yore wished that God blessed you,
>> thereby, preventing the Devil entering the body or "soul".
>
> Seems to me it was Devil-fearing folk.
>
Simius appears to be right according to this;
> Simius <simius...@googlemail.com> wrote on 26 May 2016 in
> alt.language.latin:
>
>> Il giorno venerdì 13 maggio 2016 06:15:26 UTC+2, David Amicus ha
>> scritto:
>>> In ancient Rome when a person sneezed what would someone say to them in
>>> Latin?
>>
>> The reason why "Bless you" was offered to the person sneezing is thus:
>
> In ancient Rome? Was "Bless you" offered there, I thought it was "Salve".
>
>> When one sneezes, the body and "soul" is in its most vulnerable state,
>
> Is that so? Perhaps there are far more fulnerable states.
>
>> hence, the God-fearing folk of yore wished that God blessed you,
>> thereby, preventing the Devil entering the body or "soul".
>
> Seems to me it was Devil-fearing folk.
>
"Tylor traces the first beginnings of the habit in the savage idea of
souls. "As a man's soul is considered to go in and out of his body, so
it is with other spirits, particularly such as enter into patients and
possess them or afflict them with disease."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/osc/osc60.htm
Ed
Evertjan.
May 27, 2016, 7:38:52 AM5/27/16
to
Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 27 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
Nice find.
But why should one fear god?
alt.language.latin:
But why should one fear god?
John W Kennedy
May 27, 2016, 11:49:59 AM5/27/16
to
(Of course, one can't help remembering C. S. Lewis's remark that, in
one sense, a sadist is less frightening than a dentist. A sadist might
repent, or even get bored, but a dentist knows he's got to finish the
job.)
--
John W Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich
have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Ed Cryer
May 27, 2016, 3:00:57 PM5/27/16
to
kids, and some animal species that he carried in his home-made ship.
Me, when I lived on the African plains, and I used to shelter at night
from the sabre-toothed tigers, well, shit, he scared the pants off me.
Always up there in the stars, looking down.
Ed
Evertjan.
May 28, 2016, 6:03:45 AM5/28/16
to
John W Kennedy <john.w....@gmail.com> wrote on 27 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
>> But why should one fear god?
>
> "Fear" is a primitive's way of saying "respect".
Well, are we that primitive?
==============
But why should one respect god?
Methinks having respect individuals is necessaty.
Respect for ideas is counterproductive and dangerous,
especially if such an idea is said to be "owned" by someone or groups.
alt.language.latin:
>> But why should one fear god?
>
> "Fear" is a primitive's way of saying "respect".
==============
But why should one respect god?
Methinks having respect individuals is necessaty.
Respect for ideas is counterproductive and dangerous,
especially if such an idea is said to be "owned" by someone or groups.
Evertjan.
May 28, 2016, 6:11:37 AM5/28/16
to
>> But why should one fear god?
>
> He once wiped out the world apart from a half-mad lunatic, his wife and
> kids, and some animal species that he carried in his home-made ship.
You then should fear Zeus, leprechauns and the star-ship Enterprise
>
> He once wiped out the world apart from a half-mad lunatic, his wife and
> kids, and some animal species that he carried in his home-made ship.
likewise.
> Me, when I lived on the African plains, and I used to shelter at night
> from the sabre-toothed tigers, well, shit, he scared the pants off me.
> Always up there in the stars, looking down.
To get to know that is the fruit of mature intelligence.
So why *should* one fear god?
Ed Cryer
May 28, 2016, 7:29:19 AM5/28/16
to
Evertjan. wrote:
> Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 27 May 2016 in
> alt.language.latin:
>
>>> But why should one fear god?
>>
>> He once wiped out the world apart from a half-mad lunatic, his wife and
>> kids, and some animal species that he carried in his home-made ship.
>
> You then should fear Zeus, leprechauns and the star-ship Enterprise
> likewise.
>
>> Me, when I lived on the African plains, and I used to shelter at night
>> from the sabre-toothed tigers, well, shit, he scared the pants off me.
>> Always up there in the stars, looking down.
>
> Indeed, one can fear what one should not.
>
> To get to know that is the fruit of mature intelligence.
>
> So why *should* one fear god?
>
It's them up there; them at the high table; them there laughing at me
> Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 27 May 2016 in
> alt.language.latin:
>
>>> But why should one fear god?
>>
>> He once wiped out the world apart from a half-mad lunatic, his wife and
>> kids, and some animal species that he carried in his home-made ship.
>
> You then should fear Zeus, leprechauns and the star-ship Enterprise
> likewise.
>
>> Me, when I lived on the African plains, and I used to shelter at night
>> from the sabre-toothed tigers, well, shit, he scared the pants off me.
>> Always up there in the stars, looking down.
>
> Indeed, one can fear what one should not.
>
> To get to know that is the fruit of mature intelligence.
>
> So why *should* one fear god?
>
and all my sufferings.
Fear. It's like pain; promoted by evolution to help us survive.
Every now and then some anthropologist finds a tribe lost in the Amazon
jungle, and tries to convince us that they have no gods in their
culture; but it soon turns out that they do.
All great cultures have built their gods in the image of their fears and
aspirations.
Monotheism is a bit difficult to explain. The best I can give you is
something from Nietzsche; Jewish history was about uniting the scattered
tribe - under one banner, one God.
Ed
Evertjan.
May 28, 2016, 7:38:28 AM5/28/16
to
Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 28 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
You are explaining why people fear god,
not why one should.
So why *should* one fear god?
Does it realy help us survive?
So also fear of Zeus, leprechauns and the star-ship Enterprise?
alt.language.latin:
not why one should.
So why *should* one fear god?
So also fear of Zeus, leprechauns and the star-ship Enterprise?
Ed Cryer
May 28, 2016, 10:04:20 AM5/28/16
to
else lurking there.
Tell us that religion creates wars etc., set up an atheist state (maybe
Revolutionary France, communist Soviet Republic, Nazi Germany) and, by
God!, you'll see more mass slaughter than the Crusades dreamed of.
Ed
Evertjan.
May 28, 2016, 11:50:54 AM5/28/16
to
other two too did not use atheism as the source of their evil.
Good people do good things,
bad people do bad things,
but for good people to do bad things you need religion.
Ed Cryer
May 28, 2016, 1:39:02 PM5/28/16
to
Evertjan. wrote:
> Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 28 May 2016 in alt.language.latin:
>
>> Turn over the stone of religion and godhead and you'll find something
>> else lurking there.
>> Tell us that religion creates wars etc., set up an atheist state (maybe
>> Revolutionary France, communist Soviet Republic, Nazi Germany) and, by
>> God!, you'll see more mass slaughter than the Crusades dreamed of.
>
> Nonsense, Nazi Germany was not atheistic, and used Luther as source, the
> other two too did not use atheism as the source of their evil.
>
> Good people do good things,
> bad people do bad things,
> but for good people to do bad things you need religion.
>
The gods that always scare me most are the gods of totalitarian,
> Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 28 May 2016 in alt.language.latin:
>
>> Turn over the stone of religion and godhead and you'll find something
>> else lurking there.
>> Tell us that religion creates wars etc., set up an atheist state (maybe
>> Revolutionary France, communist Soviet Republic, Nazi Germany) and, by
>> God!, you'll see more mass slaughter than the Crusades dreamed of.
>
> Nonsense, Nazi Germany was not atheistic, and used Luther as source, the
> other two too did not use atheism as the source of their evil.
>
> Good people do good things,
> bad people do bad things,
> but for good people to do bad things you need religion.
>
atheistic regimes.
Madame Guillotine, enthroned in La Place De La Revolution, dripping with
the blood of royalty and "aristos", surrounded by the fishwives of Paris
sitting there knitting while the tumbrels roll in with another load of
food for Madame. "A bas les aristos!".
The killing fields of Cambodia; skulls in their hundreds, mass killings
of wealthier peasants.
The thousands of notes in the Nazi archives; sent in by loyal supporters
of the regime once they realized where all the Jews and gypsies and gays
were going. "See that woman across the street; she lives with another
woman, lovers they are".
Big Brother Is Watching You! Big Brother is Your Conscience. We at the
Ministry of Truth are working on New Speak, under which it will be
totally impossible to criticise The Party, but until we get it in
circulation we need the support of loyal citizens.
And what do they get? They get the petty fears and stupidities of the
back streets; the uneducated paranoias of the little people who can't
see further than their noses.
Those are the ones to be scared of.
Ed
Patricio
May 29, 2016, 5:38:34 AM5/29/16
to
On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 8:51:02 AM UTC-4, Ed Cryer wrote:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/zczh66m
>
> According to this the Greeks said "Zeus save you" and the Romans "salve".
> Both peoples held it as a superstition; a sneeze foretold something bad.
>
> Ed
Sneezes could maybe also bode well. Philippus Silvius, the Delphini commentator on Catullus, remarks, “Sternutationem namque habebant pro signo confirmandi augurii et amoris.”
Here’s Theocritus.
Σιμιχίδᾳ μὲν ῎Ερωτες ἐπέπταρον: ἦ γὰρ ὁ δειλὸς
τόσσον ἐρᾷ Μυρτοῦς, ὅσον εἴαρος αἶγες ἐρᾶντι.
Simichidae Amores sternutaverunt: nam miser
tam amat Myrtonem, quam caprae ver amant.
(7.96-97; trans. Theophilus Christophorus Harles, 1780)
He’s echoed by Catullus.
Hoc ut dixit, Amor, sinistra ut ante
dextra sternuit approbationem.
(“De Acme et Septimio,” 45.8-9; 45.17-18).
And also by Propertius.
Non tibi nascenti primis, mea vita, diebus
candidus argutum sternuit omen Amor?
(2.3.23-24)
But I wouldn’t take very seriously anything either of these two Roman boys said.
Lucky sneezing, though, goes all the way back to Homer. It’s only when Telemachus lets out a sneeze—a great sneeze, a truly heroic sneeze—that Penelope gets the idea that the geezer Eumaeus has just dragged in might turn out to be more than he seems.
Sic dixit. Telemachus autem alte sternuit, circumque domus
horrendum resonuit. Risit vero Penelope,
statimque deinde Eumaeum verbis alatis allocuta est.
“Vade mihi, hospitem coram huc voca.
Nonne vides, quod mihi filius sternuit ad omnia verba?
Ideo et non imperfecta mors procis fiat
omnibus prorsus, neque quisquam mortem et fatum vitet.”
(Odyssey 17.541-547; trans. Samuel Clarke, 1758)
--Patricio
>
> http://tinyurl.com/zczh66m
>
> According to this the Greeks said "Zeus save you" and the Romans "salve".
> Both peoples held it as a superstition; a sneeze foretold something bad.
>
> Ed
Sneezes could maybe also bode well. Philippus Silvius, the Delphini commentator on Catullus, remarks, “Sternutationem namque habebant pro signo confirmandi augurii et amoris.”
Here’s Theocritus.
Σιμιχίδᾳ μὲν ῎Ερωτες ἐπέπταρον: ἦ γὰρ ὁ δειλὸς
τόσσον ἐρᾷ Μυρτοῦς, ὅσον εἴαρος αἶγες ἐρᾶντι.
Simichidae Amores sternutaverunt: nam miser
tam amat Myrtonem, quam caprae ver amant.
(7.96-97; trans. Theophilus Christophorus Harles, 1780)
He’s echoed by Catullus.
Hoc ut dixit, Amor, sinistra ut ante
dextra sternuit approbationem.
(“De Acme et Septimio,” 45.8-9; 45.17-18).
And also by Propertius.
Non tibi nascenti primis, mea vita, diebus
candidus argutum sternuit omen Amor?
(2.3.23-24)
But I wouldn’t take very seriously anything either of these two Roman boys said.
Lucky sneezing, though, goes all the way back to Homer. It’s only when Telemachus lets out a sneeze—a great sneeze, a truly heroic sneeze—that Penelope gets the idea that the geezer Eumaeus has just dragged in might turn out to be more than he seems.
Sic dixit. Telemachus autem alte sternuit, circumque domus
horrendum resonuit. Risit vero Penelope,
statimque deinde Eumaeum verbis alatis allocuta est.
“Vade mihi, hospitem coram huc voca.
Nonne vides, quod mihi filius sternuit ad omnia verba?
Ideo et non imperfecta mors procis fiat
omnibus prorsus, neque quisquam mortem et fatum vitet.”
(Odyssey 17.541-547; trans. Samuel Clarke, 1758)
--Patricio
Ed Cryer
May 29, 2016, 8:03:21 AM5/29/16
to
I wonder what those people would have said if I'd given them my view on
sneezing. Which is;
Coughs and sneezes spread diseases.
In fact, their only purpose is just that; to spread microbes abroad.
Ed
Evertjan.
May 29, 2016, 12:32:35 PM5/29/16
to
Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote on 29 May 2016 in
alt.language.latin:
> Very interesting.
> I wonder what those people would have said if I'd given them my view on
> sneezing. Which is;
> Coughs and sneezes spread diseases.
> In fact, their only purpose is just that; to spread microbes abroad.
Coughs and sneezes are two important and marvellous mechanisms by which
many, perhaps all, mammals clean their airways.
They don't spread diseases, they spread infections by virusses, bacterias
and other vectors, which may lead to diseases/illnesses, but perhaps that is
just a semantic difference.
This spread is a secondary effect to the advantage of those virusses,
bacterias, etc, who have by evolutionary selection learned to adapt so that
the coughing and sneezing helped them spread.
The primary effect [goal, if you wrongly believe that evolution has goals]
is the cleaning, and coughs and sneezes do an essential job.
Without coughing and sneezing many more would die of airway infections and
other airway illnesses, as airway-cleaning is essential to mammalian life.
[I am not so well aquainted with non-mammalian airway cleaning to comment on
the probable analogy]
Perhaps coughing and sneezing also speads essential microorganisms that we
need to have living in our digestive tracts, other [social and sexual]
interactions could be not enough to overcome serious deficiencies in our gut
microbiome. This local [family, tribal] microbiome spreading could be
essential for the we/they recognition in some species.
So the idea, that without coughs and sneezes we would be healthier,
is a serious misunderstanding.
Quite possibly without coughs and sneezes Homo sapiens and other mammalian
life could be extinct by now.
alt.language.latin:
> Very interesting.
> I wonder what those people would have said if I'd given them my view on
> sneezing. Which is;
> Coughs and sneezes spread diseases.
> In fact, their only purpose is just that; to spread microbes abroad.
many, perhaps all, mammals clean their airways.
They don't spread diseases, they spread infections by virusses, bacterias
and other vectors, which may lead to diseases/illnesses, but perhaps that is
just a semantic difference.
This spread is a secondary effect to the advantage of those virusses,
bacterias, etc, who have by evolutionary selection learned to adapt so that
the coughing and sneezing helped them spread.
The primary effect [goal, if you wrongly believe that evolution has goals]
is the cleaning, and coughs and sneezes do an essential job.
Without coughing and sneezing many more would die of airway infections and
other airway illnesses, as airway-cleaning is essential to mammalian life.
[I am not so well aquainted with non-mammalian airway cleaning to comment on
the probable analogy]
Perhaps coughing and sneezing also speads essential microorganisms that we
need to have living in our digestive tracts, other [social and sexual]
interactions could be not enough to overcome serious deficiencies in our gut
microbiome. This local [family, tribal] microbiome spreading could be
essential for the we/they recognition in some species.
So the idea, that without coughs and sneezes we would be healthier,
is a serious misunderstanding.
Quite possibly without coughs and sneezes Homo sapiens and other mammalian
life could be extinct by now.
0 new messages