Re: Conjunctives, etc...

Sorry, Dirk. I don't need it for myself. Perhaps I wasn't too clear. I'm
looking for an easy web reference, handy at that, that clarifies the use of
conjunctives in all their possibilities. That Latin would be included would
have been a plus, primarily because I know how to use them. And yes, an
afternoon at my university's library certainly can provide more satisfactory
answers, but I figured why spend the whole afternoon in the library
searching for something which may already be available online.

Someone pointed me towards Lojban, which I've yet to peruse, but I think it
may have been what I was looking for as far as the handy explanations are
concerned.

"And as for politeness, just because academics fling verbal poo at each
other in the journals and at conferences is no excuse to put up with
the same thing here, where the majority of list members are not
academics."

I don't personally find my own response offensive. I mean, the guy was
giving me a layman's introduction to Latin conjunctions, which is nice, but
I just didn't need it. I thanked him and said that I was sorry that he
provided something which I wasn't looking for. Not only that, but he himself
didn't indicate in his post that I was somehow "rude", which later persons
on this email list accused me of being, and him of agreeing to.

How would you feel if you asked for a beer, and someone gave you an
O'Doules? I mean, that's mighty generous that they would offer you a
non-alcoholic beer, I'd politely turn it down. At least, it was polite to
me.

What could I possibly have said to him if he offered me something which to
me was useless?

On 5/14/07, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...> wrote:
>
> Chris:
>
> I have no stake in the flame war a-brewing here. But I am surprised
> that you'd want a *web* reference (of all things) to what turns out to
> be a rather technical question. Surely an afternoon spent in the
> stacks of your local university's library would provide a more
> satisfactory answer than some web page of uncertain provenance.
>
> And as for politeness, just because academics fling verbal poo at each
> other in the journals and at conferences is no excuse to put up with
> the same thing here, where the majority of list members are not
> academics. And those of us who are come here for fun, not to sharpen
> our claws on unsuspecting lay persons.
>
> Dirk
>
> On 5/14/07, Chris Weimer <christopher.m.weimer@...> wrote:
> > I meant no offense. You just misunderstood me. I didn't ask for you to
> give
> > me answers, I wanted a web reference. That you did it, well, that's
> awfully
> > nice of you, but you cannot blame me that you didn't give what I was
> looking
> > for, that you did give a superficial account of the common ways that et,
> ac,
> > and que were used in post-Classical Latin. I've been studying Latin for
> > many, many years - so sorry if I dismiss your post as not up to par with
> > scholarship.
> >
> > For pre-Classical Latin, you might want to check out
> >
> > H. C. Elmer, "Que, Et, Atque in the Inscriptions of the Republic, in
> > Terence, and in Cato" *The American Journal of Philology*, Vol. 8, No.
> 3.
> > (1887): 292-328.
> >
> > It will definitely supplement what you already know of the conjunctions
> and
> > help you further understand their use and etymology.
> >
> > Chris Weimer
> >
> > PS - Have you ever taken a look at some real rather old journal articles
> > from the late nineteenth/early twentieth century? Have you ever heard of
> odium
> > philologicum? Politeness isn't the rule in scholarship, and scholarship
> is
> > the only reason why I'm here. If you think that you deserved a "GREAT
> JOB! I
> > LOVE IT!!" then you're in for sore disappointment when you go against
> more
> > hardened academics than me. And if this is what the list demands, then I
> > have no problem taking my inquiries elsewhere. Good day.
> >
> > On 5/14/07, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 5/14/07, Lars Finsen <lars.finsen@...> wrote:
> > > > In fact my jaw didn't drop until now. Is the list so touchy about
> > > > etiquette?
> > >
> > > Etiquette has nothing to do with it.  We're not talking about
> > > arbitrary rules of the forum - how you quote, where you quote, which
> > > fork you use when.  We're talking about simple politeness.  Common
> > > courtesy.  What some of us call "not being an ass".
> > >
> > > You ask a question.  Someone replies.  To dismiss the reply because it
> > > left out one detail you already know, which the respondent didn't
> > > think relevant, and assume you therefore must know more about the
> > > subject than the respondent, is the height of arrogance.   It shows
> > > massive disrespect aimed at someone who cared enough to try and help.
> > >
> > > Now, this assumption was conveyed by word choice, and perhaps that has
> > > something to do with non-native proficiency in English, but I didn't
> > > notice any obvious gaps in he OP's English, and the fact that
> > > non-native Henrik had the same reaction, as did Ray himself, supports
> > > my belief that the response was at best rude.
> > >
> > > This is not, I think, a pretentious, politer-than-thou mailing list.
> > > We tease each other mercilessly on occasion.  But we still respect
> > > each other, and I think anyone who fails to do so deserves to be
> > > called out for it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
> > >
> >
>

Replies