Re: Conjunctives, etc...

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@...>
> >
>

Reply