CONLOQVIVM

HDE 226868

12:03 AM

Ah, a new UTC day.

Nathaniel

@QPaysTaxes I just served up an easy one for you :)

HDE 226868

12:19 AM

Can I just point out that 4 people upvoted my olive oil answer without noticing that I had originally focused on just the Greek use of the oil? It's fixed now, but I find the lack of comments on that omission amusing.

Then again, my omission of that is just as amusing.

And embarrassing.

Well, now it's fixed. . .

Ben Kovitz

@QPaysTaxes I think the best place to get it is from is AbeBooks. There you can get a used hardcover edition with black-and-white line drawings, though you may have to search a bit. On Amazon you can order a new one with colored drawings.

@QPaysTaxes Make sure you don't confuse the textbook (the main thing) with any of the various supplementary materials, like exercise books, glossaries, etc.

C. M. Weimer

Hi @BenKovitz I was actually hoping you were here.

Ben Kovitz

@C.M.Weimer Hi, @C.M.Weimer!

@QPaysTaxes The correct book is 328 pages long, by Hans H. Ørberg, and starts with the sentence "Rōma in Italiā est."

C. M. Weimer

I wanted to ask about the abbreviation for Lingua Latina, namely that for a long time I always saw it primarily referred to by the author, Ørberg. I have a gut feeling that llpsi might be a tad esoteric and not immediately recognizable as ørberg. Thoughts?

Ben Kovitz

12:35 AM

@C.M.Weimer Indeed, when I first saw llpsi, I thought it was some form of "ipsi".

C. M. Weimer

Ha! Same here!

Ben Kovitz

Yes, a tag synonym! I've never seen or used (or maybe noticed) those before, but they sound like the perfect solution to this kind of problem.

C. M. Weimer

Pars I is Familia Romna

Romana

chirlu

I have to admit I wouldn’t have recognized either llpsi or ørberg, but that’s because I didn’t know the book(s).

C. M. Weimer

I think everyone who knows the book would know ørberg, but llpsi wouldn't be immediately recognizable.

Ben Kovitz

12:50 AM

I've seen "LLPSI" on-line occasionally. The all-lower-case version threw me.

@QPaysTaxes The first book is Familia Romana and the second book is Roma Aeterna. Some more detail is in the tag wiki.

C. M. Weimer

1:15 AM

Are tag descriptions supposed to be so fleshed out with examples and sample questions? Is that something we see in other, well-regarded stacks?

C. M. Weimer

1:28 AM

Yes, I should have tagged you specifically, but I also just want an answer from the group. Doesn't matter, we can figure it out later and edit it when we have a better idea what good practice is.

Ben Kovitz

@C.M.Weimer Which tag wiki do you have in mind?

Salve, @Cerberus!

I mean, uh, Cerebere!

Cerbere!

Cerberus

Salve!

chirlu

Hm, I guess @Cerbere won’t ping you, will it?

Cerberus

Scisne lineam priorem emendari potest?

chirlu

@QPaysTaxes That’s no vocative, though …

Ben Kovitz

1:42 AM

@Cerberus Obliviscor!

What should the vocative be?

Cerberus

Preme clavem superum(?) ad emendandas lineas priores.

@QPaysTaxes Correct!

chirlu

Yes, those get -i.

Ben Kovitz

@chirlu Thanks for that third missing macron. I can't believe I missed so many. Clearly I still don't have vowel quantity down pat. Correcting it now…

Cerberus

I err don't concentrate on vowel quantities either...

@QPaysTaxes Did you know that the previous line can be edited?

Press the "up" key to edit previous lines.

Heh.

Maybe my line was not idiomatic...

Heh.

As we say in Dutch, even the best unicorn stumbles sometimes.

Ben Kovitz

I'm a raging fanatic about the vowel quantities! But I'm still fuzzy on many of them, probably because I don't speak with anyone. Reciting the poetry burns them in, though.

Cerberus

1:46 AM

Even my Latin professor made the most basic mistakes when speaking Latin.

chirlu

There is also a clickable menu to the left of each chat message where you can select “Edit”, if it’s your own.

Cerberus

@BenKovitz Excellent!

Ben Kovitz

@chirlu I was wondering how to indicate "in the book": if the ablative case is enough. It seems strange, because without macrons, that distinction would be invisible in writing. Indeed I had forgotten that since Linguā Latīnā had gone ablative, so must Illūstrātā.

C. M. Weimer

@BenKovitz I was referring specifically to the evolution tag.

Ben Kovitz

@QPaysTaxes I haven't encountered that myself, but I still have pretty limited exposure to writing where such a thing would come up.

chirlu

1:51 AM

@BenKovitz Personally, I’d probably have said “In pagina 207 libri illius “Lingua Latina …” etc.”

But I’m actually not very good at speaking/writing Latin.

Ben Kovitz

@C.M.Weimer I don't see any text in language-evolution. Does it need someone else to approve it?

C. M. Weimer

Apud Ørberg...

@BenKovitz Uh, not that one.

Wait, I'm not sure anymore.

I approved it, but now I forget.

I see.

Ben Kovitz

@C.M.Weimer It takes two approvals, at least until we reach very high reputation.

@C.M.Weimer Hey, can you proofread my elegiac couplet here?

@QPaysTaxes Will do.

C. M. Weimer

Sure, one sec.

Cerberus

@QPaysTaxes Sure, that's probably the most common way.

A bare ablative is also possible.

Ben Kovitz

1:58 AM

Hey, @Cerberus, would you please proofread my elegical couplet here?

Cerberus

Um, oh, dear!

C. M. Weimer

@BenKovitz Why did you choose the form 'quīlibet'?

Cerberus

As I said, vowel quantities are not my strong point. I'd have to look up all the irregular ones.

Ben Kovitz

@C.M.Weimer Partly out of ignorance (I haven't encountered this word much), partly for the meter, and partly for the suggestion of "what pleases you".

C. M. Weimer

quodlibet, no? Metrically the same, though.

Ben Kovitz

2:00 AM

I had originally written quodlibet and then thought that licet needs a nominative. No?

C. M. Weimer

no, it's impersonal

Ben Kovitz

Oh, right! Well, hallalujah, back to quodlibet, then!

C. M. Weimer

Buuuut, esse doesn't make sense here.

I would have expected agere or facere, neither of which fit metrically.

Everything else fits the meter, though. I think you have all your macrons right.,

Ben Kovitz

@C.M.Weimer Ah, that was the part I felt least sure of. My thinking: licitum esse is the infinitive object of dixisti. No?

C. M. Weimer

oh, that's what you're doing.

I just read that as "licet" not "licit".

Ben Kovitz

2:04 AM

@C.M.Weimer Are you reading the second version, where I explicitly marked out the elision?

C. M. Weimer

which, right, sorry, entirely wrong on my part.

Yes, yes, eyes just glossed over the mark.

Ben Kovitz

Ah, excellent. Then I'm actually on track here. Generally, I think that if you have to refer to a dictionary to choose a word, you're probably going to misuse it. And indeed I had to go to reference materials to figure out a way to fit licet into the sentence.

Nathaniel

@C.M.Weimer I'm fine with switching it to orberg, but the reason I did llpsi is that it will distinguish llpsi's basic questions from the more advanced orberg books. That distinction may not be necessary, however.

Ben Kovitz

@Nathaniel I do think that having a tag specifically for LLPSI is a very good idea. It should be helpful for a lot of people who come to the site.

C. M. Weimer

@BenKovitz I think though that licitum esse isn't right, still. I'm looking at A&G to make sure, and I don't think it should fit. Why shouldn't it be dixisti licere?

From A&G's examples, "dixit se cadere = "he said he was falling"

Ben Kovitz

2:10 AM

@C.M.Weimer Two reasons: to get past tense, and to make a dactyl.

C. M. Weimer

The past comes out naturally due to sequence of tenses, though.

@Nathaniel I think we ought to switch it, unless some argument I'm not thinking of can be made. But I'm not pushy about it or anything.

Ben Kovitz

@C.M.Weimer Yep. Certainly a plain ol' infinitive conveys the intended time clearly.

Cerberus

@C.M.Weimer What's A&G?

C. M. Weimer

Allen & Greenough, one of the three decent school grammars.

Cerberus

Oh, I see.

Nathaniel

2:12 AM

@C.M.Weimer Is Gildersleeves one of the other two?

C. M. Weimer

Along with Gildersleeve & Lodge and Bennett's

yep

Nathaniel

Good to know

Cerberus

Never heard of any of those!

Nathaniel

@Cerberus You didn't read my Hobbit answer very carefully then ;)

Cerberus

It's funny how we have all learned Latin from different sources.

@Nathaniel Oh! Err I remember the answer, and I have probably voted for it, but I must confess I don't remember the details...

C. M. Weimer

2:14 AM

Anyone who has moved on from primers (e.g. Wheelock, Ecce Romani, Orberg, etc.) should invest in one or more. Gildersleeve is more well-regarded.

Ben Kovitz

BTW, so far, I have not used any of those. I've been learning almost entirely from LLPSI, supplemented with random readings of sources on the Internet, and very little use of reference works except to check things on Wiktionary and in a Cassell's Latin dictionary. IOW, I've read very little explicit writing about the grammar.

Cerberus

@C.M.Weimer So why do you think licitum esse should be wrong?

@C.M.Weimer Never touched any of those!

The only one I have heard of is Ørberg.

Ben Kovitz

@Cerberus The more I think about it, the more I think the line comes out meaning "You said I was to have been allowed to do whatever I pleased" rather than "You said I was allowed to do whatever I please."

C. M. Weimer

Almost want to say it makes it "had been allowed"

Ben Kovitz

@C.M.Weimer Ah, that's much better. I mean, I think that expresses the English meaning more accurately, and shows why it's not really appropriate for the couplet.

I have not run across licere or licitum esse in any actual writing. I mined it from Wiktionary—and hence misused it.

C. M. Weimer

2:21 AM

All good, a little tweaking I'm sure it can still mostly work.

Cerberus

@BenKovitz Mm I wouldn't say so: licitus is almost like an adjective.

I think you can use it with esse without invoking a pluperfect notion.

Ben Kovitz

@Cerberus Ohhh…

Cerberus

As to quodlibet, I believe that is only used adjectivally. You probably want quidlibet.

Ben Kovitz

Actually, I was wondering (as much as I prefer to avoid translation) if the meaning came out something like "You said anything I pleased was to be permitted,"

C. M. Weimer

Yes, quidlibet, is correct over quodlibet.

Re: licitum esse, is there evidence for its use as synonymous with licet?

Ben Kovitz

2:27 AM

Quidlibet!! This one hasn't shown up yet in my meager exposure to sources.

Cerberus

I read quidlibet as "anything"; there is no specific person implicit (but you don't need that anyway).

Ben Kovitz

Hmm, Wiktionary doesn't yet have full coverage. There's even a red link on quidlibet.

Cerberus

> Marcus Tullius Cicero, In Verrem 2.3.169.5

Quid ad haec respondere cogitas? utrum factum negabis

an tibi hoc licitum esse defendes? Negare qui potes? an

ut tanta auctoritate litterarum, tot testibus publicanis con-

And:

> Marcus Tullius Cicero, In Verrem 2.3.222.5

recte factum esse defendes te facturum profiteare, et quasi

quod isti licitum esse dices vehementer cupias tibi licere.

Atqui, si id licebit, nihil est quod putetis quemquam

Copy-pasting from the HP corpus.

Ben Kovitz

Wow!!

Cerberus

@C.M.Weimer So it is uncommon. My dictionary seems to say poetic/postclassical.

C. M. Weimer

2:30 AM

Still, the examples are good enough to establish precedent.

Ben Kovitz

OK, I've googled enough. I'm changing it to quidlibet.

Cerberus

> - Marcus Tullius Cicero, In Verrem 2.3.81.13

ille de capite dempsisset, ii pecunias in aerarium referrent.

Statuit senatus hoc ne illi quidem esse licitum cui con-

cesserat omnia, a populo factarum quaesitarumque rerum

- Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 10.15.17.2

Sine apice sub

diuo esse licitum non est; sub tecto uti liceret, non pridem

a pontificibus constitutum Masurius Sabinus scripsit et alia

Ben Kovitz

And for licitum esse, I'm now thinking that the sense and licentia poētica are enough to cover that. :)

And of course we're now living in postclassical times.

C. M. Weimer

Statuit senatus hoc ne illi quidem esse licitum cui con-

cesserat omnia... Ah, actually a famous passage that slipped my mind. Good calls.

Cerberus

> "introire in aedes numquam licitum est", Plaut. Am.

There are a few more examples in Lewis & Short.

Ben Kovitz

2:35 AM

On my previous attempts to dip into Cicero, I couldn't follow much, but I'm doing OK with these. Certainly I've picked up a sarcastic and accusing tone.

I don't get "Sine apice sub divo esse licitum non est", though. What sort of permission is the sentence negating?

I suspect that it's some cliché that I'm not familiar with. I think divo there means "a rich person", but I could be wrong.

HDE 226868

@C.M.Weimer If nobody's answered this yet: In most cases, no, save in cases of very common tags and tags whose scope may not be apparent.

Ben Kovitz

@QPaysTaxes I think you're right. I was confusing it with dives.

HDE 226868

@QPaysTaxes Yeah, it's generally not worth the effort unless it's a tag that easily leads to confusion, for whatever reason, or if there are other extenuating circumstances.

C. M. Weimer

@BenKovitz - it's an admonition for priests or for sacrifices, if I'm not mistaken. "It's not permitted for one to be "under the divine" without an apex, a pointed flamen's cap.

"to be present" even.

Nathaniel

@QPaysTaxes Why is "When did deponent verbs come into existence?" a bad question?

I'm not challenging your judgment, just asking what the rationale is

Ben Kovitz

2:45 AM

@C.M.Weimer Ohhh, now I see: licitum is the predicate, denied of sine apice sub divo esse. I was trying to treat licitum esse has a sort of indivisible phrase (bringing the English style of grammar to Latin, and thus getting confused).

Cerberus

@C.M.Weimer Ding! I had just figured that out from the context, but of course you beat me...

Nathaniel

in your tag wiki edit

Cerberus

Yeah, it is.

C. M. Weimer

@Nathaniel My opinion on that question is that it's too limited of a question. Better would be something like "What is the origin of deponent verbs?" The distinction is small, though, and a charitable respondent would take that into account.

Cerberus

Hmm I think I agree.

Ben Kovitz

2:47 AM

@QPaysTaxes Yeah. We were sorting out what licitum esse suggests about the time when it applies, so I'd expected some sort of pluperfect meaning there.

C. M. Weimer

licitum is technically the perfect passive participle of licet licere, but I suppose like mortuus and paratus as Cerberus noted it can be used without that feeling.

Ben Kovitz

@QPaysTaxes Yeah, now I see it that way.

C. M. Weimer

I would 100% of the time use "licet" personally, as that's what I see most often, but Cerberus' examples are unimpeachable.

Ben Kovitz

@QPaysTaxes We're in sync: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/27846091#27846091

@QPaysTaxes OIC :)

C. M. Weimer

@QPaysTaxes There's definitely a verbal feeling, for lack of a better word, to participles. Active participles can take objects and passive participles prompt (sometimes) agents.

Ben Kovitz

2:52 AM

@C.M.Weimer Come to think of it, even in English we say "is licit".

Nathaniel

@QPaysTaxes I'm going to change it to just "verbs" -- when did verbs come into existence. That's a bad question.

Ben Kovitz

Do we need to explain what are bad questions?

Consider WP:BEANS.

Nathaniel

@BenKovitz Heh; haven't read that in awhile.

Ben Kovitz

@Nathaniel Hey, you're a Wikipedian! Say, do we know each other?

@C.M.Weimer Any thoughts on the verbal feeling of participles of impersonal verbs?

Nathaniel

@BenKovitz Mmm, I don't think so, but it's been a long time, so perhaps?

C. M. Weimer

2:58 AM

@Nathaniel Well, verbs are common to every language, but deponents not so much. I think it's not unfair of a question to ask, and papers have been devoted to answering it.

It's probably too complicated to explain on SE in full, but something small can be given of it, no?

Nathaniel

@C.M.Weimer I was afraid someone would come up with a good argument for it :)

I'm beginning to see the wisdom of the BEANS approach

Ben Kovitz

@Nathaniel If you're the one Nathaniel I've met in person, you'd probably remember me.

C. M. Weimer

@BenKovitz Not right at the moment. Something I'd have to look up individually.

Nathaniel

@BenKovitz Ah, then no, I'm not; don't think I ever met anyone in person

Transcript for