« first day (2315 days earlier)      last day (665 days later) » 

1:04 AM
I solved today's Redactle (#81) in 243 guesses with an accuracy of 31.69%. Played at redactle.com
That was an absurd number of guesses; I should have gotten that much quicker.
 
cmw
1:53 AM
I solved today's Redactle (#81) in 144 guesses with an accuracy of 36.81%. Played at redactle.com
Meh.
 
 
12 hours later…
2:12 PM
Latin Wordle 177 3/6

🟨🟨🟩⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
 
2:56 PM
Interesting, you can play semantle as a team
I'm sitting on the current one with a word at 850-something/1000 but can't get closer.
If anyone wants to try it, here is the team code: ØN5_fKPVcKH3BHmLxl1M
I'm curious if it includes my own guesses or if our guesses are all separate
 
Oh, cool!
It says I'm on your team!
But nothing else looks different.
That one guess is mine.
 
Ahh, interesting, so we don't share guesses but work as a team
 
3:12 PM
@Adam I wonder what the 'team' part really is, then.
If we're just guessing independently, we're not really working together?
 
@Cerberus Yea... It's not how I would have expected it to work. I don't see a guess on mine with that similarity so it's not syncing anything between us as far as I can tell.
 
3:57 PM
Itaque cum maestī dēlīberārēmus quōnam genere praesentem ēvītārēmus procellam,
Why isn’t it ēvītāre?
Therefore, as we were sorrowfully laying plans on where _to evade_ with regards to the oncoming storm,

I am really struggling with this sentence.
 
@CannedMan I would say where to is English idiom.
Or perhaps Germanic idiom.
 
As in in whither.
 
What I mean is, using where + an infinitive.
You can do that in Dutch as well, wat te doen = what to do.
 
But I am still expecting dēlīberārēmus … ēvītāre.
 
But you cannot use an infinitive like that in Latin.
 
4:01 PM
> Therefore, as we were sorrowfully laying plans on where we might evade with regards to the oncoming storm
Does that make sense? That's how I read it with evitaremus
 
I didn't know what to do must be like I didn't know what I should do in Latin.
 
That does make sense.
 
No infinitive.
@Adam Makes sense.
I would translate quonam genere as "how".
 
I read the second conjunctive as a mechanical conjunctive governed by cum, the same way as the first one.
 
Literally, "in which manner".
 
4:09 PM
Quōnam is whither and genere is kind, species and so forth. Is quōnam genere a regular expression? My dictionary lists no expressions with the two.
 
4:54 PM
@CannedMan Quonam is not the adverbial word "whither" here, but the adjectival word "which/what(...ever)"!
It is the ablative of quinam here.
Basically, -nam is an intensifier.
And quo can be the special adverb "whither", but also the ablative of the ordinary relative or interrogative pronoun qui(s).
 
Thank you very much! It is so easy to forget the -nam intensifier, especially when you have so many words having been formed into their own expressions with the very same suffix.
 
@CannedMan Very true!
Cf. quisque.
And quisquis.
 
Oh, those horrible indeterminate pronouns.
 
Hehe.
Basically just treat them as intensified qui.
What what?
Oh, there is also quicumque.
 
Whowho?
 
5:07 PM
Hah!
 
Quicumquenam?
 
Haha I've never seen that.
 
Theoretically possible, I would assume.
 
Quisquiscumquenam ipsemet.
 
I am sure there were wordsmiths who enjoyed such.
Haha!
 
5:08 PM
I'm not sure whether those suffixes can be stacked...but, yeah, maybe in comedy.
 
cmw
Redactle seems relevant to us today.
 
lol
 
cmw
5:21 PM
I solved today's Redactle (#82) in 79 guesses with an accuracy of 31.65%. Played at redactle.com
 
Oh, I'll try one more Redactle, then.
 
cmw
Eh
I got it, but I really hate the article. Amateurish in the extreme.
 
I find that somehow Redactle feels like a chore to me. Even though I really like the concept.
And I really liked it in the beginning, when you had just shown it to us.
Even more of a chore than Semantle...
At least with Semantle I know I know the word.
 
cmw
Yeah, I'm not feeling the love with Redactle anymore either. I do it just because I do, no other reason!
 
Pleasing when you get it quick, but rapidly very irritating when you've tried every word you can think of and none of them are in the article.
 
5:39 PM
You people get it in only 200 guesses or something.
I haven't even finished my common words by that time.
 
5:54 PM
Can I ask for some more help from your collective intellectual excellence?
Still Trimalchio's dinner:
Exonerātā ille vēsīcā aquam poposcit ad manūs, digitōsque paululum adspersōs in capite puerī tersit.
After he had relieved his bladder, he demanded water for his hands, {and then comes the troublesome part}
tersit: he wiped
digitōs adspersōs: wetted fingers > wet fingers
in capite puerī: on the boy's head
paululum: a little (noun); very short, small (adjective)
I cannot figure out how paululum fits into all of this. Is it the neuter noun or an adjective?
and wiped the wet fingers on the head of a boy.
 
@CannedMan Looks like a neuter functioning adverbially.
 
That is what I had in mind.
 
Neuter adjectival words can do that, cf. multum.
 
It is the only way it can fit into the sentence.
So it is adverbially modifying adspersōs?
 
6:01 PM
That is news to me! Which dictionary is that?
‘… and wiped the slightly wet fingers on a boy’s head.’?
 
Lewis and Short.
@CannedMan Yes, or slightly bespattered.
 
Well, he is a quite disgusting man …
 
Indeed!
Exonorata suggests this was no wineskin...
 
Oh, how disrespectful of me. He was after all announced as lautissimus homō.
Indeed.
@Cerberus How?
 
I would say one unburdens one's own, human bladder, not a wineskin one is drinking from?
 
6:06 PM
Yes, that is quite reasonable. There does seem to be some puns here and there, some more obvious than others.
 
A fun text!
 
I think so too. Many do not like it, but I find it entertaining.
 
I liked it!
Though I'm not sure how much I read in translation.
The nouveau riche is always fun.
 
Well, with that done (det var dagens dont) and new knowledge added to my head, it is time for dinner.
I would happily be a nouveau riche; it is better than being a pauper.
 
Maybe.
 
6:08 PM
Btw., the phrase dagens dont is yet another example of the impact of German on Norwegian.
 
But no better than a normal poorish person.
@CannedMan What does it mean?
 
It is from German don which I expect is the word that lead to modern tun: It means something done, finished. Dagens dont then is the things which were to be done during the day.
 
Ahh.
Cool expression.
Tun is doen in Dutch.
Pronounced /dun/.
 
The Dutch digraph oe is always /u/?
Or is it sometimes /ø/?
(Tun in Norwegian is gjøre.)
 
@CannedMan Yes.
Alays /u/.
Or it will have a trema or apostrophe, when it's two syllables..
Which will be very rare.
 
6:15 PM
I was not aware of that. I am trying to learn correct Dutch pronunciation. But there are some sounds which are a bit different from the German sounds, such as the two throat sounds, making it a bit of a challenge.
 
Or perhaps there is some rare word borrowed from German with old German spelling.
Which throat sounds?
Like g/ch and r?
I think German has those too, but often in different places.
G and ch are always like /x/, except in words borrowed from languages which have /g/ or /ʃ/ (Dutch has neither).
 
/x/ and /ɣ/.
In other words the voiced and unvoiced dorsal fricatives. (Or velar? Is there a difference?)
I believe the voiced dorsal fricative also exists in Hebrew, doesn’t it?
I will be reading any updates here later tonight. Gotta go!
 
@CannedMan Hmm I'm never sure either, as to whether there's a difference.
I always forget what /ɣ/ sounds like.
Vale!
@CannedMan OK I think /ɣ/ is southern: I think we do not use it, above the rivers.
There are many variations in the pronunciation of r and g/ch in Dutch.
 

« first day (2315 days earlier)      last day (665 days later) »