@Cerberus Interesting! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I wasn't aware that δοκέω can take an a.c.i. But I think I'm on the same page when it comes to points 2-4. I like the way you describe your last two points. It does a fine job of relating the two meanings, "think" and "seem".

Right, although the way they switch from seem to think is odd for us!

The dictionary will no doubt list more possible constructions.

@Cerberus I think it does seem odd!

Hah!

@Cerberus Can I ask you one more question?

@ktm5124 reminds of possibility to ask at main

@JoonasIlmavirta Hehe, yeah. Although, the text in question was adapted by my textbook author. I feel a little hesitant to reproduce what they created on StackExchange.

Ah, so the line in question is this: καὶ παρὰ τὸ πολῑτεύεσθαι περιποιεῖται τῑμὰς ἢ τήν γ᾽ εὐδαιμονίᾱν αὑτῷ καὶ τοῖς πολίταις.

I know that πολῑτεύεσθαι is an articular infinitive, meaning, "participating in politics". But I'm not sure how to translate the παρὰ phrase.

My attempt: And to participating in politics, it aims at getting honors and happiness, at any rate, for itself and for the citizens.

@JoonasIlmavirta Perhaps you can enlighten me. Is it fair use to reproduce original Greek (or Latin) text written by a textbook author, if you cite them? I feel like this would be a useful question for Meta.

@ktm5124 Fair use has nothing to do with the language involved. Quoting a short passage with proper citation is fair use, be it English or Greek.

That would indeed make a good meta question.

It would make good reference material for our site.

@JoonasIlmavirta Right. It was thoughtless of me to specify which language.

I guess it would be analogous to citing text from any other living author. Which I think should be fine, right? I just read so many old books that I need to brush up on this question.

Off the top of your head, do you think it would be fine, if I cited the name of the textbook and the edition, etc.?

It was this post on Law.SE that discouraged me from doing so on StackExchange, even though the two ideas (reproducing the whole text on a blog, reproducing part of it on StackExchange) are very different. law.stackexchange.com/questions/14812/…

@ktm5124 I think it is a question of length.

Quoting a longer passage is less ok than quoting a shorter one.

Haha, but less okay and more okay are still relative terms ;)

Quoting a sentence or two for the purposes of asking a question at our site is fine.

I don't know where to draw the line exactly.

Yeah, I feel like you're right.

And I prefer not to carve a length limit of fair use in stone.

And even if we did have such a limit, it would have no legal effect. It would just be our internal guideline.

But a meta question about quoting textbooks (or other sources) for questions without copyright violation would be good.

The answer from a meta discussion would be more definitive than what you can get in chat.

Yeah, I agree.

I'll try to get around to that sometime soon.

Good!

Latin.SE feels very busy, even though are question per day ratio is mostly unchanged.

@ktm5124 The ratio is stable, but it's not at a sufficient long term level.

It's good to see that the site is busy and users are active.

It looks like we've gotten some new avid users.

The word 'gotten' sounds so German. So inappropriate for this chat room.

@ktm5124 I thought "gotten" is a rare choice in English. Wouldn't you usually say "got"?

This site says the past participle is "gotten" in American English, and "got" in British. grammarist.com/usage/got-gotten

Oh. I must admit I had never paid much attention to the difference.

Ah, you're quite fortunately a European. You need not pay attention to a lot of things on this continent. (Like the many imminent dangers in America...)

Well, I am currently in Texas.

Oh, really? That's awesome.

What do you think of the US?

I came here for an event last week and am staying this week for other work.

I have a friend who's a post-doc, and I've always envied how his job helps him travel.

@ktm5124 I like visiting here mostly for the sake of colleagues and events. Otherwise the place is tolerable, and a nice change, but not really something I would enjoy in longer term.

Hm. Texas wouldn't be my first choice.

Perhaps I should refrain from commenting on the political situation. But I do hope science funding is not cut too drastically.

@ktm5124 It wasn't really my choice. A collaborator of mine works here, and I visit him every once in a while.

I'm not really visiting Texas. I'm visiting someone who happens to be in Texas.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

That's typically how my travels are. The place itself is a secondary goal.

@ktm5124 Does he get to choose where he goes?

Hm, I haven't asked him. I guess it depends on whether the conference (or collaborator) comes first, or whether a conference might be an excuse to travel.

I used to work for a computational biologist, who often used conferences as a chance to travel. I got the feeling that she would first pick the place, and then the conference.

@ktm5124 That might work if there are sufficiently many conferences.

The places do have an effect on my travels, but work comes first. If I travel for work, I want to get some useful work done. If I want to focus on seeing some place, I should probably go there for vacation with no work to do.

(Money also has an effect. If someone invites me somewhere on their money, I will not have to worry about spending my own travel budget.)

It's nice you get that kind of funding.

@ktm5124 Yeah. I don't think either aspect would work if I tried to mix them too much.

Being a tourist after work and in the weekends (if I don't happen to have work dinners or weekend meetings) is fine, but I wouldn't go much further.

@ktm5124 Oh yes, travel funding is a good thing to have. It's silly how many people have annual travel funding lower than their one month salary. I imagine it would make sense to fund researchers so that they can research effectively if it would only cause a marginal rise in total costs.

@JoonasIlmavirta Salve, Joonas. Bonum diem! Tibi scribo in urbe Chicago.

I chose "in" but I wasn't sure which preposition to use. Perhaps I should ask the question on our site! Haha, there is no better present for Joonas, than such a proposal.

@ktm5124 Salve! Equidem in urbe Houston versor.

@ktm5124 I think in is good here. But I'm not perfectly sure.

You could ask at main. (I wonder if I have ever opposed to asking something at main here.)

Thanks. Yeah, I was trying to say "I am writing you from Chicago" and I wasn't sure how to translate "from".

I like your diction. I had to look up equidem and versor. I assume you meant the sense of, "for my part", with equidem.

@ktm5124 I wanted to say something like "I, on the other hand, am in Houston".

I think equidem is the best word for that.

Habetne Chicago nomen Latinum?

Ah, makes sense. I think "for my part" and "on the other hand" are probably equivalent. Both introduce a contrary point.

Bonam quaestionem. Non scio.

I had the impression that adverbs should always be placed next to verbs, whereas adjectives have more freedom. Is it okay to separate versor and equidem like that?

@ktm5124 It's fine by me, but I don't know if Cicero would agree.

@ktm5124 Nonne casu nominativo uti debes? Ita crediderim, sed certus non sum.

@JoonasIlmavirta I think I was modeling it after the accusative of exclamation, but that might be wrong, since there is no exclamation (mark).

I'm curious to know why you chose the perfect subjunctive, by the way, instead of the present subjunctive or even the president indicative.

I do see, now, why nominative might be the safer choice, as it would work well with an implicit est.