Right you lot...

I passed my Latin O-Level at, er, um, age 14, I think, which was a year
early and had to do a one-year "option" to fill in the time and, maybe,
get an extra O-Level out of it. I chose Ancient History.

We did the Caesars, and we had one of those marvellous teachers who made
the subject come alive. And it was pretty sensational stuff anyway - all
those murders, rapes, incest etc.

As luck would have it, "I, Claudius" had its first TV airing at the time
and us lucky option boys were allowed by our housemasters to stay up
late and watch every episode as it "helped with our O-Level".

I got the extra O-Level, and can honestly say it was the most enjoyable
exam I ever studied for or took.

 

message

I enjoyed history too, but as I had to specialise early (I wanted to go
onto do Engineering[1]), I couldn't take it any further than 'O' level.
I also recall enjoying Geography, but again I couldn't take that any
further because I was doing Maths, Physics and Chem. There were too many
class schedule clashes.

In other words those programmes that were on the telly recently about
the history of the British Landscape were right up my street!

--
Chris H,
CBR600F1, two#55
Please remove veg to reply

[1] Like my father[2] [3]
[2] He might have warned me what it'd be like and I could have done
something better paid with a lower workload.
[3] Except that I did a Metallurgy degree instead.

 

I passed my Latin O-Level at, er, um, age 14, I think, which was a year
early and had to do a one-year "option" to fill in the time and, maybe,
get an extra O-Level out of it. I chose Ancient History.

We did the Caesars, and we had one of those marvellous teachers who made
the subject come alive. And it was pretty sensational stuff anyway - all
those murders, rapes, incest etc.

As luck would have it, "I, Claudius" had its first TV airing at the time
and us lucky option boys were allowed by our housemasters to stay up
late and watch every episode as it "helped with our O-Level".[/QUOTE]

Heh. Cue much furtive teenage wrist action

 

Champ wrote:

I never saw it but I can't imagine getting excited over
Derek Jacobi. Are you sure it wasn't Caligula with John Gielgud?

 

So are you saying that Sir [1] John Gielgud excites you and Derek Jacobi
doesn't?

--
Chris H,
CBR600F1, two#55
Please remove veg to reply

[1] Is it the title?

 

Chris H wrote:

No. You said it.
Anyway, I'm more of a Ralph chap myself.

 

<<pedantic mode on>>

No I merely enquired . If I'd 'said it' there wouldn't have been a
question mark at the end of the sentence.

If I read your inference correctly, here's a quote from one of his
bio's:

"Sir Ralph Richardson was one of the most esteemed British actors of the
20th century and one of his country's most celebrated eccentrics. Well
into old age, he continued to enthrall audiences with his extraordinary
acting skills -- and to irritate neighbors with his noisy motorbike
outings, sometimes with a parrot on his shoulder."

 

Chris H wrote:

That's the man. My biog shows him in 1975 on a beemer without parrot.
The silencers look standard, hence quiet.

 

He had a Laverda triple at some point. That would have been a lot
louder.

 

Chris H wrote:

Well bugger me! He's gone right up in my
estimation.

 

And here's the nub of the issue. We aren't discussing Latin, we're
discussing English.

I'm providing the general usage of the word and its inclusion in many
dictionaries as the 'evidence' if such was needed. Des keeps
returning to the Latin root because it's the only way he can claim to
be correct.

 

burbled:

Phonetically, is there a difference between "châteaus" and "châteaux"?
One might say either. One might only write one, however.

 

I've ensured that this one

happy christmeas des

i wave a glass in your fgenral direction.

wtf is soutg anyway/

 

spouted the following in

Unfortunately, there is rarely enough data to be able to make
generalisations about all of the stata of societies. Otherwise there
wouldn't be any cogniscentii...

Is generalisations a word in french? [1]

Is putting a double ii on cogniscentii a potentially contentious issue?
[2]

Find out in the next enthralling edition of















Sump.


[1] Merry Christmas Des.
[2] Merry Christmas Deadmail.

 

tallbloke wrote:

No. It is not at all contentious but merely wrong,
as is the first 'i' which should be an 'o'.

Merry Christmas Everybody!

 

I posted this a month ago.

"Chambers, which you CAN trust, has the following entry - forum noun
(forums or (rare) fora)."

Steve and I are talking about English, irrespective of the etymology
of that English and whether or not it is in some way correct or
incorrect.

If you want to argue that Chambers Dictionary is wrong, then write to
them. If Steve wants to believe you're worth arguing with then let
him. Personally I'm fed up to the back teeth with your inability to
either think or speak with precision.

With apologies to the rest of ukrm for giving you the opportunity to
come up with another fatuous post, you're going straight in my kill
file - on the grounds of unmitigated tedium.

 

That took you long enough. Mind you, it won't stop him replying to you.

 

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 02:27:40 +0100, wrote:

here's the short version:
1. No one has agreed with you that fora is an invalid English plural,
why is that?
2. There have been several dictionaries quoted (by others) that accept
fora as a valid plural (Chambers and OED)
3. Others that have posted in this thread haven't a previous history
of disagreeing with you.
4. Your examples are all spurious and (as you admit) generalisations
so beyond making you appear educated (which as far as languages go you
are more than I) they add nothing to the discussion.
5. I'll admit I'm wrong when you get just *one* dictionary to remove
its entry for "fora" from a future edition; say Chambers or the OED.

Read the rest if you want to, I don't expect a meaningful response
since quite frankly you're unable to give one when you either:
a) know you're wrong or,
b) are so self delusional that you consider you're correct and every
one else is wrong.

And here's the longer version, enjoy.

The benefit of the doubt? How's that done then? You take a position
that contradicts several reputable dictionaries and claim it's
'right'. And you won't win this one since it's not only me that
disagrees with you; it's everyone that's been bothered to voice an
opinion.

Admittedly several of the people voicing an opinion are ones you'd
feel had an axe to grind but many aren't so your childish claim of
"they only did it to impress the clique" doesn't carry any weight.

Explain why no one's supported you if you're right? I'm all ears. Of
course you'll not answer this bit since it isn't one you can pick at
and claim to reinforce your argument. Of course this is where
'Des-vision' clicks in and you claim it's the clique that are against
you and that's why no one's supporting you.

You use the words and phrases "draws much of", "greater or lesser
degree", "generally"; i.e. you accept there are exceptions.

This is one of them.

Fora may *have* been incorrect English once, it isn't now and hasn't
been for some time.

Unless, of course, you know better than the people who compile the
dictionaries.

Your point is what? Again, you've used sweeping generalisations;
"tend to". You can't use "tend to" if you're trying to claim a hard
and fast rule.

You're wrong. It doesn't matter how much logic you apply or
'learning' that you flaunt, you're wrong.

You didn't try to "avoid humiliating me" so don't patronise me now by
claimimg that you did.

I'm not trolling or wrong and I'm not running anywhere.

Check in the dictionaries that have been mentioned that claim fora is
valid. Explain to me how reputable dictionaries can know less than a
part-time trainee-teacher.

Maybe it's 'cos the people who compliled the dictionaries went to
scummy comprehensives of the wrong sort of university? Or maybe it's
because you've painted yourself into a corner and are unable to admit
you are wrong?

I'll admit I'm wrong when you get one of the dictionaries that others
have mentioned; Chambers or the OED to remove fora and not until then.

Now answer with anything apart from a 'google' link to the post I've
followed up to *and answer the complete post* or the precis at the
top.

 

I'll continue to argue this point for as long as it amuses me. It's
not that I think Des is particularly worth arguing with since in this
case *no one* could argue the point unless they're willing to take
Chambers, the OED, Websters etc. to task; Des is too much of a
stoner/waster to do any of these things.

Des knows he's wrong[1] but has painted himself into a corner and can
only exit it in two ways; by obstinately sticking to his guns and
hoping people will let it drop or by admitting he's wrong.

I suspect Des has little enough in his life to reinforce his ego and
hence there's no chance he'll let it drop and he'd rather appear a
fool in everyone else's eyes but a "hero" in his own than admit the
truth.

I'm willing to accept that forums is better English, or at least more
commonly used than fora. I'm also willing to bow to Des's better
knowledge of Latin and English however, I will not accept what's
patently correct is incorrect.

You're much more polite than I.

The way I look at it is that others write much more crap than I.
Consequently I'll take this as my indulgence. Others might consider
I'm an ignorant fuckwit who doesn't give tuppence for their
opinions...

[1] or is completely delusional, take your pick. I would like to
believe he's rational. Who knows.