University Challenge

[jean]

No there isn't - that's from mensis, month.

[gurnemanz]

I'm trying to think of any modern word that has derived from mensa

There seems to be a word "mensal": adjective "of, pertaining to, or used at the table" and noun: "dining table". I can't remember ever having heard or read it in either use or imagine it catching on. "just off to IKEA's mensal depapartment"

[Pulcinella]

Could I be suffering from pre-mensal tension if I can't wait to have my dinner?

[french frank]

I'm trying to think of any modern word that has derived from mensa

There was medieval 'mensal' ('of a table' ), but presumably mensa was replaced in vulgar Latin by 'tabula' (It. tavola, Fr. table, Eng. table, must be related to German Tafel), but Sp. mesa (but Portuguese tabela, apparently).

Ha! And at the other end of the Empire, Romanian masă

[Flosshilde]

In the sentence you have before you, the only noun it could refer to is extract.

If I'd wanted it to refer to Latin, to make any sense I'd have needed to use the adjective useless rather than the noun uselessness, wouldn't I?

It seems rather ambiguous to me too. Is your your explanation of why it is not ambiguous based on the principles of Latin grammar? I've read (I think) that one of the problems with English is the attempt to impose the rules of Latin grammar on a language that is not a Latin language (or spoken by a Latin people). Probably another example of French/Norman imperialism after 1066 (bbm & his Plantagenet ancestors probably had a lot to do with it, too )

[jean]

It's not particularly odd that there's no common English word derived from mensa - after all, we've got all those Germanic roots to accommodate.

What is odd is that modern Romance languages don't use that root for the things they dine off, either - French table, Italian tavola and indeed our own table are derived from Latin tabula, a board or plank. This is possibly because the Roman dining table was much lower than later versions, or otherwise not identifiable as the same piece of furniture.

[jean]

It seems rather ambiguous to me too. Is your your explanation of why it is not ambiguous based on the principles of Latin grammar?

No - don't try to foist that one on me!

But tell me, how does the sentence work if you make Latin the referent of it?

[Pulcinella]

No - don't try to foist that one on me!

But tell me, how does the sentence work if you make Latin the referent of it?

But it isn't really cited?
That's another ambiguity, surely?

Isn't the problem the two different verbs: `is cited' and `isn't'?
In the editing I do, I often have to ask authors what the `it' refers to in their writing.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

When our very good Latin teacher left us for a 1-term sabbatical, 2 years before our O-levels, she was temporarily replaced by another teacher who destroyed our love of the language. We nicknamed him "Plumbum" in view of his teaching style, and then organised a skiving rota for the rest of the term. By the time he had left, we had covered only 7 pages of The Approach to Latin Book 2.

[jean]

But it isn't really cited?
That's another ambiguity, surely?

Only if you assume I make a statement and immediately contradict it.

But the 'really', being marked off by commas and at the end of the sentence, is a gloss on what immediately precedes it rather than on the initial statement.

Isn't the problem the two different verbs: `is cited' and `isn't'?

Only if you think they aren't two different verbs, but that the second is really short for 'isn't cited'.

In the editing I do, I often have to ask authors what the `it' refers to in their writing.

If you said that to me, I would ask you how the sentence works if anything but the extract is the referent of it.

[Pulcinella]

Only if you assume I make a statement and immediately contradict it.

But the 'really', being marked off by commas and at the end of the sentence, is a gloss on what immediately precedes it rather than on the initial statement.


Only if you think they aren't two different verbs, but that the second is really short for 'isn't cited'.


If you said that to me, I would ask you how the sentence works if anything but the exract is the referent of it.

That all may be true (your two `only if's suggest the other possibilities, though!), but the sentence clearly HAS resulted in some confusion, so could perhaps be better worded.

Something like: The extract is often cited as proof.....but in fact it shows that.....?

[mercia]

it only caused confusion to me 'cos I'm naturally stupid

[jean]

Something like: The extract is often cited as proof.....but in fact it shows that.....?

Something more like The extract is often cited as proof.....but in fact it isn't proof of that at all.

Which is almost exactly what I wrote, and is pellucid in its clarity except to the naturally stupid [sic].

[Pulcinella]

Something more like The extract is often cited as proof.....but in fact it isn't proof of that at all.

Which is almost exactly what I wrote, and is pellucid in its clarity except to the naturally stupid [sic].

And the almost says it all!
The longer sentence is much better and clearer for those who do not have English as their mother tongue (such as many of those I work with), not just the naturally stupid.
(But I WOULDN'T have queried your original!)

[Flosshilde]

Something more like The extract is often cited as proof.....but in fact it isn't proof of that at all.

Which is almost exactly what I wrote, and is pellucid in its clarity except to the naturally stupid [sic].

"Almost exactly"?! It might be 'almost' what you wrote & 'exactly' what you meant, but what you 'exactly' wrote was "The extract is often cited as proof of the uselessness of Latin, but it isn't, really.", which to me (& at least one other) is only 'almost' what you meant.



& I'm not naturally stupid - it's taken a lot of hard work over the years.




(mostly by other people)