University Challenge

[gurnemanz]

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

I started thinking about the German "Tisch", which derives from Latin "discus". I suppose, many tables were originally a large platter on a stand


"Discus" also seems to have given us the word "desk".

[french frank]

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

How about: "The extract is often cited as if it were proof [...] which it isn't"?

or

"The extract is often cited as if it proved [...] which it doesn't"?

[jean]

"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.

The grammar of the latest version is exactly what I originally wrote; all I've done is to replace 'really' with 'in fact' and 'at all', and to spell out what 'the extract' isn't.

You have never told me how the original version of the sentence would work if anything other than 'the extract' were taken as the referent of 'it'.

[jean]

How about: "The extract is often cited as if it were proof [...] which it isn't"?

or

"The extract is often cited as if it proved [...] which it doesn't"?

But you do cite something as proof, and I'd want to keep the tightness of the construction.

I fully acknowledge that if I had originally written

The extract is often cited as proof that Latin is useless, but it isn't, really.

it would have been seriously ambiguous.

But I didn't.

[french frank]

But you do cite something as proof

As in, proof that you've done your homework - amo-amas-amat?

[MrGongGong]

So following on from this (and the Classics digression)

but you seemed to be implying that questions on Latin and Greek favoured people from public schools

In order for those who are now in their 20's to be able to follow this discussion they would (in the vast majority of cases with a handful of exceptions) have been to a fee paying school.

[mercia]

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].

naturally stupid me finds the amended version exquisitely pellucid thank you

[jean]

As in, proof that you've done your homework - amo-amas-amat?

Theat would be recite!

[Flosshilde]

naturally stupid me finds the amended version exquisitely pellucid thank you

I'm noit sure about how exquisite it is, but it is much clearer.

Which just demonstrates that a pedantic reliance on the rules of grammar doesn't neccessarily ensure clarity.

[Pulcinella]

Jean

How about:
The article is often cited as the reason for something, but it goes much deeper than that.
Now, does the `it' mean the article or the reason?
That's why I prefer to establish (repeating if necessary) the subject of the second verb.
The article is often cited as the reason for something, but the article is much deeper than that.
The article is often cited as the reason for something, but the reason is much deeper than that.

I'm sure that we would agree not to use `it' in such a case, though you might still assert that `it' has to refer to `the article', but I think that this might be how the possible ambiguity in what you wrote has arisen in some minds. For some, the `it' refers to the closest (last) option, in this case being `the reason'.
Not sure I've explained that well enough, and it's probably not the best example.

[french frank]

Theat would be recite!

Would it be reciting if you were writing it down, say as part of an essay on Latin conjugations?

But you do cite something as proof

Don't you cite something a) in support of an argument or b) as an example of something, rather than as proof?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

In order for those who are now in their 20's to be able to follow this discussion they would (in the vast majority of cases with a handful of exceptions) have been to a fee paying school.

.
Not a good way to go, MrGG. This highlights a deficiency in the breadth of the current secondary curriculum

[Flosshilde]

Wouldn't the concept of proof be covered by a)?

[Flosshilde]

.
Not a good way to go, MrGG. This highlights a deficiency in the breadth of the current secondary curriculum

There are all sorts of deficiencies in the breadth of the current secondary school curricula* (see what I did there? ); I suspect that the absence of Latin is one of lesser importance.

* in case anyone is tempted to point out that there is a National Curriculum that applies to all state schools, & therefore my use of the plural is not justified, I would like to point out that Scotland has its own national curriculum.

[Pulcinella]

This might be a better example, and the reason why Wolf Hall is written the way it is.

Cromwell kept looking at the king, but he didn't reply.

Who is he?

Cromwell kept looking at the king, but he, Cromwell, didn't reply.
(I can see why keeping the 'he' grates for some.)
Otherwise, we need:
Cromwell kept looking at the king, but the king didn't reply.

Without a repeated Cromwell or king, wouldn't 'king' be implied by the 'he' (i.e., the last named, as I tried to say more clumsily above!)?