Split from forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi … 7#p1559807
I think you’ll find it’s “ignoramuses”. It’s from the Latin: “we are ignorant”, which makes it a verb, not a noun.
I think you’ll find it’s “ignoramuses”. It’s from the Latin: “we are ignorant”, which makes it a verb, not a noun.
youtube.com/watch?v=c3y0CD2CoCs[/quote]
Quite correct. That said, opinion is still divided on present usage in English. “Ignorami”, might actually be used to refer to an entire class of people. “Ignoramuses”, while technically correct, doesn’t quite have the same ring to it. And to my mind, the English language should sing sounds. “Ignoramuses” sounds like it came out of a defective whoopee cushion.
Ain’t it so?
But what do I know? Non-standard form, that I be.
So back to the forums, or should it be fora?
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]
So back to the forums, or should it be fora?
[/quote]
It should be fora. And let’s please also stop saying “visa” (neut, pl) when referring to one visum (neut, sn). The Anglo-American rape of Latin is despicable.
[quote=“hsinhai78”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]
So back to the forums, or should it be fora?
[/quote]
It should be fora.[/quote]
I’m not so sure.
Did not “fora” actually refer to a physical place in a city? Which would seem quite different from a message board on the internet.
Ha! Indeed, it is. And, why not?!
While today Latin might well have a place with regards to Jurispudence, Medicine, Classical Studies, and a few other subjects, it should be recalled that even in its prime, Latin for the bookworms was quite different from that for the hoi polloi.
And while I am all for learning literary rules, (and of course, in my case, bending or breaking them afterwards), it would seem that Latin cannot be rigidly applied to modern English, which indeed has at its very essence a tangible flexibility.
It would seem beneficial to allow both historical tangents of the language, that from below, and that from above, to influence modern usage. That is a broad brush, I realise, but why should one be forced, upon the exclusion of the other?
[quote=“TheGingerMan”][quote=“hsinhai78”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]
So back to the forums, or should it be fora?
[/quote]
It should be fora.[/quote]
I’m not so sure.
Did not “fora” actually refer to a physical place in a city? Which would seem quite different from a message board on the internet. [/quote]
From a grammatical point of view that is.
The forum was a place of discussion and deliberation in Rome - considering that at that time nobody could have imagine something like the internet and other “new” Latin words such as telefax, “forum” seems like a good choice to me.
Ha! Indeed, it is. And, why not?!
While today Latin might well have a place with regards to Jurispudence, Medicine, Classical Studies, and a few other subjects, it should be recalled that even in its prime, Latin for the bookworms was quite different from that for the hoi polloi.
And while I am all for learning literary rules, (and of course, in my case, bending or breaking them afterwards), it would seem that Latin cannot be rigidly applied to modern English, which indeed has at its very essence a tangible flexibility.
It would seem beneficial to allow both historical tangents of the language, that from below, and that from above, to influence modern usage. That is a broad brush, I realise, but why should one be forced, upon the exclusion of the other?[/quote]
But it gets only worse when people say “visas”.
It’s a loanword from Latin that did not make any transformation other than people using a wrong plural/singular. I don’t think this is about flexibility but the re-enforcement of mistakes through years of use. When did the word “visa” even become a part of everyday usage? Surely not before the 20th century.
Mandarin’s rape of classical Chinese is equally deplorable…
I think if the word has been integrated into the language as its own, then its own grammar can apply to that word. Take Japanese or Chinese for example, the word CD or シーディー is integrated into the language. But don’t expect the Chinese or Japanese speakers to conjugate the word when they are referring to multiple CDs. They will just say CD or シーディー as is, because their own grammar will conjugate for them. So I really see no issue with visas. Yes, it’s latin, but it is used as an English word in the English context. I guess the problem is then to define which words are actually integrated.
But who had the [strike]glorious[/strike] idea of introducing the plural for the singular?
Probably the same guy in immigration who turned Vito Andolini from Corleone into Vito Corleone.
We’re not borrowing the words from other languages. We’re stealing them. Once stolen, we don’t owe any particular reverence to their grammars, just conformity to ours.
Words are neither borrowed nor stolen, they are appropriated.
Polite language is appropriate to the situation.
cf. crude, vulgar