Latin (short educational program)

fly-km
is still better to limit yourself to the essential: pronunciation

eh-eh....the essential comes from basic knowledge...........!!!and be limited to information from the book Latin for cooks type-put on the second from the end, you will not miss....... uncultured....
you need to understand the entire metric!

In the same way, it is not known why in ZINA they equalize if you pronounce "childbirth".

It is very clear: there are local norms of pronunciation and word usage. And people don't like it when you say otherwise. Just as St. Petersburg residents are annoyed by the curb, and Muscovites are annoyed by the curb

Dahl's dictionary was compiled taking into account all local (and professional) options, which is why we can appeal to it now, trying to prove that it is also possible (or could have been) to speak in this way. Unfortunately, although this is quite justified, modern dictionaries allow only a single norm.

write about the verb system?or is everyone more interested in their native language?

Native, of course, is cooler, although offtop

Well, well..just not in the subject...I do not dispute that the Greek heritage can be called richer..... but...neither Latin, nor Greek, nor Russian are analytical languages, thank God ...
and the language is synthetic, by definition richer and more complex grammatically, and not syntactically, as it is not paradoxical...

In the 1950s, cataloging was the norm, but now there is only one norm in all dictionaries, with an emphasis on "log". In the same way, it is not known why in ZINA they equalize if you pronounce "childbirth". No one writes "shkap" and "tsyryulnik"now. Defining rules is a special topic, outside of this topic. All languages change if they are used for a long time. Here you can also raise the question, and who established the rules of phonetics of classical Latin and from what it proceeded?

P.S. Something is hard to believe that in the old ZINE Stackelberg and Rodendorff said DiptEra...

I'm sorry, but for such questions, the only authoritative dictionary for me is the Dahl Dictionary. In general, changing the norms of modern languages is a special topic and we should not deviate from the main topic.

I asked how Stackelberg pronounced the names of the detachments, they told me that they didn't remember, but they told me that he probably pronounced it correctly, that is, DIprera. As for Roddendorf, you can find out more easily in Moscow.

Regarding finding out the pronunciation norms of words such as Coleoptera, everything is simple here. In Greek (and the word "pteron" is Greek), there are two e's and two o's, long and short: eta and e psilon, o mega and omicron, respectively. A short letter is never stressed either in Greek or in its Latin counterpart. And the word "pteron" is just written through e psilon.

Tentator
If you follow Dahl, then you have already written several erroneous phrases... You can't turn the Russian language into a dead language, putting bans on the "end of the house" and so on, which Dahl does not have.
>A short letter is never stressed either in Greek or in its Latin receiver. And the word "pteron" is just written through e psilon.

But in the word "pteron" the emphasis still falls on omicron...(as in podos) I.e. "never" is not quite "never"?

Can I return to my question about the stress on the word Apoda?

le_lapin
Can't embrace the vast! You want to enlighten the unintelligent, and I'm eager to teach you how to distinguish between crustacean orders and mollusk families.

This post was edited by Juglans - 08/25/2007 09: 58

Tentator
If you follow Dahl, then you have already written several erroneous phrases... You can't turn the Russian language into a dead language, putting bans on the "end of the house" and so on, which Dahl does not have.
>A short letter is never stressed either in Greek or in its Latin receiver. And the word "pteron" is just written through e psilon.

But in the word "pteron" the emphasis still falls on omicron...(as in podos) I.e. "never" is not quite "never"?

Can I return to my question about the stress on the word Apoda?

le_lapin
Can't embrace the vast! You want to enlighten the unintelligent, and I'm eager to teach you how to distinguish between crustacean orders and mollusk families.

This conversation loses its meaning. If you want to discuss my views on the evolution of the Russian language, you can write to me in ICQ.

We consider complex words, and in simple ones, of course, the stress should fall at least somewhere. I thought you didn't have to explain it. What's wrong with the accent in the word Apoda? Do you also dislike the words Abiegnus, Atrium, Abaeto?

I perfectly understand an older person who has already learned to speak in a certain way, and who finds it difficult to relearn how to speak correctly; I also understand those who do not want to do this. But you yourself write that you probably spoke correctly, until they began to correct you. You recognize a number of norms, but you don't recognize another set of norms, because it probably sounds strange at all. I repeat once again: the correct pronunciation of the word anticipate sounds unusual. Do you want to question some of the rules I've given you? For God's sake! Prove that these rules are wrong, and I will only be grateful to you.

In the same way, it is not known why in ZINA they equalize if you pronounce "childbirth".

Maybe they correct you when they say "rhoda"? As my scientific supervisor explained to me (and to him before that in ZINA): "genera" are in the army, and "genera" are taxa...

le_lapin
Can't embrace the vast! You want to enlighten the unintelligent, and I'm eager to teach you how to distinguish between crustacean orders and mollusk families.

The desire is perhaps commendable, but where did it come from?

Maybe they correct you when they say "rhoda"? As my scientific supervisor explained to me (and to him before that in ZINA): "genera" are in the army, and "genera" are taxa...

And childbirth is in the maternity hospital According to the rules it is supposed to give birth

Tentator
It's not that I'm not happy with it. The fact is that almost all zoologists say so. Linguists have such a concept as a professional norm (see, for example, the emphasis on ordinary words in lawyers), which, although not a literary norm, is fixed in large dictionaries of the Russian language. In Latin, there has long been a whole layer of vocabulary, which in pronunciation differs from the strict rules. And the question is what to do with it. Well, we will not say Apoda, because in Russian the emphasis is not placed on the negative a- (an -)! You can ignore such discrepancies - this is not a philological approach, because for a linguist, even obscene vocabulary and the padonkoFF language are an object for studying and fixing. It seems to me that the current situation is a direct consequence of the fact that" Latinists " view their language as absolutely frozen, not interested in colloquial deviations. So it turns out that in the new ICZN it is already possible not to coordinate the gram. genus of a specific epithet with gr. genus of a generic name! And family names can be formed without thinking about the origin of the word...

Bad Den - your teacher is lucky. Now "genera" are beginning to replace "genera".
le_lapin-I'm sorry, the offer to train was related to fly-km. Childbirth! Childbirth doesn't happen. But here are the differences in genera. p. - Childbirth and childbirth. By the way, many people in ZINA say:

This post was edited by Juglans - 25.08.2007 17: 40

Tentator
It's not that I'm not happy with it. The fact is that almost all zoologists say so. Linguists have such a concept as a professional norm (see, for example, the emphasis on ordinary words in lawyers), which, although not a literary norm, is fixed in large dictionaries of the Russian language. In Latin, there has long been a whole layer of vocabulary, which in pronunciation differs from the strict rules. And the question is what to do with it. Well, we will not say Apoda, because in Russian the emphasis is not placed on the negative a- (an -)! You can ignore such discrepancies - this is not a philological approach, because for a linguist, even obscene vocabulary and the padonkoFF language are an object for studying and fixing. It seems to me that the current situation is a direct consequence of the fact that" Latinists " view their language as absolutely frozen, not interested in colloquial deviations. So it turns out that in the new ICZN it is already possible not to coordinate the gram. genus of a specific epithet with gr. genus of a generic name! And family names can be formed without thinking about the origin of the word...

Latin differs from the "professional language" in that it is international. This means that you will be able to understand Latin words coming from the mouth of any person, zoologist, botanist, German or Chinese. Various professionalisms, "nationalisms" and other "isms" contradict this important quality of modern Latin. And what does the Russian language have to do with it anyway? I like to call them in Russian, so call them "legless "and " arthropods". And the attempts to edit the Code in a certain way are not the result of the views of Latinists, but on the contrary, the complete illiteracy in Latin, in this case, of the American members of the Commission.

The post was edited by Tentator - 25.08.2007 20: 00

Childbirth! Childbirth doesn't happen. But here are the differences in genera. p. - Childbirth and childbirth. By the way, many people in ZINA say:

Well, I messed up a little. There are ALL THREE options. I looked it up in three different dictionaries. For classification (regardless of the subject), genera seem to be preferable, and GENERA are more likely in genealogy.

What about the fact that:

and Latin on the defense of diplomas is read by syllables.

Does this really happen? At the biofactory? Eerily simple. Don't count on advertising, but I didn't see this at the MSU biofactory department. Still, this is too much, you need to know at least what kind of organism you are working with.

it is necessary to learn at least a little about the language in which you involuntarily have to "talk"

fly-km
Culture can be a subject for scientific research, but it cannot be the basis of science itself. I know excellent taxonomists who don't know Latin grammar at all, and I know a very ordinary taxonomist who speaks fluent Latin. Lomonosov used foul language and threw empty barrels at his opponents. Plavilshchikov actually killed a man. And this is nothing compared to the fact that now in Russia you can count on your fingers the botanists who are able to make a Latin diagnosis of a new species without "tracing paper". So what? Are you trying to convince me that everyone else isn't a real scholar because they don't know Latin grammar and don't put the right emphasis on certain words? Nonsense!

it just doesn't look too pretty....and for an educated person....unacceptable, in my opinion...

As for the catalog, excuse me, if you listen to the recordings of Y. M. Lotman and D. S. Likhachev, the most authoritative philologists, you will hear, for example, diAlog, Atomic, thinking, Otherwise, etc. But do not rush to be indignant, but first look at the accents in Dahl's dictionary.

Today, in the discussion of one report, this word came up and it turned out (I just didn't know) that Dahl has just "Catalog"!

Today, in the discussion of one report, this word came up and it turned out (I just didn't know) that Dahl has just "Catalog"!

Your words are not true. I took the trouble to look at the 1905 dictionary edited by Baudouin de Coutrenay. Here's what you can see there.

This post was edited by Tentator - 29.12.2007 13: 10

Pictures:

Image1.jpg — (51.33к)

Tentator
>You understand that Dahl, despite all his enormous services to Russian literature, was not an expert.

But that's not what you wrote above: just about WHO should be referred to as an authority! And now Dahl, it turns out, is not perfect and not an expert! It's kind of funny

And the Zinovites then deliberately chose the second stillborn option, apparently in order to brag about their knowledge of ancient Greek. Isn't there too much absurdity or disrespect for ZINA's employees?
1) Whether it is true or not, absurd or not - the expert will judge. We have a lot of absurdity in our country.
2) Let's put it this way: there are two categories of employees in ZINA: I respect some of them (and this is always mutual), and I don't really respect others. The first ones say (or write)about the catalog calmly, referring to the fact that when they started working, this was the norm of the Russian language (I already wrote that dictionaries of the 50s were true and Catalog, and catalog) or (who is younger) that's what their boss wanted them to say. People of the second category, being not too cultured, often get personal, and I'm sorry that ZIN and his traditions of tolerance have such a "young" growth...

PS Indeed, on December 30, I had a test, there is a Distance in our cathedral library. I wish you all the best and get rid of envy in 2008!

See the Latin-Russian dictionary for botanists Zabinkova and Kirpichnikov (1957) (this is the best translation of specific epithets published in Russia):
vinosus - wine, wine-red, with a wine smell. In the original description of this species, the author indicated that he gave it this name due to the color of the shell.
arthritica-there is a rule according to which, if there is no adequate Russian equivalent, then the word should be transliterated. But if we proceed from the original description (you can envy it here - and I have it), then we should translate it as "knee-shaped".

Arthritic-that is, suffering from arthritis, that is, with swollen joints-is almost the same as a knee joint, only more fun and memorable.

I'll argue with that statement...
"Crankshaft "is not the same as" arthritic shaft", is it ?

Arthritis, pharyngitis, laryngitis and other" itis " - designation of the inflammatory process ("- itis")

Arthritis, pharyngitis, laryngitis and other" itis " - designation of the inflammatory process ("- itis")

All this is true, but the names of animals and plants are often given metaphorical, in which some characteristic feature of the species is emphasized. For example, the genus of shield beetles Leprosoma is so named not because it suffers from leprosy, that is, leprosy, but because the surface of its body is covered with a coating like a leper. I do not know what the author of the specific epithet arthritica meant, but it can be assumed that the species described by him has some special joints, that is, the knees. Or something like joints. "Cranked" means having knees. With arthritis, the knees swell, that is, they become clearly visible. If all this is true, then the author wittily emphasized the bright feature of the species with the epithet arthritica.

Thank you, I know.
And also- "- osis" - a non-inflammatory process (osteoarthritis is a dystrophic process)
" - iasis" - a process associated with the presence of someone superfluous, for example, a parasite, a concretion (amoebiasis, nephrolithiasis)

I apologize for the offtop.

People! I'm writing a song about butterflies and I use the word Lepidoptera. As I understand from your discussions and articles, it is pronounced "lepidoptera" (i.e., as it is written), and how to correctly place the accents in it (since the word is composite, there should be 2 of them)?

People! I'm writing a song about butterflies and I use the word Lepidoptera. As I understand from your discussions and articles, it is pronounced "lepidoptera" (i.e., as it is written), and how to correctly place the accents in it (since the word is composite, there should be 2 of them)?

According to the rules of the Latin language, the emphasis here is placed on O, but in poetic texts the emphasis may shift:

He who has lived and thought cannot help
despising people in his heart;
he who has felt is troubled
by the specter of irrevocable days...

A. S. Pushkin

According to the rules of the Latin language, the emphasis here is placed on O, but in poetic texts the emphasis may shift:

He who has lived and thought cannot help
despising people in his heart;
he who has felt is troubled
by the specter of irrevocable days...

A. S. Pushkin

Thank you for the educational program!
I am already aware of the stress shift, thank you.)

by the way, all this still needs to be proved in a good way..a word with a Greek root.... that's what philology does...

Please help ME!!!!!how do these words read in Russian????
Sussessor, crimen, calendarim, socius, copia, civis, clientes, censor, cura, clam, cireum, consul, clepta, Scaevola, Celsus, Cato, recertum, curia, acceptus, factum, cloaca, merces, cognomen, carcer, lucrum.

May they correct me if I make a mistake
susessor, crimen, calendarim, socius, copia, civis, clientes, censor, cura, clam, cireum, consul, klepta, scevola, celsus, kato, recertum, curia, acceptus, factum, cloaca, merces, cognomen, carcer, lucrum.

In my opinion, acceptus - acceptus?

I still speak peticanthropus.

Uw. Juglans, you can put the accent anywhere, and please observe the spelling: p i t e cantrope (from the Greek píthekos-monkey and anthropos — man).

how to read MONOCHAMUS? I was told hoarsely that I was monogamous.... I still defended the Monohamus. Harpalus how is it read?

MonoHamus and Harpalus. The second word has an accent on the first syllable.

MonoHamus and Harpalus. The second word emphasizes the first syllable.

Pavel, why Yu??? Why are you like the Germans after Drinking?
Or is it specifically spelled out in the rules for pronunciation of Latin names?

Pavel, why Yu??? Why are you like the Germans after Drinking?
Or is it specifically spelled out in the rules for pronunciation of Latin names?

because l is always soft

L is in late Latin. Many people believe that in old Latin, L was like in Russian. But this is already a matter of dispute

Uh, let's not go back to the old arguments.
And I speak with such confidence, because I studied the language for a whole year, even if it was a medical one. And in medicine, Latin is very widely used.

Juglansa is also forced to correct in Russian: correctly spelled-in Latin (3rd declension)

Returning to late Latin, I note that we speak modern Russian and do not use "Oh you goy esi"

to DR_NO: and in German, there are no soft sounds as such at all. You can say that the sound " L "has a certain "bubbling" shade. Even sounds denoted in German by letters with umlaut-ö, ü are not pronounced softly.
I speak with the same confidence, because I speak German fluently.

I apologize for the harmfulness

As for the soft reading of vowels after L, I completely agree.
After all, I studied biological Latin for a year