The Languages of Mel's Passion.

What do you guy's reckon? Anyone spot any errors?

M. Claudius Marcellus

: M. Claudius Marcellus

it was advertised as a reconstructed colloquial latin (see the link in
another about Aramaic). I don't know about its accuracy.

one error is the lack of (mostly koine) greek. Pilatus must have
communicated with the local population, and perhaos jesus in (koine)
greek.

I admit it would be cool to hear a movie with dialogue in Latin and
Aramaic, but if it means going to an ultra-violent and possibly
anti-Semitic Passion Play directed by a religious nutbar, who needs it?
Maybe they could put out a CD of just the dialogue?

Ross Clark

Yeah, I thought it pretty strange that Pilate was able to speak Aramaic, and
even some of the legionaries speak to Jesus in Aramaic too. The lack of
Greek is quite an oversight for sure..

M. Claudius Marcellus

Well, that's a pretty sheltered way to look at it. I thought it was pretty
even-handed in its treatment of Jews and Romans really. I think the
performances were great, and that by itself would be a good reason to see
the movie anyway.

The fact is the story of Christ's passion is a pretty violent one anyway.
Hello!? He get's nailed to a cross!!!

I would have liked to have seen more Italian gesticulating on the parts of
the Roman soldiers though.... ;)

M. Claudius Marcellus

I shelter myself from all kinds of rubbish. The urge to see every
talked-about movie that comes along is nowhere near as strong as it used
to be. And when it's being talked up by evangelicals as a tool for
triggering mass conversions, well gimme shelter right now.

If I hear a few more comments like that, I'll make a point of watching
it when it comes on TV.

Yep, I've read the book. Perversely enthralling to many people over the
centuries. Maybe that's the problem. I know the story, and there's no
real desire to see it acted out again. If I've seen any of the other
movie versions, I don't remember them (aside from "Life of Brian"). But
like I say, if the reviews are good enough, I might try to catch it
later. Even with commercials.

Ross Clark

For one thing, the fact that they were speaking Latin.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

"Romanes eunt domus."

Or was that another movie?

HWL

Yeah, right. It's going to be on TV.

The best Jesus movie ever, period, no argument whatsoever, is Pasolini's
*Gospel According to St. Matthew*.

Scorsese's *The Last Temptation of Christ* is pretty good too, but it's
not intended as a representation of the gospels.

I liked Norman Jewison's adaptation of Jesus Christ Superstar myself.

---
jouni maho

Dmitri Mosier
Iowa City, Iowa

Is it? From all reviews, I gather its major theme is not the blessed ways of
Jesus or the meaning of the cruicifixion but the brutality and agony to
which Jesus was subjected. If the sheer graphic nature of the film will
inspire many people to Jesus, then I would expect that the same people could
be driven away from him by equally graphic depictions of the craven
brutality to which some Christians have subjected Jews and "heathens" over
the centuries.

"People called Romanes they go house??".... Gees, I loved that bit. ;)

M. Claudius Marcellus

I was under the impression that Roman soldiers during the first century
AC did speak Latin all right. What language do you think they did speak?

greek was used for most bussiness in the eastern part of the Roman
Empire and (koine greek) for inter-ethnic communication.

for administration in the eastern part of the Roman Empire mostly greek
was used, also for inter-ethnic communication.

And if/when common soldiers spoke Latin amongst themselves, it would have
been a variety of dialects, and not very much like "classical Latin" as
learned in our schools.

--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River, Ontario, Canada
"Knowledge defines the boundaries of ignorance"
(after Augustine, Mcluhan and others.)
{drop first and last letters in address for correct email}

one article on the movie claimed the dialogue was in a reconstructed
"street latin". I would welcome feedback. form the trailers, it didn't
sound very classical.

Even in that genre, the movie of *Godspell* is hugely better than the
movie of *Superstar*.

Sure. However, did foot soldiers have a command of Greek in any form? My
readings of classical history make me think that a command of Greek was
the domain of the educated. That is, that only a minority of the Roman
citizens knew the language. I don't really think that Roman legionnaires
were, on the whole, members of the educated elite.

Which would have been most of time, I reckon.

Still Latin though - the people from, say, Newcastle-upon-Tyne speak
their own variety of English, quite often difficult to outsiders, but it
is, nevertheless, English.

This was from a radio piece a couple of days ago. In NZ it's been
classified R16, with the film censor giving his personal opinion that,
if anything, it ought to be higher, and various Christian groups arguing
for a lower limit so they can take their 12- and 13-year olds to it. One
evangelical organization was quoted as saying they would be giving free
tickets to waverers and backsliders, the idea being that their faith
would be renewed by watching this stuff.

Ross Clark

What is striking is not so much the use of Latin but the omission of
Greek. What language soldiers used would depend on where they were
from. Latin was certainly current in Italy but had not penetrated much
into Greek-speaking provinces, where Greek and local languages
remained in widespread use.

Since the Romans recruited many of their soldiers locally, it would
seem that the omission of Greek from the film is either an astonishing
oversight or a deliberate decision made for thematic or theological
reasons not yet explained.

--
Chris Green

You're right, they do plan to use it for conversions, and I'm betting
they'll be successful--especially once it comes out on DVD, when it can be
integrated into a fuller propaganda package.

The most famous American film critic, Roger Ebert, says the film is
excellent and he downplayed the violence and supposed anti-Semitism. Made
me wonder if those critical of the film got carried away in all the hype. I
mean, whole families including young children are going and loving it. Of
course, they are probably all Christians, but still, if it is really as
horribly violent as I've been reading, it's obviously not bothering scores
of people.

I saw my first protestent church when I was 21, in Germany. I was shocked
at how bare it was--no bloody Jesus on a cross above the altar, just a
triangle! Blew me away. It felt like the house of some cult. And of
course, no Stations of the Cross. I don't plan on seeing the movie, but it
seems like no big deal, just an extended Via Dolorosa.

Peter

:>
:> I was under the impression that Roman soldiers during the first century

certainly Pilate would have known greek and used it.

the Inscription is said by John 19:20 to be in "Hebrew {read "Aramaic"},
Latin and Greek" . the movie (from the previews) has it in Aramaic and
Latin

: What is striking is not so much the use of Latin but the omission of

bias towards and promotion of, which may be an understatement, the Roman
Catholic Church?

So what does business and inter-ethnic communication have to do with Roman
soldiers talking crap amoungst themselves???

M. Claudius Marcellus

Well they weren't exactly speaking with Ciceronian elloquence! Lots of swear
words were quite easy to pick out. I think I heard one say "manduca meam
mentulam" or something similar. Not exactly Classical Latin...

M. Claudius Marcellus

Yeah, but it wasn't as if Judea was a peaceful place at that time. It was
probably the case that most of the soldiers would have been recruited from
outside of Judea. Also this is a period where there wasn't as yet a major
dearth of Italian manpower. The fact is that Latin would have been the
official language in the army since they had to take their orders somehow.
Also since there would have been legionaries from many different regions in
the same legion, Latin probably would have been the only language a soldier
would have in common with his colleagues. I suppose it was this necessity
which aided the Romanisation of many provinces. Returned servicemen would
have been pretty fluent in Latin no matter where they came from.

M. Claudius Marcellus

Do you have some evidence? To set against all the evidence that Greek,
not Latin, was the lingua franca of the eastern Roman Empire?

Not like now?

Any place along the way?

Geo

as I said it is claimed to be in "street Latin"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/22/jesus.language.ap/index.html

<<

... The script was translated into first-century Aramaic for the
Jewish characters and "street Latin" for the Roman characters by the
Rev. William Fulco, director of ancient Mediterranean studies at
Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California.

If sequiturs are ever prohibited you'll be in no trouble, for sure.

From the review in the UK newspaper The Guardian by Geza Vermes,
emeritus professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford University:

"""
The light element in The Passion of the Christ is supplied by the use
of Latin and Aramaic. Not only are Pilate and Jesus(!) fluent Latin
speakers, but even the soldiers of the Jerusalem garrison, who were
most probably Aramaic- and Greek-speaking recruits from Syria,
converse happily in a clumsy Latin with Italian Church
pronunciation. I did not find it easy to follow the Aramaic which was
mixed with unnecessary Hebraisms. One point is worth noting. It has
been said again and again that the fateful curse "His blood be on us
and our children!" has been cut from the film. This is not so. The
Aramaic words are there; only the English subtitle has been removed.
"""

<http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1157381,00.html>

Des
would have expected no better
--
"[T]he structural trend in linguistics which took root with the
International Congresses of the twenties and early thirties [...] had
close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian
and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson

:>
:> Yeah, but it wasn't as if Judea was a peaceful place at that time. It was

some Latin was used, along with Greek. an article you had reccomneded
mentioned Latin among the used in the area at the time with inscriptions
(from 1st cent. Palestine) to prove it. there is also the Ankyra Memorial
(Ankara) from Augustus, in Greek and Latin. John mentions the inscritpion
on the Cross as contianing Greek and Latin. there is even a Greek / Latin
inscription in Constantinople / Istanbul (the base of the egyptian
obelisk, and some conflict between the two inscriptions as to how long it
took to erect it there) from as late as Theodosius.

but my understanding is most official business in th eastern part was
conducted in Greek, so I agree with you.

As for Jesus speaking Latin with Pilate, Robert Alter (who teaches
Hebrew and comparative literature at Berkeley) had this to say:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095946/entry/2096184/
Pilate, who speaks Aramaic to the mob in the film, has
a chance to engage in some Latin conversation with Jesus.
Though the fluency in that language on the part of a
Galilean carpenter may seem a little surprising, one must
assume that divinity here trumps linguistic plausibility.

Alter also says that the Aramaic used in the film is "a mixed success,
some of it a little garbled, including, of all things, the word for
messiah, <meshikha>, pronounced here, in a conflation of the Hebrew, as
<meshiakha>."

I heard you the first time Yusuf.

M. Claudius Marcellus

What's your point?

Do you have an opinion?

M. Claudius Marcellus

Why do you have to be so defensive? I understand and accept that the
language of administration in the Eastern part of the empire was Greek. I'm
not contradicting that. But it's not like the minute you crossed the
Adriatic you didn't meet a Latin speaker. Roman soldiers didn't just serve
their time in the one place. Sure, you had Auxillaries which were unique to
each region, but I don't think that Judea, what with all its troubles, would
have been governable with local troops. Also I remember reading somehwhere
that Jews were a problematic inclusion in the army due to their religious
customs. Whatever. Some guy like Cassius or Longinus was either a freedman
who was given that name and joined the army, or a Roman. Pontius Pilatus was
probably of Sabellian background with a name like that. If Cassius and
Longinus were Greek, Syrian or Jewish then why do their names come down to
us like they are?

I don't know how Tribunes, Centurions, Primus Pilae and regular Legionaries
are supposed to communicate without a common language. Latin just seems
obvious to me. But I'll look it up.

M. Claudius Marcellus

I read, some time ago, not very long, but I didn't make a mental
note of it, that, before the French Revolution, army groups were
by origin: Bretons with Bretons, Basques with Basques, Marseillais
with Marseillais and so on. But the officers were bilingual:
French, and whichever language their men spoke. With the Revolution
local languages were stamped out, and everybody had to speak
French. Would there have been something similar in the Roman
Empire?

[quoting a review]

>>[...]I did not find it easy to follow the Aramaic which was
>>mixed with unnecessary Hebraisms. [...]

>Alter also says that the Aramaic used in the film is "a mixed success,

I'm not quite sure I understand this particular criticism. Why is it
strange that the Aramaic spoken by Judeans would take on a Hebrew
flavour/accent? Surely the Latin spoken in Gaul would have a more
"Gaulish" flavour than the Latin contemporarily spoken in Rome? Just as
the English spoken in Aberdeen is different from the English spoken in
England proper.

The issue with »meshikha« versus »meshiakha« seems to me to be merely a
matter of furtive patach - that Classical Hebrew always inserts an /a/
between a long vowel and any of the four so called "guttural"
consonants. I think it seems highly believable that this feature would
influence Judean pronunciation of Aramaic - any comments?

Sincerely,
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
--
"Fornuften har ingen motiverende kraft,
hvis en følelse ikke slår følge."
- Frithiof Brandt

1. Not always, just when the letter in question is final. /ru:aH/ but
/ru:Ho:t/
2. Not any long vowel: it doesn't happen after qama.s.
3. There are FIVE so-called "guttural" consonants: "alef, he, Het, `ayin,
resh.
4. Furtive patach occurs only with CONSONANTAL (i.e. not mater lectionis)
he, het and ayin, not the other two.

I doubt that even Hebrew-influenced pronunciation of Aramaic would retain
the furtive patach in *meshiakha, since it would not be pronounced in Hebrew
in the same position.

My TiVo says it's own again early Tuesday morning (late Monday night.)
3/2 2:00 AM CST

Also Patton, M*A*S*H, Braveheart, Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid, Master &
Commander, Last Samurai
were shown on Sunday as a marathon.

--
Herb Martin

(a) Where would a Hebrew "flavor" have come from, since no one spoke
Hebrew?

(b) Furtive patach was an invention of the Masoretes in the second half
of the first millennium CE. There's no evidence for it at any earlier
period.

If you're into Mel Gibson movies and/or torture, go see it.

The one legion I read about, the IIIrd Augusta stationed in Numidia
(pretty much today Algeria) was said to be essentially Gaulish. The
(numerous) inscriptions they left were all in Latin, however. Perhaps
literacy was in Latin, while oral communication may well have been
in Gaulish.

Pierre

--
Pierre Jelenc | New on Home Office Records: Ethan Lipton
| www.homeofficerecords.com www.ethanlipton.com
The Gigometer | Pepper Of The Earth: the HO blog
www.gigometer.com | www.homeofficerecords.com/blog

Does this qualify as a "Mel Gibson movie"? He produced and directed it,
but he didn't star in it. I think that the consensus is that it meets
or exceeds the expectations of many (most?) christians who view the
movie. Others might wish to view it simply because it has generated
such widespread controversy. Eventually, I will see it for that reason,
although I'm not looking forward to the experience.

This linguistic discussion has provided some interesting background
information on the attempts of Gibson to achieve a period effect. In
the end, it doesn't matter whether a movie reflects reality, just how
well the movie gets the audience to buy the premise. Gibson's
linguistic experiment was probably a stroke of genius, from that
perspective, even if it was completely at odds with the languages that
people spoke in that place and time. After all, none of the extended
torture scenes were grounded in anything more than his imagination.

not even in greek? ex. no:(a)H LXX No:e (Nwe) "Noah"

: --
: Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

I imagine it would have been inherited from when Aramaic and Hebrew were
spoken alongside eachother, just as the Latin spoken in Gaul had a
"Gaulish" flavour even after the old Gaulish languages ceased to be
spoken. Does it seem wholly unreasonable that the Aramaic spoken in the
area where Hebrew was formerly dominant had been influenced somehow by
Hebrew? It seems to me that such would be a quite normal development.

Is it certain though that no Hebrew was spoken? It was my impression
that whereas Aramaic was the common language, Hebrew was spoken still
spoken in learned/religious groups.

The question also recently aired on the B-Hebrew list, where a poster
posted the following evidence in favour of Hebrew being still a living
language in 1st century AD. I do not have the qualifications to judge
whether or not it is a correct interpretation of the facts presented,
but it does seem quite convincing:

******************************************************
1. In the *countryside* of Judea decrees of marriage
were written in *Hebrew* while in more cosmopolitan
Jerusalem they were composed in Aramaic (Ketubot
4:12).

2. Traders and Babylonians wanting to communicate
better with Jerusalemites learned *Hebrew* (Yoma 6:4,
B Pesakhim 116). Presumably they already knew
Aramaic.

3. In one telling recorded instance, some students of
Yehudah Ha-Nasi, the compiler of the MISHNA who lived
in Tziporri in the Galilee (c. 200 C.E.), could not
figure out the meaning of a few *Hebrew* words so they
asked the *maid*, who explained the words to them (B.
Megillah 18). This lends evidence that Hebrew was
still alive among at least some of the more common
people in the Galilee region at this time.

4. Targumim were not so much translations of the Bible
to explain the “lesser-known” Hebrew, but repositories
of exegetical traditions (Safrai, Ze’ev. 1990. The
origins of reading the Aramaic targum in synagogue.
Immanuel, 24/25.187-93.). Because of this they had
value to Hebrew speakers (also fluent in Aramaic), but
were always distinguished from the biblical text
itself. The congregational “translator” of a targum
reading was called a METURGEMAN, but the sermons
following the Scripture readings were, in the 2nd
temple period, given in *Hebrew*. To the *common
people*.

5. If the Mishna shows us anything about language use
in 2nd temple period Judea and the Galilee, it shows
us that the Pharisees utilized Hebrew (not Aramaic)
for the *oral* transmissions of their traditions.
They found popularity (except for details on tithing
and a few other minutia) among the *common people*—and
were apparently understood.
******************************************************

Duly noted, as are Avi Jacobsons instructive comments.

Gud, som troner fra Fortids Dage, vil høre og ydmyge dem. - Sela. Thi der
er ingen Forandring hos dem, og de frygter ikke for Gud. PÃ¥ Venner lagde
han Haand og brød sin Pagt. Glattere end Smør er hans Mund, men Hjertet
vil Krig, blødere end Olie hans Ord, skønt dragne Sværd. (Psalme 55:20-22)

That means you know Aramaic quite well, but find Hebrew difficult, and
therefore the Hebraisms distracted you?

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/

(Assuming H here is the sound nowadays heard in Arabic Ahmad,
Muhammad, Habib etc.?).

Not surprising at all. Just try to say /ru:H/ without the extra vowel.
It returns naturally. Arabic has it too, soundwise, but it is never
written.
/ru:Ho:t/ doesn't need such an extra vowel. I don't know why, I'm not
a native speaker of any such language, but it comes naturally when
trying to pronounce such words.

So the spelling kh in meshiakha is confusing? It was a Het, not a
khof?

They probably said it then too, but didn't write it. And correctly so,
because it seems to be a phonetic phenomemon, which doesn't have a
place in a phonemic based spelling system. (All avant la lettre, of
course).

At least one reviewer demonstrated point by point that it's no different
from Die Hard or Brave Heart. It's an "action flick" and nothing else.
(She kept saying "flick" as if it were a technical term, which I found
very annoying.)

A correspondent on ANE List says that it is a practically
chapter-by-chapter transcription of the meditations of a well-known
early 19th-century German nun (who is also notorious for her
antisemitism). The emphasis on such nonscriptural but pietistic-Catholic
features as Stations of the Cross, the Shroud of Turin, and physical
agony is highly sectarian.

And her perverted writings.

"Facts"? Were the rabbis, writing centuries later than that, historians?

The standard work on the topic remains Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J.,'s article
in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 1970.

> to explain the â*ślesser-knownâ** Hebrew, but repositories
> of exegetical traditions (Safrai, Zeâ*™ev. 1990. The

> itself. The congregational â*śtranslatorâ** of a targum

> and a few other minutia) among the *common people*â*”and

You're going to have to ask the scholar Des was quoting, who I believe
was Robert Alter.

??? You have trouble saying [ru:H] ?????

A good thing you've never tried speaking Modern Aramaic.

Yes, it's a Het.

Geza Vermes, in fact.

Des
does not know Aramaic at all.

It is well worth getting the hang of subtitles, since they are also
used for many movies worth seeing.

[...]

The celebrated stigmatic Anne Catherine "The Gibbering German"
Emmerich (1774-1824) and her "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus
Christ" (available at
<http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm>
without giving his Melship a penny).

Des
has not plans to, like, read it or see the movie.

><http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1157381,00.html>

Geo

IIRC hebrew is acknowledged in that article.

it was explained in a grammar. those consonants don't have any
obstyruction in the mouth like the vowel [a]. so there is a tendency
to produce or interpret "a" when those consonants are articulated.

> > flavour/accent? [...]

Possibly for the same reason that several consonants in Irish English are
pronounced similarly to consonants in the Irish language, though no one
speaks it?

John.

Ah. Alter said approximately the same thing somewhere else, but I'd
trust Vermes before Alter.

Pity. A lovely language.

Note that the original title in Italian is "Il Vangelo Secondo
Matteo", so it should perhaps be translated as "Gospel According
to Matthew". I don't know Italian, so I don't know if the missing
"San" is meaningful as some film buffs claim.

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

not in most recitations of calssical arabic, though perhops in soem
colloquials.

: written.

as I said before, there is no obstruction in the mouth, sometimes leading
to the perception or articalation of /a/

:>2. Not any long vowel: it doesn't happen after qama.s.

well, yes, it is confusing.. it is /H/ (Het).

I found the reconstruction as [*kh*] jarring in the previews I saw.

arabic and sabaic borrowed aramaic, incl. jewish aramaic (and hebrew) /H/
(Het) as /H/ i.e. [H], not /*kh*/ . incl. the divine name raHma:n
(*raHma:n-a:n in sabaic and ar-raHma:n in arabic). it drove out the native
root rxm , the proper cognate.

I think you're right. It is possible to maintain the tongue position
for the u while pronouncing the H, but that would mean an unnatural
velarised H. So the tongue is lowered, which, as you say, seems to
result in a vowel /a/ (or /@/) which isn't there: H is a consonant.

He was famously an atheist.

The English phrase just always has the "St." Or you can say "Matthew" or
"Matthew's Gospel."

> Tak To wrote:

> The English phrase just always has the "St."...

Not true. Google has 15 000 hits for "the gospel according to matthew", 12
000 for "the gospel according to st matthew", and 3000 for "the gospel
according to saint matthew".

Of the hits for "the gospel according to matthew" less than 10 of the first
100 refer to three movies of that name (one produced by the International
Bible Society). There are also a considerable number of books with that
title.

John.

> > The English phrase just always has the "St."...

Google is clearly a prime candidate for... crucifixion!

Actually... c.... c... cruci... cruci... crucifffff...
crucifixion's too good for them, sir. Not as n.... n... n...
nasty as something I just thought^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcooked up.

The pendant actually read "Azonai" (there was a full-page portrait in TV
Guide).

It wasn't a terrible movie. And not all the good guys talked American,
and not all the bad guys talked Brit (cf. Spartacus).

But it was the Surfer Dewd version of the Jesus movie (blond Jesus, of
course).

Another anachronistic howler at the end: when the disciples retrieved
Judas's body from where he hanged himself, they said Kaddish over it.
(No, not Ginsburg's version.)

Four parenthetical comments for four tiny paragraphs. Typical
of the incontinent ill-organised waffling of the old wheezer.

R.

--
Richard Herring

What is your problem? Are you a member of the Weird Rules Police?

thanks.

in Mel Gibson's film for "a disciple of Jesus" somebody says something
like qur'anic arabic Hawa:riyy (in the aramaic the equivalent of "of
Jesus" was added). what was it?

in arabic the word is confined to this particular technical usgae, it is
not used by arab christians, and it is said to be from Ethiopic
(meaning?), not from "(having) white (garments)" as the medieval
grammarians thought.

: Another anachronistic howler at the end: when the disciples retrieved

from later rabbinic judaism?

Keep trying.

R.

He (or she, don't know which) appears to be the Chief of Police (the
Wierd Rules Police (aka WRP) that is) what are cracking down on
(parenthetical) overuse of parentheses ("parens", colloquially) ,
(im)proper us(ag)e of commas , full stops , short stops and !!!s, and
it is (patently) obvious that the good detective is hot on Mr Daniel's
trail, oh yes, I think they're dead set against runon sentences as
well. Mind you, I don't know what their beef is with waffles. Probably
some antibelgiumism going on.

Padraic.

la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.

As I'm sure you're aware, I'm only doing it to annoy PTD.
There is an oustanding role model for this sort of behaviour:

Peter Daniels wrote:
> Did you omit the comma after <large> deliberately?

> I didn't try, but at least, unlike the Brits, they still throw in the
> occasional comma.

> You could at least use proper punctuation.

> Fer cryin' out loud, all it needs is a comma -- or better, a dash --
> after "suggestions" and after "planned."

> I hope you'd use your commas according to where they're needed, rather
> than according to their number!

> You're literate enough to realize that if that had been your original
> intention, you would have put a colon, not a comma, after "direction."

> Maybe you overlooked a comma.

As it happens, I'd forgotten about Daniels. He's been away, you see.
I wouldn't have written another word to or about him. But he is
seemingly incapable of letting this go. The moment he started posting
again, there he was jumping in with his childish comments:

> He's got his whole head up his butt?

Very professorial. And that's from the man who wrote this:

> Don't bother -- it has no interest in civil dialog.

If he keeps his trap shut, I'll leave him alone. More specifically,
if he can't produce an honest constructive argument, he might
think about staying clear of threads that I've initiated and avoid
responding to my messages. If he does that, I won't mention him.

That's my view. I don't really care if anyone agrees with it.

R.

Most people who get annoyed with PTD get over it, Rolleston. I'm pleased
to hear that you do initiate threads, and thus have some purpose in
life's great scheme other than yapping at Peter's heels. But no, you
have no right to bar him from "your" threads. And your harrassing posts
simply make you look like a crank. And I don't care if you don't care.

Ross Clark

>Peter Daniels wrote:

Quite. It rather appears you two have a long standing mutual
arrangement. Well, carry on, eh!

[...]

Though the rest do seem to suffer dreadfully, poor things.

Hell, I wrote him off when he stooped to starting a thread
with the subject 'Nathan Sanders: Blunderhead'. He's
beginning to remind me quite strongly of old D. Spencer
Hines.

Brian

Who's?

(Just to clarify: the "he" in the last paragraph isn't me, though I
don't know or care who started the "Blunderhead" thread. I contributed
something unusually complimentary to Nathan in it.)

No; it simply appeared one day a few weeks ago, nipping at my heels and
never making a substantive comment, and stalking me across other
newsgroups. It did ask a few factual questions, but when I answered them
it ignored the replies.

This is another example of you blurring the truth. *You*
appeared first making your ill-judged comments. Indeed,
you initiated exchanges on three occasion when I had
not addressed you. I can provide the evidence for this.

The recent sequence of events began with your
uninvited response here: http://tinyurl.com/359f6

As to never making a substantive comment, you still have
not produced the slightest argument to support your view
that "The door is opened." is ungrammatical. There is
virtually nobody else that shares that view. Indeed, the
highly regarded linguist Prof. Trask said this:

Theere [sic] is absolutely no doubt that 'The door is opened'
is fully grammatical, every bit as grammatical as 'The package
was opened' or 'My car was repaired'.

Why not do something constructive and tell us all why you
take the opposite view?

R.

Thine.

But I am not Mr. Daniel.

There was an archeologist/prehistorian by that name; no relation.

--
Richard Herring

That's ancient. I'm in serious mode now.

If you want to talk about language...

R.

Rolleston tonans. We tremble.

I just do it.

--
Richard Herring

You ain't Peter T. Daniels? Sorry! He must be after the wrong bloke.

Erm...that's serious as in "not being a bit of a child as lately".

(I doubt it will last!)

R.