I don't know a lot of French, but shouldn't this phrase be pronounced swee zhan-uhr-ee?

Both pronunciations (visual and audio) seem wrong.

Mitch

I'm afraid sui generis isn 't French but Latin.
So maybe the French pronounce their Latin your way. As each language has it's own pronounciation for Latin we would pronounce it like sùwee gayneris (throaty G)

Which does not seem particularly relevant to a discussion of the Latin phrase sui generis. Since the phrase is not French, why would it pronounced as if it were?

This comment does not seem particularly relevant to the question asked by mitchpowell. Since he (?) thought it was French, he also thought it would be pronounced as French. If he knew it was Latin, he wouldn't have posted at all. What is the point of highlighting the fact that he didn't know it was Latin? Yes, the email does say "From Latin", however that does not necessarily mean it is Latin.

mitchpowell: Welcome to the board! I don't know a lot of French, either. You've got good company. I do know some Latin, but I can see how "sui", which I did not recognize, might look like French to some. This phrase is new to me.

President Obama used another phrase which illustrates the kind that always bugs me: "...the only people that really know are the collection of ex-Presidents we have." It sounds wrong to me. I am wanting to put "in" or "part of" after "are": "...the only people that really know are in/part of the collection of ex-Presidents we have." Any comments?

3 PART COMMENT:

1) I totally agree with 2sleepy's read on this.

2) MY first response to sui generis was: If this is Word for a Day, when did it become 2 words for a day? Is Anu bending the rules because it's an expression from a foreign language? Does he sometimes have a two word WORD in english as well? JUST WONDERING...

3) On your final comment sleepy, I was wondering, do you prefer "data are" or "data is"?

I'm slowly getting used to data are, having been committed to "data is", for years. Apparently the Times still uses both. The example you were wondering about seems more natural for me to use the plural because the reference to the "collection of ex-presidents". With data, I guess I've always been used to viewing it as singular.

wow, there's a sixty-four-dollar question; or, take a look a his "word" list. (or, "This week we'll feature terms"...)

-joe (just being a wise-guy again) friday

There are basically two main pronunciations of Latin: Classic and Ecclesiastical.
Classic would call Caesar: "Ky zer"
Ecclesiastical would say; "Say zar"

If you are classic: it is: su ee gay nay ris
if you're Ecclesiastical: su ee jen er is

Presidents are sui generis: that is why it is so lonely
at the top.

Aha! Thanks for the link.

Then there's always the German pronunciation of Latin. Yet another variant.

I have to admit, although it makes my prescriptivist fairy cringe, that my ear prefers "data is". Thing is, you almost never hear "datum", but I suppose that would be "datum is". Sometimes ya just gotta throw up your hands and go with your gut! :0)

Oh, but "collection" is singular, and is the subject, whereas "of ex-presidents" is only the modifier. If you drop the modifier, are you still comfortable? "...the only people that know are the collection we have."

You can subdivide the Ecclesiastical into, mainly, German (Caesar = tseh sar) and Italianate (Caesar = tsheh sar). There may be other versions of the Ecclesiastical. Then there's US legal Latin which is basically an abomination. Sine die, which would be "see neh dee eh" in Classical, or either of the main Ecclesiasticals, is "sigh knee die" in US legal.

[/quote]
Oh, but "collection" is singular, and is the subject, whereas "of ex-presidents" is only the modifier. If you drop the modifier, are you still comfortable? "...the only people that know are the collection we have." [/quote]

I guess I fell into the trap there. Now I feel very uncomfortable!

On the other hand, it's not the collection that knows, it's the ex-presidents that make up the collection. And they know.

There are basically two main pronunciations of Latin: Classic and Ecclesiastical.
Classic would call Caesar: "Ky zer"
Ecclesiastical would say; "Say zar"

If you are classic: it is: su ee gay nay ris
if you're Ecclesiastical: su ee jen er is [/quote]

Well, since Obama claims to be the President of the common man, what is he doing using Latin regardless of the way it is pronounced? To me it is too "generous sooey" amy way you slice it.

I thought A.W.A.D. dealt with words that were common to English. There are some Latin phrases and clauses that may have become appropriate to spoken and written English; but it would seem that this is not one of them.

I don't think I'm long for AWAD's Forums. Since beginning to post here, I've been getting a lot of canned ham and was getting none before.

Classic would call Caesar: "Ky zer"
Ecclesiastical would say; "Say zar"

The reconstructed classical pronunciation of Latin would pronounce Caesar /'kajsar/ (in Greek it was transcribed Καίσαρ kaisar) and the Italian (or Ecclesiastical) would be /'ʧɛzar/. Many of the European countries have (had) their own peculiar Latin pronunciation bringing it more into line with the phonological inventory of the corresponding national languages.

Since beginning to post here, I've been getting a lot of canned ham and was getting none before.

If you're concerned about spam emails, one way to lighten the flow is to get yourself a Yahoo, Gmail, or Hotmail account and only use that when signing up for online forums. Gmail has a particularly nice spam filter.

Thank you Faldage. I'm feeling more comfortable again..

Exactly. I think I was just thinking about taking Latin in the US and changing schools
in high school. I had to learn to re-pronounce everything
Veni, vidi, vici.
l) Vay nee, vee dee, vee chee
2) wen nee, wid ee, wik kee.

For those who did not read AWAD< Anu, this week:
Joke a few years past. Chinese restaurant served
Chop suey generous.

Data is ...an android.

No, the subject is "the only people" for which the correct form of the verb is 'are.' And 'collection' is the object. The people that know are the collection of presidents.

reverse the syllables and it is a victory cry (of sorts):


Tada!!

Okay, this is why this type of phrase bugs me! I'm never sure what's correct, or why; some things just sound wrong. But that doesn't make them wrong, I realize. There are some that are correct, and I know it, but still sound wrong to me, and many others. For example: "Join Mr. Rogers and me for a walk around the Neighborhood". Many think this should be "Join Mr. Rogers and I...", but this can be demonstrated as incorrect by removing Mr. Rogers from the equation to reveal "Join I..." which sounds wrong to most people, and is wrong. Although I am no youngster, I missed the era of sentence diagramming, hence my apparent gaps in grammar ability. Your correction, Pook, still sounds wrong to me!

And by the way, why haven't any tennis players dropped dead yet?!?!? For pity's sake, it was 142 (yes, one hundred forty two) degrees on center court yesterday!

Using the when in Rome principle one could say that it was 61 degrees on centre court yesterday. Since few countries still use Fahrenheit that's probably also more informative to a wider audience of Wordsmith's non-US readership.

Are you sure you haven't mis-read 42C as 142F? I can't find any news reporting that it was over 105F.

That would make sense. News reports on Djokovic's default all say the temperature was about 33C. That makes an on-court temperature between 40C and 50C very likely, as in other matches on that day but 61C seems improbable.

Well, I was watching it live, and they kept saying 142, and showing the thermometer, which only went to 60C, and the needle was past that... Besides, this was the temp on center court, in the sun, not the reported temp at the airport (or where ever they measure it). :0)

Quite right. Even Melbourne in high Summer doesn't get that high! 142F would be 61C!!! Even Death Valley isn't that hot. Djokovic would have expired, not just retired!

Nevertheless, it was the hottest week in Melbourne for 100 years, and the Australian Open organisers are going to revamp the whole complex (apart from Rod Laver arena which doesn't need it) to provide more shade on the non-centre courts in future, which is where it's mostly needed as most of the day matches occur in the earlier rounds - the finals are almost all in the late afternoon-evening. The Australian Open is the only Grand Slam event that has an extreme heat policy, btw.

Okay, so either you're saying I'm lying, or that someone at the Open rigged a thermometer to show 60+ degrees on camera, and paid the ESPN commentators to lie about the temperature being 142 degrees. Which is it???

I never said anyone was lying. But it was not 61 degrees C (142F) in the shade, which is how air temperature is measured. The hottest on record in Australia is just under 130F. I suppose it may conceivably have been that hot if you put a thermometer in the sun on the court surface of one of the outside courts earlier in the tournament. But probably not yesterday - it was not the hottest day of the tournament so far. Quote from Sydney Morning Herald: "As the players hit up to begin the match the temperature on court was merely 28C - 10 less than forecast. Though it warmed a little thereafter - hitting 32 - the roof was open, the temperature too low to trigger the tournament's heat policy."

There are other reasons for Djokovic's inability to cope with the heat, such as his 3am finish in his five setter two nights earlier. Roddick, who has been super fit lately, didn't have the same difficulty and didn't think it was particularly hot that day on centre court.

yeah, I watched a bit of the women's quarters draw tonight (tomorrow : ), and the radiant heat in the black seats was 171F - the air temp was like 101F.

Surface temperature on some highly absorptive surface may be considerably higher than air temperature.

It was pretty hot here today too, around 32C. But Melbourne had 43C! (Don't know what that was in the sun on the black seats, probably about 70C!) They closed the roof for the second half of the match that Serena Williams won.

that's the one I was watching - 171F! (77C?)

Here in Texas, we normally have several weeks every year with high "official" temperatures over 100F (and over 110 is not unheard of and I've experienced 120 a few times) and it's not commonly reported about how this and that surface in the full sun is over 140 nor do we put thermometers out in the sun and claim it's accurate.

If it weren't the hottest week in Melbourne as a news reporting sensation, wouldn't these inflated temperatures readings still be proportional (if not the same?) to the official readings, i.e. if it were only 90F, wouldn't a black surface in the sun still be over 120F? Wow, that sounds really hot!!! but it probably happens all the time.

When you think about it, one has to take the accuracy of all historical temperature records with a bit of a grain of salt, since the kind of shelter providing the "in the shade" part of the formula has not always been standard. An analogue thermometer read by failing eyesight in a wooden box might conceivably give more variable results than a modern digital weather station like these ones. At any given (manual) weather station at any given time the accuracy depends on the construction (and maintenance) of the weather station and the competence of the human recorder. There is even of course the possibility of local pride inflating or deflating figures to break a record. However, the overall picture and wider averages should be reliable as such possible vagaries even out over time.

the players were not however in a shady hammock but out on that black surface running around, slamming balls and trying to focus. It is a wonder they weren't injured whatever the official shaded weatherman was experiencing.

Actually it's blue. I think it's some of the seats that are black.

Tasmania had record highs today. Flinders Island just off the coast north from here (between here and Melbourne) scored our all time state highest of 41C (106F). That was 19C (34F) above average! Here we met our previous record for a January day of 35.6C. It's still over 30 in my study at 10pm.

At the same time, you can't go sticking your thermometer into a cup of coffee that happens to be on the court and report the players experienced temperatures of 212F.

IMO, the reporters are being sensational. People do outdoor activities here when it is even hotter without complaining about the pavement being 150 degrees (unless they're barefoot). If the air that the players were breathing was really constantly 142F, I'm fairly sure they would soon lapse into a coma like a dog left in a car with the windows closed even if they weren't exercising vigorously.

Is it normal in Texas to drink hot coffee on the tennis court at 43C in the shade?

(good grief, now I'm quoting myself - how indulgent!)
Weather update - Tasmania's record lasted one day before another place scored a 42 yesterday! And my town had their hottest recorded day of 38C (100.4F). Today is a bit cooler but not much.

Sure is making the news here with the televising of the Open.
I know I am one of a very few, but I'll take heat over
20 below zero any day. It hurts.

Well it didn't seem to affect Serena Williams too much! She demolished Safina like a Mack Truck.

And how about that epic with Nadal and Vedasco? Have you ever seen more amazing tennis than that match? Incredible!

Can Federer equal Sampras' record tonight? I think he can, the way he's playing.

What a game! I was thinking Federer as well. My eyes are slightly droopy this morning.

She certainly is sui generis.

The locals cooling off. Onya mate!

Hey there New Zealand: Your little critter (what is it?) looks quite cool. Is it hot
there like Australia??

Kia ora Luke,
The little critter is a Kool Koala, especially for our mate Pook across the ditch. And yes it is very hot at the moment but my heart goes out to all our Aussie cuzzies who have been affected by the fires.

The lastest death toll is likely to be around 110-120. These Victorian fires are now the worst in our history. They followed a record 46.5 degree day in Melbourne. Hundreds of people are burned or injured, around 800 houses razed to the ground, including several whole small townships, and over 330,000 hectares of forest burned (a hectare is about 2.2 acres I think).

My heart goes out to you all. We know the situation in California, usually each year. You are making our news
continually with live update pictures. The very concept
of the poor people is devastating.

I figured it was something like a Koala.
What is Kia ora?

Kia ora Luke,
Kia ora is a New Zealand maori greeting It literally means 'have life'. It can also be an acknowledgement of something good or well done.

A brand of orange juice in the UK.

Thanks Olly. I have a friend who always says: "be well",
to end his letters. Now I have something with which to
surprise him. I appreciate your response.

Orange Juice? Impressive: be well, OJ does help us do that.

In a British TV comedy featuring a character from the UK visiting New Zealand, the lead character arrives at his destination and is greeted with "Kia ora", to which he replies, "no thanks, water will do fine".

That is an interesting little tidbit. The British OJ is
obviously well known. Well, here, 1000 miles from the big
pond, I've never heard it. However there is a gentleman
who comes to a place where I volunteer is from New Zealand.
I will use it on him next time I see him. I appreciate it.

Thanks very much Luke. Likewise we heard of the devastating fires in California the last couple of Summers with massive loss of life and property. I think you lost over a thousand homes in 2007? Australia sent specialist firefighters to help then, and we are presently making use of your big water-dumping helicopters.

There is another Aussie connection with Californian wildfires of course, and that is the Eucalyptus tree. One of the causes of the worsening fires in California (along with increased population and perhaps climatic changes) is the planting of gum trees (Eucalypts). Eucalyptus forest burns explosively, creating firestorms unlike any other, on account of the oil in the leaves.


The latest death toll is 181, and that will probably rise into the 200s. Around 800 homes and hundreds of other buildings have been destroyed and thousands are homeless. Perhaps a million native animals have perished. Here is a list of the known dead and missing. Many others will take months to identify. Some will probably never be found or identified.

These fires were totally different from any experienced even in Australia before. The intensity was so great and they moved so quickly, that many people fled when it was too late or were unable to protect their properties if they chose to stay. It moved faster than a car can drive at times and many people died in their vehicles. The heat was lethal at about 100 metres (350 feet) from the fire front. Part of the reason for this was the record high temperatures (see above in this thread re the tennis Open) in the three days prior to it. The day of the fire it reached almost 48 degrees C (118F).

There is an increased alert in the area of one of the fires today, with it flaring up again near the town of Healesville. Thankyou for your thoughts and prayers for the people of Victoria.

My sympathies, too, for the sufferers and victims.

I was very surprised to read one news report which said that the Southern Hemisphere's largest helicopter and Bambi bucket, capable of carrying 5 tons of water, had flown to Australia from New Zealand. I had no idea that New Zealand had any need for such a big fire-fighting helicopter. Apparently it took 15 hours and several hops to make the trip.

There are always deaths, but yours' are catastrophic. Such
a calamity. Such a horrific way to die. Prayers.

They reported on NPR this morning that one person was arrested for the crime of starting one of the wildfires.

Yes, I heard that. Man's inhumanity to man. I just not conceive
how anyone could be so brutal, or even wish to be.

Yet man's inhumanity to man shows itself in just being
impolite to another.

Heinousness embodied...
the shootings yesterday: school in Germany, family in US.

It's totally beyond understanding Luke. At least to me it is.

Religion may be verbotten on the forum. Nevertheless, I would propose that that the basic cause of such is the increasing lack of religion, particularly Christianity, in society. I am a graduate of that controversial, allegedly fundamentalistic school know as Bob Jones University. The founder had an illustration that he used in his preaching. He portrayed Mr. Smith, walking down a sidewalk, swinging his right arm horizontally. He encounters Mr. Jones, who asks him what he is doing. Mr. Smith says that he is exercising his personal liberty. Mr. Jones replies by reminding Mr. Smith that where Mr. Jones' nose begins, Mr. Smith's personal liberty ends. The Bible says that love is the fulfilling of the law. The law referred to is the moral law: ten basic commandments delimiting man's relationship with God and man's relationship with other men.

those concepts were around before Christianity.

...and so were the 10 commandments...

heh

> Originally Posted By: God

HEH

So Fal, where are the other 587?

Oh, I'm sure they're scattered about in Leviticus. You know, stuff like not wearing 50/50 cotton/polyester T shirts, not eating crab rangoon, stuff like that. The ones I posted were the Ten Commandments 2.0, the ones God gave Moses after he broke the first ten.

could you check the numbering, please? there seems to be some interpolated shalls (e.g., between 20/21, after 26). thanx.
-joe btfsplk

and in Numbers and Deuteronomy.

Numbers and Deuteronomy, of course. I shouldn't have forgotten those.

The ten commandments listed and stated in their simplest forms are found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. However, they are reiterated in several places as individual commandments. I'm both surprised and appalled at the lack of knowledge manifested by the various comments. For example: some apparently think that Christianity is a stand-alone religion existing totally separate from Judaism. It is not. Christianty is an extension of Judaism. (N.B. A Jew will disagree because he does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah.) If one is willing first to examine Law as it is expressed in the Old Testament alone (although I am a Christian, a Jew should be able to have a dialogue with me on that point. We should basically agree.) There are essentially three divisions to the Law as expressed in the Old Testament. (1) There are the Ten Commandments, which are also called the moral law. (2) Then there are the ceremonial laws which have to do with the cultus of Old Testament worship. While a Jewish person, unless he is a Messianic Jews, will not agree with the Christian interpretation of the continued applicablility of these ceremonial laws, Christianity believes that they apply to the New Testament era in principle only because Jesus is believed to be the Messiah (the Christ) and that his obedient life and voluntary death on the cross satisfy the detail of the Old Testament ceremonial laws. That's what the New Testament bbook of Hebrews is all about although there are various other references in the New Testament, as for example, in Acts, Galatians and Ephesians, etc. (3) Then there are the civil laws. These are the laws given to the commonwealth of Israel which expired when Israel ceased to be a nation, although the equity of those laws still apply today. All those -- what? the 587 other laws -- are essentially case laws, which are multiple practical illustrations of the application of the various ten commandments to social living. An example: the Old Testament case law required Hebrews to build a wall around the edges of their flat-topped roofs (rooves) so that people would not fall of the edges and be killed or injured. Modern homes typically do not have flat-roofs (there are some) by an application of the equity of that law would be the building of banisters on porches and stairs. They are all practical applications of the moral commandment: you shall not commit murder or manslaughter. Another example from the Old Testament era and its extension into the New Testament era illustrating the law: you shall not steal. In Old Testament times and even in New TEstament times until the invention of mechanical tools to thresh wheat or corn, tethered oxen were used to separate the grain from the stalk by walking on it. The OT said: do not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn. Jesus said that the laborer is supposed to be paid for his work. Then the apostle Paul building on both of those examples said that a minister was to be paid for his preaching. Today, stop signs and speed limits are regulations that extend the biblical principles (equity) pertaining to you shall not commit murder. Numerous other examples could be given. What about 50/50 clothes. Yes, there are some sects of Christianity and spin-off cults that are step-children of Christianity that believe that all those Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws continue to be applicable today (except for animal sacrifice). But, in the main branches of Christianity, especially Protestantism, although to some degree even in Romanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, only the equity of those laws (civil and ceremonial) continue. The Ten Commandments, however, are viewed still to be applicable. [There is a difference in the numeration of the Ten Commandment between the Protestants and the Romans because the Romans combine the first two of the Protestant numeration into one commandment and split the tenth of the Protestant numeration into two. Thus, there ares still Ten Commandments. The difference is practical but essential: Protestants believe that attempts to worship God through means that are not specified in the Scriptures violate the Second COmmandment. Since the Romanists absorb this prohibition into the first commandment, they only emphasize the required monotheism.] TMI?

A helpful reference on this may be found in the historic Presbyterian creed called the Westminster Confession of Faith. (see Chapter XIX (19) Anyone who is interested in pursuing an historic Protestant interpretation of the Ten Commandments, should access a second historic Presbyterian creed called the Westminster Larger Catechism (questions 91 through 153). These two creeds were drafted by a council consisting primarily of English ministers and laymen with some few representatives from Scotland and the Netherlands between 1643 and 1648. This council has been called the Westminster Assembly. These creeds are still held today by the great number of Presbyterian denominations through out the world and agreed to by Anglicans, Episcopalians, Continental Reformed, Methodists, Baptists, and Congregationalists although the latter denominations might articulate them differently while retaining the same meanings in essence. For example, the Anglican and Episcopalians hold to the Thirty-nine Articles; the Continental Reformed hold to the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism; the Baptists to the London Confession; and the Congregationalists to the Cambridge or the Savoy Platforms.

It's really quite simple and not as ridiculous as some might try to make it. Your rights end where my nose begins.

Well written Pastor, whilst I agree with many of your assertions I feel that my response to them would not be appropriate in this forum.

Thank you, olly. [hug]