Re: Dead languages?
docdwarf_at_panix.com
Date: 07/09/04
- Next message: Tim Prince: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Previous message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Dead languages?"
- In reply to: Robert Wagner: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Next in thread: Robert Wagner: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Reply: Robert Wagner: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Reply: Richard Maine: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 8 Jul 2004 22:34:36 -0400
In article <40edfa9c.13003756@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>
>>docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>
>>> 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'
>>
>>Oh dear! My high school Latin text must have had a bowdlerized
>>version or something. I'd *SWEAR* I remember this as
>>'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est'. But a quick google
>>check doesn't find it in that form.
>
>Richard is correct. Caesar actually wrote: "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes
>tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua
>Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.
Mr Wagner, this is confusing... Mr Maine wrote 'I'd *SWEAR* I remember
this as 'Alles Gall in tres partes divisa est' in response to my stating
'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres!'... how does what you cite here
support his reminisce as 'correct'?
DD
- Next message: Tim Prince: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Previous message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Dead languages?"
- In reply to: Robert Wagner: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Next in thread: Robert Wagner: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Reply: Robert Wagner: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Reply: Richard Maine: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
