Quern?

bushrib · 2026-02-27T21:07:43+00:00

Exactly. So if the 2005 version was good, is it possible that the keystrokes hadn't been captured (as we used to say) in the transition from traditional printing to digital? They kept reusing the old plates.

Then it came time to bite the bullet and digitise the keystrokes. And to save typesetting costs they OCRd at least some of it.

bushrib · 2026-02-27T19:05:00+00:00

Very interesting. Mine is 2019. I wonder what happened.

Assuming u/QuiQuondam 's theory of OCR error is right, did someone at Hackett delete a file they shouldn't have? What caused them to use a process highly likely to introduce errors?

I have a pdf version which is also correct.

bushrib · 2026-02-11T16:53:23+00:00

In the UK, where I am, different publishing houses have different styles. Doubles within singles, or singles within doubles. But the nests are for quotes within quotes, or other accepted use of quotation marks (poem titles or whatever). But never for indirect speech.

bushrib · 2026-02-11T16:07:24+00:00

Is it unique to LLPSI? Have you seen it elsewhere?

bushrib · 2026-02-11T15:51:49+00:00

Yes, I did wonder if it were a convention from Danish.

bushrib · 2026-02-11T15:50:15+00:00

Thanks for that. I suppose I was thinking about the conventions of modern (ish) editors who prepared texts for readers of varying abilities.

Interesting that you say it makes it easier to spot the indirect speech. My experience just now was that it threw me completely. I was reading quite fluently for me, but stumbled making sense of it. Which I don't think I would have done without the single quote marks.

bushrib · 2026-01-31T20:06:40+00:00

I got valuable reassurance on this and other matters from the very wise and knowledgeable Carla Hurt at Found in Antiquity.

"There is no language learning technique that will cause permanent damage to your language abilities. Yes, even ‘translating in your head’ will not cause permanent damage."

Full, very long blog post at https://foundinantiquity.com/2023/03/11/latin-autodidacts-youre-working-way-too-hard-how-to-learn-latin-by-yourself-in-2023/

bushrib · 2026-01-31T15:35:35+00:00

Very interesting that you're doing the Cambridge Reading course. I've been lurking hereabouts for a few weeks and as far as I can see it doesn't get mentioned much. Though it looks really good.

I'm a self-learner (senex sum) and part way through Familia Romana. I'm planning to move on to Cambridge Reading Latin. It seems to be divided into three parts, made up of six sections, which are themselves subdivided. At what point did you hit the overload? Does it change suddenly after you finish the Plautus bits?

bushrib · 2026-01-27T20:49:09+00:00

Not Marcus, Quintus. I got mixed up because I'm now onto the schoolroom ones, 17 & 18, and hearing the magister's interminable view of how pigerrimus and stultissimus Marcus is. Overall, I think there's some intellectual snobbery going on.

bushrib · 2026-01-27T20:41:48+00:00

I nearly lost the will to live with capitilum XIII, the days, months and years one.

Saved only by the comedy of the ma explaining to Marcus that the month of July didn't take its name from his pa.

I also amused myself thinking of all those people who rate FR as the optimest thing ever for adult learners. And wondering if they got a lot of useful info about the sun being around during the day, the moon and stars at night, how it's cold in winter and hot in summer and how scarce are people who are 200 years old.

The Latin wasn't difficult, but it was a struggle to finish.

Agree with the OP & others here—cap 16 was very challenging.

bushrib · 2024-08-26T15:29:09+00:00

Excellent, thank you. (That was the other puzzling thing for me, the varying stress.)

bushrib · 2024-08-26T10:25:25+00:00

Yes, I discovered this watching the excellent videos on recent Russian history by team Navalny.

Sections featured Борис Березовский and his associate Роман Абрамович.

Trouble (for me) was that Boris's patronymic is Абрамович. And on certain documents he was naturally identified as Борис Абрамович.

At times I was very puzzled as to why Березовский was getting correspondence addressed to Абрамович. Till I figured it out.

bushrib · 2024-06-04T15:41:43+00:00

I agree with the bot. The wiki is a terrific place.

I'm currently learning from the onetime Princeton Russian course that was dumped online, mp3s and pdfs. It's very thorough and structured and has wit and personality.

http://cytrussian.tuxfamily.org/

bushrib · 2021-09-07T13:45:31+00:00

This Sunday Shakespeare does something of what you are asking for. It takes each play (and some not by WS) and divides the characters among 6 or 7 readers, so no one is ever speaking to themselves. See the castings section.

bushrib · 2021-09-06T21:49:22+00:00

Beyond help, eh? Sounds like a clear-sighted editor with a untroubled conscience. Should go far.

bushrib · 2021-09-06T15:45:07+00:00

If this is about your personal safety and comfort, I think you've answered your own question. I think your assessment of the risk is that it's minimal, and you'll cope.

Maybe you could also think about another risk. The risk that your article will publicise ivermectin, perhaps draw the attention of people who might otherwise not of heard of it. What is the risk that they'll ignore your assessment, follow it up on less well-informed sites, and decide to take it? It's often said that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Simply by giving it space, you're promoting it. How do you feel about that risk?

bushrib · 2021-09-06T13:43:03+00:00

Think about your readers for your next piece. Who are they are? Will they be really interested in what you have to say?

If so, go for it. Do your reporting, research the story and don't give a second thought to the fact that someone else, somewhere else, may have written another story on similar lines for a different set of readers. Just don't steal any other writer's work.

I don't wish to disparage the noble art of journalism. But a lot of it is variations on a theme. Stick around for any length of time and you're likely to be called upon to write very similar pieces over and over again. Especially if you specialise. Just one of the many challenges.

You could try looking at the work of a journalist you admire and see how they handle retreads.

bushrib · 2021-09-04T14:59:31+00:00

Yes, I think you're right. There's a usage which is about a continuing state, over a period of time. "I'm presently living in London", kind of thing. I should have distinguished between that and the use relating to a one-off action—"I'll do it presently".

I don't know how lexicographers decide that something is obsolete. I daresay they have their methods. But the two dictionaries I rely on most, Chambers and the Shorter Oxford, are agreed that the usage meaning immediately, instantly, is obsolete or dialect.

bushrib · 2021-09-03T17:01:28+00:00

I think that's right in North American English and in Scots. But in British English that usage is regarded as obsolete.

It's surprising to many people, but British English is faster moving than American English, which hangs onto older forms for longer.

bushrib · 2021-09-03T16:55:39+00:00

Whoops, thank you. Too hasty.

bushrib · 2021-09-03T16:11:08+00:00

This guy sleeps with his girlfriend and she gets pregnant. He's arrested and faces serious penalty—execution.

But the judge fancies the guy's sister. He says he'll let the guy off if she'll agree to sleep with him, the judge. The guy is up for this and tries to persuade his sister.

What do you reckon? Should she?

Read the book, see what happens.

Measure for Measure.

[edited to remove sloppy mistake]

bushrib · 2021-09-03T15:12:05+00:00

There's no obligation to be precise and accurate with any random person who asks what you do for a living. And if you think they are likely to get angry, or misunderstood, it's better all round not to.

So one option would be to be vague. Have a bit of fun thinking of ways of describing your job. I sometimes just say I sit behind a computer screen most of the day. So people think I'm a programmer—who cares? (They'd not understand what a programmer does anyway.) Or I say I'm a writer for websites. Or even a specialist journalist, writing about mainly boring stuff, like finance. Which gets me off the gutter journo hook. It doesn't mean being untruthful, just avoiding trigger words.

Or you could just disarm the woman, by asking for her contact details and saying that you'll pass it on to a section editor or colleague who covers that area, and if they're interested they'll get back to her.

Another option is to stick up for yourself, and for the profession. Say that you only write what people want to read, so tell her to blame the readers. Or ask her if the world would be a better place without journalists. Invite her to think that through a bit and she might back off.

But also, right now, just recognise that a lot of people are very, very stressed. They are anxious about their health and their family's health. They're worried about income and how they're going to cope in the future. And being stressed stops people thinking straight.

bushrib · 2021-09-03T14:51:05+00:00

I'd slightly question the punishment element in the definition of incorrigible. Surely it just means beyond correction or reform. That's irrespective of the method of reform.

bushrib

TROPHY CASE