mechanic

carnivorous chicken said:
First time seeing this incorrectly used in the original Latin!
Think about it a little longer than. Let me guess... You're one of those intellectuals who argues with modern vernacular.
 
Without punctuation, he made a statement instead of asking the question- essentially setting up the dialectic argument. My understanding is one of the structures of petitio principii is: statement p is true. Statement "not p" is not true. Plus, I just thought it was funny that he was looking for someone who knows how to work on old bikes on a site where everyone works on old bikes.
 
Do you really want to argue that using Latin is “modern vernacular,” and that I’m trying to be elitist when you’re misusing Latin? I get that some people who don’t really speak Latin think that it sounds smart to use Latin (exempli gratia: id est for “that is”), but misusing it kinda works in the opposite way. But when the original Latin has been mistranslated (to “beg the question” from “assuming the initial point”) that’s the first error, and the second is that “to beg the question” doesn’t mean “to raise the question” no matter how many radio hosts or whoever uses it.

“Dialectic argument”? There’s no dialectic argument going on. What are the two sides? You’re kind of digging the hole deeper.

Something like “Where are you?” would have worked, although the OP did get your point.

I’m just going to assume this is a joke.
 
carnivorous chicken said:
Do you really want to argue that using Latin is “modern vernacular,” and that I’m trying to be elitist when you’re misusing Latin? I get that some people who don’t really speak Latin think that it sounds smart to use Latin (exempli gratia: id est for “that is”), but misusing it kinda works in the opposite way. But when the original Latin has been mistranslated (to “beg the question” from “assuming the initial point”) that’s the first error, and the second is that “to beg the question” doesn’t mean “to raise the question” no matter how many radio hosts or whoever uses it.

“Dialectic argument”? There’s no dialectic argument going on. What are the two sides? You’re kind of digging the hole deeper.

Something like “Where are you?” would have worked, although the OP did get your point.

I’m just going to assume this is a joke.
You should read to understand instead of to respond. I was not using modern vernacular. I was using Aristotle's latin term. You have just shown me that you are someone who argues with modern vernacular, essentially proving the point further. My reference to modern vernacular has nothing to do with radio hosts or whatever reference you make, but instead to every modern dictionary. Take a look at Collins dictionary. They have adapted the meaning. And yes, I was a joking, something you prove over and over again around here that you are incapable of. You do well to be the butt of one.
 
Haha. That's good. Too bad they couldn't stay in character for more than two minutes.

redact: I realize Aristotle was Greek, but it was the latin to english translation that started the mis-interpretation.
 
de gustabus non et disputatum. This comes all a priori for me, but what is your loci? or um? Never sure of that...thingy. Stay with www.thecoffeeguy.ca for more Latin.
 
Alright boys we don't want any trouble in here, not in any language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gSj1G4Vf0w
 
Fac me cocleario vomere!

So...erm...is there anyone here that works on older bikes in Florida? I suspect they probably don't need to speak Latin...
 
Back
Top Bottom