In the last article I explained how Antonio Fini had raised my obseervations on respectable conervatives to the level of theoretical awareness.
I am now going to do the same for him
In his second comment, Antonio says,
“To expand on my point Bob, the Austrian liberals are loudly condeming Govenor Schwarteneggar for signing off on the execution of Black mass muderer Tookie Williams. They even want to name an Austrian football stadium after Tookie, to embarass Arnold.”
“Now the Austrians I know are a pretty lawful, even obedient bunch of people. They won’t cross against a red light on an empty street at 2am. ”
“So what would Austrian liberals do if a white man walked into a store and shotgunned an entire family of Chinamen? Probably revive the death penalty for him. But a Black mass murderer is said to be “Most admirably rehabilitated” when he refrains from knifing any corrections officers. Why?”
“Because liberals expect Blacks to commit senseless acts of violence and Whites to obey the law. Liberals are racist to the core.”
Conservatives on the other hand know that if only Tookie had read Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises he could have developed into a brilliant capitalist entrepeneur. It is conservatives, not liberals who believe in the infinite perfectability of man.”
“We need to expose liberal racial hypocracy to conservatives. They already know about liberal economic hypocrisy.”
By pointing out how OBEDIENT Austrians are, you have answered your own question.
If Europeans ever realized how OBEDIENT they are, it would embarrass many of them into rebelliousness.
You ask some very logical questions. But you are dealing with a continent which for over a millenium fed the poor when told to and burned people alive when told to.
Many of those who were burned alive were exactly the people who pointed out that this was a contradiction. Today those are being imprioned are the ones who ask exactly the kind od questions you are asking.
Remember that we are dealing with an established RELIGION today, Political Correctness. Europe’s reaction today does not vary by one molecule from its blind obedience of the old established religion.
You asked why an obedient people could not be logical. You have answered your own question. Sitting at a stuck red light at 2 am is not logical. It is obedient.
The most ironic aspect of this is that Austrians think they are being rebellious in attacking Schwartzeneger. They think they are being independent-minded.
Why? Because they are TOLD that what they are doing they have been ordered to do because it represented independent, radical thought.
Karl Marx died in 1883. In his name, Joseph Stalin, Mao-Tes Tung and Pol Pot ran the most totally reactionary regimes in human history, including the cavemen. Those regimes DIED of terminal inability to deal with ANYTHING modern.
But to this day a follower of Karl Marx is still referred to in Europe as a “radical.”
Why? Because Europeans have been TOLD that a “radical” is a follower of a man who was out of date when he died in 1883. An opponent of that particular corpse is officially a “right winger,” one who advocates YESTERDAY’S ideas.
To me, as a free-born American, this is hilarious. To Europeans it is, quite literally, Gospel.
#1 by Antonio Fini on 12/21/2005 - 5:22 pm
MULTAS GRATIAS AGO, MAGISTER
#2 by Bob on 12/21/2005 - 7:48 pm
Today I get along pretty well in Italy with my Spanish.
The Spanish reply would be “De nada.”
Magister is one hell of a compliment. If I remember correctly
the direct translation is “Master” as in master of the subject.
But it can more accurately be translated as what “Doctor” USED
to mean. “Doctor” is from the Latin doceo, docere, to teach.
When Anonio says Magister he means one who has earned the right
to teach him. He want to achieve the level of mastery of the
subject that I have.
That is exactly what I hope I am.
Unfortunately the last time I studied what Italians spoke it was
Latin.
#3 by Antonio Fini on 12/21/2005 - 9:16 pm
Bob that was Latin. I’ve always thought of myself as a Roman.
#4 by Bob on 12/21/2005 - 10:40 pm
Antonio, so much for my attempt to act sophisticated.
You don’t have to make an ass of me. I can do that for myself.
None of which bothers me in the slightest, of course.
I remember talking to an Italian buddy of mine once, and I said, “You know, you are a
descendant of the ancient Romans who ruled the known world. I am a descendant of the
ancient Germanic warriors who brought the empire down.”
“They were really something. And now what is left is you and me.”
“God, that’s DEPRESSING, isn’t it?”
He agreed that things had come to a sorry pass indeed.
A couple of quick points. I was watching “Blackadder Goes Forth” with subtitles.
The man who plays Blackadder is a qualified electrical engineer. One of co-actors
is a Cambridge grad (as are most of the Monty Python regulars, the one who died was a
physician).
The co-actor had a Latin dialogue. He had had lots of Latin at Cambridge.
But the subtitle said, “speaking Italian.”
A last question I cannot get an answer to:
Is there a Latin word for “Yes”?
#5 by Antonio Fini on 12/22/2005 - 12:35 am
Aio, Magister. From which we get the word “aye”
#6 by LibAnon on 12/22/2005 - 2:13 am
“Is there a Latin word for ‘Yes'”?
No. They got by like this:
Q: “Are you eating?” A: “I am eating.”
Q: “Is there any milk left?” A: “There is.”
Q: “Are you tired?” A: “That is so.”
#7 by Peter on 12/23/2005 - 2:32 pm
LibAnon: I am still cracking up over that dialogue. I must say that Latin was obviously thought up by a teacher who wanted to keep the students diverted with busy work. “Answers not made in full and complete sentences will be handed back ungraded.”
#8 by Bob on 12/23/2005 - 3:06 pm
So, to translate this into the Latin way, I would say the following:
I asked if there were a Latin word for “Yes.”
If someone asked me if my question was answered, I would reply,
“Libanon told me the way in which one says ‘Yes’ in Latin.”
Jesus said “Make your answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No.'” I wonder if Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew had a “yes?”
This could make some difference in Biblical analysis.
#9 by LibAnon on 12/23/2005 - 5:47 pm
“Jesus said “Make your answer `Yes’ or `No.'”
Matthew 5:37
KJV: “But let your communication be, YEA, YEA; NAY, NAY: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”
Original: “estô de o logos umôn NAI NAI OU OU to de perisson toutôn ek tou ponêrou estin”
Vulgate: “sit autem sermo vester EST EST NON NON quod autem his abundantius est a malo est”
The Latin “est” actually means “it is” and is used in that sense elsewhere in the verse. The Greek “nai” according to Strong’s Concordance #3483 is a “primary particle of strong affirmation; yes:–even so, surely, truth, verily, yea, yes” Again, more “it is so” than “yes”.
In the Middle Ages, Peter Abelard wrote a treatise in Latin titled “Sic et Non”, usually translated as “Yes and No”. But “sic” really means “thus” or “so it is.” A famous use of “sic” is in the official motto of Virginia, which Booth shouted right after shooting Lincoln: “Sic semper tyrannis”: roughly, “This is what always happens to tyrants.” So “sic” is not really “yes”.
The point of all this pedantry is to argue that neither Greek nor Latin had a precise equivalent to our Germanic “yes”. (Knowing the Romans, I suspect that Antonio Fini’s “aio” was a military word, closer to “Roger that” than “yes”.)
For what it’s worth, I also found this lengthy discussion of the scriptural aspect of “Yes”:
http://www.renewingyourmind.com/Techniques/Meta-Yes_In_Scripture.htm