On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 21:36:57 +0000, Tim S wrote:

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 21:25:03 +0000, Mike wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:38:09 +0000, Mike wrote:


Surely if he's the buyer then caveo is correct ? Then again Latin was
never my strong point ever since my Latin master dropped dead after
our second lesson and the school never replaced him.

It's a long time since I did any latin...

(the) buyer, (let him) beware.

So 3rd person.

"the buyer, let me beware" wouldn't be right.

"Let me, the buyer, beware" was what I was thinking of.

Yes - that sounds better. I did wonder if "emptor" needed a different
declension until I realised that it's missing its declension
ending altogether (emptor-is)!! I only did latin for a year - can anyone
with a "proper educashun" explain that?

Timbo

I agree, or possibly "I, the buyer, should (or ought to) beware".

I think that means "emptor" needs to be vocative - if it isn't
already - and "caveat" needs its 1st person singular subjunctive form
- I'll try to remember to look it up - I'm sure my wife still has her
old copy of Kennedy's Latin Primer somewhere in the house (in the loft
I imagine). She did Latin all the way to 'O' level and so graduated to
the one with the red cover (swot!) - I only remember the one with the
blue cover (same picture) and enough to strike terror into the heart
of any 1970s (or previous) schoolboy.

On a not at all tangential note, this is a DIY group isn't it ?

Anyway, I'm definitely going to bed this time.

Gary.

"gary watson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:38:09 -0000, "Mike" wrote:


"Rob" wrote in message
...

"BigWallop" wrote in message
.uk...

Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?

Frank Erskine


You mean "Caveo Emptor"? "Buyer beware"?


No, he means caveat emptor "let the buyer beware".

Surely if he's the buyer then caveo is correct ? Then again Latin was
never
my strong point ever since my Latin master dropped dead after our second
lesson and the school never replaced him.



If the writer of the original phrase is the buyer then the "-o"
ending looks correct for 1st person singular - but it is indicative
rather than subjunctive mood I think ("caveat" is subjunctive).... I
think "emptor" is OK though which is nominative case .... or is it
vocative.. actually, possibly both ... which seems to fit both
instances ....maybe... errr.... oh no!!!.... I feel a "Romans go home"
sketch coming on (a quick google and here it is:-
http://members.chello.se/hansdotter/romanes.html)

Coincidentally, my Latin master also popped his clogs mid-course and
was not replaced, but not until we'd had to suffer a lot more Latin
than just two lessons.

Time for bed.


I have to admit that I have never studied latin. The usual latin phrase used
to warn potential purchasers is, however, always 'caveat emptor'. I have
never heard or read of anyone using 'caveo emptor'.

Kev

"gary watson" wrote in message
...
Surely if he's the buyer then caveo is correct ? Then again Latin
was
never my strong point ever since my Latin master dropped dead after
our second lesson and the school never replaced him.

It's a long time since I did any latin...

(the) buyer, (let him) beware.

So 3rd person.

"the buyer, let me beware" wouldn't be right.

"Let me, the buyer, beware" was what I was thinking of.

Yes - that sounds better. I did wonder if "emptor" needed a different
declension until I realised that it's missing its declension
ending altogether (emptor-is)!! I only did latin for a year - can anyone
with a "proper educashun" explain that?

I agree, or possibly "I, the buyer, should (or ought to) beware".

Yes - far better. I seem to recall 'me' as I used it is rare in Latin .



On a not at all tangential note, this is a DIY group isn't it ?

Doesn't mean we can't have a good inta-lek-tulle discussion about dead
languages, does it ? :-)
Might come in handy when the EU decides Latin is the best common denominator
language for a set of European building regs ;-)

"Uno Hoo!" wrote in message
...

I have to admit that I have never studied latin. The usual latin phrase
used
to warn potential purchasers is, however, always 'caveat emptor'. I have
never heard or read of anyone using 'caveo emptor'.


True, but then had any of us heard of Part P until a year ago :-)

Perhaps under the O2J (aka ODPM) they'll decide Latin is too posh and want
it in Scouse or Welsh anyway.

"Mike" wrote
| Doesn't mean we can't have a good inta-lek-tulle discussion about dead
| languages, does it ? :-)
| Might come in handy when the EU decides Latin is the best common
| denominator language for a set of European building regs ;-)

Up here in the top bit of Britain we still have a Roman legal system and our
advocates are all trained in Roman law in order to qualify.

Personally, I think the rather older Code of Hammurabi has its advantages.

229: If a builder has built a house for a man and his work is not strong,
and if the house he has built falls in an kills the householder, that
builder shall be slain. ... 233: If a builder has built a house for a man,
and his work is not done properly and a wall shifts, then that builder shall
make that wall good with his own silver.

Now, how do I achieve boiler interlock to B Regs compliance on a hypocaust?
:-)

Owain

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 01:38:54 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Mike" wrote
| Doesn't mean we can't have a good inta-lek-tulle discussion about dead
| languages, does it ? :-)
| Might come in handy when the EU decides Latin is the best common
| denominator language for a set of European building regs ;-)

Up here in the top bit of Britain we still have a Roman legal system and our
advocates are all trained in Roman law in order to qualify.

Personally, I think the rather older Code of Hammurabi has its advantages.

229: If a builder has built a house for a man and his work is not strong,
and if the house he has built falls in an kills the householder, that
builder shall be slain. ... 233: If a builder has built a house for a man,
and his work is not done properly and a wall shifts, then that builder shall
make that wall good with his own silver.

Now, how do I achieve boiler interlock to B Regs compliance on a hypocaust?
:-)

Owain





So why do we have all this Building Regulations ****? It seems to me
that the legislation could be framed as above and cover all
eventualities without the bureaucracy. Cases would be clear cut and
even 'Bruiser' could understand it.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote
| Doesn't mean we can't have a good inta-lek-tulle discussion about dead
| languages, does it ? :-)
| Might come in handy when the EU decides Latin is the best common
| denominator language for a set of European building regs ;-)

Up here in the top bit of Britain we still have a Roman legal system and
our
advocates are all trained in Roman law in order to qualify.

Personally, I think the rather older Code of Hammurabi has its advantages.

229: If a builder has built a house for a man and his work is not strong,
and if the house he has built falls in an kills the householder, that
builder shall be slain. ... 233: If a builder has built a house for a man,
and his work is not done properly and a wall shifts, then that builder
shall
make that wall good with his own silver.



Sounds like simple "eye for an eye" that is still used in most of the world
and was a good basis for law here until the Liberals started tinkering with
things during QV's reign.

In message , Mike
writes

relevant bit snipped ... oops


Sounds like simple "eye for an eye" that is still used in most of the world
and was a good basis for law here until the Liberals started tinkering with
things during QV's reign.

What, the clearing of the glens ?

--
geoff

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Mike
writes

relevant bit snipped ... oops


Sounds like simple "eye for an eye" that is still used in most of the
world
and was a good basis for law here until the Liberals started tinkering
with
things during QV's reign.

What, the clearing of the glens ?


I think that was the other lot.

In article , James wrote:


But the irony is that a house with crumbling 50 year wiring which has not
been touched requires no certification, whereas if the same house is
competently DIY rewired without BCO approval it is regarded by the
designers of Part P as dangerous.

That and the fact that the extensions to the crumbling ring in my house have
been performed (and, god knows how, certified) by idiots who don't get
earth bonding means I'm puting in a new CU with ground fault protection for
appropriate circuits.

And on another note: I had to cut through the ring pipe (steel) when doing
work in the house and to my amazement only one side bonded to ground,
even though both go back to the CU. How that is possible is a bit beyond me,
but the new cabling now includes a copper ground fat enough for either RCD
or non-RCD protected circuits.


G.




--
http://busker.org | http://www.clustervision.com
| +44 (0)20 8785 7436