The recent Supreme Court decision was interesting, not only politically, but also linguistically. The whole case apparently centered on the use of a comma: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As one reader in the Washington Post noted:
quote:
The Supreme Court Justices should go back to grammar school. The first clause of the Second Amendment - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," - is known in Latin as an ablative absolute.
And there's more...the decision bought out some very inflammatory language between the "2 sides" of the justices. Words like "faulty analysis" and "feeble" and "fundamentally fails to grasp the point" and "worthy of a mad hatter" were used. Here's a funny article about that. One might have expected a little more respect in the decision.
The Supreme Court Justices should go back to grammar school. The first clause of the Second Amendment - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," - is known in Latin as an ablative absolute.
I don't know much about this issue, and I'm Canadian so my opinion isn't too important, but I do know that this argument is irrelevant since the Second Amendment is actually not in Latin.
I'm just wondering... would a discusion of the 2nd and of gun control be something this group would like to tackle? I realize it is not strictly "word related" but it is a good group of people to handle a hard topic. Could it be much harder than defineing good art?
and I'm Canadian so my opinion isn't too important,
Your opinion is important to us, goofy! The question, of course, was what was meant by our forefathers, and many of them had been students of Latin. I suspect we'll only find out what they meant when we meet them in heaven.
I only brought up the word-related elements of the decision, Lop. I thought the question of the commas was quite interesting (and apparently it was discussed in the decision), as well as the warring of words.
English does not have an ablative case (in fact many linguists argue that English has no case system) and does not have an ablative absolute form in its grammar. (There is a construct which some call the nominative absolute which is simular to the ablative absolute of Latin.) The ablative absolute in Latin is a construction where a clause in the ablative case usually consisting of a noun and a participle is used to suggest a kind of near simultaneity of the two actions described. Here's an example:
urbe capta Aeneas fugit
a. The city having been captured, Aeneas fled. (literal) b. With the city having been captured, Aeneas fled. c. When the city was captured, Aeneas fled.
Translated literally, the construction feels foreign, and a better translation usually uses when or while to coordinate the two phrases: Rome burned while Nero fiddled. (Example cribbed from Wikipedia link.)
