Language desk
< November 14	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 15[edit]

Election party[edit]

Hi,

My mum's planning an election party to watch and (hopefully) celebrate the upcoming federal election in Australia. She's looking for something to write on the invitations to warn, in a humourous way, those she invites that some attendees may be rather upset (in a vocal sort of way) if the election goes the wrong way (we're hoping for a change of government).

--Psud 08:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include with the invitation a bogus coupon for ten cents (or pence) off one pair of Acme earplugs. --Milkbreath 13:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like "Shrinking violets beware: Passionate and vocal backers of Labour will be in attendance!" Marco polo 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "This Party May Seriously Damage Your Eardrums"? (Or "Vocal Cords", for that matter?) Bessel Dekker 18:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some mock legal language: The inviter in no way guarantees the desired outcome of said election with regards to all invitees. Nor does the inviter guarantee that all present will be of the same political persuasion. In the event of an undesired outcome, ejaculations of disappointment may issue from the mouths of some present. In this event the inviter shall be in no way held responsible for arguments, disagreements, gloating and other reactions that stem from the election result. Steewi 23:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil's epitaph[edit]

I have a 19th century manuscript that contains the following: "Nearly over the entrance to this grotto is the reputed, and probably real, Tomb of Virgil. A path, worn by many a pilgrim foot, winds up to it through thickets of shrubbery. The tomb is a small domed building, circular in plan, of antique reticulated masonry. Within, on a modern slab, is the well-known inscription: “P. Virgilio Maroni. Mantua me genuit, Calabres rapuere, tenet nunc Parthenope. Cecini pascua, rura, duces.” I find on the web variations. Mostly Calabri instead of Calabres and Parthenopae instead of Parthenope. Does anyone know how the inscription reads/read even if erroneous. It seems that the structure would be Mantua / Calabria / Naples instead of Mantua / the Calabrians / Naples. Thus, "Mantua birthed me, Calabria seized me, now Naples keeps me."LShecut2nd 16:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parthenope is the Greek singular, so that's fine. "Calabri" should be the classical name, but the singular is "Calaber" so perhaps someone assumed it was third declension. The best way to search for that would be to use the only form unique to the third declension - "Calabribus", which gives one Google result for a guy named Pantaleon Candidus, so at least one person did assume it was third. Since the inscription is modern the tomb is probably not real; as far as I am aware it was a medieval tourist trap, invented like many saints' tombs were. Adam Bishop 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This text of Donatus has Calabri. The inscription is therefore attested from antiquity, although presumably not this building. Calabri is variation; also Calabria wouldn't scan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct text is Mantua me genuit, Calabri rapuere, tenet nunc / Parthenope; cecini pascua rura duces. "Calabres" is a modern slip, not a variant of any value (this discussion will join one other instance of error as its only occurrence in the Googleable world). "Parthenopae" is an illiterate error (locative for nominative), spread by an error in Italian Wikipedia. Wareh (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since both Ernst Willkomm in 1847 and Benjamin Silliman in 1851 recorded it as "Calabres," which is the French word for "Calabrians," it must have been so-inscribed at that time. Possibly the error was made under Bourbon rule.LShecut2nd 14:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]