# FIRE! **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [February 5, 2001, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225 "2001-02-05T18:15:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2001, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/21 "2001-02-12T17:34:38Z")
Regarding split infinitives, it’s my understanding that the reason you have to avoid them in Latin is because if you separate the parts, it ceases to be an infinitive. Whereas in English, moving the “to” away from the verb does not change the form of the verb. Of course I never studied Latin, so I don’t really know. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2001, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/22 "2001-02-12T19:15:13Z")
Split infinitives in Latin? Never heard of such a thing. In Latin the infinitive is a single world, so how could it be split? Unless of course you divide it into two parts and stick another word in the middle, that would be bad. Of course, John W. Kennedy might come along with his handy Latin grammar book and explain how a split infinitive is possible in Latin. 😉 Which reminds me, my post above was meant to be humorous (where I said “should I drop and give twenty?”), I should have put a smiley there. I misread John W. Kennedy’s post and didn’t realize that his grammar book specifically said that “virus” was a second declension noun. My latin dictionary only says “virus, noun, neutral”. What’s the title of that grammar book John? I would like to get a copy. It sounds like it has good information that you won’t find in your average latin dictionary. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2001, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/23 "2001-02-12T22:35:30Z")
Quoth **nemo1** : > [@](#): > > Most people, when they’re using the word “data,” are not using the plural of the English word “datum.” Except that they are using the plural of “datum”, even if they don’t realize it. A datum (literally, a “given”, which form still survives in proofs) is a piece of information. Several pieces of information, taken together, are data. As for split infinitives, I would contend that they almost never appear in English, either. Consider the fragment “To boldly go where no man has gone before”: The common mistake is assuming that “go” is the verb. It’s not: The verb is “boldly go”, and “to boldly go” is the (unsplit) infinitive of that verb. ---
**Author:** ![jezzaOZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9a28c/32.png) [@jezzaOZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jezzaOZ)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2001, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/24 "2001-02-12T23:43:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried \* > \*\* I misread John W. Kennedy’s post and didn’t realize that his grammar book specifically said that “virus” was a second declension noun. My latin dictionary only says “virus, noun, neutral”. > \*\* Ahem…, I am the guilty party when it comes to the 2nd declension nouning of _virus_. This was based on looking at the Latin dictionary entry for virus and noting that the dictionary provided the latin plural _viri_. My powers of logical deduction linked with my Latin grammar worked this one out. Secondarily, John W Kennedy’s wild ass guess for the plural _vira_ amusingly means woman (from which we get virago among others). So in ancient times using JWK logic, we have if one: slime/poison, or if more than one : a woman 🙂 Jezza ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/25 "2001-02-13T00:26:01Z")
(Sigh!) > [@](#): > > This was based on looking at the Latin dictionary entry for virus and noting that the dictionary provided the latin plural viri. Unless your Latin dictionary is different from every other Latin dictionary in the world, it didn’t give “viri” as the plural of “virus”, but as the genetive singular. > [@](#): > > Secondarily, John W Kennedy’s wild ass guess for the plural vira amusingly means woman (from which we get virago among others). > > So in ancient times using JWK logic, we have if one: slime/poison, or if more than one : a woman 🙂 No. In the first place, there is no such word. In the second place, the English word “virago” comes from the Latin word “virago”. In the third place, I have never said more than that I _don’t know_ (God! Why is it so difficult to get people to understand the concept of not having enough information to decide something?) whether the Latin plural of “virus” is “viri” (like other 2nd-declension nouns in -us), or “vira” (like other neuter 2nd-declension nouns), or simply nonexistent. In the fourth place, “vira” doesn’t mean “woman”, but “viri” does mean “men”. > [@](#): > > The common mistake is assuming that “go” is the verb. It’s not: The verb is “boldly go”, and “to boldly go” is the (unsplit) infinitive of that verb. No it isn’t. “Go” is the verb, and “to … go” is a split infinitive. However, the “rule” against splitting infinitives in English is, in C. S. Lewis’s fine phrase, “a Frenchified schoolroom superstition”. > [@](#): > > What’s the title of that grammar book John? I would like to get a copy. It sounds like it has good information that you won’t find in your average latin dictionary. It’s Herbert Charles Elmer’s “Latin Grammar”. I’ve had it for nearly 40 years, and it was used when I got it, so it’s probably a tad difficult to find, but I see there’s a copy available right now on [http://www.alibris.com](http://www.alibris.com). ---
**Author:** ![jezzaOZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9a28c/32.png) [@jezzaOZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jezzaOZ)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/26 "2001-02-13T00:37:14Z")
Double sigh!! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John W. Kennedy \* > \*\*(Sigh!) > > > [@](#): > > > > Secondarily, John W Kennedy’s wild ass guess for the plural vira amusingly means woman (from which we get virago among others). > > > > So in ancient times using JWK logic, we have if one: slime/poison, or if more than one : a woman 🙂 > > No. > > In the first place, there is no such word. > > In the fourth place, “vira” doesn’t mean “woman”, but “viri” does mean “men”. > \*\* I suggest you have a look at the Lewis and Short Latin dictionary, a copy is available at [Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, vĭra](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/lexindex?lookup=vira&lang=la) If you check up on your non-existent word _vira_ you will see that Lewis and Short have (obviously mistakenly 🙂 made an entry of : vira, ae, _f_. [vir], _a woman_: quae nunc femina, antiquitus vira vocabatur, Isid. Orig. 11, 2, 23. (edited for purpose of clarification at the request of jezzaOZ) [Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 02-12-2001 at 11:22 PM] ---
**Author:** ![jezzaOZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9a28c/32.png) [@jezzaOZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jezzaOZ)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/27 "2001-02-13T00:50:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > In the first place, there is no such word. > > In the fourth place, “vira” doesn’t mean “woman”, but “viri” does mean “men”. > > JWK > > \*\* I suggest you have a look at the Lewis and Short Latin dictionary, a copy is available at [Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, vĭra](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/lexindex?lookup=vira&lang=la) If you check up on your non-existent word vira you will see that Lewis and Short have (obviously mistakenly 🙂 made an entry of : vira, ae, f. [vir], a woman: quae nunc femina, antiquitus vira vocabatur, Isid. Orig. 11, 2, 23. Jezza (Please disregard my prior post. I wrongly attributed a JWK pearl of wisdom to me.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/28 "2001-02-14T03:43:12Z")
If that is the only example, all it establishes is that someone once _thought_ there was such a word. (That is, for those who have no Latin at all, that is what the “example” actually is; someone saying, without giving evidence, that there used to be a word “vira”.) If you will look at the OED, you will find a whole appendix of English non-words that exist only because some old dictionary made a mistake and other dictionaries copied it. Absent further evidence, that’s what this one looks like to me. ---
**Author:** ![jezzaOZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9a28c/32.png) [@jezzaOZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jezzaOZ)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/29 "2001-02-14T05:48:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John W. Kennedy \* > \*\*If that is the only example, all it establishes is that someone once _thought_ there was such a word. (That is, for those who have no Latin at all, that is what the “example” actually is; someone saying, without giving evidence, that there used to be a word “vira”.) > \*\* Dear JWK - Please remember the immortal words of Gaius Julius Caesar : _Tamquam scopulum, sic fugias inauditum atque insolens verbum._ (Avoid a strange and unfamiliar word as you would a dangerous reef) It may do you well in this discussion, and, as I understand, many others. Examples? Publius Ovidius Naso > [@](#): > > - > > Utque vira furtiva Venus, sic grata puellae. Vir male dissimulat; tectius illa cupit. > -Ibid., 275 \* (Apologies for the slang, but it was the best I could find on short notice) More examples ? Everyone who speaks (at least) Italian, Portugese and Polish uses the Latin word vira for woman. Even more examples ? Here is a fourth century commentary discussing Latin words relating to women as compared to the Greek words. (I know JWK can understand all of this - sorry to others - basically it says “what we now call a woman, femina, was, in former times, called vira; as serva, maid-servant, from servus, famula, handmaid from famulus, so vira from vir” ) > [@](#): > > - > > est, sicut et virga, sicut et vitula. Alias ab incorruptione quasi\ virago, quod ignoret femineam passionem. Virago vocata\ quia virum agit, hoc est opera virilia facit, et masculini vigo\ris est. Antiqui enim fortes feminas ita vocabant. Virgo autem\ non recte virago dicitur, si non viri officio fungitur, mulier vero\ si virilia opera agit, recte virago dicitur ut Amazona. Que vero nunc\ femina antiquitus vira vocabatur, sicut a servo serva, sicut\ a famulo famula, ita a viro vira. Hinc et virginis nomen qui\dam putant. Femina vero a partibus femorum dicta ubi sexus\ species a viro distinguitur. > \* ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/30 "2001-02-14T06:58:27Z")
Thank you for the link John. I plan on ordering the book tomorrow. It will bring back memories of my high school days. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2001, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/31 "2001-02-15T00:22:30Z")
The word in Ovid is “viro”. You apparently got “vira” from [http://patriot.net/~carey/afa/latinclub/quotes.htm](http://patriot.net/~carey/afa/latinclub/quotes.htm), where it is a typo, as the English translation on the same webpage proves. The fourth-century quotation you give is the same thing you gave in the first place. As before, I don’t accept the unsupported statement of a fourth-century author on archaic Latin; late Latin writers are notorious for their mistakes about etymology. Neither of my Italian dictionaries lists “vira”, and I’ve never encountered the word in 20 years as a semi-pro opera singer. I have no reference for Portuguese, but I certainly have no intention of accepting a word in Polish as proof that a word existed in Latin. ---
**Author:** ![jezzaOZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9a28c/32.png) [@jezzaOZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jezzaOZ)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/32 "2001-02-16T13:01:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John W. Kennedy \* > [ > The fourth-century quotation you give is the same thing you gave in the first place. As before, I don’t accept the unsupported statement of a fourth-century author on archaic Latin; late Latin writers are notorious for their mistakes about etymology. > \*\* Is a wooden stake through the heart sufficient to make the JWK\* admit he is wrong, or is a silver bullet and crucifx required as well ? (\* JWK : a 21st Century netizen with a grammar book who doesn’t actually speak Latin seeks to discredit a (was) living Latin scholar of the 4th century living in Rome who not only talked Latin, breathed Latin and lived Latin, but was at least 17 centuries closer to realtity than JWK) ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2001, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/33 "2001-02-20T00:04:26Z")
– except, of course, that he is talking about Latin some seven hundred years before his own time (before, in his own words, the word “femina” was used for “woman”). Modern scholars know a _hell_ of a lot more about Latin of that era than than he did, just as modern scholars know a hell of a lot more about Old English than anyone in Shakespeare’s time did. And no-one in ancient times knew diddley-squat about scientific linguistics, and it shows in their wild guesses. The classic example is the fellow who decided that “lucus” (forest) derived from “non lucendus” (“it isn’t shining”). Which is about as dumb as believing that “forest” comes from “it’s a bad place FOR ESTimating things”. It is entirely possible that he’s right and I’m wrong. But it smells of day-old fish, and I want proof. ---
**Author:** ![mok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/edb3f5/32.png) [@mok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mok)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2001, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/34 "2001-02-22T05:37:09Z")
jezzaOz sed: > [@](#): > > …Italian, Portuguese and Polish uses the Latin word vira for woman Huh? I think you are making it up. The Polish word for woman is _kobieta_. Polish is a Slavic language – it would be very unusual to use a Latin loan for such a basic language term. Portuguese typically uses _mulher_, conjugate to Spanish _mujer_ and certainly not derived from vira. I don’t speak Italian, but I’ll bet you made that one up, too. -m ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/35 "2001-02-23T14:05:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Portuguese typically uses mulher, conjugate to Spanish mujer and certainly not derived from vira. Which is also presumably conjugate to the Latin “mulier” (spelling may be off; it’s been a while), which also means “woman”. As I understand it, the Latin “femina” is closer in meaning to the English “lady” rather than “woman”. Gaelic uses a conjugate of the same word, as well, according to my mom, who puzzled a bit about whether she should go into the “fir” or “muller” restroom last time she was in Ireland. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225/36 "2001-02-23T21:46:57Z")
“Mulier” is woman/wife/matron. “Femina” is female/woman. There wasn’t really a classical conception corresponding to the contemporary vaguely eulogistic use of “lady”. “Lady” in the more technical sense would be “domina”. “Mulier” is another example of idiotic classical etymology. It was said to be derived from “mollis aer” – “tender air”. (This belief underlies the prophecy and its interpretation in Shakespeare’s “Cymbeline”.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fire/53225.md?page=1)