h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A law unto himself -- curiously the original use of this phrase (Romans 2 14) was the highest form of praise; one who follows the law by nature.

<<"Ye" was (I believe) plural nominative: (I believe) "yourselves" accusative. "Your" possesive>>

I read somewhere that the other useage of "ye", ie as "the" came from the fact that "the" was origionally spelled "o|e", where "o|" is the old English letter thorn, but that thorn was, in printed documents, replaced with the letter y because printing presses made outside Britain didn't have the right die.

<>

I got that explanation from my spanish teacher in 7th grade. Something simialar for "el agenda".

<>

Actually, I have a question about the use of the word cousin.

What's the correct term for your parent's cousin? Or for that person's kids?

<>

Eek - first, second, third cousins, once, twice, thrice removed . . . I've never understood that stuff. Perhaps someone will be able to explain it.

az

<>

I've gotten into the habit of using "aunt" or "uncle" in the first cae because I can't bring myself to call an adult my cousin. As for the second one, I've always just said cousin. It would be nice to know what the right terms are, though.

We can qualify many relative terms by using paternal/maternal/distaff & so on, but we don't usually bother.

The cousin rule is, I think

A cousin of your parent is your cousin once removed. (Cousin of grandparent is twice removed)

The child of said cousin would be your second cousin.

I'm sure there's someone who knows if that's correct?

Not that hard. Your parent's cousin is your cousin once removed, and so on.

Your parent's cousin's child is your second cousin, and so on.

Thanks.

And the laws regarding logistics and such ,indicate at the eight(cousin removed) or near about, any two will have connected relative, ancestors,even
liveing rlatives to the uphtmth placement.

>> ..original use of this phrase (Romans 2 14) was the highest form of praise.. <<

Thanks Recumbentman (may I call you Rec, or maybe Recumb?) it's always a good and important thing to trace these things back to their sources and decipher the original intent. It gives us context. And from that context we can see how things change and how often they might remain the same. The modern meaning of 'renegade' in defiance of the rule of law, is misleading.

In this case the law is Hebraic law, the law of the ancient god of Noah and Moses as interpretted by the latter day rabbis. It is supposed to represent the will of god, the will of nature, the nature of will, the nature of man, the nature of god's wish for man's will... in otherwords, the character of man, the natural character of man.

I am myself sadly ignorant of too much of the good book and am glad of anyone who can report of its content without prejudice or proselytising. If you do have a more extensive knowledge of it, please continue to inform us of these references as they occur to you. I for one will be most grateful and, to paraphrase the good book, 'An attitude of gratitude begets gratuities'.


~jwf~

Second Cousins and the like.
Basically, you have to trace back to a common ancestor and see whether you are the same level of generation away to be first cousin, second cousin or whatever. If there is a difference in generational levels there will be a level of removal dependant on how many generations difference.
Example:
This is Zebediah
Zebediah has two children
Xerxes and Yvonne.
````--------
Xerxes has a son called Arthur and Yvonne has a daughter called Betty.
````--------
Arthur and Betty are first cousins. They are of the same generation. They both refer to Zebediah as Grandfather.
Arthur has a child Charles.
````
Charles is Betty's first cousin once removed. He calls Zebediah Great Grandfather while Betty calls him Grandfather.

Betty has a child, Denise.
````
Denise is Charles' second cousin.
````--------
Charles and Denise both refer to Zebediah as Great Grandfather, and so on.

My Arabic phrasebook doesn't have a word for cousin. Instead, it suggests you use one of the following eight phrases:

Father's Brother's Son
Father's Brother's Daughter
Father's Sister's Son
Father's Sister's Daughter
Mother's Brother's Son
Mother's Brother's Daughter
Mother's Sister's Son
Mother's Sister's Daughter

not forgeting son of a illigimate camels sister daughter

vestboy,

Your family-cousin-tree is a masterpiece of clarity.
I offer my thanks for your having spared me the lengthy text version I was contemplating. The smileys confirm that "a picture paints a thouand words".

az (I think it was) my point was that my friends native tongue (whatever that is, I shall have to ask) does distinguish between father's brother and mother's brother.

Another one for you. What is an Aleck and why is being a smart one a term of derision? I always thought it was a shortname form of Alexander (or Alexandra) but I don't think I've ever seen or known of an Alexander who uses Aleck, they all use Alec or Alex. So is an Aleck and Alexander, if so is it an archaic short form, and if so which particular 'smart' alexander originated it?

Thanks Plaguesville

A few years ago I bought a Handspring Visor (palmtop) which is still going, though I have reverted to a paper diary (lighter, faster) and use my palm mostly for playing backgammon (seriously addictive).

It has a slot for a cartridge in the back, so I looked at the list of titles available and bought a King James Bible. It has turned out to be an excellent buy, as the whole text is searchable. Endless hours of fascination.

For instance, where is Satan first mentioned by name?

I Chronicles 21.

And in what context?

He provoked King David to number Israel. Yes folks, the first work of Satan is the population census.

What did God make of it?

God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.

Was David sorry?

Yes; he said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing.

Did that get him off?

No, God gave him a choice among (certainly not between) three punishments: Three years' famine, or three months to be destroyed before his foes, or else three days the sword of the Lord, even the pestilence in the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. He chose the last.

Does God do evil? And can he change his mind?

Yes, after destroying seventy thousand men by pestilence, and then sending an angel to destroy Jerusalem to destroy it, "he repented of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thy hand."

I read through the whole Bible a while back; the Old Testament is full of great stuff, particularly Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Esther, Job, the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (my favourite). Tobit is a great read too, but it's in the Apocrypha.

I would be delighted to answer any source questions, but it's also all accessible no doubt through google goggles.

There is a Bible Online somewhere - I have often used it to look things up.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=SONG+1&language=english&version=NIV

(That's the Song of Solomon - heaven knows why I looked that up!)

And back to my What is What discussion.

Azahar and jwf have only re-iterated the question, as far as I can see.

logicus agreed with me.

We are still no further.

I summarise my question:

Does it rely entirely upon how the sentence is intended?
Which is the subject and which is the object?
If they are on equal footing, which one does the verb have to agree with and why?

TC,

Assuming you have dismissed post #8208 as incomprehensible or irrelevant, does your question relate particularly to the verb "to be", or to any verb which is not "to be", or are you contemplating sentence construction involving both?