3 ms·

Why do you think the glossary implies that? The glossary has "to copulate" plenty of places, so if the author thought cohabitation only meant copulation, they'd

Why do you think the glossary implies that? The glossary has "to copulate" plenty of places, so if the author thought cohabitation only meant copulation, they'd just put "to copulate" wouldn't they? It doesn't, it says the cohabitation ones mean cohabitation. So that's living together, not just having sex together. Note that in certain religions, unmarried girls and guys aren't even allowed in a room alone with each other without a chaperone. Even today I hear lots of religious girls refuse to move in with someone until marriage. So living together even without any mention of sex is considered scandalous to certain people of certain times - thus requiring censoring in a 1919 treatise. Heck, even in modern times, a block away from me, there's a mediation center where the guys and girls all have to sit on opposite sides of the building even though no one is having sex at a meditation center, and what the girls are allowed to wear is tightly restricted.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> Why do you think the glossary implies that? Because I am at least as familiar with Latin as the intended audience of the glossary. I detailed my objections in my root comment. Why don't I repeat them: 1. "Commisco" and "commiscor" are the active and passive forms of the same verb. This glossary has the active form meaning "copulate" and the passive meaning not "get screwed" but rather "cohabit". This is not a verb with different senses in the active and passive. (I'm assuming that the glossary's "commisco" is actually commisceo; for examples of verbs that _are_ different in their active and passive senses, see video, where the active means "see" and the passive commonly means "appear [to be a certain way]", or facio, where the passive fio is so special that it is morphologically not even passive.) 2. "Concumbo", "concubitus", and "concubitalis" are, respectively, a verb [literally "lie with"], a noun derived from that verb, and an adjective derived from the noun. This glossary gives the verb as "cohabitate", the noun as "cohabitation", and the adjective, somehow, as "copulative". Here's the Lewis and Short dictionary entry for "concubitus": http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dconcubitus http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... . I'll repeat it here: > I. A lying together; reclining; a firm, close shutting together (of the teeth). > II. Copulation, coition. These are explicitly sexual words. 3. "Congressus" is glossed explicitly as "coition", immediately implying that the author and audience are both aware of the meaning of the word "coition". But "coire" and "coitus" are glossed as "to cohabit" and "cohabitation", despite the fact that these are not legitimate meanings of the Latin words. They refer to sexual intercourse. (Since they literally mean "go[ing] together", they have all kinds of other senses, such as entering into contracts. Cohabitation is not mentioned. See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcoeo http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... ) > The glossary has "to copulate" plenty of places, so if the author thought cohabitation only meant copulation, they'd just put "to copulate" wouldn't they? Yes, this is very strange, as I said above. This is what I'm asking about. > It doesn't, it says the cohabitation ones mean cohabitation. So that's living together, not just having sex together. This conclusion cannot stand. The Latin words glossed as "cohabitation" do not generally have that meaning (concumbo does seem to offer it, though the primary sense is obviously just "have sex"), and the glossary frequently glosses different forms of the same word as "copulation" in one place and "cohabitation" in another place.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> Why do you think the glossary implies that? Because I am at least as familiar with Latin as the intended audience of the glossary. I detailed my objections in my root comment. Why don't I repeat them: 1. "Commisco" and "commiscor" are the active and passive forms of the same verb. This glossary has the active form meaning "copulate" and the passive meaning not "get screwed" but rather "cohabit". This is not a verb with different senses in the active and passive. (I'm assuming that the glossary's "commisco" is actually commisceo; for examples of verbs that _are_ different in their active and passive senses, see video, where the active means "see" and the passive commonly means "appear [to be a certain way]", or facio, where the passive fio is so special that it is morphologically not even passive.) 2. "Concumbo", "concubitus", and "concubitalis" are, respectively, a verb [literally "lie with"], a noun derived from that verb, and an adjective derived from the noun. This glossary gives the verb as "cohabitate", the noun as "cohabitation", and the adjective, somehow, as "copulative". Here's the Lewis and Short dictionary entry for "concubitus": http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dconcubitus http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... . I'll repeat it here: > I. A lying together; reclining; a firm, close shutting together (of the teeth). > II. Copulation, coition. These are explicitly sexual words. 3. "Congressus" is glossed explicitly as "coition", immediately implying that the author and audience are both aware of the meaning of the word "coition". But "coire" and "coitus" are glossed as "to cohabit" and "cohabitation", despite the fact that these are not legitimate meanings of the Latin words. They refer to sexual intercourse. (Since they literally mean "go[ing] together", they have all kinds of other senses, such as entering into contracts. Cohabitation is not mentioned. See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcoeo http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... ) > The glossary has "to copulate" plenty of places, so if the author thought cohabitation only meant copulation, they'd just put "to copulate" wouldn't they? Yes, this is very strange, as I said above. This is what I'm asking about. > It doesn't, it says the cohabitation ones mean cohabitation. So that's living together, not just having sex together. This conclusion cannot stand. The Latin words glossed as "cohabitation" do not generally have that meaning (concumbo does seem to offer it, though the primary sense is obviously just "have sex"), and the glossary frequently glosses different forms of the same word as "copulation" in one place and "cohabitation" in another place.