7 ms·

There is some humorous graffiti in the latrine at Ostia Antica (pictured in the article). The Seven Sages of Greece had permeated the collective consciousness

There is some humorous graffiti in the latrine at Ostia Antica (pictured in the article). The Seven Sages of Greece had permeated the collective consciousness to such an extent in Rome that some unknown individual inscribed some graffiti referencing some of them. For example, one graffito reads: "Ut bene cacaret, ventrum palpavit Solon," which translates to "To shit well, Solon rubbed his belly." Another says, "Durum cacantes monuit ut nitant Thales," which translates to, "Thales admonished those shitting to strain hard." Another: "Vissire tacite Chilon docuit subdolus", or "Sly Chilon taught to fart silently." To get the modern cultural connotation, substitute "Thales" or "Solon" for "Einstein" or "Abraham Lincoln". Some of the other graffiti do not reference the Seven Sages. The Seven Sages graffiti use a higher register --- past tense and a meter associated with comedies. But the other graffiti are in a lower register --- present tense and no meter. One of these others recommends "shake yourself about so you'll go faster." One of these also references the tersorium, or sponge on a stick, that the article discusses. (Also called a xylospongium.) The graffito reads "No one talks to you much, Priscianus, until you use the sponge on a stick."

dctoedt 5y ago
> To get the modern cultural connotation, substitute "Thales" or "Solon" for "Einstein" or "Abraham Lincoln". In standard English, the verb "substitute" would have to have the names reversed: "substitute 'Einstein' ... for 'Thales'" as opposed to the other way around. Or change the verb and preposition: "replace 'Thales' ... with 'Einstein' ...."
- dymk 5y ago
  My "Standard English" brain correctly interpreted GP's comment with no ambiguity, so yours seems rather unnecessary
  - dctoedt 5y ago
    Just because you were able to resolve the ambiguity doesn't mean there wasn't a problem. Precision matters: Ambiguity is perhaps the leading reason that parties to contracts find themselves embroiled in costly, dragged-out lawsuits: When a term in a contract could plausibly be interpreted in multiple ways, and there's money riding on the outcome, the lawyers for both sides will come up with all kinds of arguments why their client's interpretation should win. Here, the GGP's misuse of the language doesn't really matter. But it's still better to stick to the standard, so that when it does matter, the meaning will be clear.
    - xeromal 5y ago
      But dude, are we signing contracts right now? lol.
      - dctoedt 5y ago
        > But dude, are we signing contracts right now? lol. You play like you practice.
      - IncRnd 5y ago
        It's best not to say the opposite of what was intended, contract or not.
    - silicon2401 5y ago
      I agree with you > Substitute X for Y I would read this as saying "use X instead of Y". In contrast, I would use this wording for the opposite intention: > Substitute Y with X This discussion also adds support to the side that "substitute X for Y" is the correct terminology: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23360/substitute-x-for-y https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23360/substitute... > This is probably the source of the confusion you noticed: > “Substitute…for…”—first replaces second. > “Substitute…with…”—second replaces first. > The preposition controls the meaning. "Substitute X for Y" means what you think it does: the X will replace Y. > "Substitute X with Y", however, reverses the meaning: Y will replace X. > The traditional construction is like this: > The mechanic had to substitute a generic steering wheel for the original Bentley wheel. > The substitute is the thing you substitute; the original is what you substitute it for. It is perhaps easier to remember if you know the origin of the construction. The word substituo means "to place under, to substitute" in classical Latin. From statuo, "to place, to cause to stand", and sub-, "under". The prefix sub- is used in a way similar to supplant, suppose, the latter meaning "to take a theory in place of a fact" (we suppose something because we don't have the facts). > It is also possible to mention only the substitute: > The recipe said she needed "bacon". She hated bacon. She decided to substitute parma ham. > Because some people have forgotten how to use the construction, probably caused in part by contamination with replace, you will sometimes see it used in various other ways; however, because confusion is quick to ensue, style guides recommend that you use it like this. I would agree that there is debate, and that your suggestion is the standard (edited as I misread your and the original commenter's sides of the debate)
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    It was clearly incorrect in the article.
- bokchoi 5y ago
  The author is probably a sed or vim user: s/Thales/Einstein/
jointpdf 5y ago
Hmmm, a damp sea-sponge-on-a-stick doesn’t sound so bad... > “Worse, the tersoria were probably reused and shared by all fellow butt-wipers who came and went throughout the day.” Ok, I’m logging out for the day. Before I go, here’s a list of sane alternatives in case any of you find yourselves in ancient Rome by accident (snow and lamb’s ears are the Rolls Royce of natural TP, but pinecones and rocks work quite well in a pinch): http://ultralightbackpackintips.blogspot.com/2012/09/liberate-yourself-from-toilet-paper.html?m=1 http://ultralightbackpackintips.blogspot.com/2012/09/liberat...
- AS37 5y ago
  IIRC they eventually figured out to soak the sponges in soured wine (a.k.a. vinegar) as an antiseptic. Which may add some depth to this passage: > About three in the afternoon [while being crucified] Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” ... Immediately one of [those standing near] ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink.
  - wazoox 5y ago
    Roman soldiers wore sponges imbibed with vinegar on a string around their neck, for drinking. The vinegar was added to keep the moist sponge from rotting. So most probably the correct interpretation is that the Roman soldier passed his own personal drinking bottle to Jesus.
  - mellavora 5y ago
    Yes, I realized the same thing the last time I read about roman toilets. Wonder why they never taught this in sunday school?
  - kerev989 5y ago
    Yeah, because there was a convenient public toilet right there and the soldier reached over its wall. Or, maybe, the "vinegar" was the ration of sour wine the soldiers carried.
    - 5y ago
jjtheblunt 5y ago
what does "register" mean as you use it?
- AutumnCurtain 5y ago
  >In sociolinguistics, a register is a variety of language used for a particular purpose or in a particular communicative situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28sociolinguistics%29?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28sociolinguistics%2...
  - jjtheblunt 5y ago
    thank you
- kroltan 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics) Basically, a manner of speaking depending on to whom you're talking to or who you're addressing or how you mean it to be interpreted. In English a similar concept is formality, but register is a generalized concept.
  - jjtheblunt 5y ago
    cool; thanks
koheripbal 5y ago
"shake yourself about so you'll go faster." This is interesting as I learned this from Reddit a few years ago. A slight wiggle of the butt while pooping really does improve the movement.
- testmasterflex 5y ago
  What about the increased risk of hitting the side walls hence needing to use the brush? The opportunity cost is too high.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    Personally, if I'm at the point where I'm considering my technique at all, I'm probably also going to be using that brush after regardless.
    - testmasterflex 5y ago
      Haha, fair enough.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
FredPret 5y ago
Where would one learn Latin short of going back to uni? I’m fascinated by the language and there doesn’t seem to be many non-lawyerly resources available
- ImprovedSilence 5y ago
  I don’t think Italian is too far off. The word endings changed, but roots are mostly (all?) the same. If you can read one I think you can pick up the other usually…? Or I guess seminary school will teach you if law isn’t your thing…..
  - jaclaz 5y ago
    Said by an Italian (old enough to have studied Latin) it is not that easy. Sure most roots are the same (so you can recognize most words, if taken singularly) but the construction and use of cases and the various declinations makes it tough to read a whole sentence and translate it correctly, also because there may be "false friends". On the other hand, with some (possibly better than the ones I did) Latin studies, a whole number of Latin derived languages (Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Romanian) become more accessible, at least in written form, because they all use the same (but somnetimes different) Latin roots, i.e. two different Latin words (meaning the same thing or even the same word in a different case/declination) may have become used in different languages, so knowing the "common ancestor" helps.
- abecedarius 5y ago
  Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata seems the best bet for non-lawyerly.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    Thank you!
- telchar 5y ago
  There are a number of textbooks available, if you were interested in serious self-study. I don’t know of specific names off-hand. A dictionary would be important as well to have as a reference. You could start with a beginning textbook to get basic grammar and vocabulary, then eventually move up to advanced grammar and then actual ancient texts. These would probably be transcribed to a familiar font with hints to help through things like common abbreviations. There are some conventions to learn before being able to read actual artifacts - when you’re paying to have stone carved by the letter, abbreviations are going to be frequent.
labster 5y ago
“A shake for the ass viscosity, improves the mass velocity.” — Einstein, probably

dctoedt 5y ago

> To get the modern cultural connotation, substitute "Thales" or "Solon" for "Einstein" or "Abraham Lincoln". In standard English, the verb "substitute" would have to have the names reversed: "substitute 'Einstein' ... for 'Thales'" as opposed to the other way around. Or change the verb and preposition: "replace 'Thales' ... with 'Einstein' ...."

dymk 5y ago
My "Standard English" brain correctly interpreted GP's comment with no ambiguity, so yours seems rather unnecessary
- dctoedt 5y ago
  Just because you were able to resolve the ambiguity doesn't mean there wasn't a problem. Precision matters: Ambiguity is perhaps the leading reason that parties to contracts find themselves embroiled in costly, dragged-out lawsuits: When a term in a contract could plausibly be interpreted in multiple ways, and there's money riding on the outcome, the lawyers for both sides will come up with all kinds of arguments why their client's interpretation should win. Here, the GGP's misuse of the language doesn't really matter. But it's still better to stick to the standard, so that when it does matter, the meaning will be clear.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    But dude, are we signing contracts right now? lol.
    - dctoedt 5y ago
      > But dude, are we signing contracts right now? lol. You play like you practice.
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      It's best not to say the opposite of what was intended, contract or not.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    I agree with you > Substitute X for Y I would read this as saying "use X instead of Y". In contrast, I would use this wording for the opposite intention: > Substitute Y with X This discussion also adds support to the side that "substitute X for Y" is the correct terminology: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23360/substitute-x-for-y https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23360/substitute... > This is probably the source of the confusion you noticed: > “Substitute…for…”—first replaces second. > “Substitute…with…”—second replaces first. > The preposition controls the meaning. "Substitute X for Y" means what you think it does: the X will replace Y. > "Substitute X with Y", however, reverses the meaning: Y will replace X. > The traditional construction is like this: > The mechanic had to substitute a generic steering wheel for the original Bentley wheel. > The substitute is the thing you substitute; the original is what you substitute it for. It is perhaps easier to remember if you know the origin of the construction. The word substituo means "to place under, to substitute" in classical Latin. From statuo, "to place, to cause to stand", and sub-, "under". The prefix sub- is used in a way similar to supplant, suppose, the latter meaning "to take a theory in place of a fact" (we suppose something because we don't have the facts). > It is also possible to mention only the substitute: > The recipe said she needed "bacon". She hated bacon. She decided to substitute parma ham. > Because some people have forgotten how to use the construction, probably caused in part by contamination with replace, you will sometimes see it used in various other ways; however, because confusion is quick to ensue, style guides recommend that you use it like this. I would agree that there is debate, and that your suggestion is the standard (edited as I misread your and the original commenter's sides of the debate)
- IncRnd 5y ago
  It was clearly incorrect in the article.
bokchoi 5y ago
The author is probably a sed or vim user: s/Thales/Einstein/

jointpdf 5y ago

Hmmm, a damp sea-sponge-on-a-stick doesn’t sound so bad... > “Worse, the tersoria were probably reused and shared by all fellow butt-wipers who came and went throughout the day.” Ok, I’m logging out for the day. Before I go, here’s a list of sane alternatives in case any of you find yourselves in ancient Rome by accident (snow and lamb’s ears are the Rolls Royce of natural TP, but pinecones and rocks work quite well in a pinch): http://ultralightbackpackintips.blogspot.com/2012/09/liberate-yourself-from-toilet-paper.html?m=1 http://ultralightbackpackintips.blogspot.com/2012/09/liberat...

AS37 5y ago
IIRC they eventually figured out to soak the sponges in soured wine (a.k.a. vinegar) as an antiseptic. Which may add some depth to this passage: > About three in the afternoon [while being crucified] Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” ... Immediately one of [those standing near] ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink.
- wazoox 5y ago
  Roman soldiers wore sponges imbibed with vinegar on a string around their neck, for drinking. The vinegar was added to keep the moist sponge from rotting. So most probably the correct interpretation is that the Roman soldier passed his own personal drinking bottle to Jesus.
- mellavora 5y ago
  Yes, I realized the same thing the last time I read about roman toilets. Wonder why they never taught this in sunday school?
- kerev989 5y ago
  Yeah, because there was a convenient public toilet right there and the soldier reached over its wall. Or, maybe, the "vinegar" was the ration of sour wine the soldiers carried.
  - 5y ago

jjtheblunt 5y ago

what does "register" mean as you use it?

AutumnCurtain 5y ago
>In sociolinguistics, a register is a variety of language used for a particular purpose or in a particular communicative situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28sociolinguistics%29?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28sociolinguistics%2...
- jjtheblunt 5y ago
  thank you
kroltan 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics) Basically, a manner of speaking depending on to whom you're talking to or who you're addressing or how you mean it to be interpreted. In English a similar concept is formality, but register is a generalized concept.
- jjtheblunt 5y ago
  cool; thanks

koheripbal 5y ago

"shake yourself about so you'll go faster." This is interesting as I learned this from Reddit a few years ago. A slight wiggle of the butt while pooping really does improve the movement.

testmasterflex 5y ago
What about the increased risk of hitting the side walls hence needing to use the brush? The opportunity cost is too high.
- Talanes 5y ago
  Personally, if I'm at the point where I'm considering my technique at all, I'm probably also going to be using that brush after regardless.
  - testmasterflex 5y ago
    Haha, fair enough.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

FredPret 5y ago

Where would one learn Latin short of going back to uni? I’m fascinated by the language and there doesn’t seem to be many non-lawyerly resources available

ImprovedSilence 5y ago
I don’t think Italian is too far off. The word endings changed, but roots are mostly (all?) the same. If you can read one I think you can pick up the other usually…? Or I guess seminary school will teach you if law isn’t your thing…..
- jaclaz 5y ago
  Said by an Italian (old enough to have studied Latin) it is not that easy. Sure most roots are the same (so you can recognize most words, if taken singularly) but the construction and use of cases and the various declinations makes it tough to read a whole sentence and translate it correctly, also because there may be "false friends". On the other hand, with some (possibly better than the ones I did) Latin studies, a whole number of Latin derived languages (Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Romanian) become more accessible, at least in written form, because they all use the same (but somnetimes different) Latin roots, i.e. two different Latin words (meaning the same thing or even the same word in a different case/declination) may have become used in different languages, so knowing the "common ancestor" helps.
abecedarius 5y ago
Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata seems the best bet for non-lawyerly.
- FredPret 5y ago
  Thank you!
telchar 5y ago
There are a number of textbooks available, if you were interested in serious self-study. I don’t know of specific names off-hand. A dictionary would be important as well to have as a reference. You could start with a beginning textbook to get basic grammar and vocabulary, then eventually move up to advanced grammar and then actual ancient texts. These would probably be transcribed to a familiar font with hints to help through things like common abbreviations. There are some conventions to learn before being able to read actual artifacts - when you’re paying to have stone carved by the letter, abbreviations are going to be frequent.

labster 5y ago

“A shake for the ass viscosity, improves the mass velocity.” — Einstein, probably