Dougolly wrote:
>
> For those mystified by part of Pete's latest effusion, here is his Latin tag
> translated:
>
> "Summis fere partibus levis et innoxius umor suspenditur gravis
> illa et pestifera pars pondere suo subsidit."
>
> Part-clothed in levis, our most successful comrade keeps away seriousness with
> harmless jokes, while ponderous, pestilential paragraphs of criticism attract
> his arts grants.
>
> Dixit Doug

Seems this was intended for the list too, but didn't bear that address.
Thanks Doug, even if I studied the homophone for years with C. Bernstein
I couldn't better that. For the still-mystified, it roughly goes,
"Usually the light and benign liquid stays at the top, while the weight
of the mortal part drags it to the bottom."
For those mystified by the English part: here's a brief gloss of that -
Yes, let's talk good & better & how so, especially how so - why this,
why not that. I can only see it sharpening skills - in rejection or
acceptance of an expresed opinion. Andrew Duncan's attempt to promote
discussion of a canon is on record; reasons for choices & exclusions
would be interesting (I found it more catholic than I'd expected).
Nothing should stand on the grounds that "Prof. so&so says it's good" or
editor so&so - although we come to trust or not particular people's
recommendations & rightly so. If I took enough note as the thing
scrolled by, it seems that Mr. Silliman objects to Mr. Perelman for
making qualitative judgements, not for the ones he made but allowing
himself to make any. Did I get that wrong? We could be back at the
desk of Mr Robert Graves' Headmaster wagging his finger, "Master Graves
it has been brought to our attention that you PREFER SOME BOOKS TO
OTHERS."
gone, work calling
Pete.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%