English questions

[Moose-tache]

"For qua as" is up there with "upon qua on." It's recent enough that almost everyone still knows how to use it correctly (as opposed to, say, "thou" or "whom"), but no one uses it in normal conversation unless they're doing a bit.

[Richard W]

"For qua as" is up there with "upon qua on." It's recent enough that almost everyone still knows how to use it correctly (as opposed to, say, "thou" or "whom"), but no one uses it in normal conversation unless they're doing a bit.

Is there a translation tool available for this? While 50% was intelligible, the key parts weren't.

[Travis B.]

"For qua as" is up there with "upon qua on." It's recent enough that almost everyone still knows how to use it correctly (as opposed to, say, "thou" or "whom"), but no one uses it in normal conversation unless they're doing a bit.

Is there a translation tool available for this? While 50% was intelligible, the key parts weren't.

I have no idea what "for qua as" or "upon qua on" even means.

As for whom, for me as an adult it is very productive, even though it is at the same time learned because as a kid I did not really know how to use whom "correctly".

[Raphael]

I have no idea what "for qua as" or "upon qua on" even means.

Same.

[Ryusenshi]

I understood them as "using the word for with the meaning as", and "using the word upon with the meaning on".

[Raphael]

I understood them as "using the word for with the meaning as", and "using the word upon with the meaning on".

Ah, thank you.

[Moose-tache]

People out here gonna brag they use "for thine is the kingdom" in regular conversation, then act confused when they see qua.

[Travis B.]

People out here gonna brag they use "for thine is the kingdom" in regular conversation, then act confused when they see qua.

For me thine is very different than for as a conjunction; the latter is rather formal and a tad dated, while the former is really only used when quoting the KJV, Shakespeare, or the Lord's Prayer unless one is in one of those sects which still uses tha. As for qua, that isn't even English as I understand it.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

While I understood the qua in context, I hadn't encountered it used before that way either, and would definitely put it in the "not English" category.

[zompist]

Obligatory xkcd

[Richard W]

People out here gonna brag they use "for thine is the kingdom" in regular conversation, then act confused when they see qua.

Is it so odd if you have a personal relationship with God? It would be rather odd in conversation between mortals.

[Richard W]

While I understood the qua in context, I hadn't encountered it used before that way either, and would definitely put it in the "not English" category.

Well, it's not a conjunction in Latin, but it can be useful in English. It's also easier to type than 'in the rôle of'. However, it is a word for intellectual conversation, which is what we normally have here.

[Travis B.]

People out here gonna brag they use "for thine is the kingdom" in regular conversation, then act confused when they see qua.

Is it so odd if you have a personal relationship with God? It would be rather odd in conversation between mortals.

It is odd if you aren't quoting something written at least 400 years ago.

[Travis B.]

While I understood the qua in context, I hadn't encountered it used before that way either, and would definitely put it in the "not English" category.

Well, it's not a conjunction in Latin, but it can be useful in English. It's also easier to type than 'in the rôle of'. However, it is a word for intellectual conversation, which is what we normally have here.

I would call it superfluous Latin myself - extra Latin injected into otherwise English-language conversations all for the purpose of making one seem more "intellectual".

[azhong]

I was told that, without more text, the sentence
"I read a book again this month"
can seemingly have two meanings:

• 1) I read a book last month, and I read another this month.

• 2) I read a book last month, and I re-read the book this month.

Q: Which interpretation comes to you first? I am wondering if there is a more common understanding on it.
I tried to move "again" to a different position, but it seems to just get a less natural word order and still have two possible meanings.
I read a book this month again.

Thank you, and wish you have a good day.
(Or please also let me know if you do not agree with anything I've mentioned in the post.)

[Moose-tache]

I would call it superfluous Latin myself - extra Latin injected into otherwise English-language conversations all for the purpose of making one seem more "intellectual".

Sumne ovvendor?

[zompist]

I was told that, without more text, the sentence
"I read a book again this month"
can seemingly have two meanings:

• 1) I read a book last month, and I read another this month.

• 2) I read a book last month, and I re-read the book this month.

Q: Which interpretation comes to you first? I am wondering if there is a more common understanding on it.

Yes, you could get either meaning. (Well, the re-reading option would not imply that I first read it last month.)

I think this is pragmatic-- reading a new book is more ordinary than reading the same book again so soon.

[Travis B.]

I would call it superfluous Latin myself - extra Latin injected into otherwise English-language conversations all for the purpose of making one seem more "intellectual".

Sumne ovvendor?

Ich verstehe nicht, was das bedeutet, und ich werde das nicht nachlesen.

[zompist]

I was told that, without more text, the sentence
"I read a book again this month"
can seemingly have two meanings:

• 1) I read a book last month, and I read another this month.

• 2) I read a book last month, and I re-read the book this month.

Q: Which interpretation comes to you first? I am wondering if there is a more common understanding on it.

Yes, you could get either meaning. (Well, the re-reading option would not imply that I first read it last month.)

I think this is pragmatic-- reading a new book is more ordinary than reading the same book again so soon.

Adding to this, azhong: the (2) meaning is a little odd because the book should change definiteness, as in the expanded version "I read a book last month,a nd I read the book again this month." Or "...and I read it again this month."

[Richard W]

I was told that, without more text, the sentence
"I read a book again this month"
can seemingly have two meanings:

• 1) I read a book last month, and I read another this month.

• 2) I read a book last month, and I re-read the book this month.

Q: Which interpretation comes to you first? I am wondering if there is a more common understanding on it.
I tried to move "again" to a different position, but it seems to just get a less natural word order and still have two possible meanings.
I read a book this month again.

Thank you, and wish you have a good day.
(Or please also let me know if you do not agree with anything I've mentioned in the post.)

Neither. I do get 3 meanings out of it, but they are:

• I don't usually read books, but having read one recently, I read a book this month.
• This month, I read a book that I had read before.
• I don't usually read books, but I have read books. I read a book this month.
  
  The different meanings result in differences in intonation.
  
  The more strained word order 'I read a book this month again' eliminates the second meaning for me.