[Grammar] The classical Latin word is from Greek

grammar (n.)

late 14c., "Latin grammar, rules of Latin," from Old French gramaire "grammar; learning," especially Latin and philology, also "(magic) incantation, spells, mumbo-jumbo" (12c., Modern French grammaire), an "irregular semi-popular adoption" [OED] of Latin grammatica "grammar, philology," perhaps via an unrecorded Medieval Latin form *grammaria. The classical Latin word is from Greek grammatike (tekhnē) "(art) of letters," referring both to philology and to literature in the broadest sense, fem. of grammatikos (adj.) "pertaining to or versed in letters or learning," from gramma "letter" (see -gram). An Old English gloss of it was stæfcræft (see staff (n.)).

https://www.etymonline.com/word/grammar
----------

The blue part is used in the present tense, while the red part is used in the past tense. I wonder why.

Is the writer suggesting that this classical Latin word still exists?

kadioguy said:

Is the writer suggesting that this classical Latin word still exists?

Click to expand...

Well, I found this in Wikipedia:

Latin is a classical language belonging to the Italic branch of the Indo-European languages. [...] It is the official language in the Holy See (Vatican City).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin
---------

So yes, this word still exists.

The blue part is about the present, right? It talks about the derivation of the word, as it exists now.

The red part is about the past.

It's hard to see what you can't understand about this. Why would you think that Latin doesn't exist?

jutfrank said:

The blue part is about the present, right? It talks about the derivation of the word, as it exists now.

Click to expand...

I thought that "The classical Latin word" referred to "Latin grammatica", and this Latin word was created and used in the past, so it should have been The classical Latin word was from Greek.

Do you mean that "The classical Latin word" refers to this English word "grammar", which still exists now?

jutfrank said:

Why would you think that Latin doesn't exist?

Click to expand...

I thought that Latin, as well as Old English, has been "dead".

kadioguy said:

I thought that Latin, as well as Old English, [STRIKE]has been[/STRIKE] was "dead".

Click to expand...

It's a dead language in the sense that nobody in the world has spoken it as their mother tongue for centuries. But there are still millions of people who know it well enough to claim some level of fluency. Old English is known by only a few scholars. The number of people who could claim fluency in it could probably fit into a small lecture hall.

kadioguy said:

I thought that Latin, as well as Old English, has been "dead".

Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction, GoesStation. The red part should have been in line with the blue part in the tense.

jutfrank said:

The blue part is about the present, right? It talks about the derivation of the word, as it exists now.

The red part is about the past.

Click to expand...

kadioguy said:

Do you mean that "The classical Latin word" refers to this English word "grammar", which still exists now?

Click to expand...

Am I right in thinking this?

-----------
And the red part:

An Old English gloss of it was stæfcræft (see staff(n.))

I think it means that people used stæfcræft to mean grammar in the Old English times. So it is about the past and "was" is used.

Do I understand it correctly?

kadioguy said:

Do you mean that "The classical Latin word" refers to this English word "grammar", which still exists now?

Click to expand...

kadioguy said:

An Old English gloss of it was stæfcræft (see staff(n.))

I think it means that people used stæfcræft to mean grammar in the Old English times. So it is about the past and "was" is used.

Do I understand it correctly?

Click to expand...

I don't know if I understand correctly about the two parts. Could you please tell me?

The point is that Old English is dead. Dead dead dead.

Latin, while not anyone's native language, is not completely dead. It is only mostly dead. Most English speakers recognize at least some Latin words, like "et cetera." Educated English speakers use and recognize many Latin phrases. We had a whole scandal recently about "quid pro quo," for example.


So Latin words are. Old English words were.

It really does not matter whether Latin or Old English is dead. That's not the point. Being dead simply means that people don't speak it as a first language any more.

The point is that when we study it, it is very much alive, and present as an object of study. We say that the Latin word for 'grammar' is (not was) 'grammatike'. It's no different for Old English.

kadioguy said:

grammar (n.)

late 14c., "Latin grammar, rules of Latin," from Old French gramaire "grammar; learning," especially Latin and philology, also "(magic) incantation, spells, mumbo-jumbo" (12c., Modern French grammaire), an "irregular semi-popular adoption" [OED] of Latin grammatica "grammar, philology," perhaps via an unrecorded Medieval Latin form *grammaria. The classical Latin word is from Greek grammatike (tekhnē) "(art) of letters," referring both to philology and to literature in the broadest sense, fem. of grammatikos (adj.) "pertaining to or versed in letters or learning," from gramma "letter" (see -gram). An Old English gloss of it was stæfcræft (see staff (n.)).

Click to expand...

jutfrank said:

The point is that when we study it, it is very much alive, and present as an object of study. We say that the Latin word for 'grammar' is (not was) 'grammatike'. It's no different for Old English.

Click to expand...

1. Did you mean to say We say that the Latin word for 'grammar' is (not was) from (Greek) 'grammatike'?

2. Do you mean this?

When we study the Latin word for 'grammar', it is very much alive, and present as an object of study, so we use "is (not was)". And we don't focus on its Old English form at this moment, so we can simply use "was", which means stæfcræft existed in the past - we don't study it for now.

1. No. I was translating.

2. Very loosely, yes.

Remember what I've said before about using present and past tenses. If the writer uses a present tense, he imagines the thing as present, and if he uses the past tense, he imagines it as past. In this case, the writer wanted to focus on the use of the the Old English gloss as a thing of the past. It's simple. You don't have to worry about why.

Thank you, jutfrank.

jutfrank said:

Remember what I've said before about using present and past tenses.

Click to expand...

I assume that present and past tenses means present tense and past tense, rather than present tenses and past tenses.

Am I right in thinking this?

(Rethink: maybe it means present tenses and past tenses. :-?)

[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]

jutfrank said:

If the writer uses a present tense, he imagines the thing as present, and if he uses the past tense, he imagines it as past.

Click to expand...

I can't tell why [/FONT]If the writer uses a present tense, but if he uses the past tense. Could you help me?

kadioguy said:

present and past tenses

(Rethink: maybe it means present tenses and past tenses.)

Click to expand...

I think that my understanding could be accurate. What do you think?

kadioguy said:

I can't tell why If the writer uses a present tense, but if he uses the past tense. Could you help me?

Click to expand...

GoesStation:

I was thinking of phrases in general. I'd have used the definite article if I'd been thinking of the phrase such as.

https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/...other-person?p=1599437&viewfull=1#post1599437

-----
Can I apply this reply to my question here?

(In general) If the writer uses a present tense, he imagines the thing as present, and (in a specific case) if he uses the past tense, he imagines it as past.

kadioguy said:

(Rethink: maybe it means present tenses and past tenses.)

Click to expand...

kadioguy said:

GoesStation:

I was thinking of phrases in general. I'd have used the definite article if I'd been thinking of the phrase such as.

https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/...other-person?p=1599437&viewfull=1#post1599437

-----
Can I apply this reply to my question here?

(In general) If the writer uses a present tense, he imagines the thing as present, and (in a specific case) if he uses the past tense, he imagines it as past.

Click to expand...

I have tried my best to think about the two questions. Could someone please help me? :-?

jutfrank said:

If the writer uses a present tense, he imagines the thing as present, and if he uses a past tense, he imagines it as past.

Click to expand...

There. Correction.

kadioguy said:

I assume that present and past tenses means present tense and past tense, rather than present tenses and past tenses.

(Rethink: maybe it means present tenses and past tenses. )

Click to expand...

Thank you very much, jutfrank.

If you don't mind, could you please tell me about this one?

Having a guide by a teacher or a experienced native speaker is blissful.

kadioguy said:

Having a guide by a teacher or a experienced native speaker is blissful.

Click to expand...

Okay, how could I deny you such bliss?

What do you want to know? Ask again because I've lost the thread of what you're thinking.

jutfrank said:

Remember what I've said before about using present and past tenses.

Click to expand...

1.
Does the blue part mean present (tenses) and past tenses (rather than present tense and past tense)?

2.
I mean, present tenses and past tenses can be simplified as present and past tenses, and present tense and past tense can be simplified as present and past tense.

Am I right?

1. Yes.

2. Yes.