Undead, undead

Classics-list-poster 1:
"I like to tell students that Hittite and Etruscan and Sumerian are dead
languages, but Latin is a zombie language: technically dead, but still
quite active."

Classics-list-poster 2:
"AND it eats your brain."

Also from this thread:
"I say we should break out of the bias that favors living things over
dead things. Lots of interesting and important people happen to be
dead. Likewise languages and civilizations. Interesting dead people
are the single best reason to learn Latin, in my view."

(no subject)

Sometimes I think the journal I help edit wouldn't be so far behind schedule if the boss didn't insist at every point that a bibliographical reference to, say, a specific volume of an encyclopedic or other multi-volume work be cited according to exact year of publication of the volume in question. Practically no library catalog in the world bothers with such information, and so it usually means having to go and physically look at the damn thing.

I just don't see the point.

Let us imagine the hypothetical reader:

"Oh! I note that the author of the article refers to the ten-volume Munich edition of the works of Name Here that was published between 1973 and 1979. Unfortunately he cites volume 3, part 2 without saying which year it appeared. I vaguely recall that it may have been 1976, but I shall not be able to sleep until I know for certain."

(no subject)

I don't mean to imply from my last post that details aren't important. Like last night I was mixing a stir fry sauce and it said 1/4 cup of soy sauce and 1 tablespoon of sesame oil and I read it wrong and put in 1/4 cup of sesame oil, and that was potentially bad.

In the end I just multiplied all the other ingredients accordingly, so now we have a jar of stir fry sauce in the fridge. So it worked out.

But I'm just sayin'.

Actually, I'm just procrastinatin'. 'Cause I don't want to go outside in the rain to go to the library to look up information I truly, deeply believe with my entire soul is not necessary to know.