From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3F737603.8040709@acm.org>
From: "D. Brownlee" <brownlee@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] ISP filtering - update
References: <029b01c383ab$855089c0$b9844051@insultant.net> <fd8e0bd23fec289a330752f35336ee41@plan9.bell-labs.com> <029b01c383ab$855089c0$b9844051@insultant.net> <20030925223637.D26720@edinburgh.cisco.com> <5.1.1.6.0.20030926094929.03366d70@pop.monitorbm.co.nz> <20030925231952.C7137@edinburgh.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030925231952.C7137@edinburgh.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:10:59 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4dc453de-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025


>
> That's the point.  Latin has single word infinitives,  English doesn't.
>

Latin actually has some two-worded infinitives; for example,
"portaturus esse" -- "to be about to carry" (future infinitive),
where the present infinitive is "portare." So, a Latin infinitive
could be "split," if "to split" is to insert something between the
first and second words.

"portatus esse" may be the perfect passive infinitive -- I may
be mistaken.