Talk:Mutatis mutandis

message: I think there is a small error in this good article: the absolut ablative consists in a participle in the ablative case and a substantive (noun, pronoun...) in ablative case too. In the locution "mutatis mutandis","mutatis" is the participle (plural, perfect, ablative), while "mutandis" must be read as "mutandis rebus" (gerundive, with the idea of necessity) and it is used as a substantive.  Massimo — preceding comment added 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well HELLO!! LAST time I checked "absolut" had an e on the end. This confirms the principle (whose exact name I forget) that any correction will inevitably contain an error of its own. But you are right, Massimo. This is an excellent article. It's short, pithy, provides good examples, and doesn't go on forever. Who lifted it from where? As for your points... aaaah, well, I couldn't understand a word of it. Myles325a (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least three errors: it's "ablative absolute", not "absolute ablative", and, while the mutandis is a substantive, there's no hidden reading necessary. It stands on its own. — LlywelynII 01:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small error 

message: George Orwell uses this term extensively, against all reason, since he wanted to write plain English, yet often says mutatis mutandis. Perhaps for effect, but it is also in his private letters. I guess it was just a phrase built into him that he never quite got rid of, because to say "changed as necessary" would be more his style than the Latin. Is it worth mentioning? Si Trew (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a guess, but perhaps to Orwell it *was* plain language (even if not strictly English). He would perhaps have responded that any educated man of his day would understand what MM meant, which is probably true. Today, of course, the situation is much different - hence the confusion of some of the comments on this page. Fool4jesus (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This. I'm curious though if mut. mut. was more popular in English than other languages that used Latin shorthand, given that it fits an alliterative pattern that suits England's own literary tradition. — LlywelynII 02:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orwell 

message: I sort of just stumbled on this article again, and I must say that since the last time I edited (for a wholly minor reason) it's gotten much more confusing.  Explanations and comparisons have been removed and I must say that now, after reading the article, I'm not sure I really understand what this term means or when (if?) to use it, at all.  I don't remember feeling that way the last time I read it.  Also, the remaining example from the discrimination (?) case is not exactly super helpful because the judge seems to be making a rather oblique point.  I honestly can't myself suggest better examples or sentences to add, but maybe someone else out there can?  Or maybe some edits can just be reverted?  Agnosticaphid (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. — LlywelynII 01:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorter but much more confusing 

message: The current (much too long) examples do use the phrase and even dwell on it some, but they're not famous and they don't provide useful examples of how it is employed or formatted. The quote from a legal opinion isn't about the term's legal use but about its more general sense. We should aim to have a quote from each of the fields listed in the lead, in each of the senses in which it can appear. Ideally, we'd also have examples of each of the grammatical structures that are normally employed: set off by commas, set off by parentheses, left in the running text. — LlywelynII 01:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples not exemplary

message: What is the source for Marvel x men?
Who did it? Kartasto (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  In pop culture