In message <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] writes
>Roy writes:

>> 'Virus' comes from 'wase', marsh, and 'ios' poison - the last word, from
>>  whence comes the plural-forming convention, is indubitably Greek, though
>>  'wase' is probably a borrowing from Old English - and thus the word has
>>  no real Latin heritage at all.....

>That isn't quite correct either. "Virus" was a perfectly good and well
>recognized word in Latin. In biology, the word means "the character or
>nature of the object described" -- and that's how the Romans used it
>too, albeit in a different context.

>The word "virus" is related our words "virulent" and "virile" (manly).
>The original Latin word from which "virus" is derived is "vir" (man),
>and is closely related to our word "venom", which is derived from the
>Latin "venus" (love).

>So when you think of "virus", don't think of "swamp poison" as Roy suggests,
>but rather of the "essence" of a man, in the context of the act of love, which
>is often venomous.

>Wirt Atmar

As ever, Wirt is a seminal influence on us all....

I can see that my Collins English Dictionary has fallen into error... I
must write and correct them. Though it's only a venial one...

(The Oxford English Dictionary avoids the trap, but the Encarta
dictionary seems to think that 'ios' comes into it).

Interesting how the 'ven' in 'venom' is tied to 'Venus', but the 'ven'
in 'vendor' isn't.

Or perhaps you know different, Wirt?   :-)

--
Roy Brown        'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd     useful, or believe to be beautiful'  William Morris

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *