Conference thebay::joyoflex

>    A man dies and leaves $100,000 to be divided between his children.

>    How many children did he have, and how can you tell?
>    How much did each inherit (ignoring expenses, tax liabilities etc)
>    and how can you tell?

My answer folows <FF>:

The man had 2 children. Each got $50,000.

The word 'between' indicated 2. If there were more, the word 'among'
should have been used.

Pete

    You've got the right answer, but haven't explained why completely.
    
    Anyone care to alaborate?
    
    N ;-)

I thought .1's reference to "between" indicating TWO indirect objects was
sufficient.  You want more elaboration?  OK.  The missing piece is the man's
wife.  Sure, the guy could have willed his money to his kids, but, do you think
the wife would have let that go uncontested?  My answer is - the only thing
his kids get is nice funeral as the wife goes crazy for the money and offs the
offspring.

Please, nothing Oedipal here.

> .... The missing piece is the man's wife.....

Wait! What about the tax office? How much goes to tax office? I would say: the
man has *no* children. Everything is divided between his wife and the tax
office....


...... or is that: "....*among* his wife and the tax office."?

:-)
Arie

    
    The statement that the $100,000 be _divided_ between his children does
    not necessarily imply an equal division.  But since it has already been
    acknowledged that the .1 answer was correct, it leads me to another
    possibility.
    
    The statement says that "A man dies and _leaves_ $100,000 ...".  It
    does not say that he _bequeathes_ the $100,000, so it may mean that
    he died intestate (left no will) and that the laws of the state
    determined to whom the money should be distributed.  Since the money
    was to be divided between his children, there could have been no widow
    to share in his estate, so the children would receive equal shares.
    
    
    

    As told to me, <notice how I avoid _direct_ blame!>, the answer
    of $50,000 for each of two children hinges on two words as follows:
        
    'Between' with its implicit meaning of two;
           
    'Divided' with its implicit meaning of equality of share;
        
    Otherwise the words to use are Among and Shared.
        
    Nick

    So is the term 'Equally Divided" tautology then ???
    
    (a simple 'yes' will suffice) 
    
    - Dave K.

    
    Nowhere have I ever heard of divided implying a division into equal
    parts.  Anything which can logically be divided can be divided into
    any reasonable number of pieces, none of which has to be the same size
    as any other.

    Re: .9
    
    > Nowhere have I ever heard of divided implying a division into
    > equal parts.
    
    That's what mathematical division does.  In _Webster's New World
    Dictionary_, the mathematical definition of "divide" is "to separate
    into equal parts by a divisor."   For example, when one divides 100
    by 5, one makes 20 equal parts.
    
    The non-mathematical meaning, "to separate into parts; split up," does
    not imply equality.
    
    Of course neither meaning of "divide" implies that exactly two parts
    are the result, equal or not.
    
    Bernie 

    Re .10
    
    Bernie, yo're right about the divide not implying two parts, it's
    the _between_ that gives the two parts.
    
    N

    Yes, I did not address the issue whether "between" always implies two
    things and is never proper when we need to deal with more than two.
    Here's what two usage guides say:
    
    Fowler:
    
    	Between and among.  The OED gives a warning against the superstition
    	that _between_ can be used only of the relationship between two
    	things, and that if there are more _among_ is the right preposition.
    	'In all senses _between_ has been, from its earliest appearance,
    	extended to more than two.... It is still the only word available
    	to express the relation of a thing to many surrounding things
    	severally and individually; _among_ expresses a relation to them
    	collectively and vaguely: we should not say _the space lying among
    	the three points_ or _a treaty among three Powers_.'  But the
    	superstition dies hard.
    
    
    Bernstein:
    
    	If Miss Thistlebottom taught you in elementary school that
    	_between_ applies to two things and _among_ to more than two,
    	she probably knew what she was doing: She was making things easy
    	for herself.  It is simpler to lay down a rule than to try to
    	stimulate discriminating thinking, particularly in a school class
    	that ranges from blockheads to eggheads.
    
    	_Among_, to be sure, applies to more than two things, but the
    	relationship it expresses is usually a rather loose one.  When
    	three or more things are brought into a relationship severally and
    	reciprocally, _between_ is proper.  In the following passage
    	_between_ would be better than _among_: "Apart from discussions
    	among Washington, Paris, and London on the prospective
    	conference..."  The idea of two is inherent etymologically in the
    	word _between_, but so is it inherent in the discussions here
    	referred to: The meetings were being held by Washington and Paris,
    	by Paris and London, by London and Washington.  Similarly, to speak
    	of a treaty _between_ nine powers would be completely proper and
    	exact.  When the relationship is looser, _among_ is the proper
    	word: "War reparations were distributed among the nine victorious
    	powers."
    
    Bernie

    A continental divide divides a continent into two or more parts,
    which are unequal parts in most cases.  I'd even suggest it goes
    between the parts, because it doesn't sound right to say that it
    goes among them, even though there are three parts in most continents.

    Oh and speaking of the will, it sounds like it might be easier to
    just take it with you.   :-)

    re: .13
    
    The main purpose of a divide isn't to divide continents, it's to
    divide one river drainage from another. 
    
    As a side effect of keeping the Atlantic from flowing into the
    Pacific, the divide in the western US known as the Continental
    Divide also splits the continent pretty effectively.  The eastern
    and the western parts of the continent are further subdivided.  I
    can think of at least five drainages in North America:  the
    Columbia Basin, the Ohio/Missouri/Mississippi, the Colorado/Rio
    Grande, the Hudson's Bay, and the Concord/Merrimack.  Plus dozens
    of small ones along the coasts.  Plus the Great Basin, which
    doesn't drain into anywhere but itself.  The Continental Divide
    goes around it on both sides.
    
    So you could say the Great Basin is between the Continental
    Divide.
    
    --bonnie

    You mean, of course, that the Great Basin divides the divide.
    
    (Nonetheless the divisions remain unequal.)

    Divided we stand, united we fall in the ocean . . .
    
    --bonnie

    According to Cicero,
    
    "All Gaul is divided into three parts."
    
    (unfortunately he neglected to tell us if they were equal.)
    
    Since this was written a long time ago, I guess this is an example
    of "long division".....ouch

    I see you corrected yourself; it wasn't Cicero, it was Caesar who
    said Gaul was divided into three parts. (Note, he didn't say "three
    equal parts," just "three parts.")
    
    					andrew
    
    

    Actually, I wasn't correcting myself...or trying to do so anyway.
    
    The Julius Ceasar title was to show the title of the narrative from
    whence the actual statement came.  In sophomore year...I was a 4 year
    Latin student alas...we translated Cicero's narrative of the Gallic
    wars and it was loosely titled after old Julius himself.
    I do not know to whom the quote was ascribed, I thought it was a
    general statement of the "status quo" setting the scene for the tale
    itself.
    I was going to quote it in Latin, but I couldn't get it correct without
    looking it up and who wants to do that?
    it went something like "Omnia Gallia in tres partes diviso est".
    
    If I am wrong about all this, don't shoot me.  I've been out of school
    since 1962!!
    
    Terry_who_also_did_the_Trojan_horse_deal_too
    

    It wasn't Cicero's narrative of the Gallic wars; it's was Julius
    Caesar's narrative.                                
    
    					andrew

    My memory, stretching back to 1958, says,
    
    	Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est ...
    
    (An earlier note had exactly this, except it said "diviso".)
    
    It's the opening phrase from Caesar's Gallic Wars, Caesar's
    contribution to memorable first lines such as "Call me Ishmael" or "It
    was the best of times. It was the worst of times."
    
    Caesar's first sentence then continues for the better part of a
    paragraph describing:  "... the first part of which is called ????
    among the Helvetians ..."  as I marginally recall. The complete first
    sentence has the excitement of "It was a dark and stormy night" except
    Caesar was more informative, and more difficult to translate with the
    Latin teacher ready to say, "Next!" at the first mistake or delay. I
    seem to recall that the first sentence took about 7 people before the
    8th person got through the whole thing right. What I remember most from
    that, beyond "Omnia Gallia ..." is shear terror and trauma. That class
    was the first one in the morning, and I now blame it for my work habits
    of showing up after 9:30.
    
    Maybe I should start a topic on "First Lines" and prime it with these.

    I've always wanted to read the Gallic Wars in Latin. I read it in
    translation and thought it was one of the finest examples of
    reportorial prose I'd ever read.  Straight to the point, clean,
    clear, concise, nothing getting in the way of the message, no
    wandering around the point, and apparently nothing left off.
    
    I've always wanted to read the Latin to see if it really is that
    good, or if Julius got the benefit of a fine translator.  
    
    --bonnie

    re: .23.......first lines conference...not a bad idea.
    
    how about... Arma virumque cano!
    
    End of Rathole........|
                          |
                         \ /
                          v
    Terry

    RE: .23
    
    Ohhhhh, Latin class.  I remember VIVIDLY struggling through Caeser's
    Commentaries as a freshman in highschool.
    
    I HATED Latin with a passion.  Actually, I was good at it and enjoyed
    it but I was terrified of the teacher.  His name was (is??) Richard
    Speck.  You may remember the name as the killer of nine student nurses
    in Chicago in the 60s.  (The newscast about it is in the background of
    a Simon and Garfunkle song.)  I have always wondered it it was the same
    guy.
    
    He certainly terrorized me.  I'd know the stuff cold and could speak it
    in Latin club but he'd call on me and I could barely stand up to recite
    let alone recite.  What torture.
    
    Re: .24 Although as a 13 year old I was not a judge of literature, I
    thought it was good stuff in the orignal.  Too bad we didn't get to
    read any of the drama of the period.  :^)
    
       Margaret

    I was absolutely terrorized by the Latin teacher also. But never by any
    teacher again.

    In second year Latin, we spent a fair amount of time learning (in
    English) about Italy, both ancient and modern, and watched a lot of
    Italian travelogues.  I can still recognize every single monument,
    fountain, and building (including churches!) in Rome, and I haven't
    even been there.

    Once I was giving a report (in English again) on Vesuvius, Pompeii, and
    Herculaneum, and I finally got to the date of the eruption: Aug 24, 79
    AD. The Latin teacher interrupted at that point and informed the class
    his birthday was August 24.  My mental connection between his
    personality and the eruption was so striking that I started to laugh
    and simply couldn't stop.  That was bad enough, but the rest of the
    class simply sat there staring and not making a sound. My sense of time
    totally failed me, but it seems like it took me 30 minutes to calm down
    to mere giggles so I could finish the report. (I'm laughing out loud
    again as I write this.)

    But August 24, 79 AD is a date that will forever be vivid in my memory.
    I did answer a Jeopardy question once that all the contestants
    missed, but unfortunately I was only a couch potato at the time.

    My freshman Latin teacher was Mr. Quintevalli -- he was an old coot,
    and I couldn't stand him.  Naturally, I flunked Latin, and had to
    attend Summer School.
    
    My sophomre latin teacher was Robert Marasco -- a better teacher. 
    One day, someone challenged him and asked "Why bother with a dead
    language?"  He allowed the class two (!) days of discussion.  I don't
    remember the result, but he stressed that the pattern of learning we
    learned was much more important than the specifics of Latin. He was
    right -- my knowledge of Latin is feeble, but it's really strengthened
    my knowledge of English.
    
    Two other tidbits:  One quarter, I barely passed, and Mr. Maracso
    commented "Mr. Kenah, you passed by the skin of your proverbial teeth."
    A wonderful turn of phrase -- I stole it, and have used it often since.
    
    Finally -- two years after I had him, Robert Marasco's first play,
    "Child's Play" a mystery/thriller, opened on Broadway.
    
    					andrew

    I agree. The two years of Latin I took were valuable because they
    taught me how English is put together. Before that, several years of
    English classes hadn't really succeeded; after Latin, I was far better
    at English structure than the high school English teachers.
    
    I also learned a very healthy disrespect for unqualified authority
    which has gotten me into trouble ever since.

    I heartily agree with .28 and .29
    As I recounted earlier, I had 4 years of that dead language and I find
    my grasp of English, however tenuous, much the better for it.
    So many English words have Latin roots that it has to increase one's
    wordpower.
    It's also great when you are stuck on the last 2 words of a crossword
    puzzle and want to take a WAG.  
    
    Terry

    re: improving one's English
    
    I think the study of any foreign language improves one's grasp of
    one's native tongue.  My years of French study contributed to my
    understanding of English as much by contrast as it did by
    similarity.  
    
    --bonnie

    I hope no one has exited this conference thinking that "divide"
    only means 'into equal parts'.  This is more of a mathematical
    interpretation, while reality usually means an uneven division.
    When it comes time to divide 25 jellybeans amongst 10 children,
    will you take the time to cut 5 of them in half?  (The jellybeans,
    not the children.)                                
    On the other hand, dividing 25 credit points amongst 10 students
    is a bit easier.
                      
    This leads nicely into the usage of among vs. amongst.
    
    							Don
    

re: .18, .19, .. .23

It was Julius C�sar, "De Bello Gallico"

.18>    "All Gaul is divided into three parts."
.18>
.18>    (unfortunately he neglected to tell us if they were equal.)

.19>    I see you corrected yourself; it wasn't Cicero, it was Caesar who
.19>    said Gaul was divided into three parts. (Note, he didn't say "three
.19>    equal parts," just "three parts.")

.23>    	Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est ...
.23>
.23>    (An earlier note had exactly this, except it said "diviso".)
.23>
.23>    It's the opening phrase from Caesar's Gallic Wars, Caesar's
.23>    contribution to memorable first lines such as "Call me Ishmael" or "It
.23>    was the best of times. It was the worst of times."
.23>
.23>    Caesar's first sentence then continues for the better part of a
.23>    paragraph describing:  "... the first part of which is called ????
.23>    among the Helvetians ..."  as I marginally recall. The complete first
Not the Helvetians - you must be confusing with "Asterix and the Helvetians".

The 3 parts are: southern France, central France, and Belgium (including the
North of France).

The second sentence is:
Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belg�
(of all these, the Belgians are the bravest) -
which shows very clearly that the 3 parts were not equal!

	re: .28-.30 (I think)

	Well, now 5th year Latin was translating the equivalent of
soft porn, and 6th year Latin was rather hard core.  Many a chuckle
there for a high school senior.   (-' (-'    kb