I go into several different topics, firstly talking about etymologizing examples and tying said examples to societal issues and problematic medical issues that have occurred in the recent millennia. I then talk about medicine and tying language into it, as well as discussion on physiological terms and all the Latin incorporated within the musculature system. I also talk about functions of muscles and tying those terms into it's Latin and Greek counterparts

- Hypo+therm+emia

- Hyper+glyc+emia

- Hypo+natr+emia

- Hypo-kal+emia

- ab+duc+tion

- ad+duc+tion

- Vastus Medialis

- Bicep Femoris

- Ex+tens+ion

- Flex+ion

and so on....

There are two important rules to remember in this chapter:

There are no new grammatical concepts introduced here. But do remember: irregularity is a sign they’re being used a lot. Just saying… A little linguistics may help make some sense out of the irregularities certain Latin comparative forms exhibit, but unfortunately, it can’t take you all the way.

There are four important rules to remember in this chapter:

Finally, let’s talk about that word I mention a lot: expectation. When an adjective is comparative, and has its basic sense, “more,” what do you expect to hear after a comparative adjective, e.g. “This is bigger …”? ...than! Than what?!? When comparatives convey an aspect of “more,” they expect a way of articulating the thing which is not “more,” what the bigger thing is bigger than. Latin has two ways of saying “than.” One is to use quam — that’s right, quam again, but not in the sense of “whom” or “how” -- ugh — this time as a conjunction meaning “than.”

So what case should the word that follows quam be? That is, the thing being compared? Quam’s not a preposition. This is a universal law to abide by.  What’s the grammatical relationship between the two things being compared, e.g. “This is bigger than that.” Grammatically, comparison manages the same way as apposition because two nouns are equated, or in this case not equated… but grammatically that’s the same thing or maybe it’s reciprocal? Don’t quote me on that one but also don’t at (@) me cause we all know how objective language is now. So how do appositives work? They take the same case as the noun to which they’re being equated to.

So as long as there’s a quam serving as the equivalent of “than,” there’s not much to learn here, but that’s not the only option. Latin has another way of saying “than” and gues what? It’s another use of the ablative case: the ablative of comparison in which the equivalent of the word following “than” in English is put in the ablative case — no quam, no preposition — just the word in the ablative. Of course, there has to be a comparative form to trip off the ablative of comparison, but again it’s very simple, so simple it can be confusing. After all, the solo ablative has a number of other applications in Latin: means, time, separation, even manner.

For that justification, the Romans used the ablative of comparison less often than “quam + same case,” in fact, only when the thing being compared to was in the nominative or accusative case. How confusing it would be if it were ablative, for instance! A Roman could have put in quam + same case ─ in this case, ablative ─ or not (using the ablative of comparison which all by itself implies “than”), and both would mean “than whatever-the-noun” either way. So using quam just makes everything simpler, clearer. And the Romans liked simple and clear. It was simple, and clear.

Consider the act of pedaling to mirror the face of an analog clock: In cycling, there are certain phases of the lower trunk that are incorporated at particular angles and points within the circular motion that encompasses the model of general motion. During the Down Pedal Phase, the pelvis initiates the beginning of the lower limb complex, which is made up of the ischium and illium. Here, the sitting bones, anatomically referred to as the Ischial Tuberosities, play an important role for flexion of the hamstrings (all three origins of the hamstring are located here – Semitendinosus, Semimembranosus, Bicep Femoris. In fact, the hip is a very important anatomical characteristic as this large “ball-and-socket” joint allows for a large degree of multidimensional movement. During the action of pedaling, the hips allow and guide hip extension – extension coupled with a small degree of rotation. During hip extension, the following muscles are utilized: Bicep Femoris, Semimembranosus, Semitendinosus, Gluteus Maximus, Gluteus Medius. In comparing this phase to the face of a clock, this would make-up the 12-4 o’clock.

Moving down the lower extremities, we find the knee, which aids in extension during the Down Pedal Phase. The knee, being a “Hinge Joint”, functions primarily as a lever for the femur, as the femur is known to be the longest bone in the body which subsequently is able to produce very large amounts of torque. Here, the patella plays a critical role as a fulcrum point for the force of the upper leg to be transferred to the lower leg. The patella is a sesamoid bone that situates itself within the patellar tendon and connects to the quadriceps and the tibial tuberosity. Here, the Patella glides into the intercondylar fossa of the femur. During knee extension (patellar extension), the following muscles are utilized: Rectus Femoris, Vastus Medialis, Vastus Intermedius, Vastus Lateralis. In comparing this phase to the face of a clock, this would make-up the 4-8 o’clock.

And finally, as we move inferiorly and distal to the patella, we encounter a very relevant joint: the ankle joint. This joint allows for the cyclist to perform plantar and dorsi-flexion during the Down Phase. Here, these anatomical movements of the ankle make up the term “ankle-ing”, which refers to the movement of the foot as it moves from a position of dorsi-flexion to a position of plantar flexion during the bottom of the pedal-stroke before returning back to a position of dorsi-flexion. Although the foot has many small joints, this structure is primarily where the force from the lower limb complex is transferred to the pedal of the bike. (Note: the irregular amounts of force and/or compression shifting through the foot can result in neural pain/discomfort and damage of tissue due to the aforementioned compression.) Muscles utilized during Plantar Flexion include: Plantaris (biartcular), Soleus, Gastrocnemius , Flexor Digitorum Longus, Flexor Hallicis Longus, Peroneous Longus, Peroneous Brevis. In comparing this phase to the face of a clock, this would make-up the 8-12 o’clock.

It is a human condition that we need a meaning for everything. In fact, we need some sort of tangible word or physical presence in order to define that particular piece of matter. As human beings, we are wonderful at existentialism; more so, wondering what our meaning is on this world. Yet, everything we know and understand that envelops our reality has been constructed from the human’s insatiable need to understand… Or, at least, quantify anything metaphysical.

When we truly think about it, this kingdom we consider the visible is completely overshadowed by a greater realm: what we cannot see. So why worry what our intention is, when nothing else has had a purpose without humans first having deemed it to have a purpose? Humans seem to always require everything in our world to have an inherent purpose tied into it. The human language has become an important tool in understanding what we cannot see. For example, what do we refer to as the omnipresent force that resides within everyone, governs all, and provides a basis for morality and ethical ideals: God. But why G.O.D? As Ludwig Wittgenstein states in his Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, “Introspection can never lead to a definition. It can only lead to a psychological statement about the introspector.” Essentially, what language means, and how it is perceived, conveys itself in a way that stresses the nature of understanding to be only revealed through language; “According to Wittgenstein, ‘theology is grammar’ […] ‘meatphysics is grammar’” (Hartshorne 20). Therefore, without one, we would not have the other. Verbiage is used to limit an abstract concept for that person to have a means of understanding it. Although we have no answers for why God is God, but what can certainly be said is that these ideas limit metaphysical concepts to a more physical state of being; it creates the illusion that there is a divine force that oversees the world and universe, even though we have no physical proof other than the name we’ve given it.

The function of language, which humans have given it, is to help us explain the unexplainable. This is why we have natural aetiological myths in both religion and mythology that help to explain the nature of the world as it is… Such as the parable of Adam and Eve, which refers to “The fall [and how it] can be taken as a powerful symbolic expression of human sinfulness, where sin is understood as self-centeredness and estrangement from God” (Barbour) while also giving an explanation for what sin is, and why humans are fallible in nature.

So, there are these concepts that don’t exist within our world, yet we imagine them to exist. Thus, what we cannot physically grab, we instead veil in this realm we call the invisible. But humans are desperate to know why we are here and if we have a purpose. Yet it’s rather pointless to limit the condition of being human to some cookie-cutter approach, because if we knew why we were here, then what would be the point? Life is about not knowing, and that’s the true beauty of it. We don’t need to go in search for that needle in the haystack, because we are the one’s assuming that there’s a needle to be found in said hay bale.

There are two important rules to remember in this chapter:

The main verb in a sentence is the word which represents the sentence’s central action, but sentences can and often do contain more than one verb form, sometimes even more than one main verb, as you’re about to discover. When trying to determine which word or words in a sentence are verbs, you should look for two features.

First, can you change the tense or timeframe of the word? Can you, for instance, make it happen in the past, or the future? If you can, it’s a verb because only verbs can change tense, that is, when they happen. The principal way English changes tense with verbs is by adding tense-markers like “have, did” ─ those make the verb past-tense ─ or “will” ─ “will” makes it future-tense ─ so if you have a word like “run,” try adding “have, did” and ask yourself if “have run” or “did run” makes sense. Does it? Yes, of course, it does. Can you make “run” future? Is it possible to say “will run”? Sure. That’s because “run” is a verb. But a noun like ─ I don’t know ─ “celery” can’t change tense. “I did celery that”? Or maybe someday in the future “I will celery that”? Nope, it’s just not possible to go “celery-ing.” Ever.

Second, here’s another feature unique to verbs in English. They can be replaced by “do, does, did, (have) done.” The English word “do” is a sort of “pro-verb.” It replaces verbs the same way pronouns replace nouns. In other words, just as you can substitute “it” for a noun like “celery” ─ I like celery; I like it ─ You can replace most verbs with a form of “do.”

For instance, “I ate the celery” can also be expressed as “I did (it).” If “did” can replace “ate,” then “ate” must be a verb, a verb that makes sense as long as you’re in a context where your reader or listener understands that “did (it)” means “ate (the celery).”

At heart, nouns are things like objects, people, animals, ideas, names, places, times, qualities, categories, groups and all sorts of other “things.” Basically, if you can touch it with your hand, then it’s probably a noun. Or if you can do the equivalent with your mind ─ that is, consider, conceive and contemplate it ─ if you can wrap your head around it, it’s a noun. Identifying nouns in English is not hard. Most have one or more of three characteristic features.

Test 1: is there a “the, a” in front of the word, or can you put “the, a” in front of it?

Test 2: is the word plural, or can it be made plural by adding -s? This is far and away the simplest and best test of a noun’s “nounness.”

Test 3: Can you replace the word in question with a pronoun like “he/him,” “she/her,” “they/them” or “it”?

Adjectives at heart are modifiers. To grammarians, “modifying” means “delimiting, restricting the possibilities of something.” So, for instance, if we’re standing in a big, crowded parking lot and I say “look at that car,” there are well over a hundred cars I could mean. But if I say “look at that yellow car,” the possibilities are far fewer, maybe only one.

One, can you put “the, a” in front of it? You’ll also need to add a noun, if you want it to make any sense.

Two, is there a noun (or pronoun) with it that it “modifies”? English tends to put the adjective first so look for a noun immediately (or soon) after the adjective. There are occasions, however, when the adjective comes after the noun, especially in sentences like “You are wise.” “Wise” is an adjective modifying “you.” This happens very often with the word “to be” which can show up in various forms: am, are, is, was, were, have been, and so on. So look for an adjective following the noun or pronoun it modifies when the two are being connected by the word “to be” in some form.

And, three, does the word serve the basic purpose that all adjectives serve? Does it tell you “what sort of” or “which” noun is meant?

There are three important rules to remember here:

Neuter gender

Along with masculine and feminine, Latin also has a neuter gender meaning “neither,” referring to how it is neither masculine nor feminine. Thus neuter gender is often applied to things which don’t have a natural gender, words like: “war” bellum, “iron” ferrum, or “danger” periculum. But it’s not as simple as that. There are many exceptions to this rule and thus in Latin things which are masculine in gender are not necessarily always male in nature. The same holds true for the other two genders.

Substantives are words that are fundamentally adjectives but they function as nouns. Such as the adjective “good.” It can serve as a substantive, that is, as a noun. So, for instance, if you talk about the “goods” in the store, “goods” is a noun meaning “the good things” in the store. The adjective is serving as a noun and that’s a substantive. Similarly, you can talk about a “swift,” a fast-flying bird. Birds are nouns but the word “swift” is at heart an adjective. In English we often show that an adjective is functioning as a substantive by pluralizing it or putting an article in front of it, such as, “electronics,” or “the young and the restless.” But Latin adjectives contain more information encoded into them than their English counterparts which makes them much more naturally easy to convert into substantives because, for instance, they have gender and gender naturally implies a gendered substance. Hence the principle that Latin substantives derive their substance from their gender. In other words, because a Latin adjective is masculine, it implies that the substance or the unstated noun lying behind the adjective is “man,” or “men” if the adjective is plural. If an adjective is feminine in gender, it implies “woman,” or if it’s plural, “women,” and if it’s neuter, “thing” or “things.” For an adjective to serve as a substantive it must have no noun to go with in its sentence. Otherwise, there’s no need to evoke substance from its gender. In other words, if bonus has liber to go with it, it’s “a good book.” There’s no need to add “man” to “good” if you’ve got “book” there.

So this is how substantives work: you’re reading along in a Latin sentence and you come to an adjective. It doesn’t have a noun to modify. You look at its gender. If the gender is masculine you add “man” or “men” to the translation of the adjective. If the adjective is feminine, you add “woman” or “women,” and if it’s neuter, “thing” or “things.”

Here are some examples of substantives:

This is a big episode going over the importance of understanding:

-predicates

-intransitive verbs

-verb expectations

-complimentary infinitives

-wehy we can afford verb irregularity in some verbs and not others?