DIY electrical work after 1st January 2005

And "thats" the real truth;(

Those who can do, do, those who can't govern....

Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?

You mean "Caveo Emptor"? "Buyer beware"?

ROFLMAO For a minute there I thought that you were being serious.

This is the biggest load of b*ll*cks I've read in ages. From Setion F of the HCR:-

"Services are difficult to inspect as these are generally hidden within the construction of the property. For example pipes beneath the floors and wiring within the walls. The Home Inspector has only carried out a visual inspection of the following services. Specialist tests have not been carried out. The visual inspection did not assess the efficiency, operational effectiveness or compliance with modern standards. If there is cause to suspect a problem or visual defects are noted, a warning has been given with a recommendation for specialist testing by a suitable qualified contractor."

This is where people with some informed understanding have an advantage over those who might blindly expect proper documentation or it's 'bad'.

If you were buying then an evaluation of the wiring is part of what you'll be looking for.

If you are selling then a competant diy rewire and a formal inspection certificate will surely pass scrutiny by any solicitor.

No, he means caveat emptor "let the buyer beware". You know, as in caveo, caveas, caveat, caveamus, caveatis, caveant. ( Back to lurk mode, catching up with the thread. Carry on chaps.)

Is this like in Vidi, Vici, Veni ? ;-)

Well, that's an entirely subjunctive view of course...

Surely if he's the buyer then caveo is correct ? Then again Latin was never my strong point ever since my Latin master dropped dead after our second lesson and the school never replaced him.

"Mike" wrote | Then again Latin was never my strong point ever since my | Latin master dropped dead after our second lesson and | the school never replaced him.

That *is* impressive.

I only managed to make one teacher take about 6 weeks off work with stress-related illness ;-)

Owain

It's a long time since I did any latin...

(the) buyer, (let him) beware.

So 3rd person.

"the buyer, let me beware" wouldn't be right. Probably need something that went "beware when I buy" - no I haven't got a clue how to translate that.

Timbo

"Let me, the buyer, beware" was what I was thinking of.

Yes - that sounds better. I did wonder if "emptor" needed a different declension until I realised that it's missing its declension ending altogether (emptor-is)!! I only did latin for a year - can anyone with a "proper educashun" explain that?

Timbo

No, but I wonder why it isn't 'emptor caveat'....!

Emptor is the nominative i.e. the subject of the sentence. Caveat is third person subjunctive: 'he/she should beware'.

Obsolete, of course. In the EU, the world's most competitive trading bloc by 2010, it is the seller who must beware. The buyer is assumed to have the brains of a Zabriskan fontema, and to be incapable of bewaring.

My woodwork teacher ("Basher" Bates) was a really nasty piece of work. He literally threw chisels and wooden jack planes at pupils. For a long period he was absent due to a stomach ulcer (this was, fortunately, long before these could normally be treated almost instantly with large doses of antibiotics), so he was absent for about a year. His replacement was a real gentleman, who taught the use of PVA glue rather than Basher's scotch glue from a kettle.

No - he means Caveat Emptor - buyer beware.

Kev

If the writer of the original phrase is the buyer then the "-o" ending looks correct for 1st person singular - but it is indicative rather than subjunctive mood I think ("caveat" is subjunctive).... I think "emptor" is OK though which is nominative case .... or is it vocative.. actually, possibly both ... which seems to fit both instances ....maybe... errr.... oh no!!!.... I feel a "Romans go home" sketch coming on (a quick google and here it is:-

Time for bed.

Gary