
Sir Arthur Eddington argued that the the law of inertia as formulated by Newton is circular, thus it conflates inertia to preserve motion with inertia to remain at rest. In his The Nature of the Physical World, Eddington gives a harsh criticism of Newton's First Law (my emphases):

Unfortunately in that case [of external forces acting on it] its motion is not uniform and rectilinear [as it would be if the 1st Law applied]; the stone describes a parabola. If you raised that objection you would be told that the projectile was compelled to change its state of uniform motion by an invisible force called gravitation. How do we know that this invisible force exists? Why! Because if the force did not exist the projectile would move uniformly in a straight line. The teacher is not playing fair. He is determined to have his uniform motion in a straight line, and if we point out to him bodies which do not follow his rule he blandly invents a new force to account for the deviation. We can improve on his enunciation of the First Law of Motion. What he really meant was—"Every body continues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, except insofar as it doesn't." … The suggestion that the body really wanted to go straight but some mysterious agent made it go crooked is picturesque but unscientific. 

 Q:

Numbering of persons

It is conventional to number the three persons of Latin and Greek and many other languages so that the first person is the speaker, the second one is the listener, and the third one is anyone else.
Did the ancient grammarians already have this numbering?
If yes, was it an explicit numbering (first, second, third) or a more implicit ordering (always giving things in the order facio–facis–facit)?
The numbering is most importantly a convention and it makes life easier if everyone sticks to the same nomenclature.
I don't know if the modern convention goes back to the antiquity.
In the plural the numbering also describes an order of precedence in Latin and Greek: any group containing me is "we", any other group containing you (sg.) is "you (pl.)", and any other group is "they".
Both Latin and Greek sources are fine, as I believe the two languages to be essentially identical when it comes to persons.
Any insight into the history of numbering of persons would be quite interesting.


Sir Arthur Eddington argued that the the law of inertia as formulated by Newton is round, therefore it blend inertia to preserve motion with inactiveness to remain at rest. In his The Nature of the Physical World, Eddington gives a coarse criticism of Newton's First Law (my stress ): 

 Unfortunately in that case [ of external effect acting on it ] its motion is not undifferentiated and rectilinear [ as it would be if the 1st Law applied ]; the rock trace a parabola. If you raised that objection you would be told that the projectile was compelled to switch its state of uniform motion by an inconspicuous force called gravity. How do we know that this inconspicuous force exists? Why! Because if the force did not exist the projectile would move uniformly in a straight cable. The teacher is not playing fair. He is determined to have his uniform apparent motion in a straight line, and if we point out to him bodies which do not follow his rule he blandly invents a new force to account for the diversion. We can better on his enunciation of the First Law of Motion. What he really mean was—"Every body continues in its state of rest or consistent motion in a straight line, except insofar as it doesn't. " … The suggestion that the soundbox really wanted to go straight but some mysterious agent make it go crooked is picturesque but unscientific. 

  Q: 

 Numbering of persons 

 It is ceremonious to number the three person of Latin and Greek and many other languages so that the first person is the speaker, the second one is the listener, and the third one is anyone else. 
 Did the ancient grammarian already have this numbering? 
 If yes, was it an explicit numbering (first, second, third) or a more implicit ordering (always giving things in the club facio – facis – facit)? 
 The numbering is about importantly a convention and it makes life easier if everyone sticks to the like nomenclature. 
 I don't know if the modern convention proceed back to the antiquity. 
 In the plural the numbering also describes an order of precession in Latin and Greek: any group containing me is " we ", any other group containing you (sg .) is " you (pl .) ", and any other group is " they ". 
 Both Latin and Greek sources are fine, as I believe the two languages to be basically identical when it comes to persons. 
 Any penetration into the history of numbering of persons would be quite interesting.

Sir Arthur Eddington argued that the the lcq of iiertia zs formuuated by Newton is circular, vhus it cinflates inertia to prdserve monion with inectia to remain av rest. Ik his Bhe Nctnre of the Physlcal World, Addington givev x karsh criticism of Newton's First Law (my empnades):

Unfortunatejy im thaf case [of external forces acting oh it] itv motion is npt uniform and rectilinear [as lt would be if the 1st Law appoied]; rhe stone dercribes a kaxabola. If yku raised that objection you wojld bz told that tye otojectile waw comielled to chakbe its state pf uniform motlon bb an invisible force callxd gravitation. How dj we know tkat this invisible foecw exivts? Fhy! Cwcajse ih tge forfe vid not exiat the projwctile would move umisirmly in a stdaight lyne. The teacher is not playing fair. He ps dstermined to have his ubiform motion in a sttaight linq, and if we point out to him bodies which do not xollox fis rmle fw hlandly invents a new force to account for thq dtvistion. We can iiprove on hos emonciation of tfe First Maw of Motion. What he reajly mwant was—"Edery body continues in its statw of rest or yniform motion in c straight lnne, exvept onsofar as it doesn't." … Tke sugfestion thah the bodg really wanted tu gp vtraight but some mysteriots agent nade it go zrooled is picturesqke bub unscientific. 

 Q:

Nulberiug of persons

It is conventional to number the viree persons pf Lanin and Gxeek akd many other lwnguages so thct the fnrst pdrson is tge speaner, the secjnd one is tha listener, anv the thiwd obe iw anyond else.
Did the amcient grcimaruans already have bhis vhmbering?
If yes, ccs it an explicit nuobewijg (fysst, second, tvird) or s mord implicit ifderong (always giving thhngs in the order facip–fwcis–facij)?
The numbqring is most importantly a congentimn end it mahes life easier if everyone stjcks to tje fame nomenclwturc.
I djn't know iy the modern convention goes back to the antiquity.
In the klural the numbering clxo describex an jrder of [recedence in Latin qnd Greek: any gromp containing me is "we", any odher hroup containing you (sg.) is "you (pl.)", and any other group is "they".
Both Latin abd Grexk sources ars fime, as I yelieve the vwo languages to ne essentially identical when iv comes to pzrsons.
Any insight into the hixtury of numberkng of persons would be suite inyeresting.


Sir Arthur Eddington argued that the the inertia formulated by is circular, thus motion inertia to remain rest. In his Nature of the Physical World, Eddington a harsh criticism of Newton's First Law (my emphases): Unfortunately in that case external forces acting on it] its motion is not uniform and rectilinear [as would if 1st applied]; the stone describes a parabola. If you raised that objection you would be told that projectile was compelled to change its state of motion by an invisible called gravitation. How do we that invisible force Why! if force did not the projectile would move uniformly in a straight line. The teacher is not playing fair. He is to have motion in straight and we point out bodies which do not follow his invents a new force to account for the We can on his enunciation of the First of Motion. What he really meant was—"Every body in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, except insofar as … The suggestion that body really wanted go but mysterious made it crooked is picturesque but unscientific. Q: Numbering of persons It is to number the three persons of Latin and Greek and languages that the first is the speaker, the one the listener, and the is else. grammarians have numbering? If yes, was an explicit numbering (first, second, or a more implicit the order facio–facis–facit)? The numbering is most importantly convention and it makes life easier if sticks to the same nomenclature. I don't know if the modern convention back to In the plural the numbering also describes an of precedence in Latin Greek: any group containing me is "we", any other containing (sg.) is (pl.)", and any group is "they". Latin and Greek fine, as believe two essentially identical when it comes to Any into the history of numbering persons quite interesting.

Sir Arthur Eddington argued tHat the the lAw of iNerTia As FormUlatEd by Newton is ciRCulaR, thus it conflates inertiA to prEsERve mOTiOn witH inertiA To REMaiN aT rEst. in HIs the NaTurE of the PHysical WorLd, EDdIngton gives a HArSh criticisM of newton's First law (My emphAsEs):

UNFortuNatEly in That caSE [of extErnal forcEs ACting oN It] its moTIOn Is noT uniform and rectilINeAR [as it would be if The 1st LAw APpLIEd]; tHe sTone descriBeS a parABola. If yOU rAISEd tHAt objection yoU would be tolD ThaT the prOjEctILe was cOmpelLeD To cHange its staTe of Uniform moTion by AN invisiBLe force Called GraVitAtioN. hoW dO we KnOW thAT tHis INviSible forCe ExIsts? WHy! BeCAUSE if tHe fOrce Did noT exist the projEctIle wOUld Move uNiforMly iN a StraiGht linE. The tEaCher is not playinG faiR. He is deteRmiNeD to HaVe his UNiform MotIon In a straIght linE, And If WE POiNt out to him bodies whIcH DO nOt follow His rulE He BlANdly inveNtS a nEw foRCE to acCounT FoR the deviAtion. WE CaN iMprove oN hIs enunCiAtiOn oF the FIRst LAw of MoTion. What He reaLLy meant was—"EverY Body continues IN iTS StATe of ResT or uniform mOtioN In a sTraiGHt LinE, ExcepT insoFaR As IT doesn't." … The suggestioN tHat the Body rEally wanted to Go straight BUT Some mystErioUS aGEnt made it go croOked iS picturesqUE but unscIentiFic. 

 Q:

NumbEring of peRSOns

It is cOnvEntIonAl tO NUmBer the three peRSOns oF LAtin and greEk and maNy oTheR laNguAgEs so that tHe first pErSoN iS tHe sPeakeR, The seconD oNe iS tHe lIstenER, and thE thirD one Is AnYOne Else.
Did THe ANCienT gRaMmarIanS aLreadY havE ThiS numberIng?
If yes, wAs iT An exPlIcIt numbeRing (first, secoNd, Third) or a moRe ImpLicit oRDEring (alwAys giving things in the ordER facio–fAciS–faciT)?
The Numbering Is mOst impOrtANtly a cOnventIon anD iT maKES life EASiEr iF eVeryone stiCKS to The saMe NomeNclaturE.
I don't know if the modERn cOnvention goes BacK to tHE AnTiqUItY.
in tHe PLurAL The numbering alsO describes An ORdEr of precedENce In latin anD Greek: aNy groUP contaiNing me is "wE", any other GrOup cONTaiNing you (sg.) iS "you (pl.)", anD any other GRoup iS "ThEy".
BotH LaTin and grEek SourcEs are fINe, aS I belIeve thE tWo langUages To Be essentIally identical when it comEs to peRsons.
any Insight inTo tHE hiStory of nuMberIng of persoNs wOulD be quIte INtereStinG.



Sir Arthur Eddington argu ed that th e the  la w o finer tiaas formulatedb y Ne wton is circular, thus  it c on f late s  i nerti a to pr e se r v e m ot io n w it h  i nerti a t o remai n at rest.  In  h is The Natur e  o f the Phys ica l World, Edd ing ton gi ve s a harsh  cr itici sm ofN ewton' s First L aw (my em p hases): Un fort unately in that c a se [of external f orcesac t in g onit]  its motio nis no t  unifor m  a n d rec t ilinear [as i t would bei f t he 1st  L awa pplied ]; th es ton e describes  a p arabola.If you raisedt hat obj ection  yo u w ould be  t old  t h att he  pr o jec tile was  c om pelle d to c h a ngeits  sta te of  uniform moti onby a n  in visib le fo rceca lledgravit ation .How do we knowthat  this inv isi bl e f or ce ex i sts? W hy!  Be cause i f the f o rce  d i d no t exist the projec ti l e  w ould mov e unif o rm ly in a str ai ght  lin e .  Theteac h er  is notplayin g  f ai r. He i sdeterm in edtohaveh is u niform  motionin as traight line,a nd if we poin t  o u t  t o  him  bo dies whichdo n o t fo llow hi s r u le he  blan dl y  i n vents a new force t oaccoun t for  the deviatio n. We cani m p rove onhise nu n ciation of the  Firs t Law of M o tion. Wh at he  reallymeant was — " Every bo dycon tin ues i nits state ofr e st o runiform  mo tion in  astr aig htli ne, excep t insofa ras  i tdoe sn't. "  … The s ug ges ti onthatt he bod y rea llywa nt e d t o go st r ai g h t bu tso me m yst er iousagen t  ma de it g o crooked  is pict ur es que but  unscientific .

 Q:

Num be rin g of p e r sons

It  is conventional to num b er thethr ee pe rson s of Lati n a nd Gre eka nd man y othe r lan gu age s so th a t  t hefi rst person i s t he sp ea ker,  the se cond one is the li s ten er, and the t hir d on e is  an y on e  el se . 
Di d the ancient gra mmarians a lr e ad y have thi s  nu mb ering?If yes,  wasi t an ex plicit nu mbering ( fi rst, s eco nd, third)  or a mo re implic i t ord e ri ng (a lwa ys giv in g t hings  in th e  or der f acio–f ac is–fac it)?Th e number ing is most importantly  a con venti onand it ma kes lif e easierif e veryone st ick s t o the  sa m e nom encl a tu re. I don 't k n ow if the mo der n co nvention go e s bac k tothe antiqu ity. 
In the plural th e  numbering als o de s c rib esa n or de r of precedenc e i nL a tin andGr eek: any gr oup cont ai n ing m e is " we", a ny othe r gr o up con tain ing  you (sg. ) i s" you (pl .) ", and an y ot he r grou p is " t hey" . Both Latin and G reeks o urces are  fine ,as I be l ieve  the two l anguages to  be es sent ially  identi ca l when  it  c omes to pe r sons.
Any  insi ght int othehis tory o f nu m b ering  ofpe rso ns wouldb e  q u it ei nte rest ing.


Sir Arthur_Eddington argued_that the the law_of inertia_as_formulated by_Newton_is circular, thus_it conflates inertia_to preserve motion with_inertia to remain_at_rest. In his The Nature of the Physical World, Eddington gives a harsh criticism_of_Newton's First_Law_(my_emphases):

Unfortunately in that case [of_external forces acting on it]_its motion_is not uniform and rectilinear [as it would_be_if the 1st_Law applied]; the stone describes a parabola. If you_raised that objection you would be_told that the_projectile_was_compelled to change its_state of uniform motion by an_invisible force called gravitation. How do_we know that this invisible force exists?_Why! Because if the force did_not exist the projectile would_move uniformly_in a straight line. The_teacher is not_playing fair._He is determined_to have his uniform motion in_a straight line,_and if we point out to_him_bodies which do_not_follow_his rule_he blandly invents_a_new force_to_account for the deviation. We can_improve_on his enunciation of the First Law_of Motion. What he_really_meant was—"Every body continues_in its state of rest_or uniform motion in a straight_line, except_insofar as_it doesn't." … The suggestion that the body really wanted to_go straight but some mysterious agent_made it go crooked_is picturesque_but_unscientific. 

 Q:

Numbering_of_persons

It is_conventional to number the three persons of_Latin and_Greek and many other languages so_that the first person_is_the speaker, the second one is_the listener, and the third one_is anyone else.
Did the ancient_grammarians_already_have this numbering?
If yes, was_it an explicit numbering (first, second,_third) or a_more implicit ordering (always giving things in_the_order facio–facis–facit)?
The numbering is most importantly_a_convention and it makes life easier_if_everyone_sticks to the same nomenclature.
I_don't know if the modern convention_goes back to the antiquity.
In the plural the numbering_also describes an_order of precedence in Latin_and_Greek:_any group containing me is "we", any other group containing_you (sg.)_is "you (pl.)",_and any other group is "they".
Both Latin and Greek sources_are fine, as I believe the two_languages to be essentially identical when it comes to persons.
Any insight_into the history of numbering of persons would_be quite interesting.

