On topic: What is the opposite of QED?
Iain
'Not what was to be demonstrated'. In other words: That's not the
point of the argument I'm making. That's not what the evidence is
supposed to show. And so on.
Quod non erat demonstrandum?
Must we shift the 'non' before the 'quod' or after the 'erat'? I
suppose that depends on whether we're doing a noun phrase?
--Iain
Ed Cryer
"Iain" <iain_i...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:85634549-d80d-4811...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
If you take "quod erat demonstrandum" as a phrase, and you want to
negate the phrase itself, then the "non" should be outside it.
Non (id) quod erat demonstrandum.
Personally I'd labour the point to avoid any misunderstanding at all.
Hoc non est quod demonstrandum erat.
or
Hoc est extra postulata huius argumenti.
Ed
Evertjan.
> If you take "quod erat demonstrandum" as a phrase, and you want to
> negate the phrase itself, then the "non" should be outside it.
> Non (id) quod erat demonstrandum.
>
> Personally I'd labour the point to avoid any misunderstanding at all.
> Hoc non est quod demonstrandum erat.
> or
> Hoc est extra postulata huius argumenti.
Demonstrandum non demonstrat.
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
jsqu...@gmail.com
> Iain wrote:
> > 'Not what was to be demonstrated'. In other words: That's not the
> > point of the argument I'm making. That's not what the evidence is
> > supposed to show. And so on.
>
> > Quod non erat demonstrandum?
>
>
> Quod erat non demonstrandum = Which was to be not so much proven [ as
> perhaps hinted at.]
>
>
>
> > Must we shift the 'non' before the 'quod' or after the 'erat'? I
> > suppose that depends on whether we're doing a noun phrase?
>
> > --Iain
I go also with
"quod non erat demonstandum"
because it is a negation of the noun phrase itself,
not of something that the noun phrase points at.
Not, in my mind, a minor distinction.
IMHO,
"Hoc non est quod demonstrandum erat. "
says something different.
jsqu...@gmail.com
To be maybe a little more literal and to honor
the supine "demonstandum" I like
"non demonstratum quod erat demonstandum"
which brings to mind the iconic scene,
"failure to demonstrate" scene, from
"Cool Hand Luke"
Ed Cryer
"B. T. Raven" <ni...@nihilo.net> wrote in message
news:D-ednayrfqyHSsDW...@sysmatrix.net...
> Iain wrote:
>> 'Not what was to be demonstrated'. In other words: That's not the
>> point of the argument I'm making. That's not what the evidence is
>> supposed to show. And so on.
>>
>> Quod non erat demonstrandum?
>
>
There's a semantic difference between "not what was to be shown" and
"what was not to be shown", and you've confounded the two.
Ed
jsqu...@gmail.com
> that can be conveyed by simply moving "non." It might be clearer, in the
> first instance, to say "Id non est quod erat demonstrandum."
>
> Eduardus
I agree. Your version is clearer and
more explicit.
I chose to drop
the "id" for reasons of euphony. Also, since
I am still accomodating my thinking to include
the supine, I like to highlight it vis a vis
the ppp "demonstratum". Leaving the "id"
in or taking it out, is close call for me.
I find the original question surprisingly relevant
because it seems to bring some
translation issues into clear focus.
Ed Cryer
> least
> that can be conveyed by simply moving "non." It might be clearer, in
> the
> first instance, to say "Id non est quod erat demonstrandum."
>
> Eduardus
>
Well, to translate something like "Not what was to be proven but
something else" you'd have to have the "non" outside the phrase itself.
Perhaps; Non quod erat demonstrandum sed aliud.
Ed
Sally
>
> - Show quoted text -
God, he was a good actor. Must've been thinking of Latin during that
scene.
Sally