From the online Short/Lewis Latin Dictonary (Oxford):
conclusio:
"In philosophy, the conclusion in a syllogism, the
consequence:
conclusio est, quae brevi argumentatione ex eis, quae ante dicta sunt aut facta, conficit, quid necessario consequatur
Auct. Her. 4, 30, 41;
Cicero, Inv. 1, 29, 44 and 45; id. Div. 2, 49, 103;
Quintilianus 5, 14, 1; 5, 14, 20; 7, 3, 14; 5, 10, 2; 5, 10, 7; 9, 3, 98
Cornif.; Gell. 2, 8, 8.
--- The Greek for 'conclusion' was a Greek word.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
conclusio est, quae brevi argumentatione ex eis, quae ante dicta sunt aut facta, conficit, quid necessario consequatur
ReplyDeleteEbonics Cicero! (no google or ponytext, but Wheellock (with inadequate lexicon) ""A conclusion is that brief argumentation from which (ex eis, or ex iis??), that from facts dictated or either (aut?)..confessed??? (conficit)-- something necessarily consequent (something necessary is consequent)."" mas or menos Not entirely sure....
J! The good thing about Latin is that you don't have to translate it!
ReplyDeleteconclvsio est qvæ brevi argvmentatione ex eis qvæ ante dicta svnt avt facta conficit qvid necessario conseqvatvr
J proposes:
A conclusion is that brief argumentation from which, that from facts dictated or either confessed necessary is the consequent"
--- First, it's NOT Cicero. He COULD write Latin. This is some apocryphal nobody, Auct. Her.
conclvsio est qvæ brevi argvmentatione ex eis qvæ ante dicta svnt avt facta conficit qvid necessario conseqvatvr
J proposes: "A conclusion is that brief argumentation from which, that from facts dictated or either confessed necessary is the consequent"
I would think the opposition is between the
dictum
and the
factum
as in "A man of words, and not of deeds, is like a garden -- full of weeds".
A dictum is the thing said. Plural 'dicta'.
A factum is the thing done (or made). Plural 'facta'.
Since a 'conclusio' has NOTHING to do with 'facts' I refuse to translate! (Just kidding -- should give it another try!)
"qvid necessario conseqvatvr"
ReplyDeleteJ proposes, on spot,
"necessary is the consequent" --
cfr. the deponent, 'sequitur', from sequor, I follow. Versus the nonsequitur, that is.
So Auct. Her. is just defining, circularly, conclusion in terms of consequentia, but we knew that, right?
well wasn't sure if it was Cicero or the backranker, but Cic. says something like that somewhere... And dicta and facta could be separate, but...let's see your translation, JLster, of the crux "quae ante dicta sunt aut facta, conficit.." keeping in mind that latin syntax does not follow ingles ordering--so could be ""that before--or "ante" as from, perhaps--- words OR (aut seems to be disjunction at times) facts are...one deduce ...the verb sunt (are) a bit puzzling too.
ReplyDeleteConficio also a verb was used for "deduce" at times (pre-...er JCsterism)--so possibly ""one deduces...". I opted for espanol back in uni-days (latin-lite!)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom online Short/Lewis, Latin, under consequor:
ReplyDelete"Of a logical sequence, to follow: “si quod primum in conexo est, necessarium est, fit etiam quod consequitur necessarium,” Cic. Fat. 7, 14; 5, 9; cf. under P. a.—"
and
"That follows logically, consequent; with dat.: “assentior, eorum quae posuisti alterum alteri consequens esse,” Cic. Tusc. 5, 8, 21; cf. id. ib. 5, 7, 18.—Comp.: “quid consequentius, quam ut, etc.,” Aug. Trin. 15, 19 fin.—Sup. apparently not in use.—Hence, subst.: consĕ-quens , entis, n., a consequence: “teneamus illud necesse est, cum consequens aliquod falsum sit, illud, cujus id consequens sit, non posse esse verum,” Cic. Fin. 4, 24, 68: “consequentibus vestris sublatis, prima tolluntur,” id. ib. 4, 19, 55; id. de Or. 2, 53, 215; id. Top. 12, 53; Quint. 5, 10, 2; 6, 3, 66.— Hence, consĕquenter , adv. (post-class.)."
So basically Auct. Herm is defining 'conclusio' in terms of 'consequentia', which is really a 'sequentia'; the con- is just emphatic. We don't say, non-consequitur, we just say non-sequitur, or 'sequitur' rather than 'consequitur'.
So basically Auct. Herm is defining 'conclusio' in terms of 'consequentia', which is really a 'sequentia'; the con- is just emphatic.
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand the fairly trivial logical point, but we're unraveling latin syntax now, hermano! Rather more challenging. "Consequor", for example is a verb (which I tried to get in my insta-translation). So, ""conficit (not sure ..verb or adjective?/) quid necessario consequatur..." in pinche ingles, "one deduces something necessarily...consequents" (follows, in ord-lang)
consequents
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJ said...
ReplyDelete“si quod primum in conexo est, necessarium est, fit etiam quod consequitur necessarium,”
OK Paddy Cicero hisself. My point was that mericans (or english, maybe french as well) tend to offer simply interpretations of Latin when the actual language is rather more complex and challenging. The cognates (or apparent cognates, many not exact) tend to produce that effect (Fit?? like yr fit to be tied, pardner!!). Same situation here.
In brief, this definition of conclusion means something like " because something first is connected, it (referring to the word "conclusion," presumably) is necessary to make from it ("fit", from "facio"..to make,create, ...root of facilitate, etc), something necessarily follow." Muy feo. Would take time to make it acceptable Gricean tea-time speak.
Yes. Perhaps we should turn to Greek. Aristotle called the praemissa (propositio) the 'prothesis'. But one wonders if Latin -missa is "thesis". "Thesis" best translates as 'positio', as in pre-positio (pro-thesis).
ReplyDeleteStrictly, I prefer to use postmissa (propositio) for 'conclusio'. There is an air of symmetry to it.
"Your postmisse does not follow from your premisse."
"And why should it?"
---- The question would be odd. Similarly, "You started your argument with the conclusion, which should CONCLUDE it, rather", is otiose.
---
The problem with Cicero and Auct. Herm. is that they add "necessario" which has nothing to do with anything. As my favourite motto goes:
"To live is not necessary: to sail is necessary".
----
I think that part of the Auct. Herm. problem is that he wants to say that the conclusio can be a dictum as in:
----- I want to go to the moon.
------- To get to the moon, I need a rocket.
------------ Therefore, I want a rocket
"Therefore, I want a rocket" is a dictum. On the other hand, GETTING the rocket is a factum. Something you do.
It's like Auct. Herm. is saying that the conclusio is often a dictum (as in logic class); but it should be a factum, too.
This relates to law. If I deduce or infer that something SHOULD be done -- even if I don't do it --, and it is shown that what I say SHOULD be done is illegal, then the mere ficking of the dicking (the factum of the dictum) should be illegal.
That's why Austin entitled his lectures, "Words and deeds". When he travelled to Harvard he re-entitled the lectures as "How to do things with words". For words ARE deeds.
OK. Or, Auct. Hermie meant something like, you deduce conclusions (wth the probably unneeded necessary...or not) from EITHER Dicta or Facta, sentences, OR facts themselves--sort of like the De Dicta sive De Re distinction, right. But Auct. and Cicero tend to be legalistic--quite a different approach to logic than the greeks (even oldies by Cicero's time, like 300+ years). That said, Cicero's writing entertains me, when I have an hour or so to spare. He 's more philosophical than many realize, but it's not the dreamy visions of Plato. Slightly Aristotelian, and stoical, but I don't think he was quite the "hard-guy" that the Stagirite was.
ReplyDeleteCicero seems like a Kennedy--probably slightly corrupt, a bit of a party animal (he married like a 14 yr old girl when he was in his 50s), but taking on the real bad guys (including....Caesar, and his henchman Marc Antony...who a few years after the death of Caesar eventually had Cicero.... beheaded). His writing is eloquent, but not frilly--
Yes. Cicero was a good one. In "Goodbye Mr. Chips", the Latin teacher decides that the students pronounce his (Cicero's) name as
ReplyDelete/tchee-tchee-row/
"since they'll laugh at the boys if with Ellis and his "Revised" Pronunciation, they'd do /kikero/."
---
You are VERY right. The Romans were all about the forum and the agora and the lawyers. I never found an Academy in Rome. It's all Via Veneto: the girls, Harry's bar, the opera. The Romans are very PRACTICAL types.
Mind, the Greeks WERE, also. Plato was the 'exception' that 'proved' the rule, when he equated logic with mathematics. Most terms of logical jargon, and especially when reinterpreted in the light of the post-platonic Aristotle, derive directly from sophistical quarrels with 'rhetors' and 'orators'.
So, yes, I think the Short/Lewis definition has this 'rhetoric' or 'oratory' ring to it. But I should revise it. Etc.