GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-10 > 1097154146


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Non Sequitur
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:02:26 -0000
References: <Yxa9d.17317$5O5.5889@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <20041007125319.44745.qmail@web41724.mail.yahoo.com>


VERY Interesting.

In English we do translate _NON SEQUITUR_ as:

"It does not follow." [Idiomatic]

Peter is right.

It's a term we use in LOGIC and RHETORIC.

But I have no doubt Chico knows his own language, Portuguese -- and the
Portuguese-speaking Brazilians _seem_ to have a different slant on this
one.

Fascinating.

Hmmmmm...

"Non sequitur, nothing remains, nothing to be said, nothing to be
debated." [Chico]

Quite a different meaning.

Salud y Aloha,

Spencer

"Francisco Antonio Doria" <> wrote in
message news:...
|
| Peter,
|
| Do check your Latin, please. I first went to le père
| des ânes, ;-)) Quicherat, 1869 edition, p. 1081.
|
| Sequitur hunc annum pax. This year is followed by
| peace.
|
| Sequitur is rex qui... Remains to talk about the king
| that...
|
| Non sequitur, nothing remains, nothing to be said,
| nothing to be debated.
|
| I wonder whether there isn't some structural
| disharmony that makes some Latin terms and expressions
| so hard to understand to English-speaking people. My
| guess - just a guess - goes as follows: we have long
| used a language full of nuances, hidden implications,
| innuendos, perhaps. There is always a measure of
| ambiguity in Latin languages, even in its everyday
| usage, while English strives for clear-cut
| definitions, black or white characterizations. This is
| not our way.
|
| Best, chico
|
| --- Peter Stewart <> escreveu:
| > Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
| > > The correct term is non sequitur, an idiomatic
| > > expression from the verb sequor, to follow.
| > Sequitur
| > > est... means, remains to [say, etc.]
| > >
| > > Non sequitur, nothing follows.
| >
| > I've no idea what misquotation or misspelling
| > prompted your remarks, but
| > "non sequitur" means quite literally "it does not
| > follow" and certainly
| > not "nothing follows".
| >
| > Peter Stewart

This thread: