Discussion:
Latin translation requested
(too old to reply)
s***@gmail.com
2006-01-25 20:01:38 UTC
Permalink
A colleague and I are writing a fictional humor article, and we need a
Latin translation. Cogito ergo est is Descartes' famous "I think,
therefore I am." Could someone please translate for us, "He thinks
better, therefore he is better." The connotation is someone more
intelligent than a typical human.

Thanks in advance,

Nick
Grant Hicks
2006-01-25 20:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
A colleague and I are writing a fictional humor article, and we need a
Latin translation. Cogito ergo est is Descartes' famous "I think,
therefore I am."
That would be "Cogito ergo sum." "Cogito ergo est" is what Yahweh said
about Adam (I think, therefore he is).

Could someone please translate for us, "He thinks
Post by s***@gmail.com
better, therefore he is better." The connotation is someone more
intelligent than a typical human.
Thanks in advance,
Nick
Ed Cryer
2006-01-25 20:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
A colleague and I are writing a fictional humor article, and we need a
Latin translation. Cogito ergo est is Descartes' famous "I think,
therefore I am." Could someone please translate for us, "He thinks
better, therefore he is better." The connotation is someone more
intelligent than a typical human.
Thanks in advance,
Nick
Cogito ergo sum = I think therefore I am.
Your "cogito ergo est" (I think therefore he/it is) would be the motto of a
philosopher more idealistic than Descartes; maybe George Berkeley who coined
"esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived).
Descartes claimed to be able to escape from idealistic solipsism through
God; who would not deceive his creation about their belief in a real world
beyond the veil of perception.

"Is melius cogitat, ergo melior est" = he thinks better, therefore he is
better.

Ed
s***@gmail.com
2006-01-25 21:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Ed, Grant: Thank you kindly. My extremely limited Latin included
knowing that "est" would be somewhere in the translated phrase, hence
my typo in Descartes' quote.
John Briggs
2006-01-25 23:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ed, Grant: Thank you kindly. My extremely limited Latin included
knowing that "est" would be somewhere in the translated phrase, hence
my typo in Descartes' quote.
People think that he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum". But what he first wrote (in
the "Discours de la Méthode") was "Je pense, donc je suis". When he came to
translate it into Latin (for an international audience) he found that just
writing "cogito" didn't really emphasis that that it was "I" who was doing
the thinking - so he wrote "Ego cogito". Similarly "sum" didn't convey the
same existential meaning as "I am". So his final formulation was: "Ego
cogito, ergo sum, sive existo." "I, myself, I think, therefore I am, or
rather I exist."
--
John Briggs
Ed Cryer
2006-01-26 10:33:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ed, Grant: Thank you kindly. My extremely limited Latin included
knowing that "est" would be somewhere in the translated phrase, hence
my typo in Descartes' quote.
(in the "Discours de la Mthode") was "Je pense, donc je suis". When he
came to translate it into Latin (for an international audience) he found
that just writing "cogito" didn't really emphasis that that it was "I" who
was doing the thinking - so he wrote "Ego cogito". Similarly "sum" didn't
convey the same existential meaning as "I am". So his final formulation
was: "Ego cogito, ergo sum, sive existo." "I, myself, I think, therefore
I am, or rather I exist."
--
John Briggs
Are you sure he put "ego" in? That makes it even more problematic
philosophically and linguistically.
This "I think therefore I am" is supposed to be a way out of the circle of
doubt and scepticism. You can't doubt your own existence. And from that
Descartes built a whole philosophy, step by step through "sum res cogitans".

People immediately objected that the "I" was logically entailed in the
grammatical form of the sentence; an implicit "ego". It then becomes a mere
tautological point about first person singular grammar. But if he put the
"ego" in explicitly (and I guess he did just that in the original "Je pense
.....) then it becomes even less persuasive. He might just as well have
written "I carry an umbrella, therefore I am", or "I speak French therefore
I am".

Ed
John Briggs
2006-01-26 10:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by John Briggs
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ed, Grant: Thank you kindly. My extremely limited Latin included
knowing that "est" would be somewhere in the translated phrase,
hence my typo in Descartes' quote.
People think that he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum". But what he first
wrote (in the "Discours de la Mthode") was "Je pense, donc je suis".
When he came to translate it into Latin (for an international
audience) he found that just writing "cogito" didn't really emphasis
that that it was "I" who was doing the thinking - so he wrote "Ego
cogito". Similarly "sum" didn't convey the same existential meaning
as "I am". So his final formulation was: "Ego cogito, ergo sum,
sive existo." "I, myself, I think, therefore I am, or rather I
exist."
Are you sure he put "ego" in? That makes it even more problematic
philosophically and linguistically.
This "I think therefore I am" is supposed to be a way out of the
circle of doubt and scepticism. You can't doubt your own existence.
And from that Descartes built a whole philosophy, step by step
through "sum res cogitans".
People immediately objected that the "I" was logically entailed in the
grammatical form of the sentence; an implicit "ego". It then becomes
a mere tautological point about first person singular grammar. But if
he put the "ego" in explicitly (and I guess he did just that in the
original "Je pense .....) then it becomes even less persuasive. He
might just as well have written "I carry an umbrella, therefore I
am", or "I speak French therefore I am".
I think you are missing the point that the Latin is just a translation of
the French. The thinking is being done in French :-)
--
John Briggs
Ed Cryer
2006-01-26 11:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by John Briggs
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ed, Grant: Thank you kindly. My extremely limited Latin included
knowing that "est" would be somewhere in the translated phrase,
hence my typo in Descartes' quote.
People think that he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum". But what he first
wrote (in the "Discours de la Mthode") was "Je pense, donc je suis".
When he came to translate it into Latin (for an international
audience) he found that just writing "cogito" didn't really emphasis
that that it was "I" who was doing the thinking - so he wrote "Ego
cogito". Similarly "sum" didn't convey the same existential meaning
as "I am". So his final formulation was: "Ego cogito, ergo sum,
sive existo." "I, myself, I think, therefore I am, or rather I
exist."
Are you sure he put "ego" in? That makes it even more problematic
philosophically and linguistically.
This "I think therefore I am" is supposed to be a way out of the
circle of doubt and scepticism. You can't doubt your own existence.
And from that Descartes built a whole philosophy, step by step
through "sum res cogitans".
People immediately objected that the "I" was logically entailed in the
grammatical form of the sentence; an implicit "ego". It then becomes
a mere tautological point about first person singular grammar. But if
he put the "ego" in explicitly (and I guess he did just that in the
original "Je pense .....) then it becomes even less persuasive. He
might just as well have written "I carry an umbrella, therefore I
am", or "I speak French therefore I am".
I think you are missing the point that the Latin is just a translation of
the French. The thinking is being done in French :-)
--
John Briggs
You mean you can exist in different languages?
Hic sum ego.
Voici moi.

Ed
John Briggs
2006-01-26 12:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by John Briggs
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by John Briggs
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ed, Grant: Thank you kindly. My extremely limited Latin included
knowing that "est" would be somewhere in the translated phrase,
hence my typo in Descartes' quote.
People think that he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum". But what he first
wrote (in the "Discours de la Mthode") was "Je pense, donc je
suis". When he came to translate it into Latin (for an
international audience) he found that just writing "cogito" didn't
really emphasis that that it was "I" who was doing the thinking -
so he wrote "Ego cogito". Similarly "sum" didn't convey the same
existential meaning as "I am". So his final formulation was: "Ego
cogito, ergo sum, sive existo." "I, myself, I think, therefore I
am, or rather I exist."
Are you sure he put "ego" in? That makes it even more problematic
philosophically and linguistically.
This "I think therefore I am" is supposed to be a way out of the
circle of doubt and scepticism. You can't doubt your own existence.
And from that Descartes built a whole philosophy, step by step
through "sum res cogitans".
People immediately objected that the "I" was logically entailed in
the grammatical form of the sentence; an implicit "ego". It then
becomes a mere tautological point about first person singular
grammar. But if he put the "ego" in explicitly (and I guess he did
just that in the original "Je pense .....) then it becomes even
less persuasive. He might just as well have written "I carry an
umbrella, therefore I am", or "I speak French therefore I am".
I think you are missing the point that the Latin is just a
translation of the French. The thinking is being done in French :-)
You mean you can exist in different languages?
Hic sum ego.
Voici moi.
Philosophers argue that translation is impossible, because language reflects
the whole of the society and its culture. What this example illustrates is
that translation is possible between the languages of two cultures close in
space and time (Seventeenth century France and England: "Je pense, donc je
suis." "I think, therefore I am") - but between languages of two cultures
separated by about two millenia it is more problematic.
--
John Briggs
J. W. Love
2006-01-26 20:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Philosophers argue that translation is impossible, because language reflects
the whole of the society and its culture. What this example illustrates is
that translation is possible between the languages of two cultures close in
space and time (Seventeenth century France and England: "Je pense, donc je
suis." "I think, therefore I am") - but between languages of two cultures
separated by about two millenia it is more problematic.
It doesn't turn out too badly in Samoan, a language unrelated to
French, even though Samoan doesn't have a verb 'to be' (untranslatable
particles here glossed with a parenthetical hyphen):

'ou te mafaufau; 'o le mea lea 'ou te ola
I (-) think; (-) the thing this I
(-) live
I think; therefore I'm alive.

Of course philosophers may well argue that, for humans, being & living
aren't exactly the same thing, but such philosophers would most likely
not be Samoans.
Robert Stonehouse
2006-01-27 07:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. W. Love
Post by John Briggs
Philosophers argue that translation is impossible, because language reflects
the whole of the society and its culture. What this example illustrates is
that translation is possible between the languages of two cultures close in
space and time (Seventeenth century France and England: "Je pense, donc je
suis." "I think, therefore I am") - but between languages of two cultures
separated by about two millenia it is more problematic.
It doesn't turn out too badly in Samoan, a language unrelated to
French, even though Samoan doesn't have a verb 'to be' (untranslatable
'ou te mafaufau; 'o le mea lea 'ou te ola
I (-) think; (-) the thing this I
(-) live
I think; therefore I'm alive.
Of course philosophers may well argue that, for humans, being & living
aren't exactly the same thing, but such philosophers would most likely
not be Samoans.
Would it be possible for a Samoan to argue that 'je pense'
goes too far, and what the phenomena permit is not 'cogito'
bu 'cogitatur', that is, 'there is thinking going on'? That
was an early argument against Descartes and it appears
cogent; that is, 'I exist' does not follow.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
idmonnnn
2006-04-13 19:03:33 UTC
Permalink
YOGI "Je pense, donc je suis fatigué." NON DICEBAT


YOGI
"
SI BENE COGITANT IGITUR NON FREQUENTER COGITATE
"
DICEBAT


YOGI
"
OMNES QUOD DICEBAM NON REVERA DICEBAM
"
DICEBAT


"
I didn't really say everything I said.
"
~~Yogi Berra
Ed Cryer
2006-04-13 19:14:07 UTC
Permalink
YOGI "Je pense, donc je suis fatigu." NON DICEBAT
YOGI
"
SI BENE COGITANT IGITUR NON FREQUENTER COGITATE
"
DICEBAT
YOGI
"
OMNES QUOD DICEBAM NON REVERA DICEBAM
"
DICEBAT
"
I didn't really say everything I said.
"
~~Yogi Berra
Id quod cogito est.
Ubi est?
Meo in animo.
Ubi est tuus animus?
Est in meo capite.
Igitur omnia quae tu cogitas sunt in capite tuo?
Ita vero. Atque plus, quodcumque cogito caeruleum est colore.
Caeruleum? Sed quanti valet quod cogitas?
Valet pluris toto mundo.

Edus

B. T. Raven
2006-01-27 01:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Same idea here from the Meditations on the First Philosophy:

"6. Quid autem nunc, ubi suppono deceptorem aliquem potentissimum, &, si
fas est dicere, malignum, datâ operâ in omnibus, quantum potuit, me
delusisse ? Possumne affirmare me habere vel minimum quid ex iis omnibus,
quae jam dixi ad naturam corporis pertinere ? Attendo, cogito, revolvo,
nihil occurrit ; fatigor eadem frustrà repetere. Quid verò ex iis quae
animae tribuebam ? Nutriri vel incedere ? Quandoquidem jam corpus non
habeo, haec quoque nihil sunt nisi figmenta. Sentire ? Nempe etiam hoc non
fit sine corpore, & permulta sentire visus sum in somnis quae deinde
animadverti me non sensisse. Cogitare ? Hîc invenio : cogitatio est ; haec
sola a me divelli nequit. Ego sum, ego existo ; certum est. Quandiu autem
? Nempe quandiu cogito ; nam forte etiam fieri posset, si cessarem ab omni
cogitatione, ut illico totus esse desinerem. Nihil nunc admitto nisi quod
necessario sit verum ; sum igitur praecise tantùm res cogitans, id est,
mens, sive animus, sive intellectus, sive ratio, voces mihi priùs
significationis ignotae. Sum autem res vera, & vere existens ; sed qualis
res ? Dixi, cogitans."

Aye, there's the rub.
Robert Stonehouse
2006-01-27 00:33:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:20:13 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ed, Grant: Thank you kindly. My extremely limited Latin included
knowing that "est" would be somewhere in the translated phrase, hence
my typo in Descartes' quote.
People think that he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum". But what he first wrote (in
the "Discours de la M?ode") was "Je pense, donc je suis". When he came to
translate it into Latin (for an international audience) he found that just
writing "cogito" didn't really emphasis that that it was "I" who was doing
the thinking - so he wrote "Ego cogito". Similarly "sum" didn't convey the
same existential meaning as "I am". So his final formulation was: "Ego
cogito, ergo sum, sive existo." "I, myself, I think, therefore I am, or
rather I exist."
The 1664 translation into French was by Courcelles, not by
Descartes himself.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
John Briggs
2006-01-27 00:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:20:13 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ed, Grant: Thank you kindly. My extremely limited Latin included
knowing that "est" would be somewhere in the translated phrase,
hence my typo in Descartes' quote.
People think that he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum". But what he first
wrote (in the "Discours de la M?ode") was "Je pense, donc je suis".
When he came to translate it into Latin (for an international
audience) he found that just writing "cogito" didn't really emphasis
that that it was "I" who was doing the thinking - so he wrote "Ego
cogito". Similarly "sum" didn't convey the same existential meaning
as "I am". So his final formulation was: "Ego cogito, ergo sum,
sive existo." "I, myself, I think, therefore I am, or rather I
exist."
The 1664 translation into French was by Courcelles, not by
Descartes himself.
Do you perhaps mean "the 1644 translation into Latin was by Courcelles,
revised by Descartes"?
--
John Briggs
Robert Stonehouse
2006-01-27 19:22:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:20:13 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ed, Grant: Thank you kindly. My extremely limited Latin included
knowing that "est" would be somewhere in the translated phrase,
hence my typo in Descartes' quote.
People think that he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum". But what he first
wrote (in the "Discours de la M?ode") was "Je pense, donc je suis".
When he came to translate it into Latin (for an international
audience) he found that just writing "cogito" didn't really emphasis
that that it was "I" who was doing the thinking - so he wrote "Ego
cogito". Similarly "sum" didn't convey the same existential meaning
as "I am". So his final formulation was: "Ego cogito, ergo sum,
sive existo." "I, myself, I think, therefore I am, or rather I
exist."
The 1664 translation into French was by Courcelles, not by
Descartes himself.
Do you perhaps mean "the 1644 translation into Latin was by Courcelles,
revised by Descartes"?
I did mean 'into Latin', of course. Not the other bit,
though - what is the source for that?
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
John Briggs
2006-01-27 20:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:20:13 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ed, Grant: Thank you kindly. My extremely limited Latin included
knowing that "est" would be somewhere in the translated phrase,
hence my typo in Descartes' quote.
People think that he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum". But what he first
wrote (in the "Discours de la M?ode") was "Je pense, donc je suis".
When he came to translate it into Latin (for an international
audience) he found that just writing "cogito" didn't really
emphasis that that it was "I" who was doing the thinking - so he
wrote "Ego cogito". Similarly "sum" didn't convey the same
existential meaning as "I am". So his final formulation was: "Ego
cogito, ergo sum, sive existo." "I, myself, I think, therefore I
am, or rather I exist."
The 1664 translation into French was by Courcelles, not by
Descartes himself.
Do you perhaps mean "the 1644 translation into Latin was by
Courcelles, revised by Descartes"?
I did mean 'into Latin', of course. Not the other bit,
though - what is the source for that?
The Latin translation was published in 1644 - Descartes was still alive
until 1650.
--
John Briggs
Robert Stonehouse
2006-01-28 19:24:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:10:19 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:20:13 GMT, "John Briggs"
...
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
The 1664 translation into French was by Courcelles, not by
Descartes himself.
Do you perhaps mean "the 1644 translation into Latin was by
Courcelles, revised by Descartes"?
I did mean 'into Latin', of course. Not the other bit,
though - what is the source for that?
The Latin translation was published in 1644 - Descartes was still alive
until 1650.
Ah! He was alive at the time, and therefore ... Well, it's a
better argument than for the Earl of Oxford writing the
works of Shakespeare, since he was dead before a number of
them were written! Indeed, Descartes visited France in May
1644. (The Latin version was published by Stephanus.)

But we can't be so definite. Descartes may have seen the
Latin version at some stage, perhaps at a stage where he
could make changes, if he wanted to do so.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
John Briggs
2006-01-28 20:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:10:19 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:20:13 GMT, "John Briggs"
...
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
The 1664 translation into French was by Courcelles, not by
Descartes himself.
Do you perhaps mean "the 1644 translation into Latin was by
Courcelles, revised by Descartes"?
I did mean 'into Latin', of course. Not the other bit,
though - what is the source for that?
The Latin translation was published in 1644 - Descartes was still
alive until 1650.
Ah! He was alive at the time, and therefore ... Well, it's a
better argument than for the Earl of Oxford writing the
works of Shakespeare, since he was dead before a number of
them were written! Indeed, Descartes visited France in May
1644. (The Latin version was published by Stephanus.)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but no. It was published in
Amsterdam by Elzevier. Are you confusing that with Etienne de Courcelles?
(Who was resident at Amsterdam.)
Post by Robert Stonehouse
But we can't be so definite. Descartes may have seen the
Latin version at some stage, perhaps at a stage where he
could make changes, if he wanted to do so.
The title page says "Ex Gallico translata, & ab Auctore perlecta... -
Amsterdam perfecta". This seems to be interpreted as "revu et corrigé par
l'auteur" or "under close supervision by Descartes".
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
2006-01-28 23:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:10:19 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:20:13 GMT, "John Briggs"
...
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
The 1664 translation into French was by Courcelles, not by
Descartes himself.
Do you perhaps mean "the 1644 translation into Latin was by
Courcelles, revised by Descartes"?
I did mean 'into Latin', of course. Not the other bit,
though - what is the source for that?
The Latin translation was published in 1644 - Descartes was still
alive until 1650.
Ah! He was alive at the time, and therefore ... Well, it's a
better argument than for the Earl of Oxford writing the
works of Shakespeare, since he was dead before a number of
them were written! Indeed, Descartes visited France in May
1644. (The Latin version was published by Stephanus.)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but no. It was published in
Amsterdam by Elzevier. Are you confusing that with Etienne de
Courcelles? (Who was resident at Amsterdam.)
Post by Robert Stonehouse
But we can't be so definite. Descartes may have seen the
Latin version at some stage, perhaps at a stage where he
could make changes, if he wanted to do so.
The title page says "Ex Gallico translata, & ab Auctore perlecta... -
Amsterdam perfecta". This seems to be interpreted as "revu et
corrigé par l'auteur" or "under close supervision by Descartes".
Er, sorry - that's a cut and paste error. The title page says "Ex Gallico
translata, & ab Auctore perlecta", of course. Later editions add "variisque
in locis emendata", but I can't tell if that was on the 1644 title page, as
I can't find an illustration!
--
John Briggs
Robert Stonehouse
2006-01-29 08:07:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:08:07 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:10:19 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:59:58 GMT, "John Briggs"
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:20:13 GMT, "John Briggs"
...
Post by John Briggs
Post by John Briggs
The title page says "Ex Gallico translata, & ab Auctore perlecta... -
Amsterdam perfecta". This seems to be interpreted as "revu et
corrig?ar l'auteur" or "under close supervision by Descartes".
Er, sorry - that's a cut and paste error. The title page says "Ex Gallico
translata, & ab Auctore perlecta", of course. Later editions add "variisque
in locis emendata", but I can't tell if that was on the 1644 title page, as
I can't find an illustration!
Thank you! The very thing I was looking for. Yes, I agree
with you.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...