Talk:arguendo

RFV discussion
[ arguendo ]

The translation is given as "For the sake of argument", but, despite my minimal knowledge of Latin, I would think this should be translated as "gerund of ", and then, possibly, as "for the sake of argument" as a second translation; or is it (or was it) only used in Latin (not in English or in legal terminology) to mean "for the sake of argument"? &mdash; Paul G 14:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We have four places to put a meaning that respects the Latin grammar:
 * A Latin section on the same page
 * The etymology of the English term
 * A sense (possibly dated) that exactly respected the Latin grammar but in English usage.
 * A modern sense artfully worded to respect the Latin sense.


 * I would reject the last because it allows to much weight for the dead hand of the past. The third requires (in principle) attestation, which might prove time-consuming and may not get done at all. The other two seem more economical to me while effectively communicating enough about the evolution of meaning.
 * One advantage of our multi-lingual nature is that we could have a Latin entry in the same page. There is some thought to put glosses on the entries for inflected forms like this one.
 * As I understand it, one could define its legal use with a non-gloss definition: Used to set off the facts presented in an argument on a point of law from facts in dispute in the case. This in no way depends on the Latin grammar. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for running on about this without having looked at the actual tag location. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to think the problem through. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the Latin section of the page. It is a form of a Latin gerund, and four forms of a Latin future passive participle.

With regard to the points above:
 * 1) The Latin section on the same page now exists.
 * 2) Including something in the etymology section of the English entry sounds good, but...
 * 3) You'll have a hard time finding an English usage that parallels the Latin grammar, for two reasons.  (a) Latin gerunds are typically restricted to the singular genitive and dative, with some appearances in the accusative, but never in the nominative.  (b) The participle forms are the gerundive (future passive participle), which does not have a proper equivalent in English.
 * 4) So a modern sense "artfully worded" isn't feasible.  The translation would be awkward and couldn't properly capture the Latin meaning without lots of aditional explanatory notes about the Latin future passive participle (or gerund).

So, the idea of putting a gloss on the Latin entry is also impractical. The future passive participle does not translate well or simply into any language that I know of. --EncycloPetey 03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Striking, long since speedy-removed. —Ruakh TALK 20:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)