# arguar



## edwardtheconfessor

*Arguar  *- first person singular future indicative passive of 'arguo':  show, prove, demonstrate etc.

Hi.  Wonder if anyone can help me out here.  Writing an essay for publication (part of a much larger postgrad level thesis I'm working on); subject 'The Methodology of Science'.
Ever heard that famous little (and very sexist!) epigram usually attributed to Kipling? :-
_"A woman is only a woman [!!] - but a good cigar is a smoke." 
_
My little witty saw which parodies this - to point up something I am saying about why, since the earliest days even of the first philosopher-scientists, in true science - as opposed to mere opinion or conjecture - in this case, merely proposing something is not enough.
My little witty (I hope!) saw, which parodies the supposed Kipling one:

_"A theorem is only a theorem - but a good *'arguar'* is not just a joke!" 

_You will see, of course, the intended quasi-homonyms (or sort of 'rhymes') to the original alleged Kipling which I parody here. Quite deliberate, of course:-

_theorem - woman_;  _'arguar' - cigar.
_
Yes?  My only question really: do I have correct (Latin) grammar here in the inserted word? i.e.: first person singular future indicative passive (= 'IS TO BE ARGUED (SHOWN. DEMONSTRATED etc.)') ??
Of course, it is - obviously - 'lifted' Latin ... into an English aphorism - and being used as if it were an (English) gerundive anyway (which it is not in Latin, of course) - and thus is really only 'dog Latin' obviously.  But I'd like to be right on the point of Latin grammar - the correct verbal conjugation.
Any informed views or advice here? 

Thanks  - edwardtheconfessor

PS: I'm not a real Latin scholar - so keep the grammar simple!! Thanks.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

It's at the same time present subjunctive, so it does serve your purpose _(arguendum sum)._


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Schimmelreiter said:


> It's at the same time present subjunctive, so it does serve your purpose _(arguendum sum)._



Thank you Schimmelreiter. So, are you saying *'arguar' *could also mean 'If I were arguing (/showing/demonstrating etc.)'  ??  If so, excellent!!  Even better, in fact - for, still rhyming with 'cigar' (cf. Kipling) it also ties in rather well with my arguments about what I call use of the 'Socratic subjunctive' by the first philosopher-scientists as an invaluable device in deductive reasoning:-

"Suppose (so- and  -so); supposing that, would (x, y etc.) be true?".

Many thanks!


----------



## Schimmelreiter

edwardtheconfessor said:


> If I were arguing (/showing/demonstrating etc.)


No, that's not what I'm saying. You said you wanted it to mean


edwardtheconfessor said:


> TO BE ARGUED (SHOWN. DEMONSTRATED etc.)


i.e. to convey what a


edwardtheconfessor said:


> gerundive


conveys. What I'm saying is yes, a meaning similar to a gerundive, i.e.


Schimmelreiter said:


> _arguendum sum_


is expressed by


edwardtheconfessor said:


> *Arguar*


yet not because it's


edwardtheconfessor said:


> future indicative


but because it's also


Schimmelreiter said:


> present subjunctive


whose optative use resembles a gerundive in meaning.


----------



## wandle

edwardtheconfessor said:


> *Arguar*- first person singular future indicative passive of 'arguo':  show, prove, demonstrate etc.


I am sorry, but your idea is not going to work. It seems you want 'an _*arguar*_' to mean 'a proof or demonstration'. I am afraid it cannot do that.

First of all, the verb is passive. When a verb is passive, the subject of the verb is the recipient of the action.
Thus 'I hit' (active) means I strike someone or something: but 'I am hit' (passive) means that someone or something strikes me.

Now let us start with the first person passive indicative of _*arguo*_. That is not _*arguar*_ but _*arguor*_. What does _*arguor*_ mean?
It means that someone or something does the action of the verb _*arguo*_ to the speaker (the person who is the subject of the verb).

When a person is the recipient of the action of _*arguo*_, the verb does not mean 'show, prove, demonstrate' : it means 'accuse' or 'charge'.
Thus the first person passive indicative _*arguor*_ means 'I am accused' (in other words, someone is accusing me of something).

Now let us come to _*arguar*_.
_*arguar*_ can be future indicative, in which case it means _'I shall be accused'_.

Alternatively, _*arguar*_ can be present subjunctive. The subjunctive is used for making polite requests.
In that case, _*arguar*_ means _'Let me be accused'_: or in other words, _'Please accuse me'_.

Please excuse me for pointing it out, but whichever way we take _*arguar*_, it cannot mean a proof or demonstration.


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

wandle said:


> I am sorry, but your idea is not going to work. It seems you want 'an _*arguar*_' to mean 'an argument'.



No. I do not want it to mean 'an argument'.  I want it to mean an 'is to be argued/shown/demonstrated/shown' _but _a verbal form  - here 'lifted' from the Latin and used in my aphorism _as if _a 'gerundive' phrase (though it is a single Latin word ... but that, of course, is because Latin is able to express mood, like person and tense, by simply inflecting the verb itself - instead of adding auxiliary verbs and verbal forms as English does). I looked at several Latin verbs - though, as I say I am no real Latin scholar - which is why I appreciate help here from those who are.  I knew it had to be a form that would (more or less) 'rhyme' with 'cigar' (in the attributed Kipling) but convey the idea of 'it will be argued/shown/demonstrated/proven'. 'Demonstrandum' for example (as in the ubiquitous 'Q.E.D.') would not do, obviously, as it does not 'rhyme' with 'cigar' and, in any case, I did _not _want to convey ' *that which *is to be shown or demonstrated' but rather,as I say, the idea of _*an:-
*_ 
_'is to be argued/shown/proven/demonstrated'_.  Read again my original post and re-examine my context if you would please be so kind.

Your other grammatical elucidations lose me a bit, I'm afraid.  I'm sorry.  But no - I certainly do no want to convey anything like 'I shall be accused' or 'please accuse me'.
However, if (as perhaps you are saying - if I have understood you on this?)"a good _'arguar' "  _(my own English 'borrowing' - again; read my original post to see context) can mean something like :

'*I* [the theorem - again; see my original post for context here] _*am to be*_ [for it is _future _tense, is it not?]  _*argued/shown/demonstrated etc*_.'  ... then that is exactly what I want here!

Or have I missed something very important?


----------



## wandle

If we use *arguo*, the word for 'something that is to be shown or demonstrated' is *arguendum* ('the point to be proved').

If the idea is to make a witty saying, we have to consider how people will naturally interpret what you say.
You seem to want to tie the sense down very tightly: that is fine in a definition or stating a subject for a thesis or essay, but in a witty saying you have to let it go and wait for people to interpret it as they see it. If they are not allowed the chance to work out the meaning themselves, you may be able to make your meaning clear, but only at the price of losing any element of wit.

My point with this discussion of 'wit' is that if you use the finite form of the first person singluar passive, then people will naturally interpret that as meaning that a person is intended. Anyone with a good knowledge of Latin will know that in that case the verb does not mean 'show', it means 'accuse'.


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Schimmelreiter, I thank you once again, for clarifying.  I note that wandle (see above) seems not to agree on this at all - and I have also replied to wandle (see).
From my point of view, and for my purposes, it will be sufficient if I can, as I say, 'lift' or 'borrow' a Latin verbal form (as one sometimes does in scholarly work - even if one, like me,  is not a true Latin scholar) and, as it were 'Hobson Jobson' the usage just a tad (as, again, often happens with such 'borrowings').

'Hobson Jobson', btw: alter (or distort in some cases) the original context or grammatical usage. Italian (which I do speak somewhat), for example, does this:
_'Un dancing'  _(meaning a ballroom - a _place _for dancing).  English, which is probably richer in borrowings - direct and indirect - than almost any other language I know of, frequently 'Hobson Jobson' s in this way when it borrows.

If I can 'get away with' slipping in *'arguar' *to my aphorism - and still keep both the wit (I hope!) and the rhyming parody of attributed Kipling, by saying:
_
"A theorem is only a theorem - but a good 'arguar' is not just a joke.'
_
And then simply add a footnote:

* '_Arguar'  _- cf. Latin; here meaning (loosely): An  'It (the theorem) is to be argued/shown/proven/demonstrated' .

- then, if that is sufficient as to be unassailable - as a 'borrowing' - by even the the arch-pedant or real Latin, dyed-in-the- wool 'gerund grinder' ... then that will be sufficient.
If, as I think you are suggesting - and trying I am , as far as I can, to take account of what wandle seems to be advising too - I could also  say in my footnote:
(again, in the same way) :-

Also  _loosely_ translated: 'arguar' here meaning _*an*_ 'It could/would/should be argued/shown/demonstrated' .

 .... then that will serve well for purpose here.  I have explained above to wandle (see) why, for example,  'demonstrandum' (as in the ubiquitous 'Q.E.D' ) will not do here.

Or, again, have I missed something major here??

Thanks   - edwardtheconfessor


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

wandle said:


> If we use *arguo*, the word for 'something that is to be shown or demonstrated' is *arguendum* ('the point to be proved').
> 
> If the idea is to make a witty saying, we have to consider how people will naturally interpret what you say.
> You seem to want to tie the sense down very tightly: that is fine in a definition or stating a subject for a thesis or essay, but in a witty saying you have to let it go and wait for people to interpret it as they see it. If they are not allowed the chance to work out the meaning themselves, you may be able to make your meaning clear, but only at the price of losing any element of wit.
> 
> My point with this discussion of 'wit' is that if you use the finite form of the first person singluar passive, then people will naturally interpret that as meaning that a person is intended. Anyone with a good knowledge of Latin will know that in that case the verb does not mean 'show', it means 'accuse'.



Thank you wandle. I try to take on board your points here also. But actually, in the context of what I am arguing in this particular section of my essay (which, as I say, is part of a much larger thesis - also for publication) - namely, that any scientific theory is not valid until or unless one can, or one can respond to the challenge to, argue, demonstrate, show, prove in some way ... then it is not valid science anyway and should not be taken seriously; and hence the ending of my aphorism/parody :-

  '... is not just a joke'    (see my original post for context)

 - then it would, I think, do no harm at all for me to be _implying _too  that the true scientist presenting a provisional theory _should, _in effect, be prepared to say 'Please accuse me, then!'.  In other words: 'Please DO challenge me - and I will argue, show, prove, demonstrate'.  Cf. the French idiom - also sometimes 'Hobson Jobson' ed in English usage (* see my replies to Schimmelreiter - above) -  of _'J'accuse'_ .... often used in scholarly discussion to challenge a position or theory.

Yes??

'Arguendum' of course I cannot use - as it will not give me anything like the 'near rhyme' I need to the original alleged Kipling.
As I have explained to Schimmelreiter (see), I will add a footnote for my readers. I do not think that will dilute any (hoped for) wit to my little aphorism, no. _​Au contraire! _​It will merely clarify it IMO.


----------



## wandle

The difficulty with *arguar* is that on its own it can only mean either 'I shall be accused' or 'Please accuse me'. 


edwardtheconfessor said:


> 'Arguendum' of course I cannot use - as it will not give me anything like the 'near rhyme' I need to the original alleged Kipling.


The difficutly with this is that if we pick a Latin word because it has a few letters in common with an English word, that does not make it appropriate to use, either as part of speech or in semantic meaning or in any other respect.


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete amici!

I confess to being a little bemused by the length of this thread, because after all the original post was only asking for a bit of whimsy: I fear Schimmelreiter and wandle may be taking things a little too seriously.

"...a _cogar_ is more than a joke".

_cogar_ = "I may/should be compelled", but that may be by force of argument (hence the English word "cogent", in precisely the context of rational debate and validity of proof).

Σ


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Scholiast! At last we seem to be getting somewhere!  I think you may have rescued (some of us, at least) from what looked like becoming an - admittedly polite and well-mannered - scholarly argument (and yes I do mean 'argument' in the normal English sense of the word, in this case!).
'A bit of whimsy'? Hmmm. Well, no; not quite. I intend the sardonic humour of course - but I am also making a serious point.  However, I think you have grasped that too.

I never heard the word *'cogar'* - but then, like I said, I am not a Latin speaker or writer.  However, I am a  serious amateur philologist, and I take the point you are making about etymologies here.  My Oxford Concise Dictionary has:-

*cogent (adjective) *_​: Forcible, convincing (of argument ...   [French from Latin *cogere *= *CO(gere  *drive), - ENT.]
_
AND
*
cogitable (adjective) *_: Able to be grasped by reason, conceivable [from Latin *cogitabilis *...]

_The English word 'cogitate', of course, also comes from the same etymological root. However, that is often, in modern English usage, used rather facetiously.  I note that Oxford Concise also advises a more 'playful' usage of the word *cogent *  ... though I myself have never heard it so used.

_"A theorem is only a theorem - but a good *'cogar' *__is more than a joke."
__(Original attributed Kipling: "A woman is only a woman - but a good cigar is a smoke."   _Kipling himself uses the qualifying adjective 'good' (as I have done)).

Well, it is a very neat little (extremely close) homonym to Kipling's 'cigar'. Great!! And, if it really has all the nuances and 'overtones' of one being compelled to show forth, explicate, demonstrate or otherwise convincingly argue for or prove - and even that be incumbent on the proponent of the theorem (in this case); then great also!!  As you see from the context - which I subsequently explained - I am indeed arguing that this is what makes any 'theorem' science (I am not here using 'theorem' in the specific mathematical or geometrical sense, of course) and distinguishes this from mere opinion or speculation.  So also: great!! So long as this word has no 'undertones' of flippancy or 'playfulness' or of a mere piece of sophistry - then; perfect!!
Have we solved this one now - 'Q.E.D.' .... ?  Well, I hope so!  Many thanks    

- edwardtheconfessor


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings

"...but a good _cogar_ is no joke" would be rhythmically better.

Σ


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Yes, good point. Thanks.


----------



## wandle

Even with *cogar* in place of *arguar*, the whole thing still seems to me too strained and difficult to be effective.

Since you have been candid enough to tell us that this is intended for a thesis and eventual publication, may I, in good will, comment frankly on how I would judge it if I were in that position?

I would ask myself three questions: 
(1) Will it aid the exposition of the thesis? 
(2) Will it, in addition, impress the examiners or assessors?
(3) Will it, in addition, appeal to the potential future readership and be likely to gain wider currency?

My answers would be:
(1) probably not - more likely to confuse than to clarify;
(2) very unlikely - it might be seen at best as awkward and over-ingenious;
(3) extremely unlikely.

Please excuse my frankness, but I would judge it myself as something to be (regretfully) discarded.


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

This argument is over wandle. Thank you but I disagree. I think you have completely failed to appreciate what was intended here in the first place. Oh and btw, I don't need any examiner to 'assess' or 'be impressed' by this work. It is not a student thesis.  I am not a student. I passed that stage as an academic writer long ago. I  said it is for _publication_ - not assessment. I don't need for anyone to _assess _me. Neither do I need to 'impress' anyone.  I think Scholiast has understood this - and, unlike for you (apparently), the dry humour, as well as the serious point, for him, was not  missed.  You are trying to be helpful. ty  - but .... as the saying goes 'thanks but no thanks'. Over and out!

- edwardtheconfessor


----------



## wandle

Well, well, I did my best. I apologise for any offence. I was trying to help. 
It was with a view to preventing a mistake that I threw on the idea all the cold water at my disposal.
If that has not worked and you still go ahead, all I can say is, 'Good luck!'


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

No offence taken, wandle; don't worry. Thank you for your kind, well-intended help and for your selfless wishes for success of my essay (and thesis) ... at least I've learned a bit more about Latin verbal conjugations (said to be the bane of every neophyte Latin scholar!). _Salute.  _- edwardtheconfessor


----------

