jsquarek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I assume that Spinoza was capable with his Latin,
> and that he was also very careful in how he used it. If that is
> the case, it seems to me that
>
> "I pass, finally, to the OTHER part of the Ethics...."
>
> would be better than Edwin Curley's
>
> "I pass, finally, to the REMAINING part....."
>
> as a translation of Spinoza's
>
> "Transeo tandem ad alteram ethices partem..."
>
>
> It seems to me that, if Spinoza had meant what
> Curley says he meant, he would have used
> something like "reliquum" rather than "alteram".
>
> We are not talking right vs. wrong here. It does seem,
> however, that Curley is being a little careless in using
> "remaining" instead of "other". The semantics are
> not identical. I think that Spinoza mentally bunched the first
> four parts together and that he felt the fifth part
> stood apart.
Strictly speaking alter, -a, -um means the other of two (i.e. the second
and final). If there are more than two parts (in Spinoza's sense of
part, here in Part V), then Curley's "remaining" seems appropriate.
Eduardus
|
