<jsquarek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:f7882351-1d1d-4f4c-9a00-0d6b77e30708@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Feb 25, 9:34 am, "B. T. Raven" <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> jsqua...@[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
>
> I don't follow your reasoning here; you seem to make my point.
>
> Since alter, -a, -um does, strictly speaking, mean the other of two,
> then, it seems that Spinoza
> would not use it to refer to the last of five. Unless, that is, he
> intended to convey the idea that he held Part V in various
> distinctions with the first four parts. By using "alteram",
> therefore,
> he conveys
>
> the one part of two parts = (parts 1,2,3,4)
> the other part of two parts = ( part 5 )
>
> To be concise:
>
> Had Spinoza meant "remaining" he would have used something
> like "reliquum". Since he did not, but, used "alteram" instead,
> he meant "other", as in the sense of "other of two".
I've been looking through Book V. Two things strike me.
One, that "pars" is used all the time for the five. The title is
"SPINOZAE ETHICA ........IN QUINQUE PARTES DISTINCTA" (Spinoza's Ethics
...... divided into five parts). And Book V is headed "Pars Quinta". And
in it there are lots of references to things in the other four "partes".
Secondly, I did a search on other uses of "alter" in Book V, and they
all appear very correct, ie. one and the other.
So, all I have to suggest is an ancient typo for "ultimam".
Ed
|
