How do I say “this must not happen”?
I'm used to translating English auxiliary "must" with a Latin gerundive: hic necandus est "this man must be killed".
But what if I want to say "this man must not be killed"? I would read non necandus est as "it's not necessary to kill him", which is a somewhat different meaning (it's ambivalent about whether he should be killed or not).
grammar-choice gerundivum negation
asked 5 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
18.8k22676
add a comment |
I'm used to translating English auxiliary "must" with a Latin gerundive: hic necandus est "this man must be killed".
But what if I want to say "this man must not be killed"? I would read non necandus est as "it's not necessary to kill him", which is a somewhat different meaning (it's ambivalent about whether he should be killed or not).
grammar-choice gerundivum negation
asked 5 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
18.8k22676
add a comment |
I'm used to translating English auxiliary "must" with a Latin gerundive: hic necandus est "this man must be killed".
But what if I want to say "this man must not be killed"? I would read non necandus est as "it's not necessary to kill him", which is a somewhat different meaning (it's ambivalent about whether he should be killed or not).
grammar-choice gerundivum negation
asked 5 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
18.8k22676
I'm used to translating English auxiliary "must" with a Latin gerundive: hic necandus est "this man must be killed".
But what if I want to say "this man must not be killed"? I would read non necandus est as "it's not necessary to kill him", which is a somewhat different meaning (it's ambivalent about whether he should be killed or not).
grammar-choice gerundivum negation
grammar-choice gerundivum negation
asked 5 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
18.8k22676
asked 5 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
18.8k22676
edited 3 hours ago
Draconis
asked 5 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
18.8k22676
asked 5 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
18.8k22676
asked 5 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
18.8k22676
18.8k22676
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.
For example, I would like to be able to say "I don't want coffee" as the negation of "I want coffee", meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.
To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say "I want not to have coffee".
But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and "I don't want coffee" is construed as "I want not to have coffee" instead of the more ambivalent reading.
Similarly, the Latin non necandus est is more literally "it is not necessary to kill him" but could also be read as "it is necessary not to kill him".
I found examples of similar constructions, but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.
I would consider both readings valid in general.
I see a couple of ways to express "it is necessary to not kill him" without ambiguity:
- Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: servandus est
- Explain in more words: necesse est eum non necare
- Work it into the structure of a sentence: curandum est ne necetur
- In some cases you might be able to use a negative order: noli(te) eum necare
(There are also passive imperatives.)
answered 3 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.3k1271288
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "644"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9526%2fhow-do-i-say-this-must-not-happen%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.
For example, I would like to be able to say "I don't want coffee" as the negation of "I want coffee", meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.
To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say "I want not to have coffee".
But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and "I don't want coffee" is construed as "I want not to have coffee" instead of the more ambivalent reading.
Similarly, the Latin non necandus est is more literally "it is not necessary to kill him" but could also be read as "it is necessary not to kill him".
I found examples of similar constructions, but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.
I would consider both readings valid in general.
I see a couple of ways to express "it is necessary to not kill him" without ambiguity:
- Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: servandus est
- Explain in more words: necesse est eum non necare
- Work it into the structure of a sentence: curandum est ne necetur
- In some cases you might be able to use a negative order: noli(te) eum necare
(There are also passive imperatives.)
answered 3 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.3k1271288
add a comment |
In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.
For example, I would like to be able to say "I don't want coffee" as the negation of "I want coffee", meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.
To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say "I want not to have coffee".
But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and "I don't want coffee" is construed as "I want not to have coffee" instead of the more ambivalent reading.
Similarly, the Latin non necandus est is more literally "it is not necessary to kill him" but could also be read as "it is necessary not to kill him".
I found examples of similar constructions, but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.
I would consider both readings valid in general.
I see a couple of ways to express "it is necessary to not kill him" without ambiguity:
- Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: servandus est
- Explain in more words: necesse est eum non necare
- Work it into the structure of a sentence: curandum est ne necetur
- In some cases you might be able to use a negative order: noli(te) eum necare
(There are also passive imperatives.)
answered 3 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.3k1271288
add a comment |
In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.
For example, I would like to be able to say "I don't want coffee" as the negation of "I want coffee", meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.
To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say "I want not to have coffee".
But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and "I don't want coffee" is construed as "I want not to have coffee" instead of the more ambivalent reading.
Similarly, the Latin non necandus est is more literally "it is not necessary to kill him" but could also be read as "it is necessary not to kill him".
I found examples of similar constructions, but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.
I would consider both readings valid in general.
I see a couple of ways to express "it is necessary to not kill him" without ambiguity:
- Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: servandus est
- Explain in more words: necesse est eum non necare
- Work it into the structure of a sentence: curandum est ne necetur
- In some cases you might be able to use a negative order: noli(te) eum necare
(There are also passive imperatives.)
answered 3 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.3k1271288
In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.
For example, I would like to be able to say "I don't want coffee" as the negation of "I want coffee", meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.
To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say "I want not to have coffee".
But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and "I don't want coffee" is construed as "I want not to have coffee" instead of the more ambivalent reading.
Similarly, the Latin non necandus est is more literally "it is not necessary to kill him" but could also be read as "it is necessary not to kill him".
I found examples of similar constructions, but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.
I would consider both readings valid in general.
I see a couple of ways to express "it is necessary to not kill him" without ambiguity:
- Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: servandus est
- Explain in more words: necesse est eum non necare
- Work it into the structure of a sentence: curandum est ne necetur
- In some cases you might be able to use a negative order: noli(te) eum necare
(There are also passive imperatives.)
answered 3 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.3k1271288
edited 1 hour ago
answered 3 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.3k1271288
answered 3 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.3k1271288
answered 3 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.3k1271288
49.3k1271288
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Latin Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9526%2fhow-do-i-say-this-must-not-happen%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown