

who-NEU.NOM.SING be.IMPER-3SG demonstrate-FUT.PASS-PCPL-NEU.ACC

Icj na seqxesibus yazj
who.which REL out-played-PCPL.PASS be.INFIN-PST
(Lit. "which that is to be out-played")
Znex wrote:A bit off-topic, but what does QED actually mean? It's quoted all over as being "which was to be demonstrated", but that means nothing to me, and we never use it in the literal way.
We never say things like "This, QED, is why etc., etc., etc.", we just say things like "QED, the plural of octopus is octopodes", and so QED is much more used like "therefore" or "thusly" or "soothly".
Is this a fair summation to make?
Oh okay. I was most likely generalising anyway - I haven't been in much contact with proofs. Although I was sure QED was used in statements like "QED, the plural of octopus is octopodes"...eldin raigmore wrote:Znex wrote:A bit off-topic, but what does QED actually mean? It's quoted all over as being "which was to be demonstrated", but that means nothing to me, and we never use it in the literal way.
We never say things like "This, QED, is why etc., etc., etc.", we just say things like "QED, the plural of octopus is octopodes", and so QED is much more used like "therefore" or "thusly" or "soothly".
Is this a fair summation to make?![]()
This is not my experience at all.
QED (or some synonym) is always used right after the last statement of a proof, which, not at all coincidentally, is the statement it's a proof of.
So the last statement of the proof is the statement which one was required to prove.
In written proofs the end of the proof is often signalled by "and that's what we were trying to prove" or "which is what was to be shown" or some such thing.
In speech it's often something less formal like "and that's what we're after".
"Demonstrandum" is a gerundive; it means "requiring to be demonstrated".
I have never heard or read QED used in any of the ways you mention.
I have always heard and read it used in the way you say it's never used.
Since the differences in our ages is a mere fraction of a century, rather than a century plus a fraction, I can't imagine this is just due to ordinary language-change.
If it were "rarely" instead of "never" and "usually" instead of "always", maybe it could be language-change.
But if I interpret your "never" and "always" literally, then I have to believe you are in a small speech-community of people who use QED only in ways that the larger English speakership would not recognize as correct or would not understand.
Lexical items do gain new meanings; but usually retain the old meanings for a while, first as the more common meaning, later perhaps as the less common meaning.
(For instance, consider "gay", "turn on", "trip", etc.)
I thought it was unusual for one to completely shift to a new meaning and completely lose its old meaning in less than a few centuries.
If I've been wrong about this, I wonder how long, and where, and among how large a subset of English-speakers?
Edit: I am feeling and trying to express. I am not feeling
, neither am I trying to express it. I don't know whether my typing made that clear.