QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

A forum for translations, translation challenges etc. Good place to increase your conlang's vocabulary.
User avatar
Chagen
runic
runic
Posts: 3341
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Chagen »

How would your conlang translate this favorite phrase of snarky internet logicians everywhere?

:eng: which was to be demonstrated

:lat: quod erat dēmonstrandum
who-NEU.NOM.SING be.IMPER-3SG demonstrate-FUT.PASS-PCPL-NEU.ACC

:con: Pazmat:
Icj na seqxesibus yazj
who.which REL out-played-PCPL.PASS be.INFIN-PST
(Lit. "which that is to be out-played")
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S
User avatar
kiwikami
roman
roman
Posts: 1104
Joined: 26 May 2012 17:24
Location: Oh, I don't know, I'm probably around here somewhere.

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by kiwikami »

:con: Cástían

con ansenítnó
which.is GER-demonstrate<ADJ><FUT><PASS>
which is to be demonstrated

Though con may become wen if the thing being demonstrated is not mentioned directly before this phrase. A different construction entirely would be used if one wanted to put this in past tense, because the statementive con could no longer be used:

mtúl zón ansenítnó
exist<3S.inanimate><PST> which.is GER-demonstrate<ADJ><FUT><PASS>
which was to be demonstrated
Edit: Substituted a string instrument for a French interjection.

:eng: :mrgreen: | :fra: [:)] | ASL [:S] | :deu: [:|] | :tan: [:(] | :nav: [:'(]
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4068
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Creyeditor »

:deu: German
was zu beweisen war
was zu beweis-en war
what to prove-INF be.PST.IND.3.SG
which was to be demonstrated
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
Aseca
sinic
sinic
Posts: 350
Joined: 04 Jun 2012 14:34

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Aseca »

Utnagasvrimahi:
Ham savrTham āstrati.
What.rel.N.sbj show.ppp.acc be.(strong.v)-IMP.3sg
That-which must-be (made) a-demonstration.
Sikatāyām kaṇam lokasya darśasi, svargam phale vanye ca.
See a world in a grain of sand, and a heaven in a wild flower.
Ānantam tava karatalena darasi, nityatām ghaṇṭabhyantare ca.
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, and eternity in an hour.
User avatar
Visinoid
roman
roman
Posts: 910
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 05:13
Location: Sparta

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Visinoid »

:fra:
(ce) qui était à démontrer
(that) who be-3.IMPF to demonstrate
/(sə) ki e.tɛ a de.mɔ̃.tʁe/
[(s)kje.tɛ a de.mɔ̃ʊ̯̃.tχe] :qbc:
User avatar
Sangfroidish
greek
greek
Posts: 837
Joined: 29 Mar 2013 17:59
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Sangfroidish »

Ylle des, dás leņola chí their fin
[ɨɫːə d̪ɛs d̪aːs ˈlɛɲ.ˌɔɫ.ɐ xiː θɛ̯ir fin]
DEM.AB thing that show-PST NEC null_argument 3.AB.SNG
That which had to be shown
User avatar
Click
runic
runic
Posts: 2780
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 12:17

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Click »

:con: Proto-Northern

uy tʼaki wo
UTIL show PRF
which was to be demonstrated
Last edited by Click on 26 Apr 2013 20:53, edited 1 time in total.
Ean
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 133
Joined: 31 Aug 2012 00:35

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Ean »

Κη νήραι α ση λημοστάρο.
[ci 'ni.ɾe a si li.mos.'ta.ɾo]
what be.there.3S.PAST to be.INF demonstrate-PART
That which was to be shown.

(ΚΗΔ/QED)
clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2226
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by clawgrip »

:jpn: Japanese
Japanese has no good word for 'demonstrate' so I have used 'show'

見せるつもりのあったX
show intention REL.SBJ exist-PST X
X that (someone) intended to show

見せるはずのあったX
show expectation REL.SBJ exist-PST X
X that should have been shown

(REL.SBJ is a subject marker that only appears in relative clauses)
User avatar
prettydragoon
sinic
sinic
Posts: 251
Joined: 29 Jan 2012 10:22

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by prettydragoon »

:con: Rireinutire

kaki toteriye yakiva:
kaki toteri-ye ya-ki-va
which.NOM demonstrate-PAS.PRESP be-PST-SENS

which was to be demonstrated
Image
♀♥♀
I too have a minicity.
Khemehekis
runic
runic
Posts: 2499
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Khemehekis »

Kankonian borrows a phrase from Ciladian, just as English borrowed it from Latin:

pilet dakyaph
therefore PP-prove
therefore proven
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 67,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
Chagen
runic
runic
Posts: 3341
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Chagen »

:con: Azenti:

çol os muta dyrafibharsya
who/which be.MID CAUS-see-PASS-SUP
(Lit. "Who/Which is to be caused to be seen")
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S
zyx3166
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 60
Joined: 10 Jul 2013 12:27

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by zyx3166 »

Llipetadharceek.
see-PASS-CAUS-NEC-noun.clause-3SG
User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 5339
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Lambuzhao »

:con: Çetara

Qu suesa gesmœtrandũ.
[qʊ swe.sɒ ʤez.mʊɛ.t̪rãn.dũ]
REL.INAN.NOM.SG be-IMPFT.3SG show-OBLIG.PTCP.N.SG

:con: Older Sadrås

Ün ves ütschuanðe.[ỹn ves yt.ʃu.ãn.ðə]
REL.INAN.NOM.SG be-IMPFT show-OBLIG.PTCP.SG

:con: More colloquial Sadrås

Ün bêd ütschuanðe.
[ỹn bɛ:d yt.ʃu.ãn.ðə]
REL.INAN.NOM.SG be-PST show-OBLIG.PTCP.SG

:con: Rozwi

Wo fuetos kēzbieye.
[wɔ fwɛ.tɔs kɛ:z.bʲɛ.je]
REL.INAN.NOM.SG show-PST.PTCP CVRB<FUT>=be3SG
User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 5339
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Lambuzhao »

:grc: Ancient Greek

ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι
REL.INAN.NOM.SG=EMPHATIC ought-IMPFT.3SG show<PST>ACT.INF

Which was to have demonstrated

NOT

Which was to have been demonstrated :?:

That would be more literally

ὅπερ ἔδει δειχθῆναι
REL.INAN.NOM.SG=EPHATIC ought-IMPFT.3SG show<PST>PASS.INF

:!:
User avatar
Click
runic
runic
Posts: 2780
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 12:17

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Click »

:con: Ardelian
  • Votšatkə.
    votša·t·kə̆·Ø
    prove·PAT·PHST·3SG
    Proven.
User avatar
Znex
roman
roman
Posts: 929
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 14:05
Location: Australia

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Znex »

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?
:eng: : [tick] | :grc: : [:|] | :chn: :isr: :wls: : [:S] | :deu: :ell: :rus: : [:x]
Conlangs: Hawntow, misc.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5698
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by eldin raigmore »

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?
[O.O]
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 [O.O] . I am not feeling [>:(] , neither am I trying to express it. I don't know whether my typing made that clear.
User avatar
Bagliun Edar
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 125
Joined: 15 Aug 2013 04:00
Location: Morjathar

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Bagliun Edar »

:con: Obulamga

imzlōrzu bejeniaoron
[ˈimzlɔːɾzu ˈbɛʒɛniaˌɔɾɔn]
im-zlo-or-zu b<ej>eniaoron
cause-INTV-PASS-REL <INF>is_proven
which is to be demonstrated

INTV: "intentive" mood
Image
User avatar
Znex
roman
roman
Posts: 929
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 14:05
Location: Australia

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Znex »

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?
[O.O]
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 [O.O] . I am not feeling [>:(] , neither am I trying to express it. I don't know whether my typing made that clear.
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"...
:eng: : [tick] | :grc: : [:|] | :chn: :isr: :wls: : [:S] | :deu: :ell: :rus: : [:x]
Conlangs: Hawntow, misc.
Post Reply