QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

A forum for translations, translation challenges etc. Good place to increase your conlang's vocabulary.
User avatar
Chagen
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3996
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 04:14
Location: Texas

QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Chagen » 23 Apr 2013 05:19

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: 1340
Joined: 26 May 2012 16:24
Location: the first star to the right and straight on 'till mid-afternoon

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by kiwikami » 23 Apr 2013 18:52

: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.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4609
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Creyeditor » 23 Apr 2013 19:41

: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: 352
Joined: 04 Jun 2012 13:34

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Aseca » 23 Apr 2013 23:09

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: 1038
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 04:13
Location: Sparta

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Visinoid » 24 Apr 2013 00:30

: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
roman
roman
Posts: 938
Joined: 29 Mar 2013 17:59
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Sangfroidish » 25 Apr 2013 19:00

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: 3344
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 12:17

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Click » 25 Apr 2013 19:26

:con: Proto-Northern

uy tʼaki wo
UTIL show PRF
which was to be demonstrated
Last edited by Click on 26 Apr 2013 19:53, edited 1 time in total.

Ean
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 148
Joined: 30 Aug 2012 23:35

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Ean » 25 Apr 2013 19:36

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: 2407
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 06:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by clawgrip » 26 Apr 2013 01:44

: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: 307
Joined: 29 Jan 2012 10:22

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by prettydragoon » 26 Apr 2013 19:32

: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
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2264
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 08:36
Location: California über alles

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Khemehekis » 27 Apr 2013 06:35

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: 59,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

User avatar
Chagen
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3996
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 04:14
Location: Texas

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Chagen » 02 Jun 2013 07:32

: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: 62
Joined: 10 Jul 2013 11:27

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by zyx3166 » 16 Jul 2013 15:46

Llipetadharceek.
see-PASS-CAUS-NEC-noun.clause-3SG

User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7814
Joined: 13 May 2012 01:57

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Lambuzhao » 16 Jul 2013 16:32

: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: 7814
Joined: 13 May 2012 01:57

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Lambuzhao » 16 Jul 2013 17:02

: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: 3344
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 12:17

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Click » 10 May 2014 09:59

:con: Ardelian
  • Votšatkə.
    votša·t·kə̆·Ø
    prove·PAT·PHST·3SG
    Proven.

User avatar
Znex
roman
roman
Posts: 1182
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 13:05
Location: Australia

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Znex » 10 May 2014 11:06

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: :wls: : [:|] | :chn: :isr: : [:S] | :nor: :deu: :rom: :ind: :con: : [:x]
Conlangs: Pofp'ash, Ikwawese, Old Quelgic, Nisukil Pʰakwi, Apsiska

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6421
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by eldin raigmore » 10 May 2014 15:04

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: 127
Joined: 15 Aug 2013 03:00
Location: Morjathar

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Bagliun Edar » 10 May 2014 19:50

: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: 1182
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 13:05
Location: Australia

Re: QED: Quod erat demonstrandum

Post by Znex » 10 May 2014 23:28

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: :wls: : [:|] | :chn: :isr: : [:S] | :nor: :deu: :rom: :ind: :con: : [:x]
Conlangs: Pofp'ash, Ikwawese, Old Quelgic, Nisukil Pʰakwi, Apsiska

Post Reply