Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:22:09 +1000 (EST) From: Iain Templeton <iain@research.canon.com.au> To: "G. Adam Stanislav" <adam@whizkidtech.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Descartes Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10005300920030.29813-100000@elph.research.canon.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000529143533.008f8aa0@mail85.pair.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 May 2000, G. Adam Stanislav wrote:
> At 19:41 29-05-2000 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >"Cogito ergo cogito ergo sum" as one of the fortunes claims with
> >little regard to latin grammer.
>
> What's wrong with its Latin grammar? It does not make much sense ("I think,
> therefore I think, therefore I am"), but it is grammatically correct.
>
> More meaningful phrases might include "Cogito me cogitare ergo sum" ("I
> think that I think, therefore I am"), or perhaps "Cogito ergo cogito me
> esse" ("I think, therefore I think that I am").
>
> That said, I disagree with old Rene D., anyway. He should have just claimed
> "Cogito me esse" - "I think that I am." One could never argue with that. :)
> All the others are arguable.
>
Well, what would "I think that I think, therefore I think that I am."
be? (Which unless I'm mistaken was what the fortune was supposed to
say).
Cogito me cogitare ergo cogito sum?
Iain
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.4.10.10005300920030.29813-100000>