[lit-ideas] Why "That Is To Say" Is Redundant For "That Is"
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:13:24 EDT
The other day I was reading Grice (WoW) and at one point he writes of
R. M. Hare, or, rather, about
"philosophers, that is to say, who make this or that distinction". (or
words to that effect).
I wonder if 'that is to say' -- I actually am pretty safe and sure --
is a tr. from the French, 'c'est a dire'.
But in Latin, 'id est', that is, -- sometimes rendered, wrongly, as
'namely'
is NOT necessary to be expanded as 'that is TO SAY'.
So, I wonder.
Grice is merely being 'conversational'.
But if you were to read a passage that has the following,
i.e.
e.g.
sc.
viz.
and the rest of them
how would you render them, etc.?
Cheers,
J. L. Speranza
--- Bordighera, etc.
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Why "That Is To Say" Is Redundant For "That Is" - Jlsperanza
