Mixing
Pun on Leibniz quote
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Can anyone help me out with the two Latin sentences in the quote below ? After googling and looking up a dictionary I was only able to come up with something like, "It is unncessary to employ many people for that which you can achieve by employing few people" but that doesn't really clarify nor explain the pun.
The Leibniz statement, Inutile fit per plura, quod fieri potest per
pauciora, thus transforms itself in the mouth of the liberal
economists into that other proposition of untold cruelty : Inutile
fit per plures, quod fieri potest per pauciores.
The quote is from H. Pesch, Liberalism, Socialism and the Social Order, Edwin Mellen Press, 2000, chap. 11, p.215.
medieval-latin
edited 5 hours ago
brianpck
22.5k142106
asked 5 hours ago
New User
282
New contributor
New User is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Can anyone help me out with the two Latin sentences in the quote below ? After googling and looking up a dictionary I was only able to come up with something like, "It is unncessary to employ many people for that which you can achieve by employing few people" but that doesn't really clarify nor explain the pun.
The Leibniz statement, Inutile fit per plura, quod fieri potest per
pauciora, thus transforms itself in the mouth of the liberal
economists into that other proposition of untold cruelty : Inutile
fit per plures, quod fieri potest per pauciores.
The quote is from H. Pesch, Liberalism, Socialism and the Social Order, Edwin Mellen Press, 2000, chap. 11, p.215.
medieval-latin
edited 5 hours ago
brianpck
22.5k142106
asked 5 hours ago
New User
282
New contributor
New User is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I do not see why Pesch attributes this to Leibniz. It goes back at least to Aristotle.
– fdb
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Can anyone help me out with the two Latin sentences in the quote below ? After googling and looking up a dictionary I was only able to come up with something like, "It is unncessary to employ many people for that which you can achieve by employing few people" but that doesn't really clarify nor explain the pun.
The Leibniz statement, Inutile fit per plura, quod fieri potest per
pauciora, thus transforms itself in the mouth of the liberal
economists into that other proposition of untold cruelty : Inutile
fit per plures, quod fieri potest per pauciores.
The quote is from H. Pesch, Liberalism, Socialism and the Social Order, Edwin Mellen Press, 2000, chap. 11, p.215.
medieval-latin
edited 5 hours ago
brianpck
22.5k142106
asked 5 hours ago
New User
282
New contributor
New User is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Can anyone help me out with the two Latin sentences in the quote below ? After googling and looking up a dictionary I was only able to come up with something like, "It is unncessary to employ many people for that which you can achieve by employing few people" but that doesn't really clarify nor explain the pun.
The Leibniz statement, Inutile fit per plura, quod fieri potest per
pauciora, thus transforms itself in the mouth of the liberal
economists into that other proposition of untold cruelty : Inutile
fit per plures, quod fieri potest per pauciores.
The quote is from H. Pesch, Liberalism, Socialism and the Social Order, Edwin Mellen Press, 2000, chap. 11, p.215.
medieval-latin
medieval-latin
edited 5 hours ago
brianpck
22.5k142106
asked 5 hours ago
New User
282
New contributor
New User is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 hours ago
brianpck
22.5k142106
asked 5 hours ago
New User
282
New contributor
New User is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 hours ago
brianpck
22.5k142106
edited 5 hours ago
brianpck
22.5k142106
edited 5 hours ago
brianpck
22.5k142106
22.5k142106
asked 5 hours ago
New User
282
New contributor
New User is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
New User
282
asked 5 hours ago
New User
282
282
New contributor
New User is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
New User is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New User is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I do not see why Pesch attributes this to Leibniz. It goes back at least to Aristotle.
– fdb
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
I do not see why Pesch attributes this to Leibniz. It goes back at least to Aristotle.
– fdb
5 hours ago
I do not see why Pesch attributes this to Leibniz. It goes back at least to Aristotle.
– fdb
5 hours ago
I do not see why Pesch attributes this to Leibniz. It goes back at least to Aristotle.
– fdb
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
The quote is the same, except that the gender of the nouns are changed from neutral to masculine/feminine. This way, the verb applies to human beings rather than to things (see plures here and pauciores here).
In the context of economics, what is being employed is workers. Economic liberalism puts efficiency as one of its top values, so using the resources available in its optimal fashion is primordial to it. Thus, whereas the first quote represents a philosophical position known as Occam's razor, the new one represents a core tenant of liberal economics.
answered 5 hours ago
luchonacho
3,6493842
Beware! -a ending is most likely neuter plural, which is a common way to refer to things (bona--good things, mala--bad things, etc.)
– Rafael
3 hours ago
Good answer! Mind adding a good translation of both versions in order to round it out?
– Draconis
46 mins ago
@Draconis Thanks! I'm an economist by training so I guess I had some advantage there. Will do me best to provide a translation.
– luchonacho
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
The quote is the same, except that the gender of the nouns are changed from neutral to masculine/feminine. This way, the verb applies to human beings rather than to things (see plures here and pauciores here).
In the context of economics, what is being employed is workers. Economic liberalism puts efficiency as one of its top values, so using the resources available in its optimal fashion is primordial to it. Thus, whereas the first quote represents a philosophical position known as Occam's razor, the new one represents a core tenant of liberal economics.
answered 5 hours ago
luchonacho
3,6493842
Beware! -a ending is most likely neuter plural, which is a common way to refer to things (bona--good things, mala--bad things, etc.)
– Rafael
3 hours ago
Good answer! Mind adding a good translation of both versions in order to round it out?
– Draconis
46 mins ago
@Draconis Thanks! I'm an economist by training so I guess I had some advantage there. Will do me best to provide a translation.
– luchonacho
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
The quote is the same, except that the gender of the nouns are changed from neutral to masculine/feminine. This way, the verb applies to human beings rather than to things (see plures here and pauciores here).
In the context of economics, what is being employed is workers. Economic liberalism puts efficiency as one of its top values, so using the resources available in its optimal fashion is primordial to it. Thus, whereas the first quote represents a philosophical position known as Occam's razor, the new one represents a core tenant of liberal economics.
answered 5 hours ago
luchonacho
3,6493842
Beware! -a ending is most likely neuter plural, which is a common way to refer to things (bona--good things, mala--bad things, etc.)
– Rafael
3 hours ago
Good answer! Mind adding a good translation of both versions in order to round it out?
– Draconis
46 mins ago
@Draconis Thanks! I'm an economist by training so I guess I had some advantage there. Will do me best to provide a translation.
– luchonacho
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
The quote is the same, except that the gender of the nouns are changed from neutral to masculine/feminine. This way, the verb applies to human beings rather than to things (see plures here and pauciores here).
In the context of economics, what is being employed is workers. Economic liberalism puts efficiency as one of its top values, so using the resources available in its optimal fashion is primordial to it. Thus, whereas the first quote represents a philosophical position known as Occam's razor, the new one represents a core tenant of liberal economics.
answered 5 hours ago
luchonacho
3,6493842
The quote is the same, except that the gender of the nouns are changed from neutral to masculine/feminine. This way, the verb applies to human beings rather than to things (see plures here and pauciores here).
In the context of economics, what is being employed is workers. Economic liberalism puts efficiency as one of its top values, so using the resources available in its optimal fashion is primordial to it. Thus, whereas the first quote represents a philosophical position known as Occam's razor, the new one represents a core tenant of liberal economics.
answered 5 hours ago
luchonacho
3,6493842
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
luchonacho
3,6493842
answered 5 hours ago
luchonacho
3,6493842
answered 5 hours ago
luchonacho
3,6493842
3,6493842
Beware! -a ending is most likely neuter plural, which is a common way to refer to things (bona--good things, mala--bad things, etc.)
– Rafael
3 hours ago
Good answer! Mind adding a good translation of both versions in order to round it out?
– Draconis
46 mins ago
@Draconis Thanks! I'm an economist by training so I guess I had some advantage there. Will do me best to provide a translation.
– luchonacho
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Beware! -a ending is most likely neuter plural, which is a common way to refer to things (bona--good things, mala--bad things, etc.)
– Rafael
3 hours ago
Good answer! Mind adding a good translation of both versions in order to round it out?
– Draconis
46 mins ago
@Draconis Thanks! I'm an economist by training so I guess I had some advantage there. Will do me best to provide a translation.
– luchonacho
5 mins ago
Beware! -a ending is most likely neuter plural, which is a common way to refer to things (bona--good things, mala--bad things, etc.)
– Rafael
3 hours ago
Beware! -a ending is most likely neuter plural, which is a common way to refer to things (bona--good things, mala--bad things, etc.)
– Rafael
3 hours ago
Good answer! Mind adding a good translation of both versions in order to round it out?
– Draconis
46 mins ago
Good answer! Mind adding a good translation of both versions in order to round it out?
– Draconis
46 mins ago
@Draconis Thanks! I'm an economist by training so I guess I had some advantage there. Will do me best to provide a translation.
– luchonacho
5 mins ago
@Draconis Thanks! I'm an economist by training so I guess I had some advantage there. Will do me best to provide a translation.
– luchonacho
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
New User is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
New User is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
New User is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
New User is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7213%2fpun-on-leibniz-quote%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
I do not see why Pesch attributes this to Leibniz. It goes back at least to Aristotle.
– fdb
5 hours ago