OT ff (way off topic by now)

[Emery Snyder emerylist@xxxxxxxx]

Hmm, that got me thinking: I never use "viz" = videlicet, but I often
use "sc."

So I went to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which gives 4 headings for
"videlicet" (I abbreviate slightly):

1. (retaining original verbal force) It is plain to see, it is clear
(that)

2. Evidently, plainly

3. (expressing irony or disbelief) Of course, no doubt

4. (as an explanatory particle) That is to say, namely; (in stressing
a point) that is.

For "scilicet," it gives 5:
1. (functioning as impersonal verb) One may be sure (that), it is
clear or evident that; it is obvious

2. (as particle, in affirming an obvious fact) You may depend on it,
naturally etc. (often calling attention to a natural or inevitable
consequence)
 (b) (esp. in answers to questions, etc.; also in acceding to a request)
 (c) (concessive, in the first of two contrasted clauses)
 (d) (in affirming another speaker's assertion); "scilicet et", (in
 endorsing a previous statement but attaching a reservation) Yes, but
 at the same time

3. (qualifying a presumption or inference) As is apparent, evidently
(esp. in suggested reasons or explanations).
 (b) (in a question which calls for an affirmative answer)

4. (iron.; in suggesting something palpably impossible or absurd) To
be sure, doubtless (b)(calling attention to the monstrousness or
absurdity of an action, etc.) I ask you! if you please!

5. (introducing a qualification or elaboration assumed to be obvious)
I mean, of course
 (b) (as a purely epexegetic particle) that is to say.

So, aside from the fact that I've now learned the wonderful word
"epexegetic" (which OED2 defines as "Pertaining to, or of the nature
of, an epexegesis; given as an additional explanation"), I am not much
better off than I was before. Leaving aside issues of where these
particles can be strewn in Latin prose, they both seem to mean
"plainly" and can both be used ironically.

I use "sc." when I'm quoting something with some sort of anaphora,
(e.g. a pronoun) whose antecedent I then supply in brackets:
  "He [sc. Washington] announced today that..."
and I see it used that way a lot. But none of the Latin definitions
really cover that case, except maybe "videlicet" 4.

OED2 defines "videlicet" as:
 adv. That is to say; namely; to wit: used to introduce an
 amplification, or more precise or explicit explanation, of a
 previous statement or word. (Cf. the abbreviated forms VID.,
 VIDEL., VIDZT., and VIZ.)

and "scilicet" as:
 To wit; that is to say; namely. Abbreviated scil. or sc.
  (b) Used ironically: Forsooth.

So in English usage, there doesn't seem to be any difference. For
what my two cents are worth, I would have said before I looked it up
that viz. ("as is obvious") implies more that the audience should have
seen the point you're making, and sc. is more for supplying
information you couldn't have expected them to know; but it looks like
neither the Latin nor the English data bear that out.

e


> Any thoughts on the
>disctinctions among i.e., viz., and sc.? In usage, I mean; I know the
>derivation and lexical meaning.

--
Emery Snyder