<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg005.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="422"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="422"/><milestone n="422a" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Now at what point will he be right in giving up and stopping?  Will it not be when he reaches the names which are the elements of the other names and words?  For these, if they are the elements, can no longer rightly appear to be composed of other names.  For instance, we said just now that <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀγαθόν</foreign> was composed of <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀγαστόν</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">θοόν</foreign>;  and perhaps we might say that <foreign xml:lang="grc">θοόν</foreign> was composed of other words, and those of still others;
<milestone n="422b" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>but if we ever get hold of a word which is no longer composed of other words, we should be right ill saying that we had at last reached an element, and that we must no longer refer to other words for its derivation.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> I think you are right.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Are, then, these words about which you are now asking elements, and must we henceforth investigate their correctness by some other method?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Probably.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Yes, probably, Hermogenes;  at any rate, all the previous words were traced back to these.
<milestone n="422c" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>But if this be true, as I think it is, come to my aid again and help me in the investigation, that I may not say anything foolish in declaring what principle must underlie the correctness of the earliest names.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Go on, and I will help you to the best of my ability.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> I think you agree with me that there is but one principle of correctness in all names, the earliest as well as the latest, and that none of them is any more a name than the rest.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.
<milestone n="422d" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/></said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Now the correctness of all the names we have discussed was based upon the intention of showing the nature of the things named.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes, of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> And this principle of correctness must be present in all names, the earliest as well as the later ones, if they are really to be names.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> But the later ones, apparently, were able to accomplish this by means of the earlier ones.</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Evidently.</said></p><p><said who="#Socrates"><label>Socrates.</label> Well, then, how can the earliest names, which are not as yet based upon any others, make clear to us the nature of things, so far as that is possible,
<milestone n="422e" unit="section" resp="Stephanus"/>which they must do if they are to be names at all?  Answer me this question:  If we had no voice or tongue, and wished to make things clear to one another, should we not try, as dumb people actually do, to make signs with our hands and head and person generally?</said></p><p><said who="#Hermogenes"><label>Hermogenes.</label> Yes.  What other method is there, Socrates?
</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>