Talk:Sine qua non

Connection with Necessary Conditions
Claim: A sine qua non is a necessary condition.

Definition: X is a necessary condition for Y := If not X, then not Y. (equivalently in classical logic: If Y, then X) (for Wiki account of this concept, see necessity and sufficiency)

Example of necessary condition: Let X = the ground is wet. Let Y = substantial rain recently fell. If it is not the case that the ground is wet, then it is not the case that substantial rain recently fell.

Support for claim:

1] Dictionary definitions (e.g. Webster Cambridge Wikitionary) mention `essential' or `necessary' or `indispensable'.

2] The examples on sine qua non can be written as examples of necessary conditions. The medical examples are particularly clear.

Given the claim, a proposal:

The introductory paragraph should state at some point `a sine qua non is a necessary condition'.

Proper example?
I was wondering if the example is proper. Sine qua non is a term meaning 'essential'. Something like "The Indian President's presence is considered a sine qua non during the Republic Day Parade". Apart from confusing the usage, the proffered example goes on to make other funny claims. For example, leaving the engine running is not as careless as leaving Dennis the Menace free to bump into someone else. The careless people are the child's parents, in the proffered example. Priyatu 11:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
The article mentions a spelling as conditio sine qua none, whereas I've always learned that the right latin spelling ought to be condicio sine qua non. This latter spelling is also maintained on the page List of Latin Phrases, is this a case of a misspelling happening so often that it becomes the norm or simply still wrong?Egishnugal (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Other uses
Undid an entry for a minor vineyard in California which uses the name. Is this acceptable? Perhaps a disambiguation page is required? Should alternative uses be restricted to literary/legal/arts & sciences? Is so then SQN Electronics should probably be deleted too.--John Gibbard (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think any noteworthy non-legal use should be included. I'm not familiar with this wine so I don't know if it specifically should be included. However, any noteworthy product called 'sine qua non' ought to be. As a hypothetical example, if there were a major car model called 'sine qua non,' I'd say it should be included.141.166.80.24 (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica
Any particular reason other than snobbery that the fact that an Episode of Battlestar Galactica (2003) has the Title "Sine Qua Non" isn't allowed to be on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.189.76 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The relevance of the information itself (that there is a BSG episode by that name) for this article is exactly nil. At the same time, easy usage is taken care of with the disambiguation page link at top of the article: Sine qua non (disambiguation). dorftrottel (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that sounds like snobbery, Dort. The episode name, and the term's repeated use in that episode, is probably the most recognizable use of the term 'sine qua non' outside academia. And the terms popular use is in fact relevant. So, I would add, are other popular uses of the term. 141.166.80.24 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to snobbery, I recommend this article. dorftrottel (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, it appears you also think the literary uses are irrelevant...what do you have against Dostoyevsky?141.166.80.24 (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you arrive at the conclusion that I 'have something against Dostoevsky? I removed this and other "in popular culture" mentions because they lacked both the primary source reference and, more importantly in the context of your wish to add the BSG reference into the article, no secondary source to establish how they are even remotely relevant in the context of this article. It's a frequently encountered legal term, nothing special to mention it, and of no relevance to this article. The section on undue weight in our neutral point of view policy states that An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. dorftrottel (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Such a major edit - here the deletion of half the article - should require a consensus. So far, it is 2-1 against your position, Dort. 141.166.80.24 (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, it looks more like some Galactica fans who should be editing BattlestarWiki rather than an encyclopedic project. Also, WP:Consensus is not a majority vote. Beyond that, there is simply no encyclopedic justification to mention the episode in this article beyond the straightforward disambiguation link at the top. dorftrottel (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bother editing because I know I'll just be deleted, but but I find it amusing that it's not OK to mention extensive use in BSG but it's perfectly reasonable to have a paragraph about a 50-year-old textbook from a little-known professor that simply *uses* the phrase "sine qua non" (with its ordinary meaning and no special context). But it's fine if it's not *popular* culture, right? 111.206.190.220 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

...I do believe it has something to do with Lord Obama, not Adama; not sure how his Python classes are progressing. Hopefully, he'll get to, "Don't Squeeze On Me" by the end of term. We, The People That Is...have been squeezed enough. Stumbling Monk (talk)Dutch —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Re-direct move request at Talk:Sine Qua Non
Just an FYI. Currently the redirect is going to the Battlestar Galatica episode. AgneCheese/Wine 19:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Other Example
"To me existential psychology means essentially two main emphases. First, it is a radical stress on the concept of identity and the experience of identity as a sine qua non of human nature and of any philosophy or science of human nature." (Maslow p. 13)

Note: Abraham H. Maslow, "Toward a Psychology of Being - Third Edition", Published in 1999 by Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-29309-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.24.155.184 (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Tha "Latinized" spelling is stated as /ˌsɪneɪ kwɑː ˈnoʊn/, whereas the original Latin pronounciation would be  like /ˌsɪne kwɑː ˈnon/ or /ˌsɪːne kwɑ ˈnon/ (not quite sure how to represent Latin pronunciation in IPA). Shouldn't the ORIGINAL pronunciation at least be mentioned? Both pronunciations offered are actually anglicized! arny (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's an English wikipedia, so it's appropriate to give the English pronunciation. I see no problem with providing a NPOV sourced description of the Latin pronunciation in the body of the article. TJRC (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why it's given as "Latinized" and not "Latin". Of course, we don't really know what the Latin pronunciation was; all we could give would be a reconstruction, unless we're going to give modern Church Latin. But since the Latin alphabet is more-or-less phonemic, giving the IPA doesn't provide any more information than "sine quā nōn" does.


 * What would the full Latin be, anyway? Condiciōnem sine quā nōn? kwami (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

examples
wow. how 'bout someone put in a few more accesable examples. I'm a halfway complex reader and even I had to puzzle over a few of these. Something more basic, more obvious. Since anyone that's reading won't *already know* what the phrase means. Piratejosh85 (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oxford link not working
Hi there. The Link to the Oxford English Dictionary is not working. Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.238.82 (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

plural form ?
*condicio sine quibus non. Wouldn't the PLURAL of this phrase have to put conditio into plural form as well ??? Isnt't that conditiones sine quibus non then ? Conditions without which there is no etc. Not sure. Heeelp ! --MistaPPPP (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)