JB/095/025/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/095/025/001: Difference between revisions

← Older edit
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
awardsmanage, Bureaucrats, giftadmin, staff, Administrators
44,625 edits
No edit summary
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
52,682 edits
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


<head>Turnp. A. Unsteadiness of expression proved bad.</head>
<head>TURNP. A. <sic>UNSTeadiness</sic> of expression proved bad.</head>




<gap/> <del>the proof of this is as follows</del> is demonstrated from <del><gap/></del> <gap/> conversations<lb/>
<note><foreign>
The two causes are supposed to be of the same effect &amp; <gap/> to the same end, my reading is<add><unclear>reading of</unclear></add><lb/>
Lex univocalitatis</foreign></note>
substantially by the same means.<lb/>
 
Either then the import<add><gap/></add> of the <gap/> of <gap/>,<lb/>
<p>Th<del>e proof of this is as follows</del><add> is</add> <add>is demonstrated from the following</add> considerations<lb/>
and <unclear>on</unclear> each is <unclear>specifically</unclear> the same or it is<lb/>
The two causes are supposed to be of the same<lb/>
<!-- untranscribed left margin comment begins here -->
effect directed to the same end, &amp; seeking it<add>aiming at</add><lb/>
different<lb/>
substantially by the same means.<lb/></p>
if it be precisely the same, then can no reason<lb/>
 
to <gap?> and I <gap/> be used why one ought<add>should</add> <hi rend='underline'>not</hi> sense for both - if<lb/>
<p>Either then the import<add>signification</add> of the <unclear>Set</unclear> of <unclear>cases</unclear>,<lb/>
the interests if conformity are a reason why it <hi rend='underline'>should</hi>,<lb/>
and <unclear>in</unclear> each is precisely the same or it is<lb/>
&amp; there is a difference, then either each is equally <gap/><add>proper</add> to the effect required, or one is more<lb/>
different<lb/></p>
<gap/> than the other.<lb/>
 
If the former be.<add>each be equally <gap/></add> <gap/> this <gap/>, then it is <unclear>shown</unclear> no<lb/>
 
reason against others being used for the <gap/> of<lb/>
 
 
<note>The pecuniary penalty is very properly inserted to take in I suppose this case of those who hold not at the pleasure of the Trustees</note>
 
 
<p>If it be precisely the same, then can no reason<lb/>
be urged why one ought<add>should</add> <hi rend='underline'>not</hi> serve for both - if<lb/>
the interests of uniformity are a reason why it <hi rend='underline'>should</hi>.<lb/>
If there is a difference, then either each is equally<lb/>
adapted<add>proper</add> to the effect required, or one is more<lb/>
so than the other.<lb/></p>
 
<p>If the former be.<add>each be equally proper</add> <gap/> this <gap/>, then is there no<lb/>
reason against others being used for the others &amp;<lb/>
<unclear>there</unclear> is the reason for it that has been <unclear>encountered</unclear><lb/>
<unclear>there</unclear> is the reason for it that has been <unclear>encountered</unclear><lb/>
above<lb/>
above<lb/>
If one is more so than the other, then it then<lb/>
If one is more so than the other, then is there<lb/>
double reason <del>for</del> why that should be as <gap/><lb/>
double reason <del>for</del> why that should be adapted<lb/>
<unclear>losely</unclear>
<unclear>solely</unclear></p>
1<hi rend='superscript'>st</hi> <gap/> of its <add><gap/></add> <gap/> proper as by the <gap/><lb/>
 
2<hi rend='superscript'>nd</hi> <gap/> of conformity, as before<lb/>
<p>1<hi rend='superscript'>st</hi> that of it's <add>being</add> more proper as by the supposition<lb/></p>
<p>
2<hi rend='superscript'>nd</hi> that of uniformity, as before<lb/></p>




Line 31: Line 46:


<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 10:11, 4 February 2020

Click Here To Edit

TURNP. A. UNSTeadiness of expression proved bad.


Lex univocalitatis

The proof of this is as follows is is demonstrated from the following considerations
The two causes are supposed to be of the same
effect directed to the same end, & seeking itaiming at
substantially by the same means.

Either then the importsignification of the Set of cases,
and in each is precisely the same or it is
different



The pecuniary penalty is very properly inserted to take in I suppose this case of those who hold not at the pleasure of the Trustees


If it be precisely the same, then can no reason
be urged why one oughtshould not serve for both - if
the interests of uniformity are a reason why it should.
If there is a difference, then either each is equally
adaptedproper to the effect required, or one is more
so than the other.

If the former be.each be equally proper this , then is there no
reason against others being used for the others &
there is the reason for it that has been encountered
above
If one is more so than the other, then is there
double reason for why that should be adapted
solely

1st that of it's being more proper as by the supposition

2nd that of uniformity, as before




Identifier: | JB/095/025/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 95.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

095

Main Headings

Folio number

025

Info in main headings field

turnp. a. unsteadiness of expression proved bad

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

2

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

30911

Box Contents

Retrieved from "https://transcribe-bentham.ucl.ac.uk/index.php?title=JB/095/025/001&oldid=259880"
UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in