Proverb: Two wrongs will not make one right (antedating 1768)

[Laurence Horn]

At 10:12 AM -0400 6/6/10, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>At 6/6/2010 12:31 AM, Laurence Horn wrote:
>>>The 1734 cite below is included because it contains the phrase "two
>>>wrongs infer one right." This is not an instance of the maxim, but it
>>>suggests that the maxim may have been known in 1734.
>>
>>It's also a nice illustration of the use of "infer" (with impersonal
>>subjects) for "imply",
>
>I was about to write something similar about the 18th century sense
>of "infer".
>
>>which was standard at that time (and before
>>and since), even though parallel uses of "infer" with personal
>>subjects didn't begin appearing until the late 19th c. (all this
>>courtesy of the excellent MWDEU entry on "imply", "infer", which
>>provides quotes parallel to this one from Shakespeare, Milton,
>>Austen, and Hardy).
>
>The OED has "infer, v." "1. {dag}c. with compl. To cause to be; to
>make, render. Obs. rare," with presumably the MWDEU's Milton:  "1667
>MILTON P.L. VII. 116 To glorifie the Maker, and inferr Thee also
>happier."  That is its only quotation for this sense, so the 1734
>might be a useful addition.  Unless it is taken as "{dag}1.    a.
>trans. To bring on, bring about, induce, occasion, cause, procure; to
>bring upon (a person, etc.), to inflict; to wage (war) upon. Obs.",
>for which there are many citations, through 1754.
>
>It seems to me that with Larry's information the 1734 cite
>sufficiently fits the maxim.
>
I was actually suggesting that the 1734 cite instantiates OED's sense 4:
To lead to (something) as a conclusion; to involve as a consequence;
to imply. (Said of a fact or statement; sometimes, of the person who
makes the statement.)

This is the sense that MWDEU calls "More 1533", with no daggers; it's
the one that prescriptivists rail against, especially that last
possibility ('sometimes, of the person who makes the statement').
One of the OED's cites for this sense comes from two years after the
one above:

1736 BUTLER Anal. I. vii. Wks. 1874 I. 134 These assertions..would
infer nothing more than that it might have been better.

The problem with imputing the archaic sense 1 for this dictum is that
I think it yields (infers?) the  wrong meaning:  If I'm understanding
it correctly, in "two wrongs infer one right", "infer" means 'imply,
involve as a consequence', not 'render'.  But Joel's reading (= 'two
wrongs render one correct') is plausible too, although it doesn't get
my vote.

LH

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org