How do I say “this must not happen”? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Are there examples of passive imperative forms of non-deponent verbs in ancient literature?Can 'non' with gerundive mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?When can the gerund take an object?How to emphasize adjectives?Is the complement of esse in nominative or accusative when esse is a subject?Should the phrase “I often saw” use the imperfect or the aorist in Greek?Passives Without AccusativesJenney's Second Year Latin, Lesson 12, exercise E: Ut clauses and how to translate English infinitivesMisquoting Linnaeus or correcting him?Passive periphrastic with two dativesExpressing English modalities of advice in LatinHow can you tell whether prefixed ‘in-’ is the preposition ‘in’ or Indo-European ‘in-’?
What is the definining line between a helicopter and a drone a person can ride in?
How can I wire a 9-position switch so that each position turns on one more LED than the one before?
Where can I find how to tex symbols for different fonts?
Does using the Inspiration rules for character defects encourage My Guy Syndrome?
Suing a Police Officer Instead of the Police Department
How long can a nation maintain a technological edge over the rest of the world?
What does the black goddess statue do and what is it?
A journey... into the MIND
Why isPrototypeOf() returns false?
All ASCII characters with a given bit count
Will temporary Dex penalties prevent you from getting the benefits of the "Two Weapon Fighting" feat if your Dex score falls below the prerequisite?
Will I be more secure with my own router behind my ISP's router?
How was Lagrange appointed professor of mathematics so early?
Is there a verb for listening stealthily?
Processing ADC conversion result: DMA vs Processor Registers
Does Prince Arnaud cause someone holding the Princess to lose?
What is the numbering system used for the DSN dishes?
Was Objective-C really a hindrance to Apple software development?
What do you call an IPA symbol that lacks a name (e.g. ɲ)?
Israeli soda type drink
Why do people think Winterfell crypts is the safest place for women, children & old people?
What's called a person who works as someone who puts products on shelves in stores?
What's parked in Mil Moscow helicopter plant?
/bin/ls sorts differently than just ls
How do I say “this must not happen”?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Are there examples of passive imperative forms of non-deponent verbs in ancient literature?Can 'non' with gerundive mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?When can the gerund take an object?How to emphasize adjectives?Is the complement of esse in nominative or accusative when esse is a subject?Should the phrase “I often saw” use the imperfect or the aorist in Greek?Passives Without AccusativesJenney's Second Year Latin, Lesson 12, exercise E: Ut clauses and how to translate English infinitivesMisquoting Linnaeus or correcting him?Passive periphrastic with two dativesExpressing English modalities of advice in LatinHow can you tell whether prefixed ‘in-’ is the preposition ‘in’ or Indo-European ‘in-’?
I'm used to translating English auxiliary "must" with a Latin gerundive: hic necandus est "this man must be killed".
But what if I want to say "this man must not be killed"? I would read non necandus est as "it's not necessary to kill him", which is a somewhat different meaning (it's ambivalent about whether he should be killed or not).
grammar-choice gerundivum negation
asked 2 days ago
DraconisDraconis
18.9k22677
add a comment |
I'm used to translating English auxiliary "must" with a Latin gerundive: hic necandus est "this man must be killed".
But what if I want to say "this man must not be killed"? I would read non necandus est as "it's not necessary to kill him", which is a somewhat different meaning (it's ambivalent about whether he should be killed or not).
grammar-choice gerundivum negation
asked 2 days ago
DraconisDraconis
18.9k22677
add a comment |
I'm used to translating English auxiliary "must" with a Latin gerundive: hic necandus est "this man must be killed".
But what if I want to say "this man must not be killed"? I would read non necandus est as "it's not necessary to kill him", which is a somewhat different meaning (it's ambivalent about whether he should be killed or not).
grammar-choice gerundivum negation
asked 2 days ago
DraconisDraconis
18.9k22677
I'm used to translating English auxiliary "must" with a Latin gerundive: hic necandus est "this man must be killed".
But what if I want to say "this man must not be killed"? I would read non necandus est as "it's not necessary to kill him", which is a somewhat different meaning (it's ambivalent about whether he should be killed or not).
grammar-choice gerundivum negation
grammar-choice gerundivum negation
asked 2 days ago
DraconisDraconis
18.9k22677
asked 2 days ago
DraconisDraconis
18.9k22677
edited 2 days ago
Draconis
asked 2 days ago
DraconisDraconis
18.9k22677
asked 2 days ago
DraconisDraconis
18.9k22677
asked 2 days ago
DraconisDraconis
18.9k22677
18.9k22677
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
There are three or four impersonal verbs to express what is appropriate, or legal, or obligatory.
1 děcet, it is appropriate
2 dēděcet, it is inapproptiate, unseemly.
Ut nobis decet; As seems right to us.
Oratorem irasci minime decet, simulare non dēděcet. It is not professional for an orator to get angry, it is not unprofessional to pretend (to get angry). Cicero Tusc., 4,25
Non nos decet necare; ‘It is not right for us to kill.’
Dedecet necare; ‘It is unseemly (uncouth? it is not very nice?) to kill.’
3 Lĭcet, it is lawful
(cf. illĭcĭtē, adv. illegally; illĭcĭtus adj., illegal)
Lĭcet nemini peccare, Cicero Tusc., 5,19 'Nobody is permitted to do evil.'
So, Licet nemini eum necare. 'It is not lawful to kill him.'
4 Oportet, it is a duty, one ought.
Est aliquid, quod non oporteat, etiam si licet; quicquid vero non licet, certe non oportet.
'There is something which one ought not to do, even if it is legal; but anything illegal, certainly ought not to be done.' Cicero.
Certe oportet non eum necare, 'Undoubtedly, one ought not to kill him.'
5 Opus est, (3) can mean 'must be,' necessarily.
answered 2 days ago
HughHugh
5,7252616
I really like using dedecet and illicitum est for this. (+1!) The others suffer from the ambiguity described in the question: one could read non oportet as "it is not a duty to" instead of "it is a duty not to".
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
2 days ago
I can't prove a universal negative, but I believe non oportet always carries a strong negative sense: "X is inappropriate."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
add a comment |
In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.
For example, I would like to be able to say "I don't want coffee" as the negation of "I want coffee", meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.
To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say "I want not to have coffee".
But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and "I don't want coffee" is construed as "I want not to have coffee" instead of the more ambivalent reading.
Similarly, the Latin non necandus est is more literally "it is not necessary to kill him" but could also be read as "it is necessary not to kill him".
I found examples of similar constructions, but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.
I would consider both readings valid in general.
I see a couple of ways to express "it is necessary to not kill him" without ambiguity:
- Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: servandus est
- Explain in more words: necesse est eum non necare
- Work it into the structure of a sentence: curandum est ne necetur
- In some cases you might be able to use a negative order: noli(te) eum necare
(There are also passive imperatives.)
answered 2 days ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.5k1271288
I can't prove a universal negative, but I would be surprised to see a negated gerundive that indicated merely lack of obligation. The negative gerundive is common in legal writings, precisely because it clearly signals negative obligation: "must not X."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
@Kingshorsey I would be surprised if a negated gerundive could not indicate mere lack of obligation. But I have been surprised before! I asked a separate question on negated gerundives.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "644"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9526%2fhow-do-i-say-this-must-not-happen%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are three or four impersonal verbs to express what is appropriate, or legal, or obligatory.
1 děcet, it is appropriate
2 dēděcet, it is inapproptiate, unseemly.
Ut nobis decet; As seems right to us.
Oratorem irasci minime decet, simulare non dēděcet. It is not professional for an orator to get angry, it is not unprofessional to pretend (to get angry). Cicero Tusc., 4,25
Non nos decet necare; ‘It is not right for us to kill.’
Dedecet necare; ‘It is unseemly (uncouth? it is not very nice?) to kill.’
3 Lĭcet, it is lawful
(cf. illĭcĭtē, adv. illegally; illĭcĭtus adj., illegal)
Lĭcet nemini peccare, Cicero Tusc., 5,19 'Nobody is permitted to do evil.'
So, Licet nemini eum necare. 'It is not lawful to kill him.'
4 Oportet, it is a duty, one ought.
Est aliquid, quod non oporteat, etiam si licet; quicquid vero non licet, certe non oportet.
'There is something which one ought not to do, even if it is legal; but anything illegal, certainly ought not to be done.' Cicero.
Certe oportet non eum necare, 'Undoubtedly, one ought not to kill him.'
5 Opus est, (3) can mean 'must be,' necessarily.
answered 2 days ago
HughHugh
5,7252616
I really like using dedecet and illicitum est for this. (+1!) The others suffer from the ambiguity described in the question: one could read non oportet as "it is not a duty to" instead of "it is a duty not to".
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
2 days ago
I can't prove a universal negative, but I believe non oportet always carries a strong negative sense: "X is inappropriate."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
add a comment |
There are three or four impersonal verbs to express what is appropriate, or legal, or obligatory.
1 děcet, it is appropriate
2 dēděcet, it is inapproptiate, unseemly.
Ut nobis decet; As seems right to us.
Oratorem irasci minime decet, simulare non dēděcet. It is not professional for an orator to get angry, it is not unprofessional to pretend (to get angry). Cicero Tusc., 4,25
Non nos decet necare; ‘It is not right for us to kill.’
Dedecet necare; ‘It is unseemly (uncouth? it is not very nice?) to kill.’
3 Lĭcet, it is lawful
(cf. illĭcĭtē, adv. illegally; illĭcĭtus adj., illegal)
Lĭcet nemini peccare, Cicero Tusc., 5,19 'Nobody is permitted to do evil.'
So, Licet nemini eum necare. 'It is not lawful to kill him.'
4 Oportet, it is a duty, one ought.
Est aliquid, quod non oporteat, etiam si licet; quicquid vero non licet, certe non oportet.
'There is something which one ought not to do, even if it is legal; but anything illegal, certainly ought not to be done.' Cicero.
Certe oportet non eum necare, 'Undoubtedly, one ought not to kill him.'
5 Opus est, (3) can mean 'must be,' necessarily.
answered 2 days ago
HughHugh
5,7252616
I really like using dedecet and illicitum est for this. (+1!) The others suffer from the ambiguity described in the question: one could read non oportet as "it is not a duty to" instead of "it is a duty not to".
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
2 days ago
I can't prove a universal negative, but I believe non oportet always carries a strong negative sense: "X is inappropriate."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
add a comment |
There are three or four impersonal verbs to express what is appropriate, or legal, or obligatory.
1 děcet, it is appropriate
2 dēděcet, it is inapproptiate, unseemly.
Ut nobis decet; As seems right to us.
Oratorem irasci minime decet, simulare non dēděcet. It is not professional for an orator to get angry, it is not unprofessional to pretend (to get angry). Cicero Tusc., 4,25
Non nos decet necare; ‘It is not right for us to kill.’
Dedecet necare; ‘It is unseemly (uncouth? it is not very nice?) to kill.’
3 Lĭcet, it is lawful
(cf. illĭcĭtē, adv. illegally; illĭcĭtus adj., illegal)
Lĭcet nemini peccare, Cicero Tusc., 5,19 'Nobody is permitted to do evil.'
So, Licet nemini eum necare. 'It is not lawful to kill him.'
4 Oportet, it is a duty, one ought.
Est aliquid, quod non oporteat, etiam si licet; quicquid vero non licet, certe non oportet.
'There is something which one ought not to do, even if it is legal; but anything illegal, certainly ought not to be done.' Cicero.
Certe oportet non eum necare, 'Undoubtedly, one ought not to kill him.'
5 Opus est, (3) can mean 'must be,' necessarily.
answered 2 days ago
HughHugh
5,7252616
There are three or four impersonal verbs to express what is appropriate, or legal, or obligatory.
1 děcet, it is appropriate
2 dēděcet, it is inapproptiate, unseemly.
Ut nobis decet; As seems right to us.
Oratorem irasci minime decet, simulare non dēděcet. It is not professional for an orator to get angry, it is not unprofessional to pretend (to get angry). Cicero Tusc., 4,25
Non nos decet necare; ‘It is not right for us to kill.’
Dedecet necare; ‘It is unseemly (uncouth? it is not very nice?) to kill.’
3 Lĭcet, it is lawful
(cf. illĭcĭtē, adv. illegally; illĭcĭtus adj., illegal)
Lĭcet nemini peccare, Cicero Tusc., 5,19 'Nobody is permitted to do evil.'
So, Licet nemini eum necare. 'It is not lawful to kill him.'
4 Oportet, it is a duty, one ought.
Est aliquid, quod non oporteat, etiam si licet; quicquid vero non licet, certe non oportet.
'There is something which one ought not to do, even if it is legal; but anything illegal, certainly ought not to be done.' Cicero.
Certe oportet non eum necare, 'Undoubtedly, one ought not to kill him.'
5 Opus est, (3) can mean 'must be,' necessarily.
answered 2 days ago
HughHugh
5,7252616
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
HughHugh
5,7252616
answered 2 days ago
HughHugh
5,7252616
answered 2 days ago
HughHugh
5,7252616
5,7252616
I really like using dedecet and illicitum est for this. (+1!) The others suffer from the ambiguity described in the question: one could read non oportet as "it is not a duty to" instead of "it is a duty not to".
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
2 days ago
I can't prove a universal negative, but I believe non oportet always carries a strong negative sense: "X is inappropriate."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
add a comment |
I really like using dedecet and illicitum est for this. (+1!) The others suffer from the ambiguity described in the question: one could read non oportet as "it is not a duty to" instead of "it is a duty not to".
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
2 days ago
I can't prove a universal negative, but I believe non oportet always carries a strong negative sense: "X is inappropriate."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
I really like using dedecet and illicitum est for this. (+1!) The others suffer from the ambiguity described in the question: one could read non oportet as "it is not a duty to" instead of "it is a duty not to".
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
2 days ago
I really like using dedecet and illicitum est for this. (+1!) The others suffer from the ambiguity described in the question: one could read non oportet as "it is not a duty to" instead of "it is a duty not to".
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
2 days ago
I can't prove a universal negative, but I believe non oportet always carries a strong negative sense: "X is inappropriate."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
I can't prove a universal negative, but I believe non oportet always carries a strong negative sense: "X is inappropriate."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
add a comment |
In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.
For example, I would like to be able to say "I don't want coffee" as the negation of "I want coffee", meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.
To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say "I want not to have coffee".
But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and "I don't want coffee" is construed as "I want not to have coffee" instead of the more ambivalent reading.
Similarly, the Latin non necandus est is more literally "it is not necessary to kill him" but could also be read as "it is necessary not to kill him".
I found examples of similar constructions, but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.
I would consider both readings valid in general.
I see a couple of ways to express "it is necessary to not kill him" without ambiguity:
- Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: servandus est
- Explain in more words: necesse est eum non necare
- Work it into the structure of a sentence: curandum est ne necetur
- In some cases you might be able to use a negative order: noli(te) eum necare
(There are also passive imperatives.)
answered 2 days ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.5k1271288
I can't prove a universal negative, but I would be surprised to see a negated gerundive that indicated merely lack of obligation. The negative gerundive is common in legal writings, precisely because it clearly signals negative obligation: "must not X."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
@Kingshorsey I would be surprised if a negated gerundive could not indicate mere lack of obligation. But I have been surprised before! I asked a separate question on negated gerundives.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
add a comment |
In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.
For example, I would like to be able to say "I don't want coffee" as the negation of "I want coffee", meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.
To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say "I want not to have coffee".
But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and "I don't want coffee" is construed as "I want not to have coffee" instead of the more ambivalent reading.
Similarly, the Latin non necandus est is more literally "it is not necessary to kill him" but could also be read as "it is necessary not to kill him".
I found examples of similar constructions, but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.
I would consider both readings valid in general.
I see a couple of ways to express "it is necessary to not kill him" without ambiguity:
- Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: servandus est
- Explain in more words: necesse est eum non necare
- Work it into the structure of a sentence: curandum est ne necetur
- In some cases you might be able to use a negative order: noli(te) eum necare
(There are also passive imperatives.)
answered 2 days ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.5k1271288
I can't prove a universal negative, but I would be surprised to see a negated gerundive that indicated merely lack of obligation. The negative gerundive is common in legal writings, precisely because it clearly signals negative obligation: "must not X."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
@Kingshorsey I would be surprised if a negated gerundive could not indicate mere lack of obligation. But I have been surprised before! I asked a separate question on negated gerundives.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
add a comment |
In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.
For example, I would like to be able to say "I don't want coffee" as the negation of "I want coffee", meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.
To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say "I want not to have coffee".
But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and "I don't want coffee" is construed as "I want not to have coffee" instead of the more ambivalent reading.
Similarly, the Latin non necandus est is more literally "it is not necessary to kill him" but could also be read as "it is necessary not to kill him".
I found examples of similar constructions, but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.
I would consider both readings valid in general.
I see a couple of ways to express "it is necessary to not kill him" without ambiguity:
- Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: servandus est
- Explain in more words: necesse est eum non necare
- Work it into the structure of a sentence: curandum est ne necetur
- In some cases you might be able to use a negative order: noli(te) eum necare
(There are also passive imperatives.)
answered 2 days ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.5k1271288
In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.
For example, I would like to be able to say "I don't want coffee" as the negation of "I want coffee", meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.
To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say "I want not to have coffee".
But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and "I don't want coffee" is construed as "I want not to have coffee" instead of the more ambivalent reading.
Similarly, the Latin non necandus est is more literally "it is not necessary to kill him" but could also be read as "it is necessary not to kill him".
I found examples of similar constructions, but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.
I would consider both readings valid in general.
I see a couple of ways to express "it is necessary to not kill him" without ambiguity:
- Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: servandus est
- Explain in more words: necesse est eum non necare
- Work it into the structure of a sentence: curandum est ne necetur
- In some cases you might be able to use a negative order: noli(te) eum necare
(There are also passive imperatives.)
answered 2 days ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.5k1271288
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.5k1271288
answered 2 days ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.5k1271288
answered 2 days ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.5k1271288
49.5k1271288
I can't prove a universal negative, but I would be surprised to see a negated gerundive that indicated merely lack of obligation. The negative gerundive is common in legal writings, precisely because it clearly signals negative obligation: "must not X."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
@Kingshorsey I would be surprised if a negated gerundive could not indicate mere lack of obligation. But I have been surprised before! I asked a separate question on negated gerundives.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
add a comment |
I can't prove a universal negative, but I would be surprised to see a negated gerundive that indicated merely lack of obligation. The negative gerundive is common in legal writings, precisely because it clearly signals negative obligation: "must not X."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
@Kingshorsey I would be surprised if a negated gerundive could not indicate mere lack of obligation. But I have been surprised before! I asked a separate question on negated gerundives.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
I can't prove a universal negative, but I would be surprised to see a negated gerundive that indicated merely lack of obligation. The negative gerundive is common in legal writings, precisely because it clearly signals negative obligation: "must not X."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
I can't prove a universal negative, but I would be surprised to see a negated gerundive that indicated merely lack of obligation. The negative gerundive is common in legal writings, precisely because it clearly signals negative obligation: "must not X."
– Kingshorsey
yesterday
@Kingshorsey I would be surprised if a negated gerundive could not indicate mere lack of obligation. But I have been surprised before! I asked a separate question on negated gerundives.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
@Kingshorsey I would be surprised if a negated gerundive could not indicate mere lack of obligation. But I have been surprised before! I asked a separate question on negated gerundives.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Latin Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9526%2fhow-do-i-say-this-must-not-happen%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
