What's exactly the difference between “per se” and “ipso facto”? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)What's the difference between 'fowl' and 'poultry'?The difference between per person and each personWhat is the difference between “responsibility” and “obligation”?What's the difference between inhuman and inhumane?Difference between 'seem to be working' and 'seem to work'The difference between “discomfit” and “discomfort.”Difference between a rule and a requirement?What's the difference between “menage” and “family”?Clear the difference between _entry_ and _entrance_ or are the interchangeable?What is the difference between “found” and “establish”?
Is it common practice to audition new musicians one-on-one before rehearsing with the entire band?
How would a mousetrap for use in space work?
How do pianists reach extremely loud dynamics?
Fundamental Solution of the Pell Equation
What does できなさすぎる means?
Irreducible of finite Krull dimension implies quasi-compact?
How to answer "Have you ever been terminated?"
Is safe to use va_start macro with this as parameter?
How can I use the Python library networkx from Mathematica?
If a VARCHAR(MAX) column is included in an index, is the entire value always stored in the index page(s)?
What is the meaning of the simile “quick as silk”?
Closed form of recurrent arithmetic series summation
Extracting terms with certain heads in a function
Why didn't Eitri join the fight?
Is there a kind of relay only consumes power when switching?
Denied boarding although I have proper visa and documentation. To whom should I make a complaint?
Most bit efficient text communication method?
Amount of permutations on an NxNxN Rubik's Cube
How to find all the available tools in mac terminal?
Is it a good idea to use CNN to classify 1D signal?
How does the math work when buying airline miles?
Is CEO the profession with the most psychopaths?
Fantasy story; one type of magic grows in power with use, but the more powerful they are, they more they are drawn to travel to their source
For a new assistant professor in CS, how to build/manage a publication pipeline
What's exactly the difference between “per se” and “ipso facto”?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)What's the difference between 'fowl' and 'poultry'?The difference between per person and each personWhat is the difference between “responsibility” and “obligation”?What's the difference between inhuman and inhumane?Difference between 'seem to be working' and 'seem to work'The difference between “discomfit” and “discomfort.”Difference between a rule and a requirement?What's the difference between “menage” and “family”?Clear the difference between _entry_ and _entrance_ or are the interchangeable?What is the difference between “found” and “establish”?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
These two seem quite interchangeable—is it so or is it just me unable to comprehend the difference?
word-usage
asked Sep 13 '15 at 21:14
D4RKS0ULD4RKS0UL
67210
|
show 1 more comment
These two seem quite interchangeable—is it so or is it just me unable to comprehend the difference?
word-usage
asked Sep 13 '15 at 21:14
D4RKS0ULD4RKS0UL
67210
1
Don't forget prima facie which also has a similar but subtly different meaning in legal contexts.
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 7:58
@dodgethesteamroller Prima facie - 'at first appearance' - slightly different to 'the fact alone' - I think. There is prima facie evidence of murder, in the form of a smoking gun; but possession of a smoking gun is not ipso facto evidence of guilt
– WS2
Sep 14 '15 at 8:46
Technically, this belongs here then : ))
– moonwave99
Sep 14 '15 at 11:46
@moonwave99 Does it? I think the thrust of the OP's question is about the usage of per se and ipso facto in English, primarily in academic and legal English, and I threw prima facie into the mix as another possible candidate with a similar meaning. I think the discussion involves Latin only incidentally; the important thing is how the two (or three) terms are used in English, even if borrowed unchanged from the Latin. (It's kind of analogous to arguing about whether chaise lounge is incorrect—that wouldn't belong in a hypothetical French SE but here.)
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 14:28
@WS2 Great example of prima facie vs ipso facto in legal English. I'd like to see this expanded into a separate question and answer.
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 14:30
|
show 1 more comment
These two seem quite interchangeable—is it so or is it just me unable to comprehend the difference?
word-usage
asked Sep 13 '15 at 21:14
D4RKS0ULD4RKS0UL
67210
These two seem quite interchangeable—is it so or is it just me unable to comprehend the difference?
word-usage
word-usage
asked Sep 13 '15 at 21:14
D4RKS0ULD4RKS0UL
67210
asked Sep 13 '15 at 21:14
D4RKS0ULD4RKS0UL
67210
asked Sep 13 '15 at 21:14
D4RKS0ULD4RKS0UL
67210
asked Sep 13 '15 at 21:14
D4RKS0ULD4RKS0UL
67210
asked Sep 13 '15 at 21:14
D4RKS0ULD4RKS0UL
67210
67210
1
Don't forget prima facie which also has a similar but subtly different meaning in legal contexts.
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 7:58
@dodgethesteamroller Prima facie - 'at first appearance' - slightly different to 'the fact alone' - I think. There is prima facie evidence of murder, in the form of a smoking gun; but possession of a smoking gun is not ipso facto evidence of guilt
– WS2
Sep 14 '15 at 8:46
Technically, this belongs here then : ))
– moonwave99
Sep 14 '15 at 11:46
@moonwave99 Does it? I think the thrust of the OP's question is about the usage of per se and ipso facto in English, primarily in academic and legal English, and I threw prima facie into the mix as another possible candidate with a similar meaning. I think the discussion involves Latin only incidentally; the important thing is how the two (or three) terms are used in English, even if borrowed unchanged from the Latin. (It's kind of analogous to arguing about whether chaise lounge is incorrect—that wouldn't belong in a hypothetical French SE but here.)
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 14:28
@WS2 Great example of prima facie vs ipso facto in legal English. I'd like to see this expanded into a separate question and answer.
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 14:30
|
show 1 more comment
1
Don't forget prima facie which also has a similar but subtly different meaning in legal contexts.
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 7:58
@dodgethesteamroller Prima facie - 'at first appearance' - slightly different to 'the fact alone' - I think. There is prima facie evidence of murder, in the form of a smoking gun; but possession of a smoking gun is not ipso facto evidence of guilt
– WS2
Sep 14 '15 at 8:46
Technically, this belongs here then : ))
– moonwave99
Sep 14 '15 at 11:46
@moonwave99 Does it? I think the thrust of the OP's question is about the usage of per se and ipso facto in English, primarily in academic and legal English, and I threw prima facie into the mix as another possible candidate with a similar meaning. I think the discussion involves Latin only incidentally; the important thing is how the two (or three) terms are used in English, even if borrowed unchanged from the Latin. (It's kind of analogous to arguing about whether chaise lounge is incorrect—that wouldn't belong in a hypothetical French SE but here.)
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 14:28
@WS2 Great example of prima facie vs ipso facto in legal English. I'd like to see this expanded into a separate question and answer.
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 14:30
1
1
Don't forget prima facie which also has a similar but subtly different meaning in legal contexts.
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 7:58
Don't forget prima facie which also has a similar but subtly different meaning in legal contexts.
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 7:58
@dodgethesteamroller Prima facie - 'at first appearance' - slightly different to 'the fact alone' - I think. There is prima facie evidence of murder, in the form of a smoking gun; but possession of a smoking gun is not ipso facto evidence of guilt
– WS2
Sep 14 '15 at 8:46
@dodgethesteamroller Prima facie - 'at first appearance' - slightly different to 'the fact alone' - I think. There is prima facie evidence of murder, in the form of a smoking gun; but possession of a smoking gun is not ipso facto evidence of guilt
– WS2
Sep 14 '15 at 8:46
Technically, this belongs here then : ))
– moonwave99
Sep 14 '15 at 11:46
Technically, this belongs here then : ))
– moonwave99
Sep 14 '15 at 11:46
@moonwave99 Does it? I think the thrust of the OP's question is about the usage of per se and ipso facto in English, primarily in academic and legal English, and I threw prima facie into the mix as another possible candidate with a similar meaning. I think the discussion involves Latin only incidentally; the important thing is how the two (or three) terms are used in English, even if borrowed unchanged from the Latin. (It's kind of analogous to arguing about whether chaise lounge is incorrect—that wouldn't belong in a hypothetical French SE but here.)
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 14:28
@moonwave99 Does it? I think the thrust of the OP's question is about the usage of per se and ipso facto in English, primarily in academic and legal English, and I threw prima facie into the mix as another possible candidate with a similar meaning. I think the discussion involves Latin only incidentally; the important thing is how the two (or three) terms are used in English, even if borrowed unchanged from the Latin. (It's kind of analogous to arguing about whether chaise lounge is incorrect—that wouldn't belong in a hypothetical French SE but here.)
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 14:28
@WS2 Great example of prima facie vs ipso facto in legal English. I'd like to see this expanded into a separate question and answer.
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 14:30
@WS2 Great example of prima facie vs ipso facto in legal English. I'd like to see this expanded into a separate question and answer.
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 14:30
|
show 1 more comment
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
The meanings are close, but I think the main difference is the context in which each is used.
Per se, meaning 'in itself' is used in sentences such as this, from the OED:
1992 New Republic 13 July 4/3 Real conservatives do not reject homosexuality per se (in itself) so much as they reject victimology.
Ipso facto meaning 'the fact itself', or 'the fact alone' tends to be used by lawyers in statements such as:
Possession of a vehicle's registration document is not ipso facto (by that fact alone) evidence of ownership.
The word fact looks like the obvious English translation of facto, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning of the Latin. The root is the verb facere which means to do or to make. So factum literally means a/the thing that is/was done/made. The English word "fact" also includes more abstract ideas. "All triangles have three sides" is a fact in English, but not really a factum in Latin.
edited Sep 14 '15 at 13:11
alephzero
3,65311117
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:59
WS2WS2
52.4k28117252
1
The meaning "in itself" is a reasonable equivalent English phrase, but it doesn't express the wide range of meaning of "per" in Latin very clearly. The relevant meanings of "per" in this context express means - "through / by / by means of / with / by way of itself" or causation - "because of / on account of itself". More explanatory translations of "ipso facto" (which is in the Ablative case) would be "by means of the fact itself" or "because of the fact itself".
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:11
2
@D4RKSOUL "Ipso facto" can only be applied to a fact (ipsum factum = the fact itself). "Per se" can by applied to any thing (se = itself) . A fact can be considered to be a thing. But in "Possession of a vehicle's registration document is not per se evidence of ownership" you would have to stop to decide if the thing that "per se" referred to is "the registration document" (wrong) or "Possession of the registration document" (right).
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:54
2
It might be worth adding that fact looks like the obvious English translation of facto, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning of the Latin. The root is the verb facere which means to do or to make. So factum literally means a/the thing that is/was done/made. The English word "fact" also includes more abstract ideas. "All triangles have three sides" is a fact in English, but not really a factum in Latin.
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 11:56
1
@D4RKS0UL It's not "wrong", but (as I tried to explain) I think it is slightly ambiguous what the "per se" refers to. "The registration document per se does not name the owner of a vehicle" would be good, and unambiguous. (The registration document actually names the "registered keeper" of the vehicle, i.e., the person responsible for ensuring that it is used legally. It may be owned by somebody else, for example by the finance company which loaned you the money to buy it.)
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 12:07
2
@D4RKS0UL Adverbs and particularly adverb phrases can modify almost anything, not just verbs. See dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adverb-phrases. They usually occur immediately before or after the words they modify. The commonest way to parse a sentence is to assume they modify the smallest phrase that makes sense, so in "... the r.d. per se ....", the "per se" modifies "r.d.". On the other hand in "... the r.d. ipso facto ...", ipso facto can only refer to a fact. "The r.d." is a thing, not a fact, so ipso facto must refer to "Possession of the r.d."
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 19:19
|
show 7 more comments
Ipso facto is used to present one fact as a reason for another, whereas per se is used to narrow a noun.
To expand upon the examples that WS2 offers:
ipso facto relates vehicle registration to vehicle ownership.
per se narrows homosexuality to exclude victimology. (Obviously I'm just using the example as given here.)
answered Sep 14 '15 at 0:27
Willie WheelerWillie Wheeler
31816
add a comment |
The term per se means the thing itself, to the exclusion of anything implied, derived, construed, or represented. The very thing named.
"It's not that I dislike cats per se. But I am allergic to them."
Lacking context, I would label this term "philosophical" in nature. (The nature of a thing.)
The term ipso facto implies a causality, one thing being named having another thing as a necessary consequence due to the first thing's existence.
"The goods were found in his possession, ipso facto he was involved in some way."
(Bad example but I cannot come up with a better one right now.)
Lacking context, I would label this term "judicial" in nature. (The meaning / consequence of a thing.)
answered Sep 14 '15 at 8:45
DevSolarDevSolar
492513
add a comment |
Ipso facto is less common in my experience and always has the meaning of 'in and of itself, without extraneous factors'. "That the delegates could come to an agreement indicates ipso facto that they acknowledged..."
Per se can also have this meaning, which is what it originally meant in Latin, but it is commonly used now to mean 'as expected, exactly, technically, as such'. "The witness didn't answer the question per se, but he did imply..."
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:32
DraconisDraconis
66436
add a comment |
People have said variations of this, but no one seems to have said clearly:
Per se refers to things, whereas ipso facto refers to facts. Things exist (or don't); facts are true or false.
Look at all the examples provided:
Possession of a smoking gun is not ipso facto evidence of guilt.- Possession is a fact: it is either true or false that the defendant possesses a smoking gun.
Real conservatives do not reject homosexuality per se (in itself) so much as they reject victimology.- Homosexuality is a thing: it either exists or it doesn't.
That the delegates could come to an agreement indicates ipso facto that they acknowledged...- Whether the delegates could come to an agreement is a fact: they either could or could not come to an agreement.
It's not that I dislike cats per se. But I am allergic to them.- Cats are a thing: they either exist or don't.
I had to read this thread a few times over to get it.
answered 6 hours ago
Han Seoul-OhHan Seoul-Oh
20117
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
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%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f273887%2fwhats-exactly-the-difference-between-per-se-and-ipso-facto%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The meanings are close, but I think the main difference is the context in which each is used.
Per se, meaning 'in itself' is used in sentences such as this, from the OED:
1992 New Republic 13 July 4/3 Real conservatives do not reject homosexuality per se (in itself) so much as they reject victimology.
Ipso facto meaning 'the fact itself', or 'the fact alone' tends to be used by lawyers in statements such as:
Possession of a vehicle's registration document is not ipso facto (by that fact alone) evidence of ownership.
The word fact looks like the obvious English translation of facto, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning of the Latin. The root is the verb facere which means to do or to make. So factum literally means a/the thing that is/was done/made. The English word "fact" also includes more abstract ideas. "All triangles have three sides" is a fact in English, but not really a factum in Latin.
edited Sep 14 '15 at 13:11
alephzero
3,65311117
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:59
WS2WS2
52.4k28117252
1
The meaning "in itself" is a reasonable equivalent English phrase, but it doesn't express the wide range of meaning of "per" in Latin very clearly. The relevant meanings of "per" in this context express means - "through / by / by means of / with / by way of itself" or causation - "because of / on account of itself". More explanatory translations of "ipso facto" (which is in the Ablative case) would be "by means of the fact itself" or "because of the fact itself".
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:11
2
@D4RKSOUL "Ipso facto" can only be applied to a fact (ipsum factum = the fact itself). "Per se" can by applied to any thing (se = itself) . A fact can be considered to be a thing. But in "Possession of a vehicle's registration document is not per se evidence of ownership" you would have to stop to decide if the thing that "per se" referred to is "the registration document" (wrong) or "Possession of the registration document" (right).
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:54
2
It might be worth adding that fact looks like the obvious English translation of facto, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning of the Latin. The root is the verb facere which means to do or to make. So factum literally means a/the thing that is/was done/made. The English word "fact" also includes more abstract ideas. "All triangles have three sides" is a fact in English, but not really a factum in Latin.
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 11:56
1
@D4RKS0UL It's not "wrong", but (as I tried to explain) I think it is slightly ambiguous what the "per se" refers to. "The registration document per se does not name the owner of a vehicle" would be good, and unambiguous. (The registration document actually names the "registered keeper" of the vehicle, i.e., the person responsible for ensuring that it is used legally. It may be owned by somebody else, for example by the finance company which loaned you the money to buy it.)
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 12:07
2
@D4RKS0UL Adverbs and particularly adverb phrases can modify almost anything, not just verbs. See dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adverb-phrases. They usually occur immediately before or after the words they modify. The commonest way to parse a sentence is to assume they modify the smallest phrase that makes sense, so in "... the r.d. per se ....", the "per se" modifies "r.d.". On the other hand in "... the r.d. ipso facto ...", ipso facto can only refer to a fact. "The r.d." is a thing, not a fact, so ipso facto must refer to "Possession of the r.d."
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 19:19
|
show 7 more comments
The meanings are close, but I think the main difference is the context in which each is used.
Per se, meaning 'in itself' is used in sentences such as this, from the OED:
1992 New Republic 13 July 4/3 Real conservatives do not reject homosexuality per se (in itself) so much as they reject victimology.
Ipso facto meaning 'the fact itself', or 'the fact alone' tends to be used by lawyers in statements such as:
Possession of a vehicle's registration document is not ipso facto (by that fact alone) evidence of ownership.
The word fact looks like the obvious English translation of facto, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning of the Latin. The root is the verb facere which means to do or to make. So factum literally means a/the thing that is/was done/made. The English word "fact" also includes more abstract ideas. "All triangles have three sides" is a fact in English, but not really a factum in Latin.
edited Sep 14 '15 at 13:11
alephzero
3,65311117
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:59
WS2WS2
52.4k28117252
1
The meaning "in itself" is a reasonable equivalent English phrase, but it doesn't express the wide range of meaning of "per" in Latin very clearly. The relevant meanings of "per" in this context express means - "through / by / by means of / with / by way of itself" or causation - "because of / on account of itself". More explanatory translations of "ipso facto" (which is in the Ablative case) would be "by means of the fact itself" or "because of the fact itself".
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:11
2
@D4RKSOUL "Ipso facto" can only be applied to a fact (ipsum factum = the fact itself). "Per se" can by applied to any thing (se = itself) . A fact can be considered to be a thing. But in "Possession of a vehicle's registration document is not per se evidence of ownership" you would have to stop to decide if the thing that "per se" referred to is "the registration document" (wrong) or "Possession of the registration document" (right).
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:54
2
It might be worth adding that fact looks like the obvious English translation of facto, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning of the Latin. The root is the verb facere which means to do or to make. So factum literally means a/the thing that is/was done/made. The English word "fact" also includes more abstract ideas. "All triangles have three sides" is a fact in English, but not really a factum in Latin.
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 11:56
1
@D4RKS0UL It's not "wrong", but (as I tried to explain) I think it is slightly ambiguous what the "per se" refers to. "The registration document per se does not name the owner of a vehicle" would be good, and unambiguous. (The registration document actually names the "registered keeper" of the vehicle, i.e., the person responsible for ensuring that it is used legally. It may be owned by somebody else, for example by the finance company which loaned you the money to buy it.)
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 12:07
2
@D4RKS0UL Adverbs and particularly adverb phrases can modify almost anything, not just verbs. See dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adverb-phrases. They usually occur immediately before or after the words they modify. The commonest way to parse a sentence is to assume they modify the smallest phrase that makes sense, so in "... the r.d. per se ....", the "per se" modifies "r.d.". On the other hand in "... the r.d. ipso facto ...", ipso facto can only refer to a fact. "The r.d." is a thing, not a fact, so ipso facto must refer to "Possession of the r.d."
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 19:19
|
show 7 more comments
The meanings are close, but I think the main difference is the context in which each is used.
Per se, meaning 'in itself' is used in sentences such as this, from the OED:
1992 New Republic 13 July 4/3 Real conservatives do not reject homosexuality per se (in itself) so much as they reject victimology.
Ipso facto meaning 'the fact itself', or 'the fact alone' tends to be used by lawyers in statements such as:
Possession of a vehicle's registration document is not ipso facto (by that fact alone) evidence of ownership.
The word fact looks like the obvious English translation of facto, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning of the Latin. The root is the verb facere which means to do or to make. So factum literally means a/the thing that is/was done/made. The English word "fact" also includes more abstract ideas. "All triangles have three sides" is a fact in English, but not really a factum in Latin.
edited Sep 14 '15 at 13:11
alephzero
3,65311117
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:59
WS2WS2
52.4k28117252
The meanings are close, but I think the main difference is the context in which each is used.
Per se, meaning 'in itself' is used in sentences such as this, from the OED:
1992 New Republic 13 July 4/3 Real conservatives do not reject homosexuality per se (in itself) so much as they reject victimology.
Ipso facto meaning 'the fact itself', or 'the fact alone' tends to be used by lawyers in statements such as:
Possession of a vehicle's registration document is not ipso facto (by that fact alone) evidence of ownership.
The word fact looks like the obvious English translation of facto, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning of the Latin. The root is the verb facere which means to do or to make. So factum literally means a/the thing that is/was done/made. The English word "fact" also includes more abstract ideas. "All triangles have three sides" is a fact in English, but not really a factum in Latin.
edited Sep 14 '15 at 13:11
alephzero
3,65311117
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:59
WS2WS2
52.4k28117252
edited Sep 14 '15 at 13:11
alephzero
3,65311117
edited Sep 14 '15 at 13:11
alephzero
3,65311117
edited Sep 14 '15 at 13:11
alephzero
3,65311117
3,65311117
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:59
WS2WS2
52.4k28117252
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:59
WS2WS2
52.4k28117252
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:59
WS2WS2
52.4k28117252
52.4k28117252
1
The meaning "in itself" is a reasonable equivalent English phrase, but it doesn't express the wide range of meaning of "per" in Latin very clearly. The relevant meanings of "per" in this context express means - "through / by / by means of / with / by way of itself" or causation - "because of / on account of itself". More explanatory translations of "ipso facto" (which is in the Ablative case) would be "by means of the fact itself" or "because of the fact itself".
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:11
2
@D4RKSOUL "Ipso facto" can only be applied to a fact (ipsum factum = the fact itself). "Per se" can by applied to any thing (se = itself) . A fact can be considered to be a thing. But in "Possession of a vehicle's registration document is not per se evidence of ownership" you would have to stop to decide if the thing that "per se" referred to is "the registration document" (wrong) or "Possession of the registration document" (right).
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:54
2
It might be worth adding that fact looks like the obvious English translation of facto, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning of the Latin. The root is the verb facere which means to do or to make. So factum literally means a/the thing that is/was done/made. The English word "fact" also includes more abstract ideas. "All triangles have three sides" is a fact in English, but not really a factum in Latin.
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 11:56
1
@D4RKS0UL It's not "wrong", but (as I tried to explain) I think it is slightly ambiguous what the "per se" refers to. "The registration document per se does not name the owner of a vehicle" would be good, and unambiguous. (The registration document actually names the "registered keeper" of the vehicle, i.e., the person responsible for ensuring that it is used legally. It may be owned by somebody else, for example by the finance company which loaned you the money to buy it.)
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 12:07
2
@D4RKS0UL Adverbs and particularly adverb phrases can modify almost anything, not just verbs. See dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adverb-phrases. They usually occur immediately before or after the words they modify. The commonest way to parse a sentence is to assume they modify the smallest phrase that makes sense, so in "... the r.d. per se ....", the "per se" modifies "r.d.". On the other hand in "... the r.d. ipso facto ...", ipso facto can only refer to a fact. "The r.d." is a thing, not a fact, so ipso facto must refer to "Possession of the r.d."
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 19:19
|
show 7 more comments
1
The meaning "in itself" is a reasonable equivalent English phrase, but it doesn't express the wide range of meaning of "per" in Latin very clearly. The relevant meanings of "per" in this context express means - "through / by / by means of / with / by way of itself" or causation - "because of / on account of itself". More explanatory translations of "ipso facto" (which is in the Ablative case) would be "by means of the fact itself" or "because of the fact itself".
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:11
2
@D4RKSOUL "Ipso facto" can only be applied to a fact (ipsum factum = the fact itself). "Per se" can by applied to any thing (se = itself) . A fact can be considered to be a thing. But in "Possession of a vehicle's registration document is not per se evidence of ownership" you would have to stop to decide if the thing that "per se" referred to is "the registration document" (wrong) or "Possession of the registration document" (right).
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:54
2
It might be worth adding that fact looks like the obvious English translation of facto, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning of the Latin. The root is the verb facere which means to do or to make. So factum literally means a/the thing that is/was done/made. The English word "fact" also includes more abstract ideas. "All triangles have three sides" is a fact in English, but not really a factum in Latin.
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 11:56
1
@D4RKS0UL It's not "wrong", but (as I tried to explain) I think it is slightly ambiguous what the "per se" refers to. "The registration document per se does not name the owner of a vehicle" would be good, and unambiguous. (The registration document actually names the "registered keeper" of the vehicle, i.e., the person responsible for ensuring that it is used legally. It may be owned by somebody else, for example by the finance company which loaned you the money to buy it.)
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 12:07
2
@D4RKS0UL Adverbs and particularly adverb phrases can modify almost anything, not just verbs. See dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adverb-phrases. They usually occur immediately before or after the words they modify. The commonest way to parse a sentence is to assume they modify the smallest phrase that makes sense, so in "... the r.d. per se ....", the "per se" modifies "r.d.". On the other hand in "... the r.d. ipso facto ...", ipso facto can only refer to a fact. "The r.d." is a thing, not a fact, so ipso facto must refer to "Possession of the r.d."
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 19:19
1
1
The meaning "in itself" is a reasonable equivalent English phrase, but it doesn't express the wide range of meaning of "per" in Latin very clearly. The relevant meanings of "per" in this context express means - "through / by / by means of / with / by way of itself" or causation - "because of / on account of itself". More explanatory translations of "ipso facto" (which is in the Ablative case) would be "by means of the fact itself" or "because of the fact itself".
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:11
The meaning "in itself" is a reasonable equivalent English phrase, but it doesn't express the wide range of meaning of "per" in Latin very clearly. The relevant meanings of "per" in this context express means - "through / by / by means of / with / by way of itself" or causation - "because of / on account of itself". More explanatory translations of "ipso facto" (which is in the Ablative case) would be "by means of the fact itself" or "because of the fact itself".
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:11
2
2
@D4RKSOUL "Ipso facto" can only be applied to a fact (ipsum factum = the fact itself). "Per se" can by applied to any thing (se = itself) . A fact can be considered to be a thing. But in "Possession of a vehicle's registration document is not per se evidence of ownership" you would have to stop to decide if the thing that "per se" referred to is "the registration document" (wrong) or "Possession of the registration document" (right).
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:54
@D4RKSOUL "Ipso facto" can only be applied to a fact (ipsum factum = the fact itself). "Per se" can by applied to any thing (se = itself) . A fact can be considered to be a thing. But in "Possession of a vehicle's registration document is not per se evidence of ownership" you would have to stop to decide if the thing that "per se" referred to is "the registration document" (wrong) or "Possession of the registration document" (right).
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 1:54
2
2
It might be worth adding that fact looks like the obvious English translation of facto, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning of the Latin. The root is the verb facere which means to do or to make. So factum literally means a/the thing that is/was done/made. The English word "fact" also includes more abstract ideas. "All triangles have three sides" is a fact in English, but not really a factum in Latin.
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 11:56
It might be worth adding that fact looks like the obvious English translation of facto, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning of the Latin. The root is the verb facere which means to do or to make. So factum literally means a/the thing that is/was done/made. The English word "fact" also includes more abstract ideas. "All triangles have three sides" is a fact in English, but not really a factum in Latin.
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 11:56
1
1
@D4RKS0UL It's not "wrong", but (as I tried to explain) I think it is slightly ambiguous what the "per se" refers to. "The registration document per se does not name the owner of a vehicle" would be good, and unambiguous. (The registration document actually names the "registered keeper" of the vehicle, i.e., the person responsible for ensuring that it is used legally. It may be owned by somebody else, for example by the finance company which loaned you the money to buy it.)
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 12:07
@D4RKS0UL It's not "wrong", but (as I tried to explain) I think it is slightly ambiguous what the "per se" refers to. "The registration document per se does not name the owner of a vehicle" would be good, and unambiguous. (The registration document actually names the "registered keeper" of the vehicle, i.e., the person responsible for ensuring that it is used legally. It may be owned by somebody else, for example by the finance company which loaned you the money to buy it.)
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 12:07
2
2
@D4RKS0UL Adverbs and particularly adverb phrases can modify almost anything, not just verbs. See dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adverb-phrases. They usually occur immediately before or after the words they modify. The commonest way to parse a sentence is to assume they modify the smallest phrase that makes sense, so in "... the r.d. per se ....", the "per se" modifies "r.d.". On the other hand in "... the r.d. ipso facto ...", ipso facto can only refer to a fact. "The r.d." is a thing, not a fact, so ipso facto must refer to "Possession of the r.d."
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 19:19
@D4RKS0UL Adverbs and particularly adverb phrases can modify almost anything, not just verbs. See dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adverb-phrases. They usually occur immediately before or after the words they modify. The commonest way to parse a sentence is to assume they modify the smallest phrase that makes sense, so in "... the r.d. per se ....", the "per se" modifies "r.d.". On the other hand in "... the r.d. ipso facto ...", ipso facto can only refer to a fact. "The r.d." is a thing, not a fact, so ipso facto must refer to "Possession of the r.d."
– alephzero
Sep 14 '15 at 19:19
|
show 7 more comments
Ipso facto is used to present one fact as a reason for another, whereas per se is used to narrow a noun.
To expand upon the examples that WS2 offers:
ipso facto relates vehicle registration to vehicle ownership.
per se narrows homosexuality to exclude victimology. (Obviously I'm just using the example as given here.)
answered Sep 14 '15 at 0:27
Willie WheelerWillie Wheeler
31816
add a comment |
Ipso facto is used to present one fact as a reason for another, whereas per se is used to narrow a noun.
To expand upon the examples that WS2 offers:
ipso facto relates vehicle registration to vehicle ownership.
per se narrows homosexuality to exclude victimology. (Obviously I'm just using the example as given here.)
answered Sep 14 '15 at 0:27
Willie WheelerWillie Wheeler
31816
add a comment |
Ipso facto is used to present one fact as a reason for another, whereas per se is used to narrow a noun.
To expand upon the examples that WS2 offers:
ipso facto relates vehicle registration to vehicle ownership.
per se narrows homosexuality to exclude victimology. (Obviously I'm just using the example as given here.)
answered Sep 14 '15 at 0:27
Willie WheelerWillie Wheeler
31816
Ipso facto is used to present one fact as a reason for another, whereas per se is used to narrow a noun.
To expand upon the examples that WS2 offers:
ipso facto relates vehicle registration to vehicle ownership.
per se narrows homosexuality to exclude victimology. (Obviously I'm just using the example as given here.)
answered Sep 14 '15 at 0:27
Willie WheelerWillie Wheeler
31816
answered Sep 14 '15 at 0:27
Willie WheelerWillie Wheeler
31816
answered Sep 14 '15 at 0:27
Willie WheelerWillie Wheeler
31816
answered Sep 14 '15 at 0:27
Willie WheelerWillie Wheeler
31816
31816
add a comment |
add a comment |
The term per se means the thing itself, to the exclusion of anything implied, derived, construed, or represented. The very thing named.
"It's not that I dislike cats per se. But I am allergic to them."
Lacking context, I would label this term "philosophical" in nature. (The nature of a thing.)
The term ipso facto implies a causality, one thing being named having another thing as a necessary consequence due to the first thing's existence.
"The goods were found in his possession, ipso facto he was involved in some way."
(Bad example but I cannot come up with a better one right now.)
Lacking context, I would label this term "judicial" in nature. (The meaning / consequence of a thing.)
answered Sep 14 '15 at 8:45
DevSolarDevSolar
492513
add a comment |
The term per se means the thing itself, to the exclusion of anything implied, derived, construed, or represented. The very thing named.
"It's not that I dislike cats per se. But I am allergic to them."
Lacking context, I would label this term "philosophical" in nature. (The nature of a thing.)
The term ipso facto implies a causality, one thing being named having another thing as a necessary consequence due to the first thing's existence.
"The goods were found in his possession, ipso facto he was involved in some way."
(Bad example but I cannot come up with a better one right now.)
Lacking context, I would label this term "judicial" in nature. (The meaning / consequence of a thing.)
answered Sep 14 '15 at 8:45
DevSolarDevSolar
492513
add a comment |
The term per se means the thing itself, to the exclusion of anything implied, derived, construed, or represented. The very thing named.
"It's not that I dislike cats per se. But I am allergic to them."
Lacking context, I would label this term "philosophical" in nature. (The nature of a thing.)
The term ipso facto implies a causality, one thing being named having another thing as a necessary consequence due to the first thing's existence.
"The goods were found in his possession, ipso facto he was involved in some way."
(Bad example but I cannot come up with a better one right now.)
Lacking context, I would label this term "judicial" in nature. (The meaning / consequence of a thing.)
answered Sep 14 '15 at 8:45
DevSolarDevSolar
492513
The term per se means the thing itself, to the exclusion of anything implied, derived, construed, or represented. The very thing named.
"It's not that I dislike cats per se. But I am allergic to them."
Lacking context, I would label this term "philosophical" in nature. (The nature of a thing.)
The term ipso facto implies a causality, one thing being named having another thing as a necessary consequence due to the first thing's existence.
"The goods were found in his possession, ipso facto he was involved in some way."
(Bad example but I cannot come up with a better one right now.)
Lacking context, I would label this term "judicial" in nature. (The meaning / consequence of a thing.)
answered Sep 14 '15 at 8:45
DevSolarDevSolar
492513
edited Sep 14 '15 at 11:15
answered Sep 14 '15 at 8:45
DevSolarDevSolar
492513
answered Sep 14 '15 at 8:45
DevSolarDevSolar
492513
answered Sep 14 '15 at 8:45
DevSolarDevSolar
492513
492513
add a comment |
add a comment |
Ipso facto is less common in my experience and always has the meaning of 'in and of itself, without extraneous factors'. "That the delegates could come to an agreement indicates ipso facto that they acknowledged..."
Per se can also have this meaning, which is what it originally meant in Latin, but it is commonly used now to mean 'as expected, exactly, technically, as such'. "The witness didn't answer the question per se, but he did imply..."
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:32
DraconisDraconis
66436
add a comment |
Ipso facto is less common in my experience and always has the meaning of 'in and of itself, without extraneous factors'. "That the delegates could come to an agreement indicates ipso facto that they acknowledged..."
Per se can also have this meaning, which is what it originally meant in Latin, but it is commonly used now to mean 'as expected, exactly, technically, as such'. "The witness didn't answer the question per se, but he did imply..."
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:32
DraconisDraconis
66436
add a comment |
Ipso facto is less common in my experience and always has the meaning of 'in and of itself, without extraneous factors'. "That the delegates could come to an agreement indicates ipso facto that they acknowledged..."
Per se can also have this meaning, which is what it originally meant in Latin, but it is commonly used now to mean 'as expected, exactly, technically, as such'. "The witness didn't answer the question per se, but he did imply..."
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:32
DraconisDraconis
66436
Ipso facto is less common in my experience and always has the meaning of 'in and of itself, without extraneous factors'. "That the delegates could come to an agreement indicates ipso facto that they acknowledged..."
Per se can also have this meaning, which is what it originally meant in Latin, but it is commonly used now to mean 'as expected, exactly, technically, as such'. "The witness didn't answer the question per se, but he did imply..."
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:32
DraconisDraconis
66436
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:32
DraconisDraconis
66436
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:32
DraconisDraconis
66436
answered Sep 13 '15 at 21:32
DraconisDraconis
66436
66436
add a comment |
add a comment |
People have said variations of this, but no one seems to have said clearly:
Per se refers to things, whereas ipso facto refers to facts. Things exist (or don't); facts are true or false.
Look at all the examples provided:
Possession of a smoking gun is not ipso facto evidence of guilt.- Possession is a fact: it is either true or false that the defendant possesses a smoking gun.
Real conservatives do not reject homosexuality per se (in itself) so much as they reject victimology.- Homosexuality is a thing: it either exists or it doesn't.
That the delegates could come to an agreement indicates ipso facto that they acknowledged...- Whether the delegates could come to an agreement is a fact: they either could or could not come to an agreement.
It's not that I dislike cats per se. But I am allergic to them.- Cats are a thing: they either exist or don't.
I had to read this thread a few times over to get it.
answered 6 hours ago
Han Seoul-OhHan Seoul-Oh
20117
add a comment |
People have said variations of this, but no one seems to have said clearly:
Per se refers to things, whereas ipso facto refers to facts. Things exist (or don't); facts are true or false.
Look at all the examples provided:
Possession of a smoking gun is not ipso facto evidence of guilt.- Possession is a fact: it is either true or false that the defendant possesses a smoking gun.
Real conservatives do not reject homosexuality per se (in itself) so much as they reject victimology.- Homosexuality is a thing: it either exists or it doesn't.
That the delegates could come to an agreement indicates ipso facto that they acknowledged...- Whether the delegates could come to an agreement is a fact: they either could or could not come to an agreement.
It's not that I dislike cats per se. But I am allergic to them.- Cats are a thing: they either exist or don't.
I had to read this thread a few times over to get it.
answered 6 hours ago
Han Seoul-OhHan Seoul-Oh
20117
add a comment |
People have said variations of this, but no one seems to have said clearly:
Per se refers to things, whereas ipso facto refers to facts. Things exist (or don't); facts are true or false.
Look at all the examples provided:
Possession of a smoking gun is not ipso facto evidence of guilt.- Possession is a fact: it is either true or false that the defendant possesses a smoking gun.
Real conservatives do not reject homosexuality per se (in itself) so much as they reject victimology.- Homosexuality is a thing: it either exists or it doesn't.
That the delegates could come to an agreement indicates ipso facto that they acknowledged...- Whether the delegates could come to an agreement is a fact: they either could or could not come to an agreement.
It's not that I dislike cats per se. But I am allergic to them.- Cats are a thing: they either exist or don't.
I had to read this thread a few times over to get it.
answered 6 hours ago
Han Seoul-OhHan Seoul-Oh
20117
People have said variations of this, but no one seems to have said clearly:
Per se refers to things, whereas ipso facto refers to facts. Things exist (or don't); facts are true or false.
Look at all the examples provided:
Possession of a smoking gun is not ipso facto evidence of guilt.- Possession is a fact: it is either true or false that the defendant possesses a smoking gun.
Real conservatives do not reject homosexuality per se (in itself) so much as they reject victimology.- Homosexuality is a thing: it either exists or it doesn't.
That the delegates could come to an agreement indicates ipso facto that they acknowledged...- Whether the delegates could come to an agreement is a fact: they either could or could not come to an agreement.
It's not that I dislike cats per se. But I am allergic to them.- Cats are a thing: they either exist or don't.
I had to read this thread a few times over to get it.
answered 6 hours ago
Han Seoul-OhHan Seoul-Oh
20117
answered 6 hours ago
Han Seoul-OhHan Seoul-Oh
20117
answered 6 hours ago
Han Seoul-OhHan Seoul-Oh
20117
answered 6 hours ago
Han Seoul-OhHan Seoul-Oh
20117
20117
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage 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%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f273887%2fwhats-exactly-the-difference-between-per-se-and-ipso-facto%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
1
Don't forget prima facie which also has a similar but subtly different meaning in legal contexts.
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 7:58
@dodgethesteamroller Prima facie - 'at first appearance' - slightly different to 'the fact alone' - I think. There is prima facie evidence of murder, in the form of a smoking gun; but possession of a smoking gun is not ipso facto evidence of guilt
– WS2
Sep 14 '15 at 8:46
Technically, this belongs here then : ))
– moonwave99
Sep 14 '15 at 11:46
@moonwave99 Does it? I think the thrust of the OP's question is about the usage of per se and ipso facto in English, primarily in academic and legal English, and I threw prima facie into the mix as another possible candidate with a similar meaning. I think the discussion involves Latin only incidentally; the important thing is how the two (or three) terms are used in English, even if borrowed unchanged from the Latin. (It's kind of analogous to arguing about whether chaise lounge is incorrect—that wouldn't belong in a hypothetical French SE but here.)
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 14:28
@WS2 Great example of prima facie vs ipso facto in legal English. I'd like to see this expanded into a separate question and answer.
– dodgethesteamroller
Sep 14 '15 at 14:30