Word of the day — terribly perspicuous edition

March 14, 2007

Among notwithabang…’s less prurient interests is a casual pursuit of philosophy, particularly logic, as it keeps him occupied whilst he waits for the third coming of the sacred Command and Conquer (more in an upcoming post).

Thumbing through one of my logic textbooks this evening, I came across the word “converse.” My immediate mental associations consisted of:

1. The opposite of something. Can be used as an adverb. E.g. I hated “300.” Conversely, my friend liked it so much that he threatened me in order to change my opinion.

2. Shoes.

As one might have guessed, my logic book had a technical definition for “converse” that only kind of jived with my own. Namely, the converse of a categorical statement (a statement that either affirms or denies the predicate of a subject) reverses the subject and predicate.

For example:

Some word-of-the-day columns (subject) are written by notwithabang… (predicate).

Some S are P.


Some of notwithabang…’s writings (subject) are word-of-the-day columns (predicate).

Some P are S.

That’s when things got weird.

Checking with Merriam-Webster’s, converse is defined as

Something reversed in order, relation, or action, as:

a. a theorem formed by interchanging the hypothesis and conclusion of a given theorem

b. a proposition obtained by interchange of the subject and predicate of a given proposition <no P is S is the converse of no S is P>

So, with the thought of Chuck Taylors’ aside, is the original example I gave a legitimate use of the term? Before I jumped to the defense of the vernacular, I decided to look a little farther in the text. The result was the introduction of the term obverse, handily defined by MW as

1: the side of a coin or currency note bearing the chief device and lettering; broadly : a front or principal surface


2: a counterpart having the opposite orientation or force <their rise was merely the obverse of the Empire’s fall — A. J. Toynbee>; also : opposite 1 <joy and its obverse, sorrow>


3: a proposition inferred immediately from another by denying the opposite of what the given proposition affirms <the obverse of all A is B is no A is not B>

Were our opinions of 300 actually the obverses of one another? Although this might be a loophole in the vernacular, perhaps it is appropriately suppressed; the phrase “obversely, I thought the film was awful,” is at best an invitation to misunderstanding, and more likely an invitation to a well-earned slap in the face. Before going further in the book and trying to see if our opinions were in fact contrapositives, I got lazy and decided that it was just a linguistic problem. Then I got some paper and actually discovered that it was a linguistic problem… just not of the sort that I had originally guessed.

To use the formal (logical) definitions of converse and obverse, it is first necessary to make them into categorical statements. Thus,

Notwithabang…: 300 was awful. (300 is a member of the set of awful movies).

Friend: 300 was not awful. (300 is not a member of the set of awful movies).


and the converses become

Notwithabang…: One of the members of the set of awful movies is 300.

Friend: One of the members of the set of awful movies is not 300.

So, we can see that they aren’t converses of one another.

As for obverses,

Notwithabang…: 300 was not non-awful, or 300 was not good. (Some S is P -> Some S is not non-P)

Friend: 300 was not awful, or 300 was good. (Some S is not P -> Some S is non-P)

Our opinions *are* obverses of one another, or in another light, subcontraries (sadly, they are not subalterns). But again, that depends on how they are cast. If we think of them as predicate statements, with P equivalent to “300 was awful,” we get

Notwithabang…: P

Friend: not P

No converse or obverse here. Just opposites. Ergo, for non-technical discussions, any synonym of “opposite” should suffice.  So while MW snobs (if they exist) may insist on calling them obverses in one sense of the word, I’m going to continue using converses simply so people know what the hell I’m talking about.

Tune in tomorrow, when I’ll use obscure technical language to show why Charles Taylor is still cooler than Mark Taylor, or Dash will get the good sense to ban me from writing WOTD entries.

2 Responses to “Word of the day — terribly perspicuous edition”

  1. dailysalad Says:

    I do appreciate your attempt at eruditeness (erudity?). Rest assured, I shall sooner hate the game (the feature itself) than the player.

  2. […] leave them to experts such as our own political commentator, L.P. Mandrake.  However, since logic and the preservation of the liberal society generally fall under my blogging aegis, I had to […]

Leave a Reply to A fair tax? « Yesterday’s Salad Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: