Indeed, it doesn't make any sense.The problem in run into is with online translators that it gives
Nam te puto. quae Quaeritur.
I don't think that is correct.
That is more grammatically correct, but the word choice and construction isn't ideal. Puto more usually means "think (that such and such is the case)" rather than just "reflect". The latter would be more commonly expressed with cogito. It might also be more straightforward to use simply ipse for "for yourself". So for the first part I would suggest ipse cogita. You can add per te (ipse per te cogita) but it may not be necessary.tu per te putes. exigas omnia.
= You think on your own. Test everything.
It is an often used word, but not often used in the intransitive sense of "to think", "to reflect". Puto usually means "to think" as in "to think that such and such is the case, to hold such and such opinion".Yes cogitare is not at all a bad choice. I decided on putare esp in light of its meaning as "to reckon." It is a general word for thinking, and that seems to fit. It is a short, common, often-used word.
You have something there, insofar as cogito implies the activity of a reflective ordering. But I think there may be a more ruminative and judgmental aspect to puto that is not foreign to the original idea. "Think for yourself!" may imply "Order your thinking according to your own lights." Or it may mean something closer to "Come to your own conclusions!"It is an often used word, but not often used in the intransitive sense of "to think", "to reflect". Puto usually means "to think" as in "to think that such and such is the case, to hold such and such opinion".
Puto can also be used absolutely (e.g. hoc bonum est, puto) but that's obviously something else. Puto in those cases is still sort of transitive, it's just that the object is left implied (in the above sentence, for instance, the understood object of puto is hoc bonum esse, but it doesn't get repeated since it's just been stated in direct-speech form).What Pacifica means is that puto needs a direct object (or acc + inf, etc.).
Point taken...except there is a very common intransitive use so it does not seem that strange. From L&S:What Pacifica means is that puto needs a direct object (or acc + inf, etc.). If you look at your dictionary entry above, you'll see that puto is not used intransitively in any of the examples given. I agree with her that an intransitive use of puto sounds very odd indeed.
I second ipse cogita, exige omnia.
I sensed that was coming. Hence my last post, which I suppose you didn't see before posting yours.Point taken...except there is a very common intransitive use so it does not seem that strange. From L&S:
Parenthetically, Cic. Att. 12, 49, 1; Cael. ap. Cic. Fam. 8, 3, 3; Cic. Att. 8, 9, 4; 7, 8, 5; 9, 9, 3; 10, 16, 3: atque intra, puto, septimas Calendas, Mart. 1, 100, 6.—Ironically, Ov. Am. 3, 7, 2: ut puto, deus fio,as I think in my opinion Suet. Vesp. 23 fin. ; Ov. A. A. 1, 370: non, puto, repudiabis, etc., I think, I suppose, Vat. ap. Cic. Fam. 5, 9, 1.
In light of the cogent case made, I suppose I must now incline to
Tibi putandum est.
= "You've got to do your own reckoning."
Only if I said "Hoc tibi putandum est."No, no, this would imply that something or other "must be thought" by you -- in other words, you would be telling the person what to think!
Well put, Callaina.Yes, I didn't think of the parenthetical use, but as Pacifica said, in this instance it also has an object; it's just implied by the surrounding context.
If you say Ipse puto or putes, though, there's no implied object (and by the nature of this particular sentence, there can't be, since you're telling the person to "think for themselves" -- if puto had an (implied) object, you would be telling them what to think!) So this can't be the parenthetical use of puto, either.
I agree.I mean, if I saw tibi putandum est, I would instinctively expect an accusative and infinitive (or something equivalent) to follow. If it appeared in isolation like that, I would frankly be bewildered, and would probably scrutinize the preceding and following sentences to see if there was some implied subject in agreement with putandum which I had missed.
No, the pronoun may be added for emphasis but isn't requisite.Only if I said "Hoc tibi putandum est."
Not sure about the exclusion of an absolute use here. If I say tibi scribendum est, "you've got to write," am I necessarily implying a particular object (hoc / haec), or might I be saying: composition is an act in which you should be engaging (whatever it is you are writing). Parallel: Reckoning is something you have to do, whatever it is you are reckoning.No, the pronoun may be added for emphasis but isn't requisite.