<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg007.perseus-eng2:238</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg007.perseus-eng2:238</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg007.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" resp="perseus" n="238"><milestone unit="page" resp="Stephanus" n="238"/><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="238a"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Boast not too soon!  For there still remains, my friend, the first and greatest of perplexities.  It affects the very beginning of the matter.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> What do you mean?  Do not hesitate to speak.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> To that which is may be added or attributed some other thing which is?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> Of course.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> But shall we assert that to that which is not anything which is can be attributed?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> Certainly not.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Now we assume that all number is among the things which are.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="238b"/><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> Yes, if anything can be assumed to be.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Then let us not even undertake to attribute either the singular or the plural of number to not-being.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> We should, apparently, not be right in undertaking that, as our argument shows.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> How then could a man either utter in speech or even so much as conceive in his mind things which are not, or not-being, apart from number?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> Tell me how number is involved in such conceptions.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> When we say <q type="emph">things which are not,</q> do we not attribute
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="238c"/>plurality to them?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> Certainly.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And in saying <q type="emph">a thing which is not,</q> do we not equally attribute the singular number?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> Obviously.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And yet we assert that it is neither right nor fair to undertake to attribute being to not-being.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> Very true.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Do you see, then, that it is impossible rightly to utter or to say or to think of not-being without any attribute, but it is a thing inconceivable, inexpressible, unspeakable, irrational?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> Absolutely.</said></p><milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="238d"/><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Then was I mistaken just now in saying that the difficulty I was going to speak of was the greatest in our subject.</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> But is there a still greater one that we can mention?</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> Why, my dear fellow, don’t you see, by the very arguments we have used, that not-being reduces him who would refute it to such difficulties that when he attempts to refute it he is forced to contradict himself?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> What do you mean?  Speak still more clearly.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> You must not look for more clearness in me; 
<milestone unit="section" resp="Stephanus" n="238e"/>for although I maintained that not-being could have nothing to do with either the singular or the plural number, I spoke of it just now, and am still speaking of it, as one;  for I say <q type="emph">that which is not.</q>  You understand surely?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> Yes.</said></p><p><said who="#Stranger"><label>Str.</label> And again a little while ago I said it was inexpressible, unspeakable,  irrational.   Do  you follow me?</said></p><p><said who="#Theaetetus"><label>Theaet.</label> Yes, of course.</said></p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>