Jowett: not-one

And will not all things that are not one, be other than the one, and the one other than the not-one ? PARMENIDES  

Then not by reason of otherness is the one other than the not-one, or the not-one other than the one. PARMENIDES

Again, the not-one cannot partake of the one ; otherwise it would not have been not-one, but would have been in some way one. PARMENIDES

Nor can the not-one be number ; for having number, it would not have been not-one at all. PARMENIDES

Again, is the not-one part of the one ; or rather, would it not in that case partake of the one ? PARMENIDES

If then, in every point of view, the one and the not-one are distinct, then neither is the one part or whole of the not-one, nor is the not-one part or whole of the one ? PARMENIDES

Then shall we say that the one, being in this relation to the not-one, is the same with it ? PARMENIDES