Quid significat "Vox familiariter utitur Buddhismo"?[fontem recensere]
- Salve Iacobe. Redditur ex The term "nirvana" is most commonly associated with Buddhism. Amabo te videas 'associate --with familiariter uti(w. dative) in Traupman.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:38, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)
- But, bad luck, since "uti" is a deponent verb, it doesn't have a passive; so associate with may be "uti", but that doesn't give you an obvious way to translate the passive verb is associated.
- The same translation problem arises with "loquor", a deponent verb meaning speak. It looks passive, so people often want it to mean is spoken, but it isn't easily adapted to that sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:50, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)
No not bad luck Andrew. Kindly be more familiar instead with this expression which is found in articles even in this wiki.
I'm wondering why you and Iacobus seem to have seen this idiom 'nigricolores contradicentibus, familiariter utitur' in Go Set a Watchman and seems to ignore that idiom which in the English wiki is 'affiliating with raving anti-integration, anti-black crazies'.
- Translating back from the Latin (dementibus furiosis integrationem contradicentibus, nigricolores contradicentibus, familiariter utitur), I get 'he associates with raving crazies who decry integration, decry blacks'. That structure, applied to your Vox familiariter utitur Buddhismo, becomes 'A/The voice/word associates with Buddhism'. In English grammar, associates with and is associated with exhibit different syntactical structures. The problem there, as Andrew has pointed out, is that utitur, being deponent, is passive in form but active in sense. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:49, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Don't I have equal liberty to use this expression? Why does it gather so much attention when I use it? Anyway, here are some more.
Here 'qui grege imaginis profundae familiariter utitur' in Robertus Kelly (poeta) ? Which in the English is 'associated with the deep image group'.
- He's a person, so he can do some associating ('who associates with the deep image group' = 'who's associated with the deep image group'); a voice or a word isn't a person, so it might require humans to do the associating (vox quam Buddhismo adiungunt 'word that they associate with Buddhism'). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:14, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)
It is also found here Mord mit Aussicht , I can't read German yet but I 'm confident about what it will translate to.
Here this translates to "to which the Holy Spirit is associated with".
Here this translates to "He who is associated with God's good.".
- Jondel, do you want to say
- "Buddhism uses this word", which is in Latin: Buddhismus hac voce utitur, or
- "This word uses Buddhism", in Latin: Haec vox Buddhismo utitur ?
- This was, I think, the point of Iacobus's question. If you want to say "Ihis word is used in Buddhism", you (= we all) have to switch to another verb, because the verb utor, though passive in form, is active in meaning; the correct option being in this case: Haec vox in Buddhismo adhibetur. I'm sorry if you feel harassed. I can assure that nobody of us has such bad intentions. Neander (disputatio) 16:14, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)
What I want to say is 'The word(ie Nirvana) is associated with Buddhism'. Yes I feel harrassed. I feel the Latin is correct but I see Im the only one here who feels this way. So I guess I can not insist can I?--Jondel (disputatio) 16:37, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)
- As you can see in those examples you brought forward, the phrase Aliquis familiariter utitur aliquo homine / aliqua re 'Somebody is intimately associated/attached with somebody / something' requires a human subject (or an intentional subject like the Holy Spirit), because the phrase always brings in an emotional element. That's why I had difficulties in understanding what this is all about. "The word (ie Nirvana) is associated with Buddhism" is in Latin: Vox (quae est Nirvana) Buddhismo coniuncta est. Neander (disputatio) 18:17, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate it if you examine the examples I worked hard to provide. Some of the articles are in this very wikipedia using 'familiariter uti'with dative and were reviewed by the very same Iacobus and Andrew.--Jondel (disputatio) 16:37, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)
- I was merely commenting on a problem caused to translators by Latin deponent verbs. I don't remember reading any article containing this phrase -- not even this one! But I may well have done ... my memory isn't what it was ... indeed, it probably never was what it was ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:38, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)
I apologize. You are not expected memorize nor remember. But if my usage sticks out now, a similar usage would stuck out then,e.g. you would have noticed it then.I don't want to attack your memory, mine is worse. However, if you noticed my usage, you would noticed the usage in other article .
- I get it. We use as active because the deponent is active but appears passive.
- There is no rule in any textbook that the subject is limited to persons only what is inferred from what can be gathered from the usage that can be found.
- I concede and will make the changes Neander suggests with the addition of familiariter.
- I thank you for your help and suggestions Neander, Iacobus and Andrew.
- Yes, that's true :)
- There may well be no mention of the issue in a textbook, but, since Neander and Iacobus have specified the limits within which they would expect to see this usage, I must say I agree with them. I have certainly encountered the phrase "familiariter uti" in Latin (though I don't recall doing so on Vicipaedia!) It wouldn't surprise me if the subject were a person but it really would surprise me if the subject were a word or an abstract concept -- to the extent that I would probably not understand the sentence.
- If I were going to try out an idiom like this for the first time, I would probably look it up in a Latin-English dictionary (Lewis & Short, for example) to see how Latin writers have used it. That's my usual way of getting round the problem that an English-Latin dictionary can never tell me all the nuances and all the limitations. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:04, 30 Maii 2016 (UTC)