“The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you.”

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
But the verb needs an object, it's transitive... this is just an incredible extrapolation from the English sentence, Syntax... I mean, one needs to check first how Romans used the verb, L&S always gives you the examples of use and you use L&S so... just spend more time with the examples, that's all.

Well, it seems to be an idiom that you find occasionally in business contexts which leaves something like negotium or pretium implied (or possibly pactionem).
 

syntaxianus

Civis Illustris
But the verb needs an object, it's transitive... this is just an incredible extrapolation from the English sentence, Syntax... I mean, one needs to check first how Romans used the verb, L&S always gives you the examples of use and you use L&S so... just spend more time with the examples, that's all.
I don't get your point. Do you not see the parallelism?

tu cum Apella Chio confice de columnis

you with Apella of Chios settle about the columns

[veritas] tecum confecerit (de te)

[truth] will have settled with you about yourself

What case is wrong?
 

Godmy

A Monkey
"until somebody is finished with somebody else" intends some kind of violence or reprieve in any normal English interpretation. I don't get why you would choose such an obscure and strange interpretation of it. I don't think you would ever understand it that way, Syntax, if somebody spoke to you this way in normal English.

If somebody told you in the real life "You will not leave until I'm finished with you" would you really understand that the person wants to close a bargain with you? Or that the person wants to settle their debts with you? Certainly not.

Such pronouncements are made from the position of hierarchical authority.
 

Godmy

A Monkey
To further clarify what L&S meant with this "settle" - In the lang. of business, to settle, close a bargain, finish, etc.; OLD has this as 9c and gives this definition: (absol., esp. w. cum or de) to finish negotiations, make arrangements.

Therefore this "settle" really means "to go about business with person", in a mercatorial/friendly/business fashion and not in the violent/superodinate way as a harsh truth would.

So, yes, I think the grammatical discussion has been settled, but the semantics must indeed go the way we proposed...
 

syntaxianus

Civis Illustris
"until somebody is finished with somebody else" intends some kind of violence or reprieve in any normal English interpretation. I don't get why you would choose such an obscure and strange interpretation of it. I don't think you would ever understand it that way, Syntax, if somebody spoke to you this way in normal English.

If somebody told you in the real life "You will not leave until I'm finished with you" would you really understand that the person wants to close a bargain with you? Or that the person wants to settle their debts with you? Certainly not.

Such pronouncements are made from the position of hierarchical authority.


Points granted, partially. Consider the parallels:

But not until it is finished with you.

But not until it has made its final reckoning with you.

But not until it has come to a final settlement with you.

But not until it has settled accounts with you.

But not until its business with you is over.

------

Ironic metaphor, as in the original post.

Conficio also has the other connotations of violence and "finishing off" in the background, making it relevant to the meaning you want to stress.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
Conficio also has the other connotations of violence and "finishing off" in the background, making it relevant to the meaning you want to stress.

... which makes me wonder: If the meaning you want to stress is 'to finish somebody off', why wouldn't you just translate it as 'to finish somebody off' rather than to go for some obscure phrase that might have some vague connotation in that regard – which, by the way, it doesn't even have. There's no concealed idea of 'finishing somebody off' in the collocation conficere cum aliquo because – as must have been mentioned 100 times by now and as you would even notice if you looked at the entire L&S entry – the implied object is something like negotium.
 

syntaxianus

Civis Illustris
... which makes me wonder: If the meaning you want to stress is 'to finish somebody off', why wouldn't you just translate it as 'to finish somebody off' rather than to go for some obscure phrase that might have some vague connotation in that regard – which, by the way, it doesn't even have. There's no concealed idea of 'finishing somebody off' in the collocation conficere cum aliquo because – as must have been mentioned 100 times by now and as you would even notice if you looked at the entire L&S entry – the implied object is something like negotium.

Well the meaning I would stress is not destroy / finish someone off; conficere suggests bringing something to a close. I am looking for something parallel suggesting "to settle with, close accounts with, put paid to something."

The original phrase "is finished with you" can be used in a violent context, but not necessarily at all: "I am *finished* with that car salesman. I am signed off. I have done with him." The idea of concluding something with someone is primary. That is the idea even behind the usage that takes an object.

So thinking of conficere when looking for a Latin equivalent "not until it is finished with you" is not semantically out of the question, though it may not be best.

Both statements (the OP and my suggestion) have to do with concluding something finally. Even if you understand negotium in my Latin suggestion, it can also be an ironic metaphor: "not until it finishes its business with you." That is quite close to the meaning of the original post, in my understanding.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
The original phrase "is finished with you" can be used in a violent context, but not necessarily at all: "I am *finished* with that car salesman. I am signed off. I have done with him." The idea of concluding something with someone is primary. That is the idea even behind the usage that takes an object.
Well, in that sense of being finished with somebody, you most likely didn't buy a car from that car salesman ... which would even be the opposite of the phrase you keep promoting.

So thinking of conficere when looking for a Latin equivalent "not until it is finished with you" is not semantically out of the question, though it may not be best.

Both statements (the OP and my suggestion) have to do with concluding something finally. Even if you understand negotium in my Latin suggestion, it can also be an ironic metaphor: "not until it finishes its business with you." That is quite close to the meaning of the original post, in my understanding.

Yeah ... well, that brings me back to my first reaction: If you think 'not until it is finished with you' means 'not until it has struck a deal with you', you should probably go with it.
 

syntaxianus

Civis Illustris
Yeah ... well, that brings me back to my first reaction: If you think 'not until it is finished with you' means 'not until it has struck a deal with you', you should probably go with it.
"To strike a deal" = to come to an agreement on what the arrangements should be. Distinguish this from: "to settle, to close a bargain, finish"
 

scrabulista

Consul
Staff member
For what it's worth, in John 8, Jesus is not bargaining with the crowd; he's rather telling them off.

It brings Plato's cave to mind too. The torch is so bright, and the cave dwellers have been in darkness so long, that the torch hurts the cave dwellers' eyes.
 

Godmy

A Monkey
For what it's worth, in John 8, Jesus is not bargaining with the crowd; he's rather telling them off.
Would you care to elaborate? There is no "cōnficiō, ere" in John 8, as far as i know, so I don't understand the argument.

Edit: I see, you mean the "truth will set you free"

____________________

Anyway, the thing is that when one reads the WHOLE definition and doesn't just pick individual words, what's more, when one reads the definition in another dictionary (like OLD) and tries to distill the ONE particular submeaning from all of those English definitions (=because all of them more or less refer to ONE lexeme in Latin), the meaning in the classical Latin is undeniably mercatorial, not entailing violence or punishment.

Moreover, when one reads the English and interprets how any normal English speaker would interpret it and doesn't try to butt in some obscure totally counterinuitive meanings which are simply not there, it is more than clear that it is a different LEXEME than the one asserted in L&S, OLD and any other dictionary with the rare intransitive cōnficiō, ere version.

It is just that Syntaxianus is being too stubborn to concede a point that he's wrong, instead sophistry is used to try to persuade everybody that the sky is indeed green and the sun is blue... and the postmodernists would surely agree. But, sadly, that doesn't work on anybody here. Hence his argumentation in the whole thread was ridiculous.
 

scrabulista

Consul
Staff member
I was agreeing with you in a different sort of way - the truth doesn't bargain with you. It blinds you (as in Plato's cave), or tells you off (as Jesus did) before you are set free. Of course Plato's Republic was written in Greek, and I don't see a good verb in John 8.....maybe addicit? (adapted from dico)?
 

syntaxianus

Civis Illustris
Would you care to elaborate? There is no "cōnficiō, ere" in John 8, as far as i know, so I don't understand the argument.

It is just that Syntaxianus is being too stubborn to concede a point that he's wrong, instead sophistry is used to try to persuade everybody that the sky is indeed green and the sun is blue... and the postmodernists would surely agree. But, sadly, that doesn't work on anybody here. Hence his argumentation in the whole thread was ridiculous.
I don't think Scrabulista was writing in defense of my interpretation, so there was no need to raise it, but since this has been done, I will say this:

The OP interprets the phrase requested as meaning "the truth will set you free once you are true to yourself and accept your own faults and shortcomings."

Notice: no violence.

Even commonly in English, "to be finished with something or someone" could be quite neutral. I'm finished with math since college. I'm finished with that book. I'm finished with that project. I have to finish with the physical therapist. I'll finish with you tomorrow on that topic.

Admittedly, this phrase does not necessarily suggest a mercatorial or commercial context. But if you look at the whole semantic field of "conficio," and not fixate on one submeaning, one can play on the idea of coming to a complete accounting, a thorough working over to the end (con+facere), which seems, non-sophistically, to be not far off from the intended meaning, even if it has mercatorial connotations.

As I said, it may not be the best. But the idea of "finishing completely with" something certainly brings up conficio to my mind. I am certainly open to better suggestions. But this seems a most natural way to go.
 

Godmy

A Monkey
Notice: no violence.
I cannot agree. "once you accept your own faults and shortcomings" is an equivalent to the truth "enacting violence upon you", being "aggressive to you", effectively "punishing" you. (=albeit for the greater good)

Admittedly, this phrase does not necessarily suggest a mercatorial or commercial context.
I'm glad you admitted it.

But if you look at the whole semantic field of "conficio,"
I think that is exactly what I did in my very first post in here though, since I said (not in these very words, not at once): "yes, cōnficiō, ere = a good idea, but a wrong lexeme, the one with accusative is what we would use, the transitive one... the "cōnficiō" proper if you wish"


Well, anyway, whatever, as far I'm concerned I'm happy to depart from this thread now. I think we have completely depleted this topic.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
the one with accusative is what we would use, the transitive one...
I'm not sure about that either, actually. It would likely be understood as the truth killing you, wouldn't it?
 

Godmy

A Monkey
Yes, I thought it could, but in the same time I thought the statement in English was a kind of "tongue in cheek" too - maybe I misunderstood and maybe in Latin it would be too definitive. When it came to myself, I had "cōnficiō" in the back of my mind but I was happy not to post, since it seemed you(pl.) had taken care of the answers sufficiently, but then I've seen an actual "cōnficiō" suggestion but in a phrasing I couldn't agree with, hence I posted.
 
Top