Eo libro

[john abshire]

Tune veritatem in eo libro demonstras?
Are you showing truth in this/that book?
Which one?
I assume “that” just because it sounds better. Is this how you know?
A better translation of meaning would be:
Are you being honest in that book?
Or/
Are you truthful in that book?
Would these be acceptable translations?

 

[Deleted member 13757]

Is it you that shows the truth in the before mentioned in the context book.

 

[Pacifica]

Are you showing truth in this/that book?
Which one?

It could be either depending on context.

it sounds better. Is this how you know?

Generally speaking, yes.

Is, ea, id has no 1/1 English equivalent. It can translate to "that", "this" or "the" (and even a few other things) depending on what sounds best in a given situation.

Are you being honest in that book?
Or/
Are you truthful in that book?
Would these be acceptable translations?

Perhaps... Again, it would depend on context. Maybe it's not so much about being honest or truthful, but about getting facts right.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

Are you showing the truth would be veritatemne tu demonstras. tune veritatem demonstras means is it you that shows the truth.

 

[Pacifica]

Or "do you (of all people) show the truth?"

 

[Deleted member 13757]

Or "do you (of all people) show the truth?"

Yeah. Same idea rendered differently.

 

[Pacifica]

But to be honest it's not always so clear-cut.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

But to be honest it's not always so clear-cut.

How so?

 

[EstQuodFulmineIungo]

@LCF What if in the translation of John Abshire in English I put the stress on you with the tune of my voice?
Are you showing the truth in that book? Would it have the same meaning of your question?
Is it you that...

 

[Deleted member 13757]

@LCF What if in the translation of John Abshire in English I put the stress on you with the tune of my voice?
Are you showing the truth in that book? Would it have the same meaning of your question?
Is it you that...

I did not have a question. I just made a statement.

But the answer is yes. The -ne puts an emphasis on the word it is attached to. In the absence of -ne, you have to convey the difference with tone. Same with English. "Do you show the truth?" Without the tone or meter it's ambiguous.

 

[EstQuodFulmineIungo]

Ok thank you

 

[Pacifica]

How so?

I mean what you say is usually true; -ne puts the emphasis of the question on the word it's attached to; but sometimes the emphasis isn't quite like what you and I said above—it's sometimes much weaker, not really conveying "is it you who..."

 

[Deleted member 13757]

I mean what you say is usually true; -ne puts the emphasis of the question on the word it's attached to; but sometimes the emphasis isn't quite like what you and I said above—it's sometimes much weaker, not really conveying "is it you who..."

Where have you seen this?

 

[Pacifica]

In various places.

You need some context to see that the idea isn't "is it you who..."—I can't just quote a single sentence and say that's it or not it—but here's a passage in Plautus where I think the emphasis is weaker, or at any rate different from "is it you who...": https://latin.packhum.org/loc/119/5/9/2722-2727#9 Surely you can't translate that tune huic credis? as "is it you who believe him?" though you can perhaps render it as "do you (for your part) believe him?"

 

[Deleted member 13757]

arist. Dic modo: tun negas te Tyndarum esse? T. Négo, inquam. A. Tun te Philocratem esse ais? tynd. Égo, inquam. arist. Tune huic credis? heg. Plus quidem quam tibi aut mihi.

You can render this in English as "Aren't you the one/so you're the one/so it's you that...." The emphasis is still on the you in all three cases. Notice the last question is for a different person.

"So you're the one who says he's not a Tyndar"... "Yep. I am telling you"... "And you're the one who says he is .... " "I am". "And you're the one who believes this one?"

etc...

 

[Pacifica]

"And you're the one who believes this one?"

I don't remember the previous context, but "(I'm not sure I believe this guy; what about you?) Do you believe him?" seems more likely than "Are you that person I've heard about who believes this guy?"

 

[Deleted member 13757]

I don't remember the previous context, but "(I'm not sure I believe this guy; what about you?) Do you believe him?" seems more likely than "Are you that person I've heard about who believes this guy?"

Not heard about - He is arbitrating. This guy say one thing, there other says another and the third guy believes this guys. So he is trying to figure out who says what and who believes what. I don't care how you render it in English. The emphasis is always on You.

 

[Pacifica]

The emphasis is always on You.

Yes. It just can be different types of emphasis, not always equivalent to "is it you who..."