Tom 'far' has been around for yonks.

It's in NPIV and try searching the Tekstaro. Also try searching for 'na' (not in NPIV).

sudanglo:Tom 'far' has been around for yonks.

Then it should tell you something, that it still hasn't caught on.

Yes there are some hits in Tekstaro, mostly in La Ondo de Esperanto. There's some scant usage in 3 other works, two of which are from the same author. I think that kind of bears out my point that "far" is nonstandard usage. And in the case of passive participles it's actually kontraŭfundamenta, so you couldn't even use it freely without paying due attention.

By contrast "fare de" is completely correct, and more established in the language.

As for "na", I found only 2 hits in the Tekstaro that look like an actual naisma usage, again from La Ondo. Here's the first: antaŭ dudek jaroj mi legis na Forta veneno de Sayers... which is a quite pointless usage of "na", in terms of avoiding ambiguity. The other seems to be from the same sentence, and is equally useless.

richardhall:Thanks Orthohawk. I'm aware of all that, of course -- I just didn't want to be setting up a conversation about theology in a language forum. Personally, I favour the subjective reading of this text. My question, in a nutshell, was how that translation might be expressed in Esperanto. In particular, whether the preposition 'je' might have a role: I found the idea that there might be a simple way of containing both meanings appealing, though it seems I was wrong about that.

In the three instances of "(preposition) Jesus Christ" the Greek, in the first and third, has "of Jesus Christ" which would lead me to translate "pisteos" as "faithfullness"

If you are relying on what is says at the end of Rule 6., then you might say 'fare de' is just as much a deviation as 'far'.

The point about both 'fare de' and 'far' is that they perform the same function - namely disambiguating, in cases which could otherwise be misinterpreted.

The use of 'fare de' or 'far' does not mean that 'la prepozicio ĉe la pasivo estas de' is invalidated.

Sometimes the passive is followed by 'per' for clarity. This is not a rejection of Rule 6. and nor is 'far'.

\w+\PP\AF per\b shows the usage of 'per' with the passive.

But in any case 'venko de la angloj' is only indirectly a passive in one of its meanings. It is not formally passive, so to argue that venko far la angloj is a rule 6 violation is stretching it.

Of course "per" can come after a participle, just as "fare de" can. The fundamento doesn't say that no other preposition than "de" may follow a passive, but that "de" is the preposition used to show the agent of the action (yes, I know it doesn't say it in exactly those words, but that's basically what it means). As PMEG makes clear:

PMEG:Laŭ la Fundamento, en pasivo la rolmontrilo de aganto estas de. Far estus do rekte erara ĉe pasiva participo, ĉar tio rompus Fundamentan regulon.

Translated: According to the Fundamento, in a passive the preposition for the agent is de. Far is therefore a flat-out error with a passive participle as it breaks a Fundamental rule.

sudanglo:so to argue that venko far la angloj is a rule 6 violation is stretching it.

That's not what I'm arguing. I made the point about the incorrectness of "far" with a passive to show you cannot freely use it in all cases, not to say that it's wrong in the phrase "venko de la angloj".

Far is therefore a flat-out error with a passive participle as it breaks a Fundamental rule.

Then so must fare de be.

In fact of the 19 examples in the Tekstaro of a passive participle followed by 'fare de' it is difficult to see that any significant proportion are clear cases of disambiguation. Rather it is a question of nuance.

sudanglo:

Far is therefore a flat-out error with a passive participle as it breaks a Fundamental rule.

Then so must fare de be.

no because the fundamento just requires "de" in passive sentences which is present in "fare de".

Oh my &$*@&$, I can't believe this thread has devolved into a "far" discussion.

Those who would like to argue about "far" will please start a new thread to do so.

richardhall:In Galatians 2:16 we read "...we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ...". That last "faith in Christ", in the original greek text is a genitive "pistewv cristou" and it is a matter of debate whether "the faith of Christ" would be a better English translation. (Technically, the argument is over whether the genitive is subjective or objective)

The usual Esperanto translation has "fido al Jesuo Kristo" but if I wanted to go with a subjective understanding, should that be "fido el Kristo" or "fido de Kristo"? Or would it be legitimate to sidestep the issue and go with "fido je Kristo"?

Translating "πίστεως Χριστοῦ" as "fido je Kristo" would definitely dodge the issue, although I personally think "in/al" would be a better translation (by analogy to passages such as Romans 3:22 where you have "διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" or Galatians 3:22 " ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" ). Most major translations (except the KJV) prefer "in" here.

Amike,

Paul