benissimus wrote:You might also choose a dative, by changing sanguine to sanguini, it would mean "we are bound to the blood of the cross". I recommend checking the verb to see what constructions are acceptable before you finalize it though (if you need help with that, just ask).
How does adding "imur" to "adiung" (which means the same as "adiungimur") change the meaning or tense of the word? "I.mur" means something completely different, yet when it is added to "adiung" it ends up meaning the same thing as "Adiung" by itself?!?
fluff wrote:Maybe I'm missing something and am about to make a big a** of myself but;
Isn't the original english sentence best translated by a perfect participle (if that's what it's called. Grammatical terms in English isn't exactly my strong point). For example: Adiuncti sanguine crucis (sumus). My understanding is that adiungimur means more 'are beeing bound' (i.e. the action is incomplete). Then again since English isn't my first languange that may very well be what the original sentence is supposed to mean.
Another thought that came up is about the dat/abl of sanguis. I think if we are to understand the sentence in the way that we are bound together by the blood (which I think) then what should be used is the abl 'sanguine' however if we are bound TO the blood then it should be in the dat 'sanguini'.
PastorJeff wrote:Fluff - If I understand correctly, then you are saying that it sould be "Adiuncti sanguine crucis" which means "We are bound by the blood of the cross". And this is giving the sense of the act already DONE compared to a process that is currently BEING done.
The death on the cross is already done. As you have said "the action is complete".
Am I understanding this correctly?
Thanks Fluff! Your not making an a** out of yourself. You are being very helpful!
Users browsing this forum: calvinist, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 46 guests