# quod videri



## Sextus

What is the expression "quod videri"? As far as I know, "videri" is the passive infinitive of "video", isn't it?

Cheers, 

Sextus


----------



## modus.irrealis

You're right about "videri." The only thing I can add is that "video" in the passive can mean "seem" or "seem good," if that helps you. The other thing is to ask if you're sure that that's a set expression and not part of a longer 
sentence, since when I have trouble figuring something out I always look first for the (finite) verb, and there's none here.


----------



## jazyk

Yeah, I think something is missing here.  Some more context would help.


----------



## Sextus

Nope, I realized that in this case it's not the infinitive, but the third person singular. It literally means "what appears".

Now, I'm reading an English translation of a Latin text, and the translator says that he'll use "impression" to render the Latin _visio, visum_ and _quod videri_. In fact, in the Latin text the phrase _quod videri_ never appears as such. So, it seems that he uses _quod videri_ because it allows him to include the different ways in which the verb _videor_ is employed in the Latin text, right?


----------



## Anne345

> in this case it's not the infinitive, but the third person singular. It literally means "what appears".


 
No ! It's only infinitive of videor.


----------



## Sextus

I see, Anne, so the third person is _viderit_?

Well, if it is the infinitive, then why does he talk about the phrase _quod videri_?


----------



## Anne345

_viderit_ : 3rd person singular indicative past future active or subjonctive perfect active of _video_. 
 
_quod videri_ is not be a complete phrase


----------



## MrPedantic

Hello Sextus

If the work in question involves a discussion of perception, perhaps "quod videri" stands for expressions where "quod videri" might appear in conjunction with parts of "posse", e.g. "quod videri potest" ("what can be perceived"). 

All the best,

MrP


----------



## Sextus

Hi MrP, thanks for your reply.

What is surprising is that the translator says in his Introduction that _quod videri_ literally means "what is seen" or "what seems".


----------



## MrPedantic

Interesting. Perhaps he's thinking of it as an ellipsis for "quod (est) videri". 

(But if it doesn't appear in the text in question, it seems odd that he mentions it at all.)

MrP


----------



## jazyk

> Nope, I realized that in this case it's not the infinitive, but the third person singular. It literally means "what appears".


This would be quod videtur, no?


----------



## Sextus

Yes, Jazyk, that's right: "quod videtur". (It's been a while since I stopped learning Latin; I don't really like this language, I prefer Greek).

MrP, I've looked at the text again and found that some of most common expressions used are:

*(aliquid/id) quod videtur/videatur
ea quae videntur/videantur*

This does make sense now, and shows that the translator doesn't have "quod videri potest" in mind, even if in the Latin text one can also find e.g. "*videtur possit/possint*". 

What is strange is that when the translator refers to the Latin author's renderings of the Greek _kataleptike phantasia_ and _katalepton_, he says _quod percipi posse_. What is really puzzling is his use of the infinitive. Why the hell is he doing that?


----------



## judkinsc

Hey there, Sextus.

You might want to take a look at Cicero's prose. There's a standard phrase that he likes to rhetorically end sentences with, "videri esse" or sometimes "quod videri esse". It just means "seems to be"/ "seems to me to be"/ "So it seems to me". It's used in indirect discourse, which is translated actively, but takes the infinitive in Latin. In "quod videri", "esse" could easily be gapped (the verb "esse" is dropped frequently, both as an infinitive and in conjugated form) , thus making it "quod videri (esse)" and being reminiscent of Cicero.

The actual phrasing doesn't mean anything of significance in itself, it was just Cicero's way of saying he was done with a point, and he liked to put it at the end of a phrase. A professor of mine once joked that it was his way of "waking up" his audience, before continuing with his next point.


----------



## Sextus

Many thanks for your reply. Now the question is much clearer. However, the point is that I haven't found that phrase in the _Academica_, which is the work I'm examining. As I said in my previous message, there are other phrases he does use, and these are in total consonance with what I would expect (quod videtur/videatur etc.). In any case, in your view, is it ok that the translator talks about "quod videri"? I mean, shouldn't I criticize him for doing that?

Thanks


----------



## judkinsc

Well...how exactly is the editor using it? Is it in his own words, when he elaborates upon a point? If so, then I would say he's simply using a Ciceronian rhetorical style.

If he is using it as part of the translation of the text, perhaps he is using the infinitive instead of a conjugated form, in order for it to apply in more instances...leaving the conjugation up to you, as the reader, depending upon context?

Can you clarify the editor's "transgressions"?


[Sextus]"What is strange is that when the translator refers to the Latin author's renderings of the Greek _kataleptike phantasia_ and _katalepton_, he says _quod percipi posse_. What is really puzzling is his use of the infinitive. Why the hell is he doing that?"

Indirect discourse. _quod percipi posse = _"Which is able to be perceived."  It appears Ciceronian again.


----------



## Sextus

Thanks again.

First, in a chart, he refers to the correspondance between Greek words, Cicero's Latin translations, and his English translations, and writes:
phantasia ---- visum, visio, quod videri ----- impression.

Second, he writes: "Where possible, the translation uses only 'impression' to represent Cicero's usual periphrasis - _quod videri_, literally, 'what is seen' or 'what seems' - for the Greek technical term _phantasia_."

Cheers


----------



## MrPedantic

Sextus said:
			
		

> MrP, I've looked at the text again and found that some of most common expressions used are:
> 
> *(aliquid/id) quod videtur/videatur
> ea quae videntur/videantur*
> 
> This does make sense now, and shows that the translator doesn't have "quod videri potest" in mind, even if in the Latin text one can also find e.g. "*videtur possit/possint*".



Hello Sextus

In that case, I think Jud's right; "quod videri" must be a catch-all phrase for all the possible variants.

See you later,

MrP


----------



## Sextus

Ok, thanks MrP.


----------



## judkinsc

I think the editor is using it as a generic phrase, and wouldn't blame him for it.


----------



## Sextus

Ok, Judkinsc, many thanks for your very valuable help.

Cheers


----------

