αυτοδυναμία = outright control, single-party majority, governing majority, (απόλυτη πλειοψηφία) full majority, absolute majority

[cougr]

By the way, "governing majority" should be on the title, IMHO - it's the status/condition that all these synonymous terms are alluding to.

Not quite! "Governing majority" is used for both coalition and single-party governments.

And to wrap things up on my end, just a couple more points. I suppose we can quibble about what constitutes correct usage of a word, no end, but in the examples I provided above (#15), the whole point was that the term "majority" was being used in a sense that the populace generally uses it in and has so for long as I remember.

In British English, majority and plurality are often used as synonyms......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority

Finally, the thrust of my argument wasn't that your main point was erroneous in any absolute sense but rather that because the term is used with equivocal meanings, it often leads to ambiguity.

Thanks for the discussion, cougr. Always enjoy our little stoushes. We both play hard, but it's always in the right spirit and for the right reason

Likewise. Never any hard feelings on my part.

 

[pontios]

I was talking about single parties, not coalitions, and probably got ahead of myself. So, you're right.

So, single-party governing majority - instead of single-party majority, perhaps?
(I don't know why, but I keep coming back to Syriza).

It's always based on context, cougr.
Let's take the sentence:
Syriza aims to win a "majority" on the eve of the election.
Where is the confusion here with the single term being used?
What further insight/clarity would I get if the term "absolute majority" was used instead?

All terms can lead to ambiguity.
We need to be familiar with the political landscape and what constitutes "majority" in all cases anyway, even with the qualified terms, such as "absolute majority" - if we don't understand what "majority" the condition/status/concept itself means, then it would be impossible to make sense of the term "absolute majority".

In the right context, where things are abundantly clear (and there is no equivocal meaning), I have no problem with the single term being used - which is the basis of all the other terms anyway.

All I know is, it's widely used, and, I assume, widely understood.

 

[cougr]

Παραλείψαμε να αναφέρουμε ότι ο όρος «αυτοδυναμία» θα μπορούσε επίσης να αποδοθεί με τη φράση «in its/their own right».

A Labor-Greens government has been dismissed by the opposition, with Labor confident it can form a majority government in its own right.

While his prime ministership is almost certain, less clear is whether Labor will be able to govern in its own right, or whether it will need the help of an expanded crossbench.

Polls suggest it will be difficult for Labor or the Liberal-Nationals coalition to form a government in their own right

 

[pontios]

We mentioned "in its own right" earlier in the discussion ( I mentioned it in my post #14), but, IMHO «in its/their own right» = by itself (it's an adverbial phrase), i.e., it indicates how the status of absolute majority has been reached ("by" a single-party majority, etc..) but it does not refer to the status itself - and that's why I didn't suggest it.

 

[cougr]

«in its/their own right» = by itself (it's an adverbial phrase), i.e., it indicates how the status of absolute majority has been reached ("by" a single-party majority, etc..)

That would be so in a sentence such as "won in their own right" or "voted in with a majority in their own right" but to "govern in their own right" mainly implies they have a mandate to govern on their own without being required to form an alliance with independent or minor party members.

Phrases such as "form a government in its own right" and "govern in its own right" could adequately be translated respectively as "σχηματίσει κυβέρνηση αυτοδυναμίας" and "κυβερνήσει με αυτοδυναμία/αυτοδύναμα"

 

[pontios]

Από τεχνική άποψη, αν αλλάξουμε τον όρο προς μετάφραση άπο "αυτονομία" (as it appears on the title) σε "με αυτονομία" (i.e., from "absolute majority" to "by absolute majority,etc ... because that's what we'd effectively be doing with "in its own right") ... τότε, ναι.

Again, we'd be describing and translating the "how" ... i.e. how the status is reached ("in its own right" ="by" (reaching) absolute/single-party majority etc... vs the actual status of single party majority, etc. which is what "αυτοδυναμία"represents).

​

 

[pontios]

To put it more simply ... you can say Syriza governed "in its own right" ... but you can't say Syriza governed "absolute majority" .... you need a "by" in there.
They are not one and the same things!!

One is the status itself .... "absolute majority" ..... and the other is how you get there (how you reach (or you've reached) this status "by " absolute majority, in its own right."!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Θα τρελαθώ, νομίζω.

It's like saying "absolute" and "absolutely" are the same thing and function the same way.

It has to agree syntactically, etc... with the title ... the term that's being translated!!!