via eigenaar

10:36 Feb 19, 2010 

Hi Ron, Of course via comes from Latin. After all +- 40% of English is from latin, +-40% from German and the rest.... English? But why a repetition of a same word must attract a different meaning really bamboozles me.

08:53 Feb 19, 2010 

Dear Wessel,

And here I was thinking that "via" came to us from Latin :-)

08:51 Feb 19, 2010 

I'm afraid that there hardly is a Dutchman left in the Netherlands who can still speak ABN without using either an English/French/German word...

08:23 Feb 19, 2010 

the extended context reveals that XX owns several properties through different companies ("niet allemaal in éénzelfde vennootschap ... ondergebracht"). that makes "via via" a perfect fit (at least logically, not style-wise) in this sentence.

08:21 Feb 19, 2010 

I agree with Textpertise that "via via" is informal language. in a formal text you would expect "indirect".

on the other hand, when someone writes "retail properties" in a Dutch language piece, they are perhaps not fully aware of all the ins and outs of proper language use ;-)

00:06 Feb 19, 2010 

I would only expect to find something like XXX is via via eigenaar van .... in a kind of chatty piece for the "man in the street". Maybe an advice column or a practical example of something in a forum. Does your text fit this description? Because "via via" would not figure in a formal or legal text.

22:30 Feb 18, 2010 

Thanks to you all for that.
My preference is for Ron's suggestion that the second 'via' has been left out. For the time being I'll go for that : 'XX indirectly owns a number of retail properties.'
Simple and elegant ... and it fits well into the overall context.

22:16 Feb 18, 2010 

agree with Phil; either a company name or a second "via" was left out.

22:14 Feb 18, 2010 

I think it's definitely the name of a company that's been left out, rather than that "via" has been inserted by mistake.

21:40 Feb 18, 2010 

OK, I'll do that. Probably early next week when I've got feedback.

21:37 Feb 18, 2010 

If you have the time, why not come back and let us know what your principal says. Helps me hone my hunches for the future :-)

21:24 Feb 18, 2010 

Yes, I will query it.
Thanks for your trouble. Much appreciated.

21:17 Feb 18, 2010 

There are two possibilities. Either something is missing or via is superfluous.

21:05 Feb 18, 2010 

Thanks for that. The rest of the sentence just describes the 'Properties' :
XX is via eigenaar van een aantal retail properties ( hierna Properties ) die momenteel evenwel niet allemaal in éénzelfde vennootschap zijn ondergebracht.
That's all there is to the paragraph. It's the word 'via' which is bothering me. Is a 'via eigenaar' a legal term denoting a type of owner (eg 'subsidiary owner' if that exists)? or is the word 'via' a meaningless adjunct of style : XX is by way of being the owner of ... ? What do you think?

20:42 Feb 18, 2010 

My feeling is that there should be a few more words after this which will give a clue as to what this is about. "By way of the owner of a number of retail properties, XXX is" ...and then it says what XXX is - perhaps granted some entitlements or something else.