Applause....I know, I know..........

[jean]

Is it "passus est et sepultus est" with the first "est" omitted?

I think so, because, as you say,

Both verbs are passive in form but the first is active in meaning (suffered), the second passive (was buried)...

Though I don't quite agree that

...the "est" is being made to do two slightly different jobs

because grammatically and morphologically, it's the same job.

The reverse happens when we have to sing 'Exultemus et laetemur' (Let us rejoice and be glad), where we want two active meanings, but laetari is deponent so we have two different forms.

[P. G. Tipps]

But as ff used it (and note her inverted commas) it means someone who has a very active objection to something they dislike being inflicted on them - and who would always trade the freedom to do as they wish for the freedom not to be subjected to what they find disturbing.

Now, Jean, what would happen if Someone 'found it disturbing' that Someone Else was 'disturbed' by what they quite innocently and legally practised at a public venue and were even told that they should immediately stop because Someone Else didn't like it?

Someone might well find it upsetting that Someone Else could make such a ridiculous, self-centred request and, by the same logic, might expect Someone Else to simply stop being 'disturbed' over Someone's harmless, innocent activity, especially as Someone found Someone Else's interference in Someone's affairs somewhat 'disturbing' too?

Referee, please!

[jean]

Now, Jean, what would happen if Someone 'found it disturbing' that Someone Else was 'disturbed' by what they quite innocently and legally practised at a public venue...

You don't need to go any further. No-one's suggesting any sanctions.

What I am suggesting that the first sort of disturbance is more disturbing to the person disturbed than the second could ever be.

Embarrassment suffered by the second sort of person at being told that they should immediately stop would be another matter, and no-one's suggesting anyone should be subjected to that.

[Serial_Apologist]

alpensinfamy

They've all got it in for him!

[P. G. Tipps]

You don't need to go any further. No-one's suggesting any sanctions.

Ah ... that's fine ... it's just that inter-movement applause has been compared to smoking and heavy noise pollution so I drew some pretty obvious conclusions.

Silly me.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

alpensinfamy

[jean]

Silly me.

Quite so.

[P. G. Tipps]

Quite so.

Is that 'quite' as in 'quite so' or as in 'quite so' ... ?

One must avoid unnecessary ambiguity via the sloppy use of language at all times, I passively maintain.

[Padraig]

Is that 'quite' as in 'quite so' or as in 'quite so' ... ?

One must avoid unnecessary ambiguity via the sloppy use of language at all times, I passively maintain.

I think it is the unambiguous use that is intended here, P.G. It is the 'so' that gives it away, which refers to the 'silly' in your post.
'Quite', on the other hand, is the deliberately ambiguous use; it may be to indicate agreement with your own mock silliness, or it may be just the opposite - take your pick. A very English expression, I think, for a very English trait, and I'm being quite complimentary.

[Flosshilde]

Embarrassment suffered by the second sort of person at being told that they should immediately stop would be another matter, and no-one's suggesting anyone should be subjected to that.

I think people have, implicitly.

[P. G. Tipps]

Ah, I see, Padraig ... thanks for explaining the rather confusing ambiguity in jean's post.

Ambiguity is indeed a common English trait though by no means confined to that proud and lovely people.

Nevertheless, it took me some time to discover that the common phrase... 'I'm not at all sure that....' actually indicated quite (!) a significant degree of certainty in the other direction!

Still, it's their language, I suppose!

[jean]

Where 'implicitly' means 'They didn't actually say it, but it suits me to read it into what they did say'.

No wonder you can't point to any examples.

[jean]

I think people have, implicitly.

Where 'implicitly' means 'They didn't actually say it, but it suits me to read it into what they did say'.

No wonder you can't point to any examples.

[Flosshilde]

Well, if it suits you to interpret it in that way ...

[Nick Armstrong]

There was an applaud after the first Foulds Mantra this evening - a single clap, by one person, somewhere in the boxes half-way round the hall, cello-side.

Presumably a member of Alpie's Deterrent Task Force wrestled her or him out of the hall before the hands could connect a second time

There was no further inter-movement trouble

(The split second after the final note of the third Mantra, however, some bloke (not far from the applaud) did yelp insanely as if he'd just committed Hara Kiri.)