[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
In looking back over the Carrajena folk tale I recently finished, (while implimenting Jan's suggestion about formating, changing colors and searching for typos of which I found several in both the English and the C-a versions!) I happened upon this one sentence that made me pause: �Echa, esti junu fapu grandu pera undrari junu cadoligu ils cunxuedu�is djils huidelis.� dichid al chimpeda. It parses as: already be.3rd.sg.pres one/a.masc. deed/act/fact great/large/big for to.honor one/a.masc Catholic the.neut.pl custom.pl of.the.neut.pl faithful.pl say.3rd.sg.past the.fem. beggar Or more smoothly, "Already it's a deed great for to.honor a Catholic the customs of.the faithful." said the beggar. And I translated it as: "It is already a great deed for a Catholic to honor the customs of the Faithful," said the beggar. What I'm wondering is, do any of you find the original difficult to parse? I'm considering adding the word "ad" meaning "to" between "cadoligu" and "ils" which would make: �Echa, esti junu fapu grandu pera undrari junu cadoligu ad ils cunxuedu�is djils huidelis.� dichid al chimpeda. Now it would parse as: already be.3rd.sg.pres one/a.masc. deed/act/fact great/large/big for to.honor one/a.masc Catholic to the.neut.pl custom.pl of.the.neut.pl faithful.pl say.3rd.sg.past the.fem. beggar Or more smoothly: "Already it's a deed great for to.honor a Catholic to the customs of the Faithful," said the beggar. Do you think the addition of "to" marking the clause boundary makes thing clearer, more confused or just silly? Awaiting the collective wisdom of the list, Adam Jin nifalud fistus todus idavi eseud adimpuudu ul isu fi aved niminchunadu pera ul Dju peu'l medju djul provedu cumvi dichid: �I�i! Cunchepijid ed nadajid il virdjini ad junu huiju, ed cuamajuns ad si il Emanueli fi s�ivigad ul Dju simu noviscu.� Machu 1:22-23