[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- On Tue, 11/30/10, Adam Walker <carraxan@hidden.email> wrote: > Today while shipping out orders at work, I got to thinking about how to > translate the first clause of John 1:14 into Carrajina. I came up with > two (very similar) options, but can't decide which one is "right." > Nivapud dil carni ul Vervu. > was.made to/at.the flesh the word > Nivapud nil carni ul Vervu. > was.made in.the flesh the word > What think you? I guess in some respects it depends on a couple factors: first is what language the C translator was working from and then what his or her translating perspective was (i.e., literal / form for form or "idea translation") a third is what was the sponsor's agenda (i.e., is this a verse that in some way impinges on the local church's theology etc.) I suppose, we might also find out what *your* biases and agendas are! ;) Looking at the Latin, I see "et verbum caro factum est" and in Greek, "kai o logos sarx egeneto". The Greek verb is 3s aorist middle indicative; the Latin is 3s perfect passive indicative. The usual English is "and the word became flesh" -- not actively made into flesh by someone (though I think that is a valid translation of "factum est") nor passively submitting to a process, but sort of middle voicedly acting on behalf of itself in its enfleshment. As I understand the Greek, it largely comes out the same. My question would be why do you have "to/at" or "in" in there? What is the purpose of adding those ideas? Can you say "Nivapud il carni ul Vervu"? If not, why not? How does nivapud compare with factum est or egeneto? Not so sure about the Greek, but fieri is a pretty interesting verb all on its own, being the passive of facere but having abviously active forms (fio/fis/fit as opposed to *facior/*faceris/*facetur). I guess a kind of "anti-deponent" verb. > Adam Padraic