[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@hidden.email> wrote: > > > --- On Tue, 11/30/10, Adam Walker <carraxan@hidden.email<carraxan%40gmail.com>> > 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 prefer my translations of Scripture on the literal side, but allowances must be made for grammar. I originally strated with the idea the the Donatist C-an translators worked from the Vetus text, but I can't find whatever fragments of that may still exist. The Vulgate is too new for Donatist use, but I make frequent reference to it when doing C-an translations of Bible verses. The Greek texts of the NT and the LXX are also references, but I usually look at every Romance translation I can lay hands on, the Vulgate, the Greek and/or Hebrew and several English translations before I make my translations. So nothing I wrote in my original email is set in stone, as yet. > I suppose, we might also find out what *your* biases and agendas are! ;) > > that's always possible, but I try to keep my biases out so the translation reflects the text as accurately as possible. > 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? > C-a has developed a liking for turning objects such as *flesh* in "The Word was made flesh," into prepositional phrases more like "The Word was made * into* flesh." > Can you say "Nivapud il carni ul Vervu"? > If not, why not? > > That is how I would have done it a couple of years ago, but it seems just plain wrong. It would seem to make ul Veru an agent subject, which, of course, a passive verb does not have. > How does nivapud compare with factum est or egeneto? > It is practically equal to factum est. It breaks down as ni- + facheri + -ud. It is the past passive of to make. The *p* is the natural result of * ct* when followed by any vowel but *e* or *i*. The *f* voices in the environment between vowels. *Ni-* is the passivizing prefix. Third person singular past is marked with *-ud.* ** > 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. > I am unsure whether fieri survives in C-a. > > Adam > > Padraic > > I'm really glad to hear form you again. I haven't seen you post in ages! Adam [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]