[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- On Wed, 12/1/10, 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 prefer my translations of Scripture on the literal side, but allowances > must be made for grammar. Understood. > 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, By Vetus, I take it you mean the older Latin versions that existed before Jerome's Vulgate? Particularly the old African versions? You might be intersted in Hopkins-James's "The Celtic Gospels" (Oxford). As I understand it, the British version is an ante-vulgate version; and some scholars even suggest that its origins lie in Africa. Perhaps this would be useful to you. Mind you, it only has Matt Mark and Luke, no John or letters. But at least you'd be able to compare it with the style and different readings of Jerome's Vulgate. Have you come across this site? http://arts-itsee.bham.ac.uk/itseeweb/vetuslatina/links.htm http://arts-itsee.bham.ac.uk/itseeweb/vetuslatina/GospelMss.htm It contains or points to a number of old digitised texts. > 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. OK! > > 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." So, when a C-a mother makes cookies for the little ones, she makes *into* cookies? Can you describe how this works with other examples? I know Kerno does all kinds of strange things with prepositions where we wouldn't expect any prepositions, even in other Romance languages. > > 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. Right. So I shouldn't read too much into the preposition itself. It's a sort of grammaticalisation of the desire not to have a strong sense of agency with a passive / middle verb? > > 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.* OK. Sound changes are fun! > > 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. I don't think it survives in Kerno, which is perhaps kind of odd since it did retain several passive forms. The words I could find meaning "become" are derived from "put" and "turn", I guess the semantic fields being one of an agent "causing to become" and the other being one of no agency, something "simply becoming". Of course, feaire (< facere) has survived, as has facker, but I'm not sure that "fier", the 3s past passive, would be used. I think that "gouerer- si", to "simply become" would be used. Perhaps "gouerus-si il logos ce caron" or alternatively "fus goueremend il logos ce caron". Both verbs are past in time, but the first is "active in form, passive in meaning" while the second is a straight middle voice, the meaning of which might work better. "Ce" rather than "la" in order to avoid a confusion of specificity: the Word didn't become "this piece of flesh" but rather "took on the quality of physiciality represented by the general concept of flesh". You really can't have a Kerno word without sòme kind of article, and "ce" does a very heavy duty in the modern language when you either want to avoid some kind of specificity or else seek to promote ambiguity. > I'm really glad to hear form you again. I haven't seen you post in ages! Don't often have much to say! Though I do always read when you've come up with a new translation into C-a. Haven't done anything with Kerno in a couple years now, and have been rather quiet on IB as well. Been working on the World more. But there's not a whole lot of "Romance language" in the World to speak of! There is one that turned out to be a horrific amalgamation of Old Irish and Latin. Otherwise, only a couple of fragmentary descriptions of Lingua Lucaria and Ladhinat are known to me. > Adam Padraic