[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote: > > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Adam Walker <carraxan@...> 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. Myrtax dratiax od te, Fochic. Ax catenax orun utirax od me poc.th Thanks, Padraic. These link will be useful to me also[8 (since the Fortunatians are also Donatists). The In new Uchunatonc,the verse would be: ot oc lojoc och huact canhonc [8t 8kl8d_Z8k 8t_S wakt kaJ8Nk] Note that Uchunatonc uses lojoc < Gk. logos. borboc < L. verbum means word in the ordinary sense. The articles and singular gender suffixes -ync, -onc, -oc are from L. hunc, hanc, hoc. -e(x)> > > 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! Very thorough! > > > > 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. I've been toying with the idea of preservation of the finite passive in (at least early) Uchunatonc, due to interference of Semitic/Berber passives. > > Padraic >