[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@hidden.email> wrote: > > > > 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? > > Indeed. > 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. > > Interesting. I'll have to see if I can find a copy to peruse. > 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. > > Very interesting. I'll have to spend some time looking through this. This is the sort of thing I couldn't find anywhere when I started this project nearly 10 years ago. > > 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? > > Not the same sort of relationship. "I made my children cookies," is not equivilant to "The Word was made flesh." The children did not become cookies in any sense whatsoever. However, that sentence would render as made.I for the my children the cookies But here are some examples: The car was painted green. was.painted to/at.green the car Tom was elected president. was.elected for the president the Tom Midas made his daughter gold. (Ah, the ambiguity!) made to/at.the gold for the his daughter the Midas (the gold was produced FOR the daughter) made in.the gold the Midas the his daughter (the daughter now has a significantly higher specific gravity) > I know Kerno does all kinds of strange things with prepositions where we > wouldn't expect any prepositions, even in other Romance languages. > > > C-a is weirding in that direction currently. > > > 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? > > I'm not entirely sure what is happening here. That's part of why I'm asking my question. *I'm* trying to figure out what C-a is doing and why these prepositions seem necessary. It *may* be something to do with agency. It may have to do with multiple object-type roles in one sentence. It may be something to do with cases. I don't know yet. > > > > 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! > > Says the Kerno-master. I still haven't produced the (at one time) near obligatory conlang with initial mutations. > > > "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. > > C-a is article happy as well. Virtually ALL nouns have an article, usually the definite article. The indefinite is much rarer (and sometimes stranger) in usage. "Nivapud in juni carni ul Vervu" sounds like the Word became a cut of meat, which is wierd/gross/blasphemous. If I wanted to say "this piece of flesh," I should say "il fisti carni" (the this flesh/meat). The only time an article is not required is under some (as yet poorly defined) circumstances when this/that/these/those is used with the noun. The only time an article is not *allowed* is with the vocative. In fact, the vocative is distinguished purely by the absence of any article. > > > 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. > Well, chime in from time to time. The W/world needs more badgers. Adam [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]