Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [romconlang] Translation question

Expand Messages
  • Padraic Brown
    ... Understood. ... By Vetus, I take it you mean the older Latin versions that existed before Jerome s Vulgate? Particularly the old African versions? You
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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.

      > 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
    • Anthony
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 17 , Dec 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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
        >
      • Adam Walker
        ... Indeed. ... Interesting. I ll have to see if I can find a copy to peruse. ... Very interesting. I ll have to spend some time looking through this. This
        Message 3 of 17 , Dec 2, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> 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]
        • Anthony
          John 1:14 Uchunatonc Ot fsoc lojoc huactoch conhonc and ART-NTR.SG WORD-NTRS.G is.made-3SG.PAST flesh-FSG (Do you think the L. perfect passive is a good
          Message 4 of 17 , Dec 2, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            John 1:14
            Uchunatonc
            Ot fsoc lojoc huactoch conhonc
            and ART-NTR.SG WORD-NTRS.G is.made-3SG.PAST flesh-FSG
            (Do you think the L. perfect passive is a good candidate for a new verb conjugation based on the irregular verb 'to be' {x, ex, och, xyx, och, xun).
            Lhinghia Latsina
            ac ilhin virbin ist factin carunhis
            and ART-NTR.SG.NOM word-NTR.SG make-PSTPTCPLE-NOM.SG be-3SG.PRES flesh-FSG.NOM
            The question here is where fact- should agree with virbin (neuter) or carunhis (feminine).
            Limgua Latina
            e4 i1lum1 we1bum1 es4 fa4tum1 ka1nem1
            and DEM.ART word be-3SG PSTPTCPLE/ADJ flesh
            I'm not sure whether ka1nem1 'flesh' is correct - if so, it is homophonous with ka1nem1 'dog'. Which one would be modified and which one would be kept?
            A New One
            et weorf est faht cearan
            [et we@rf est faxt t_s&@r@n]
            and word be-3SG.PRES made flesh

            --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, 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?
            >
            > Adam
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • Adam Walker
            Well, Spanish ditched dog. I m not sure if any or the real Romalang dropped meat/flesh. Adam ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 17 , Dec 2, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Well, Spanish ditched dog. I'm not sure if any or the real Romalang dropped
              meat/flesh.

              Adam

              On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Anthony <mamercus88@...> wrote:

              >
              >
              > John 1:14
              > Uchunatonc
              > Ot fsoc lojoc huactoch conhonc
              > and ART-NTR.SG <http://art-ntr.sg/> WORD-NTRS.G is.made-3SG.PAST flesh-FSG
              > (Do you think the L. perfect passive is a good candidate for a new verb
              > conjugation based on the irregular verb 'to be' {x, ex, och, xyx, och, xun).
              > Lhinghia Latsina
              > ac ilhin virbin ist factin carunhis
              > and ART-NTR.SG.NOM word-NTR.SG make-PSTPTCPLE-NOM.SG be-3SG.PRES
              > flesh-FSG.NOM
              > The question here is where fact- should agree with virbin (neuter) or
              > carunhis (feminine).
              > Limgua Latina
              > e4 i1lum1 we1bum1 es4 fa4tum1 ka1nem1
              > and DEM.ART word be-3SG PSTPTCPLE/ADJ flesh
              > I'm not sure whether ka1nem1 'flesh' is correct - if so, it is homophonous
              > with ka1nem1 'dog'. Which one would be modified and which one would be kept?
              > A New One
              > et weorf est faht cearan
              > [et we@rf est faxt t_s&@r@n]
              > and word be-3SG.PRES made flesh
              >
              >
              > --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com <romconlang%40yahoogroups.com>, 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?
              > >
              > > Adam
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Padraic Brown
              ... Spanish does still have el can , though its usage is restricted. ... In the Latin, it agrees with verbum (n.) not caro (f.). ... The ambiguity is quite
              Message 6 of 17 , Dec 3, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Adam Walker <carraxan@...> wrote:

                > Well, Spanish ditched dog.  I'm
                > not sure if any or the real Romalang dropped
                > meat/flesh.

                Spanish does still have "el can", though its usage is restricted.

                > > John 1:14
                > > Uchunatonc
                > > Ot fsoc lojoc huactoch conhonc
                > > and ART-NTR.SG <http://art-ntr.sg/> WORD-NTRS.G
                > is.made-3SG.PAST flesh-FSG
                > > (Do you think the L. perfect passive is a good
                > candidate for a new verb
                > > conjugation based on the irregular verb 'to be' {x,
                > ex, och, xyx, och, xun).
                > > Lhinghia Latsina
                > > ac ilhin virbin ist factin carunhis
                > > and ART-NTR.SG.NOM word-NTR.SG make-PSTPTCPLE-NOM.SG
                > be-3SG.PRES
                > > flesh-FSG.NOM
                > > The question here is where fact- should agree with
                > > virbin (neuter) or carunhis (feminine).

                In the Latin, it agrees with verbum (n.) not caro (f.).

                > > Limgua Latina
                > > e4 i1lum1 we1bum1 es4 fa4tum1 ka1nem1
                > > and DEM.ART word be-3SG PSTPTCPLE/ADJ flesh
                > > I'm not sure whether ka1nem1 'flesh' is correct - if
                > so, it is homophonous
                > > with ka1nem1 'dog'. Which one would be modified and
                > which one would be kept?

                The ambiguity is quite delicious. I would leave them homophonic and
                watch the bloody foreigners squirm when they think they've ordered dog.

                The only question I have here is does Limgua Latina retain some kind of
                case / stem differentiation? "ka1nem1" looks like an accusative, either
                of caro or canis. That doesn't quite fit with the whole structure of
                NOM + become + NOM.

                Padraic

                > > A New One
                > > et weorf est faht cearan
                > > [et we@rf est faxt t_s&@r@n]
                > > and word be-3SG.PRES made flesh
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com
                > <romconlang%40yahoogroups.com>, 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?
                > > >
                > > > Adam
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                > removed]
                > > >
                > >
                > > 
                > >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
                > romconlang-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >     romconlang-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
              • Carl Edlund Anderson
                ... I only discovered Spanish had this word ( can ) when a film with the Spanish title Supercan (presumably Superdog , in English distribution?) came out a
                Message 7 of 17 , Dec 3, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 03 Dec 2010, at 08:29 , Padraic Brown wrote:
                  > --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Adam Walker <carraxan@...> wrote:
                  >> Well, Spanish ditched dog. I'm
                  >> not sure if any or the real Romalang dropped
                  >> meat/flesh.
                  >
                  > Spanish does still have "el can", though its usage is restricted.

                  I only discovered Spanish had this word ("can") when a film with the Spanish title "Supercan" (presumably "Superdog", in English distribution?) came out a few years ago!

                  Cheers,
                  Carl

                  --
                  Carl Edlund Anderson
                  http://www.carlaz.com/
                • Padraic Brown
                  ... Indeed! I don t think it would be generally understood; or at least, people might look at you kind of weird. Spanish does hang on to a lot of old words,
                  Message 8 of 17 , Dec 3, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@...> wrote:


                    > > Spanish does still have "el can", though its usage is restricted.

                    > I only discovered Spanish had this word ("can") when a film with the
                    > Spanish title "Supercan" (presumably "Superdog", in English
                    > distribution?) came out a few years ago!

                    Indeed! I don't think it would be generally understood; or at least,
                    people might look at you kind of weird.

                    Spanish does hang on to a lot of old words, and does a good job at
                    reengineering old words that have disappeared due to sound shift.

                    Thus you get pairs like hogar / fogar and hoja / foja, where the Latin
                    f- had become h- in Spanish, but someone (presumably some scholar or
                    other) felt that there was a need for reintroducing the f-. But obviously
                    not retaining the actual Latin word that went with it.

                    Padraic

                    > Cheers,
                    > Carl
                  • Carl Edlund Anderson
                    ... Equally, if I go to the supermarket, I will find packets of oversized hotdogs labelled Superperros . :) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson
                    Message 9 of 17 , Dec 3, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 03 Dec 2010, at 09:40 , Padraic Brown wrote:
                      > --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >>> Spanish does still have "el can", though its usage is restricted.
                      >
                      >> I only discovered Spanish had this word ("can") when a film with the
                      >> Spanish title "Supercan" (presumably "Superdog", in English
                      >> distribution?) came out a few years ago!
                      >
                      > Indeed! I don't think it would be generally understood; or at least,
                      > people might look at you kind of weird.


                      Equally, if I go to the supermarket, I will find packets of oversized hotdogs labelled "Superperros". :)

                      Cheers,
                      Carl

                      --
                      Carl Edlund Anderson
                      http://www.carlaz.com/
                    • Padraic Brown
                      ... Zenú brand? Superperros is also apparently a chain of fast food / hispanic resaurants in Florida. Curious. In English, such hotdogs are just called bun
                      Message 10 of 17 , Dec 3, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@...> wrote:

                        > Equally, if I go to the supermarket, I will find packets of oversized
                        > hotdogs labelled "Superperros". :)

                        Zenú brand? Superperros is also apparently a chain of fast food / hispanic
                        resaurants in Florida.

                        Curious. In English, such hotdogs are just called "bun length hot dogs".

                        > Cheers,
                        > Carl

                        Padraic
                      • Carl Edlund Anderson
                        ... Quite possibly -- I would have to check to be sure! Though ... if so, the identification of this food item involves three different language families. The
                        Message 11 of 17 , Dec 3, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 03 Dec 2010, at 12:12 , Padraic Brown wrote:
                          > --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >> Equally, if I go to the supermarket, I will find packets of oversized
                          >> hotdogs labelled "Superperros". :)
                          >
                          > Zenú brand?

                          Quite possibly -- I would have to check to be sure!

                          Though ... if so, the identification of this food item involves three different language families. The brand name Zenú derives from the name of a native American group in northern Colombia (also "Sinú"; the language is, alas, long extinct, though the name presumably derives from some native language, if not necessarily that of the Zenú/Sinú themselves own), "perro" is borrowed into Spanish from Basque, I believe, and "super" is of course a re-borrowing from Latin (alongside inherited form "sobre"). :)

                          Cheers,
                          Carl

                          --
                          Carl Edlund Anderson
                          http://www.carlaz.com/
                        • Padraic Brown
                          ... Four languages -- don t forget the concept (if not the actual word) of these sausages being called dogs is American/English! Anyway, when you mentioned
                          Message 12 of 17 , Dec 3, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@...> wrote:

                            >>> Equally, if I go to the supermarket, I will find packets of oversized
                            >>> hotdogs labelled "Superperros". :)
                            >
                            >> Zenú brand?
                            >
                            >Quite possibly -- I would have to check to be sure!

                            >Though ... if so, the identification of this food item involves three
                            >different language families. The brand name Zenú derives from the name of
                            >a native American group in northern Colombia (also "Sinú"; the language
                            >is, alas, long extinct, though the name presumably derives from some
                            >native language, if not necessarily that of the Zenú/Sinú themselves
                            >own), "perro" is borrowed into Spanish from Basque, I believe,
                            >and "super" is of course a re-borrowing from Latin (alongside inherited
                            >form "sobre"). :)

                            Four languages -- don't forget the concept (if not the actual word) of
                            these sausages being called "dogs" is American/English!

                            Anyway, when you mentioned "superperro", I looked em up and found a
                            packet of Zenú branded hotdogs. Also the fast food restaurant.

                            >Cheers,
                            >Carl

                            Padraic
                          • Carl Edlund Anderson
                            ... A loan-translation: Fair enough! Though I originally counted language families, and Latin and English would both count as IE. But there would be four
                            Message 13 of 17 , Dec 4, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 03 Dec 2010, at 19:46 , Padraic Brown wrote:
                              > Four languages -- don't forget the concept (if not the actual word) of
                              > these sausages being called "dogs" is American/English!


                              A loan-translation: Fair enough! Though I originally counted language families, and Latin and English would both count as IE. But there would be four languages, anyway. :)


                              > Anyway, when you mentioned "superperro", I looked em up and found a
                              > packet of Zenú branded hotdogs.


                              Having passed through the supermarket here today, I can confirm a visual sighting of Zenú "Superperros". No sign of "Supercan", however. :)

                              Cheers,
                              Carl

                              --
                              Carl Edlund Anderson
                              http://www.carlaz.com/
                            • Elliott Lash
                              Dear Adam, I think that these prepositions are introducing what is known as a secondary predicate. Secondary predicates can be both resultative: He pounded
                              Message 14 of 17 , Dec 12, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Adam,

                                I think that these prepositions are introducing what is known as a secondary
                                predicate. Secondary predicates can be both resultative: 'He pounded the metal
                                flat' or depictive: 'I walked into the room drunk'.

                                The prepositions seem to be much like 'for' in: "He took me for someone else" -
                                where there are really two predicates: the 'taking' and the 'being someone
                                else'. It can be paraphrased as 'He took me to be someone else" or "He took me
                                as being someone else"

                                They also seem to be like 'as' in: "I meant it as a joke" - where again there
                                are really two predicates: the 'meaning' and 'being a joke'. The paraphrase is
                                "I meant it to be a joke.'

                                In the secondary predicate case, you can insert the copula: "He pounded the
                                metal so that it was flat", "I walked into the room while I was drunk".

                                It is interesting to note that in Irish you need a preposition even in normal
                                (nominal) predicational sentences:

                                Tá-im i mo dhochtúir
                                be-1S in my doctor
                                'I am a doctor.'

                                In your examples, you can always insert a copula:

                                Word was made flesh = "The word was made so that it was flesh."
                                The car was painted green. = "The car was painted so that it was green."
                                Tom was elected president. = "Tom was elected to be president."
                                Midas made his daughter gold = "Mida caused his daughter to be gold"

                                Basically, I think you can't say "I made my children in the cookies" because
                                there is only one predicate: "the making of cookies" not two (i.e. the
                                causing[1] of children to become[2] cookies"). Your prepositions are marking
                                predicate boundaries - just like "that" does for subordinate clauses - its just
                                that this isn't a subordinate clause, but what is known as a "small clause" (a
                                non-verbal clause).

                                Elliott






                                ________________________________
                                From: Adam Walker <carraxan@...>
                                To: romconlang@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Thu, December 2, 2010 11:57:31 PM
                                Subject: Re: [romconlang] Translation question


                                On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> 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]






                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.