Reflexives continued + Position of possessive pronouns

[llama_nom]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Budelberger, Richard" 
<budelberger.richard at 9...> wrote:
>

>> ERCANTO

> « ERXANTO » 


Or even better: HRXANTO !  Thanks for the tip regarding X and C.  I 
wasn't sure which way round to use them, and Google produced lots of 
examples of both methods, but I'll follow your advice on this--or 
I'll try, anyway...


>> jah dugunnun bidjan ina galeiþan hindar markos seinos
>> KAI HRXANTO PARAKALEIN AUTON APELQEIN APO TWN hORIWN AUTWN
>> 'and they began to ask him (non-refl.) to depart beyond their 
(refl.) borders'
>> (Mk 5,12)

> Non. « AUTWN » = « their (non refl.) ».


That's right, not reflexive in the Greek.  I was just refering to 
the Gothic.


> Je ne comprends pas pourquoi le gothique a le réfléchi « 
seinos » !..
Wright ne commente pas en note. Pourquoi pas « ize » ?


Well, from what I've found, it would seem that Gothic can optionally 
use a reflexive in a nonfinite embedded clause to refer to an 
antecedent which is the subject of the matrix clause.  Obviously 
this is a potential source of ambiguity, since the reflexive might 
also be refering to the subject of its own (subordinate) clause.  
Even so, the usage is quite normal in Gothic, as shown in Gerry's 
examples.  But where there is a particular need to avoid ambiguity, 
the non-reflexive pronoun can be used instead, as in the following 
examples, albeit both matching the Greek in this respect:

ei gebi unsis unsagein us handau fijande unsaraize galausidaim 
skalkinon imma
TOU DOUNAI hUMIN AFOBWS EK CEIROS EXQRWN RUSQENTAS LATREUEIN AUTW
`that he grant us that we, delivered from the hands of our enemies, 
might serve him'
(L 1,73-74).

þannuh biþe alla gakunnun sik faura imma, þanuþ-þan is silba sunus 
gakann sik faura þamma ufhnaiwjandin uf ina þo alla, ei sijai guþ 
alla in allaim
hOTAN DE hUPOTAGH AUTW TA PANTA, TOTE KAI AUTOS hO hUIOS 
hUPOTAGHSETAI TW hUPOTACANTI AUTW TA PANTA, hINA H hO QEOS TA PANTA 
EN PASIN
`so then, when all things are subjected to him, well, then the son 
himself will submit to the one (=the father) who placed all those 
things under him (=the son), so that God may be all in all.'
(1Cor 15,28).

However, I haven't found any examples yet, in Gothic, of a reflexive 
in a FINITE embedded clause (i.e. one introduced by a subordinating 
conjunction) refering to anything other than the subject of its own 
clause.  Compare the following example with Mk 5,12.

bedun ei usliþi hindar markos ize
PAREKALESAN hWTOS METABH APO TWN hORIWN AUTWN
`they asked him to depart beyond their borders'
(Mt 8,34).

Here's an example, from Curtius's Greek Grammar, of a reflexive in 
just such a subordinate clause refering not to the subject of its 
own clause but to that of the main clause:

EISIENAI EKELEUSEN, EI MELLOIS SUN hEAUTW EKPLEIN
`he bade you enter if you were going to sail away with him'

It would be interesting to see if there are any examples of Gothic 
contradicting Greek in this respect.


>> The reverse order marks a contrast: wepna unsaris drauhtinassaus
>> ´OPLA THS STRATEIAS ´HMWN `the weapons of *our* warfare'
>> (2Cor 10,4), i.e. spiritual ones as opposed to the literal weapons
>> of warriors; iþ þai þeinai siponjos ´OI DE SOI `but *your* 
disciples'
>> (L 5,33), unlike John's disciples and those of the Pharisees;
>> ni ibna nih galeiks unsarai garaihtein, ak silba garaihtei wisands
>> `neither equal nor similar to *our* justice, but himself being 
justice'
>> (Sk 1,2). Often also preposed for emphasis in agreement with the
>> Greek:

> Je ne le pense pas. La construction article + pronom + nom est
normale en grec (/cf/. /supra/) ; le gothique calque le grec.

>> seinaim lustum = TAS IDIAS EPIQUMIAS `their own desires' (2Tim 
4,3);
>> meinai handau TH EMH CEIRI

To me the difference between "their desires" and "their own desires" 
is one of emphasis or contrast (in this case: their own, as opposed 
to the will of God).  Likewise the context would suggest the 
emphatic "my own hand", rather than that of my secretary, who 
normally writes for me.  Though it may be quite normal, I get the 
impression that the more common way of expressing possession, when 
there is no special emphasis on the possessor, or contrast, is to 
place the pronoun after the noun:

handau izos
THS CEIROS AUTHS

handu þeina
THN CEIRA SOU

handau meinai
THS CEIROS MOU

Isn't TAS IDIAS EPIQUMIAS a more forceful/emphatic way of expressing 
possession than these?  Sometimes, as in the above examples, Gothic 
simply follows the Greek word order, but uses the same possessive 
form that would normally come after the noun.  At other times, 
Gothic, like the Greek, uses a different word:

þo swesona lamba
TA IDIA PROBATA
'his own lambs'
(J 10,3)

Eph 5,28 [ http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/text/?
book=8&chapter=5 ] seems to contain an interesting error in the form 
of two alternative translations of the same phrase.

leik seina
sein silbins leik
TA hEAUTWN SWMATA
his own body

Llama Nom

P.S. Thanks once again for patiently correcting my mistakes with 
Greek.






You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/