Drus Griutinge (ni - ak)

[ualarauans]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> 
wrote:
> >
> > ni witum ... ak gataujam "We know not ... but that is what we 
shall
> > do". It would seem as if there's an opposition "ni – ak" in the
> > sense of Germ. "nicht - sondern". That would be a strange phrase,
> > where knowing and doing are something that substitute for each
> > other. German would have aber or trotzdem and Gothic probably iþ 
or
> > sweþauh. Correct me if I misunderstand here something.
> 
> Streitberg cites the following examples of 'ak' "ohne vorausgehende
> Neg.: aber".  How do these sound to you?
> 
> iþ þo waurstwa ni gatawidedjau in im þoei anþar ainshun ni 
gatawida,
> frawaurht ni habaidedeina; iþ nu jah gasehvun mik jah fijaidedun 
jah
> mik jah attan meinana. ak (ALLA) ei usfullnodedi waurd þata 
gamelido
> in witoda ize: ei fijaidedun mik arwjo (J 15:24-25).
> 
> jah þahtedun du sis misso qiþandans, jabai qiþam: us himina, qiþiþ:
> aþþan duhve ni galaubideduþ imma? ak (ALLA) qiþam: us mannam, 
uhtedun
> þo managein. (Mk 11:31-32)
> 
> daga hvammeh was at izwis in alh laisjands jah ni gripuþ mik: ak
> (ALLA) ei usfullnodedeina bokos. (Mk 14:49).

I've consulted the Revidierte Elberfelder Übersetzung. Let's compare:

Wenn ich nicht die Werke unter ihnen getan hätte, die kein anderer 
getan hat, so hätten sie keine Sünde; jetzt aber haben sie <sie> 
gesehen und <doch> sowohl mich als auch meinen Vater gehasst. Aber 
<dies geschieht>, damit das Wort erfüllt würde, das in ihrem Gesetz 
geschrieben steht: sie haben mich ohne Ursache gehasst(J 15:24-25).

Und sie überlegten miteinander und sprachen: wenn wir sagen: vom 
Himmel, so wird er sagen: warum habt ihr ihm denn nicht geglaubt? 
Sollen wir aber sagen: von Menschen? Sie fürchteten das Volk...
(Mk 11:31-32)

Täglich war ich bei euch, lehrte im Tempel, und ihr habt mich nicht 
ergriffen; - aber damit die Schriften erfüllt werden! (Mk 14:49)

So, Streitberg was right. But I, too, have got an impression, that, 
as we see <...> additions and expanded descriptive translations in 
the German text, so the Gothic translator as well could have added 
something when translating the obscure Greek here, but these 
additions were not included in the Sacred Book, but stayed as if 
being thought to oneself:

iþ þo waurstwa ni gatawidedjau in im þoei anþar ainshun ni gatawida, 
frawaurht ni habaidedeina; iþ nu jah gasehvun mik jah fijaidedun jah 
mik jah attan meinana. <aþþan gatawida þo ni du briggan ins in 
fraistubnjai> ak ei usfullnodedi waurd þata gamelido in witoda ize: 
ei fijaidedun mik arwjo;

jah þahtedun du sis misso qiþandans, jabai qiþam: us himina, qiþiþ: 
aþþan duhve ni galaubideduþ imma? <in þizei jah ni qiþam: us 
himina>, ak qiþam: us mannam, uhtedun  þo managein;

daga hvammeh was at izwis in alh laisjands jah ni gripuþ mik: 
<duþþeei ni was þar ei gripeina mik>, ak ei usfullnodedeina bokos.

> In each instance, there is however a negative sentence directly or
> indirectly preceding the 'ak' clause.  In J 15:25 the 'ak' clause 
does
> indeed offer an alternative that might be inferred to exclude the
> negatives (even though another clause intervenes); but I take it
> 'sondern' would sound odd there?  In Mk 14:49, presumably to have
> seized him would exclude the possibility of the scriptures being
> fulfilled.  But this, again, is only an inference.  Mk 11:32 is
> curious, since although 'ak' follows a negative clause, the 'ak'
> clause contrasts with something other than what is negated there!
> Anyway, in the example from John, 'iþ' follows negatives with no
> direct exclusion, and presumably just the same degree in inferred
> exclusion (I'm probably talking nonsense by now...) so maybe it is
> safest for me to use 'iþ' in that verse.

Ualarauans

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070420/b04d05dd/attachment.htm>