Acts 26:9

[ualarauans]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell at ...> wrote:
>
> Interesting dilemma...  It might be tough to find an example of the
> word order shifted so radically for the sake of clarity; the really
> big divergences usually turn out to have a model in the Vetus 
Latina,
> and Friedrichsen makes a good case for these being due to later
> revisions to Wulfila's Greek-based text.  And awkward constructions
> and ambiguities do sometimes occur for the sake of sticking 
rigidly to
> Greek word order.  In favour of the subjunctive, Streitberg cites 
some
> examples of subjunctive for Greek infinitive, Elementarbuch § 315,
> note 1, e.g. qaþ ei at lagidedeina : EIPEN PARAQEINAI (Mk 8:7).  
But
> where 'þugkjan' is reflexive "to think oneself", there are 
examples of
> both kinds:
> 
> þaim þugkjandam wisan hva
> "those who think themselves to be something"
> Gal 2:6
> 
> þugkeiþ im auk ei in filuwaurdein seinai andhausjaindau
> DOKOUSIN GAR hOTI EN THi POLULOGIAi AUTWN EISAKOUSQHSONTAI
> "for they think that in their much-speaking they will be heard"
> Mt 6:7
> 
> When the infinitive is used though, there is an ambiguity:
> 
> jah þatei þugkeiþ haban
> KAI hO DOKEI ECEIN
> "even what he seems to have"
> L 8:18
> 
> galaubjan Iohanne hausjan þuhtedun
> "they seemed to believe, to hear, John"
> Sk 6:1
> 
> Where the infinitive is used, wouldn't Gothic (like Latin) use
> accusative for the subject of the infinitive, if expressed?  
Cf. 'man
> auk ni waihtai mik minnizo gataujan' (II Cor 11:5).  What I'm 
getting
> at is: is there a choice to make here between either: þuhta 
mis ... ei
> +subj., or alternatively: þuhta (mik silban) +inf.?

1. ...ik þuhta mis silbin ... ei skuldedjau managa andaneiþona 
gataujan

2. ...ik þuhta mik silban ... skulan managa andaneiþona gataujan

Obviously that makes sense. I'd better go with either instead of 
copying the Greek word order. But how about Wulfila? I'm not very 
educated in classical Greek, unfortunately. Is the construction 
natural to the koine language or is it a biblical deviation? I mean 
if Wulfila thought the Vorlage syntax here to be unclear he might 
have been more apt to change it also in his translation.

> Something else that I wonder about is whether 'wiþro' would be 
used as
> a complement of 'andaneiþo'.  As far as I can see, all the 
examples of
>   'andaneiþo' and 'andaneiþs' (II Cor 2:7, Col 2:14, I Thess 2:15)
> simply take a dative complement with no preposition.  That's not to
> say that 'wiþro' is wrong here -- just something to think about.

Doesn't wiþra belong rather to gataujan than to andaneiþo here? 
Rather "to do [many contrary things] against the name of Jesus of 
Nazareth"? Vulgate  - aduersus nomen ... [multa contraria] agere and 
LXX - PROS TO ONOMA ... [POLLA ENANTIA] PRAXAI.

> LN

Ualarauans

> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> 
wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "gutdwala" <gutdwala@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems fine to me, but a little awkward. I understood the 
meaning
> > of
> > > the sentence though. But if nothing like that is attested, I 
would
> > > probably go with 'ei skuldedjau managa andaneiþona gataujan', 
it just
> > > seems a little more clear.
> >
> > Syntactic calques from Greek seem indeed awkward sometimes. The
> > infinitive is used both in Septuaginta (DEIN) and Vulgate 
(debere).
> > I know there are cases where Greek infinitives are rendered with
> > ei + finite verb (subjunctive) though I can't recall examples 
right
> > now. But I fear that if using the paraphrase like that the 
connection
> > between the object (wiþra namo Iesuis þis Nazoraiaus) and the
> > predicate (managa andaneiþona gataujan) will be lost or at least
> > obscured. To change it into 'ei skuldedjau wiþra namo Iesuis þis
> > Nazoraiaus managa andaneiþona gataujan' would mean to digress 
too far
> > from the original. A nice excuse would be a couple of attested
> > examples where Wulfila acts this way.
> >
> > > Does this mean that we're still working on filling in non-
extant
> > > portions of the translation? It's a little out there, but I've 
got a
> > > few chapters of Enoch thrown together. I remember seeing some
> > > reconstructed bits on some sites a few years ago, maybe Matthew
> > > Carver's? Are those all in the files section or is that newer 
stuff?
> >
> > Well, I just reconstruct separate verses which are needed for my
> > research. I haven't seen this particular fragment anywhere else,
> > but I haven't seen a lot of things after all. Generally, when 
doing an
> > orderly reconstruction I can't get rid of the feeling that 
someone
> > somewhere has already done this job. The Gothic Bible has been 
studied
> > so long and so thoroughly that all the gaps must have been 
filled in
> > many years ago. There are probably several full versions of the 
Bible
> > by different authors.
> >
> > Ualarauans
> >
> > > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans@> 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Acts 26:9
> > > >
> > > > King James': "I verily thought with myself, that I ought to 
do many
> > > > things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth"
> > > >
> > > > Greek (LXX): EGW MEN OUN EDOXA EMAUTWi PROS TO ONOMA IHSOU 
TOU
> > > > NAZWRAIOU DEIN POLLA ENANTIA PRAXAI
> > > >
> > > > Latin (Jerome): et ego quidem existimaueram me aduersus 
nomen Iesu
> > > > Nazareni debere multa contraria agere
> > > >
> > > > Gothic (myself): þanuh þan ik þuhta mis silbin wiþra namo 
Iesuis
> > þis
> > > > Nazoraiaus skulan managa andaneiþona gataujan.
> > > >
> > > > I couldn't find anywhere infinitive skulan being used like 
this, so
> > > > other variants are:
> > > >
> > > > – ei skuldedjau managa andaneiþona gataujan
> > > > - ei skulda weseina managa andaneiþona gataujan
> > > >
> > > > Your votes and suggestions?
> > > >
> > > > Ualarauans
> >

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070724/63ebebe6/attachment.htm>