Getica 129-130

[ualarauans]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell at ...> wrote:
>
> Streitberg gamelida: "Ein erzählendes Präsens findet sich nur als
> Nachahmung der Vorlage; in der Regek wird jedoch das erzählendes
> Präsens der Vorlage im Gotischen in das Präterium verwandelt"
> (Gotisches Elementarbuch, § 299).

Þatei Streidabairgs qaþ ni magum blauþjan. Mikils ist [in rebus 
Gothicis].

> jah qaþ imma : LEGEI (Mt 8:4)
> ahma ina ustauh : EKBALLEI (Mk 1:12)
> jah galiþun in Kafarnaum : EISPEREUONTAI (Mk 1:21)
> 
> "Mitunter wird auch, abgesehn vom erzählenden Präsens, ein Präsense
> der Vorlege durch das Präteritum wiedergegeben."
> 
> swalaud melis miþ izwis was : MEQ' hUMWN EIMI (J 14:9)
> 
> In your defence, we could argue that this tendency may have been 
more
> a matter of style, a stylistic decision on the part of the
> translator(s), rather than a grammatical rule. But still, it's a
> relatively striking difference, given that the translation is 
normally
> so literal, so maybe the use of present for past events did sound
> genuinely odd to a Gothic ear. I can't recall the reference right 
now,
> but I remember reading somewhere that the narrative present is 
alien
> to Eddic poetry, but already common in the earliest Icelandic 
sagas.
> So, if it was a matter of style in Gothic, perhaps the narrative
> present was felt to be too colloquial for the dignified context of
> Holy Writ. Of course, that's just my speculation...

I think I'll change it to preterite. Thank you for correcting this!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20080228/4433d026/attachment.htm>