[gothic-l] Re: Gothic "sa"

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

>-IUSTEINUS
>
>
>In a message dated 10/10/00 4:01:03 AM, you wrote:
>
><<{sa}: demonstrative or article?
>
>The Gothic Bible is a translation. With translations, there is a tendency for
>translators to import usages and mannerisms from the original language,
>particularly if the text is sacred and thus the translator is more than usual
>driven to stick close to the original. For example, various Hebrew-isms of
>word usage got through from the Hebrew Bible via Greek (Septuagint) and Latin
>(Vulgate) to the King James English Bible.

Is this statement correct?
I have heard that the King James translation follows Luther's to some extent.
But Luther translated directly from Hebrew. The question thus is whether
it is correct to say that the King James translation went by means of
Septaguint and Vulgate intermediate steps.

If I am not mistaken, the German text that I downloaded from the
<http://unbound.biola.edu/> site was the Luther version:

Genesis 1:1
 Am Anfang schuf Gott Himmel und Erde.

As you see, there is no article. Why?
Perhaps because it is natural for the German language not to have it(?)

Another question that I'd like to pose, is why none of the translations
have translated the little word "aleph-tau" that the Hebrew text has
in front of ha-shamaim and ha-aretz. I have always assumed that it
is the "ha" that is the article.

Keth



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get FREE long-distance phone calls on Tellme!
Click here for the scoop:
http://click.egroups.com/1/9531/8/_/3398/_/971243049/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.
Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html