Reflexives continued + Position of possessive pronouns

Sun Jan 15 00:47:00 UTC 2006

26 nivôse an CCXIV (le 15 janvier 2006 d. c.-d. c. g.), 00h15.

---- Message d'origine ----
De : llama_nom
À : Gothic-L
Envoyé : samedi 14 janvier 2006 15:04
Objet : [gothic-l] Re: Reflexives continued + Position of possessive pronouns

> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Budelberger, Richard wrote:
>
>>> ERCANTO
>
>> « ERXANTO »
>
> Or even better: HRXANTO !

    « Damned ! I am done (/ou/ I am made) !... »

> 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...

    Oui, oui... :

>>> 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)

    « Mc *5*, 17 ! ».

>> 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 » ?

    Je crois que je commence à comprendre (une erreur du traducteur gothique,
pourtant très soigneux) ; dans un message ultérieur, car c'est long et difficile...

> 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

    « ...hHMIN...ECQRWN... » !..

> `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

    « ...hUPOTAXANTI... »...

> `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.

    « Mc *5*, 17 ».

> bedun ei usliþi hindar markos ize
> PAREKALESAN hWTOS METABH APO TWN hORIWN AUTWN

    « ...hWPOS... ».

> `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.

    Je ne comprends plus très bien ; on parlait des pronoms-adjectifs
possessifs réfléchis et non réfléchis, et on traite ici du pronom réfléchi
indirect.

>>> 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.

    À revoir après recensement des constructions dans les Évangiles.
On trouve tous les ordres... Il existe de grandes différences entre Matthieu
et Luc d'une part, Marc et Jean de l'autre.

>>> 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:

    Je ne le pense pas pour le grec néo-testamenatire.

> 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?

    Oui.

> 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

    J'ai trouvé une hypercorrection (?) en gothique du texte grec (Lc *14*, 26) :

    EI TIS ERCETAI PROS ME KAI OU MISEI _TON PATERA hEAUTOU_ (...)
ETI TE KAI _THN YUCHN hEAUTOU_, OU DUNATAI EINAI MOU MAQHTHS.

    jabai hvas gaggiþ du mis jah ni fijaiþ _attan seinana_ (...)
nauhuþ þan _seina silbins saiwala_ · ni mag meins siponeis wisan·

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

    Et /my own mistakes/ à moi en français, anglais, grec, gothique ?..

    R. B.

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/