Drus Griutinge (ni - ak)

[llama_nom]

> 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:


Thanks for your clear and detailed explanation.  I can well believe it
was something like that: the 'ak' clause contrasts with (and excludes)
some unstated idea/possibility that can be inferred from the preceding
text.


--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans@> 
> 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/20070420/947b6409/attachment.htm>