Getica 129-130

[llama_nom]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> wrote:
>
> Gutisko
> 
> 129. [...] gasehvun, [...] wairþand [...] nimand [...] uswandjaina.

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).

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...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20080227/d3504014/attachment.htm>