judge

Spin, why is it that you are unable to produce any example whatsoever from ancient literature to compare with the example I provided?

If your theory is correct you should be able to provide some specific example that shows similar arrangements that occur not as the result of translation.

Do you have an example?

If so what is it?

All the best...

spin

I provided evidence that the phenomenon is seen through history. Hence I used modern and ancient examples. If you are interested in the Amarna example you could try Demsky A., The Education of Canaanite Scribes in the Mesopotamian Cuneiform Tradition, BISA 1990. pp157-170. (And other references are available.)

First, by the converse logic to what you have presented, Paul didn't write in Aramaic because the phenomenon you provide as an index is nowhere present in Paul? Or will you try to argue for a better translator?


spin

judge

Come on Spin.

This .....

...does not constitute evidence. Maybe your memory is faulty. Maybe what you refer to here is nothing like the example I provided.

Why not be as tough on yourself as you are on others?
Go on...stop being so soft on yourself. Give yourself an uppercut! :wave:

Until you can produce the details you have no case, just an assertion.

Do you think this is unfair?

Thank you for the reference.



Ok for the sake or argument lets assume you are correct one only has to look at the example in mathew provided above. Naturally on occaision the translator will polish up the wording.
But as we see sometimes the translator translated "word for word" and we see the result both in mark and in the LXX.

BTW one is not "better" than the other. One leaves the redundant preposition in one does not.

judge

More blathering.

See the quote at the beginning. Do you think Jean Carmangnac didn;t either. He was a philologist and historian.

One more time.

Jean considered, for example, whether it was redacted directly inot greek and after studying it rejected this idea.

Scholars do consider more than one option.

Do you think you are the only person in the world who understands what a linguistic substratum is?

Again these things are plain to you. They are not plain to others who study the subject.

You are playing a game.

Every time you have an opinion you merely claim.

As I said before stop being so easy on yourself. Why not be as tough on yourself as you are on others, whether straight out or by implication.

Give yourself an uppercut

spin

I truly cannot help you if you want to ignore linguistic processes. We have a well-known phenomenon perceived throughout history and you want to make a special plea for your case.

First try at least a general linguistics course and I might then consider you have a little idea that you know something about what you are babbling about.

Stop showing you don't understand what is necessary. You are making a special plea about your situation, ie that normal linguistic forces do not apply in your case (why?) -- even though you are not aware of the linguistic forces.

Your source looks at a linguistic manifestation and attributes one particular possible reason to it without even contemplating others. It's called tendentiousness.

Not unfair, incompetent.

You still haven't distinguished how one would know whether it is a translation or a writer with a Semitic substratum.

It's necessary in the original language, not in the target language.

A translator's aim is mostly to try to communicate the entire range of thought (a big enough task in itself) from the original language to the target language. This does not syntactic or grammatical data unless of course that coveys in itself something that is not available in the target language.


spin

spin

Why do you persist in clinging to an authority as though that authority says something meaningful and you are able to understand what the issues are.

Translate a children's book from say Turkish to English, do you think, if you had the language skills, you'd have any more difficulty than Carmignac translating Mark's simple Greek into Carmignac's Aramaic?


spin

judge

Why are you then, unable to provide any data at all from history.
If what you suggest is accurate this should be easy for you.

spin

What exactly would you like, please? And be specific.

judge

OK .
I posted some material with the suggestion that the inclusion of the redundant preposition in mrak is consistent with it being a translation. We also looked at a translation, the LXX, to see the similarity.
IIUC you suggest this phenomenon could also occur by other means.
Can you give an example where a similar phenomenon occurs by other means. An historical example from an historical text.



Thank you

Does this retention of the redundant preposition occur in say Josephus?

spin

I cited an article which went into detail regarding the Canaanite substratum to the Amarna letters written in Canaan. But the situation is a generic one. It is applicable at any time there is the possibility of either translation artefacts or substratum artefacts. Carmignac is simply poor logic. If he translated what I might write in Italian into English, he'd certainly find that it would be relatively easy to translate. It wouldn't change the fact that it was written in Italian.

Non richiede uno scienziato di razze di capire e tradurre le stronzate che dico io. Was this last sentence written in Italian or translated into Italian? You, even if you could speak Italian, couldn't tell. Do you understand this dilemma?

So, what is the difference whether it was done five minutes ago or a few thousand years ago? Don't we still have to face the same dilemma?

Sorry, but I don't have the facilities to search the Greek of Josephus for such manifestations.


spin