Re: Gallercizing

--- John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
> Adam Walker scripsit:
>
> > In tres margas Gaja esti seperadu.  Idavi in al
> juna
> > ils Beudjis vevid, in al aurra ils Avidanis, ed in
> al
> > tercha, fi la limba Cheuta loved, nos Gajas jid
> > numinimus.  Todus uls limbas, instidudis ed ledjis
> > djal fistas uls diverzus suns.
>
> Tasty!  But you omit two subtleties:  "Omnis"
> qualifies
> "Gallia", making it "the whole of Gaul" or less
> literally
> "Greater Gaul" (contrasted with the third group of
> inhabitants
> who are the Gauls proper).
>
Hmm.  I'm not sure it makes that much difference to
the text, but if one wanted to be truer to the
original one could add "tuta Gaja" or perhaps "Gaja in
tuta".

> In addition, Caesar's explanation of the third group
> is meant to
> be balanced:  "in their own [ipsorum] language
> [called] Celts,
> in our [language] called Gauls."
>
Ah.  This is an inexcusable error brought about by my
ignorance of the Latin.  "In al juns limba juns
Chuetas suns numinudu, in al nostra juns Gajas suns
numinudu."

> > Gaul is seperated into three marks.  Thus, in the
> one
> > live the Belgians, in the other the Aquitanians,
> and
> > in the third, which speaks the Celtic language, we
> > name it Gaul.  All the languages, institutes and
> laws
> > of these are diverse and sundry.
>
> I missed this before.  "Institutions" rather than
> "institutes".
>
I was thinking of them as rather synonymous in this
case.  Perhaps a misusage of the English.

Adam