Re: no:t@r pa:D@r iNkAjlA (with audio)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Muke Tever" <mktvr@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: no:t@r pa:D@r iNkAjlA (with audio)


> From: "Christian Thalmann" <cinga@...>
> > > >    http://catharsis.netpeople.ch/langmaking/jovian_paternoster.htm
> > > >
> > > > As always, feedback is much welcomed.  =P
> > >
> > > There is one thing that I sort of disagree with. The first line reads:
> "Noter
> > > pazer in coelo", but this is a deviation of the original text, that I
have
> > > never seen before. The sentence in Latin is: "Pater noster qui es in
coelis"
> > > (Our Father, who art in heaven).
> > > Is there any particular reason for replacing the subordinate sentence
by
> just
> > > two words: "in coelo"?
> >
> > I seem to recall it in that way from the modern German bible we used
> > in religion class in school: "Unser Vater im Himmel...".  The
> > traditional version is "Vater unser, der du bist im Himmel...", which
> > does sound archaic.
>
> I don't know about German, but the entire construction is very odd in
English:
> both possessive pronouns and qualifying subclauses just dont belong in
direct
> address.  "Father in heaven, hallowed be your name" sounds normal enough
though,
> if you know what "hallowed" means, but without the archaic verb form it
sounds
> downright bizarre to say "Our Father who are in heaven" !
>
> > I couldn't say for sure though, I haven't looked at it in ages.
> >
> > BTW:  In coelis?  Why would heaven be plural?  Is that to distinguish
> > heaven from the sky?
>
> It is plural in the Greek:  ou)ranoi=s
> I don't know why, but it may have become habitually plural, like L
"tenebras".
>

And in Old English -- Heofunes