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

 --- Muke Tever <mktvr@...> wrote: > 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" !
>
if the subordinate clause is kept, it comes out as
'our father which art in heaven'. v archaic tho

not sure about other people, but i would tend to give
the relative pronoun 3rd person agreement ( our
father, who is in heaven ) rather than retaining the
person of the main clause

bn

=====
bnathyuw | landan | arR
stamp the sunshine out | angelfish
your tears came like anaesthesia | phèdre

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Reply