Re: no:t@r pa:D@r iNkAjlA (with audio)
|Date:||Monday, September 2, 2002, 11:09|
----- Original Message -----
From: "bnathyuw" <bnathyuw@...>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: no:t@r pa:D@r iNkAjlA (with audio)
Yes, but I would probably drop the clause altogether, and just go straight
to 'Our father in heaven' It means the same thing, anyhow.
> --- Muke Tever <mktvr@...> wrote: > From:
> "Christian Thalmann" <cinga@...>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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