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

--- In conlang@y..., Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@Y...> wrote:

> Well, as I wrote earlier, I like the look of the language, although in this
> case you are right: it looks perhaps a bit too much like Latin. That must be
> because you apply most sound changes to the pronunciation only, while most of
> the old Latin orthography remains intact.
Yeah, it seems that orthography always lags behind phonological
development, and tends to stick to traditional concepts no longer
obvious in the modern spoken language.



> >    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 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?



-- Christian Thalmann

Reply