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

 --- Christian Thalmann wrote:

> Although I get the feeling that Jovian is still far above my league
> (being pretty much an ignorant at Latin), I've fashioned a preliminary
> translation of the Pater Noster into Jovian.
>
> I'm not too fond of the look of the written text (it looks complicated
> and plagiarized from Latin =P), but it sound better when spoken out
> loud.
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.

>    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"?

Jan

=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones

__________________________________________________
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