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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan van Steenbergen" <ijzeren_jan@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 1:39 AM
Subject: 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

It happens in the NIV English as well. It turns it to 'Our father in heaven'
as opposed to 'Our father which art in heaven'