Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Opinions wanted: person of vocative

From:Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
Date:Tuesday, July 1, 2003, 15:58
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:42:59AM -0400, John Leland wrote:
> Strictly speaking, Rihana-ye does not have a vocative as such,
Well, there's no requirement that the language have a vocative *case* - Methkaeki has no such thing. I just meant vocative in the sense of "noun of direct address".
> It does have status prefixes--ti-before higher status and ni- before lower > status, which I have considered using in translations where the original > has a vocative. E.g. in the rabbit poem "oh rabbit" I considered translating > as "titejoba" where tejoba is rabbit and "ti" is the higher-status prefix, > --since Rihana-ye is supposed (in some respects) to be like Japanese, one > might translate it as "Honorable Rabbit."
Would one really use the higher-status prefix when addressing a rabbit, though? That seems odd.
> I have not translated the Lord's Prayer into Rihana-ye (as unlike Natece it > has no conculture links to Christianity)
Well, neither does Methkaeki; just thought it would make a good translation exercise.
> As for the following phrase "which art/who is in > heaven, I would probably make that the equivalent of a participle phrase > preceeding the expression "father", as is done in the Korean prayer, which > literally begins "Heaven-dwelling father..." so the Rihana-ye would be > Ta-me fo-mi (heaven-in living)Tivaba .....
Well, that certainly works. :)
> I did translate the Lord's Prayer into Natece years ago. There is no > vocative or similar distinction there, and the language (especially by the > time of the heavy Anglo-Christian influence which produced the prayer) > was heavily influenced by English forms, so it began IIRC "Nahata acecen > cenatec natecenna en Nhatlectecna" literally Father our who live in > Heaven" One could say the use of cenatec (who) indicates a third-person > construction, but it is not very well defined given the limitations of the > language.
Thanks! -Mark