Re: Translation challenge: Fiat lingua

Philip Newton wrote:
> On 7/8/06, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
>
>> The Greek clearly has no sense of desideration or of wishing, otherwise
>> the optative mood would be used. It is unambiguously jussive.
>
>
> Are you sure of that?
Yes.

> I thought that use of the optative mood was fairly variable in Greek,
> especially in later times.
It was fairly variably in certain uses, especially in subordinate
clauses when the main verb is past. Usage varied considerably even in
Classical Greek.

It held on, however, in its primary use of denoting wishes.

> (I seem to recall a quote along the lines
> of "Scribes thought they knew how to use the optative correctly when
> writing Attic Greek. Some were even correct.")
In the Atticising written Greek of the late Hellenistic & Byzantine era,
I can well imagine the optative being overused, especially in
subordinate clauses.

> I don't know whether the optative was used in the language of the
> Septuagint,
Its use to show wishes is _frequent_ in the Septuagint. It use where
Latin has the 'historic subjunctive' in subordinate clauses, however, is
almost entirely confined to the books of Maccabees.

In the New Testament, the use of the optative for wishes is found 35
times. Also it generally replaces subjunctive after _hina_ if the main
verb is past, and Luke uses it in reported questions if main verb is
past. So it is still around well past the time of the Septuagint! It is
not until the late Hellenistic period that the optative fell out of of use.

>or whether its absence in this particular translation is
> significant. Do you know?
As the Septuagint did still did use the optative to show desideration, I
do think it is important to note that we have _imperative_ in Genesis
1:3. Of course, this has no _direct_ relevance on translating "fiat
lingua"; it is relevant only if one thinks it echo's the
Judaeo-Christian "Fiat lux."

I realized after sending my last mail that using the term AORIST in the
parsing of γενηθήτω was probably not helpful. Comrie recommends avoiding
the use of 'aorist' in linguistic theory as has become a label for quite
different verbal features in particular languages. So:
γενηθήτω
- aspect: perfective
- mood: imperative
- tense: not applicable (no tense distinctions expressed in Greek,
except in indicative mood)
- person & number: 3rd, singular
meaning: to come into being, to become

As for the Latin 'fiat' (which is relevant):
- aspect: imperfective
- mood: subjunctive
- tense: non-past.
- person & number: 3rd, singular
meaning: to become, to happen; to be made, to be created
=================================

Sally Caves wrote:
 > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carsten Becker"
[snip]
 >> So is that what "Fiat Lingua" means?
 >
 >
 > More precisely, "let language be made."  Fio/fiore, "be made, created,

Actually: fio, fieri   :)

The verb meant 'to become, to happen', but it came also in early Latin
to used as the passive of 'facere' = to make. It was regularly used that
way in Classical Latin. Its perfective tenses are indeed supplied by
'factus sum' etc.

Also, tho Latin "lingua" may mean 'language' in a generic sense, it
could also mean "a language", Latin having no definite or indefinite
articles. So the ambiguous 'fiat lingua' can mean:
Let a language be made; let language be made; let language happen etc etc.

The Latin subjunctive was primarily used in certain types of subordinate
clauses. As a main verb it most common function was either jussive
(abeat = 'let him go') or hortative (eamus! = Let's go!).

It could be used to express wishes, but in this use it is generally
introduced by 'ut' or 'utinam': ut(inam) felix sis! = may you be happy!


--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".
J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply