Re: THEORY: Adpositional Heads

On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 04:40 , Isaac Penzev wrote:

> Ray Brown scripsit:
>
>
>> That's right - direct translation from the Greek would be:
>> "Our father in the heavens"
>
> Wrong. The Greek text says:
> << páter he:môn ho en toîs ouranoîs >>
> lit.: father our the-m.sn.N. in the-m.pl.D. heavens
I know all about the article  - I have known Greek for 50 years!
I was not giving a direct word-for-word translation as they usually
make no or little sense in the target language.  I can't imagine a
congregation reciting: "Our father the in the heavens".

I was attempting to give the _closest_ acceptable English to the Greek
original.
>
> The first definite article _ho_ makes the whole phrase after it an
> attribute to
> the nominal group.
  I am well aware of that, thanks!!

In _ENGLISH_ we make such phrases attributes simply by placing them
after the noun.  We cannot have the (usually repeated) definite article and
we do not need any relative clause.

In fact adding a relative clause to a vocative makes for awkward English;
we simply do not do it in modern spoken English.   Do you say:
"Our father, who is in heaven"  and change from 2nd to 3rd person
agreements?
"Our father, who art in heaven" retaining an archaic 'art'?
"Our father, who are in heaven" with the modern 'are' which is technically
correct but sounds stilted?

This sort of problem kept arising when liturgies were put into modern
English.
One solution - I think no longer adopted - was the "you who" solution, e.g.
"Our father, you who are in heaven"

The solution commonly adopted now seems to be to dispense with the
relative,
  e.g. Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi - Lamb of God, you take away the
sin(s) of the world.
This would give:
"Our father, you are in heaven"

Why not do what is natural English? "Our father in heaven"?

I'm afraid the historic evidence clearly shows that the early Wicliffite
translations, which influenced all later English translations until
the 20th cent., were originally of the Latin Vulgate - and in the Latin
the relative was needed.

> So the translations like "who (is/are) in heaven" fits the
> text.
Not really - if you translated every instance of a PP added attributively
to a noun by the definite article you'd get some clumsy translations.

> Btw, it looks more like a calque from a traditional Hebrew "avinu she
> bashamayim"...
I think not - the Greeks were using the article like this after definite
nouns long
before they came in contact with Hebrew.

>> And "who is" would've been condemned as "ungrammatical" after the
>> vocative
>> "Our father" and, I guess, would have figured significantly lower.
>
> Oh no. Shifting from 2nd to 3rd person in prayer or benediction is quite
> normal
> in Jewish tradition.
Maybe - and there are examples in natlangs where the verb in relative
clauses
become 3rd (sing.) irrespective of the antecedent.  But, "is" after a
vocative would
still be considered by some as "ungrammatical" and 50 years ago - which is
what
I was talking about - would've been considered "ungrammatical" by an even
greater number of people.

> Just my two agoroth...
> -- Yitzik
>
>
>
Ray
===============================================
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
===============================================

Reply