--- Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> Adam Walker wrote:
> > I happened upon
> > this one sentence that made me pause:
> >
> > «Echa, esti junu fapu grandu pera undrari junu
> > cadoligu ils cunxueduñis djils huidelis.» dichid
> al
> > chimpeda.
> >
> > It parses as:
> >
> > already be.3rd.sg.pres one/a.masc. deed/act/fact
> > great/large/big for to.honor one/a.masc Catholic
> > the.neut.pl custom.pl of.the.neut.pl faithful.pl
> > say.3rd.sg.past the.fem. beggar
> >
> > Or more smoothly,
> >
> > "Already it's a deed great for to.honor a Catholic
> the
> > customs of.the faithful." said the beggar.
> >
> > And I translated it as:
> >
> > "It is already a great deed for a Catholic to
> honor
> > the customs of the Faithful," said the beggar.
> >
> > What I'm wondering is, do any of you find the
> original
> > difficult to parse?
>
> A bit, perhaps, not that you point it out. I'm
> thinking that in most Romance
> languages, a for-to clause with change of subject is
> more likely to be
> introduced with que/che etc. and take the
> subjunctive. Are these not
> options? For Ex. Spanish, more or less: ya es gran
> hecho QUE(~CUANDO, SI)
> UN CATÓLICO HONRE (~HAGA HONOR A) los costumbres de
> los Fideles. (Not really
> sure about the subjunctive, it just feels right for
> some reason)
>
Hmm. Maybe I should change to FI (the C-a cognate of
que/che) rather than PERA. That does seem more
Romance. And knowing when C-a should use the
subjunctive just gives me fits.
> I'm considering adding the word
> > "ad" meaning "to" between "cadoligu" and "ils"
> which
> > would make:
>
> Not sure it makes all that much difference; the
> difficulty IMO is the
> _Prep+verb +(subj. of vb)_ sequence. In Span. and
> Ital. at least, the
> subject of a para/per+verb has to be be mentioned in
> the intro. clause---
> lo hizo para onrar a su padre 'he did it to honor
> his father'.
C-a: Falud si pera undrari jun ad il su parri.
Do.3rd.sg.past it.obj for to.honor he to the his
father.
Or: le dan
> dinero para que viaje 'they give him money so that
> he may travel' ('they
> give him money for travelling' would be OK too I
> think.)
Dans xicuu ad sivi pera fi vizeud.
Give.3rd.pl.pres. money to him for that
visit.3rd.sg.pres.sbjct.
But ...para viajar
> él is flat out IIRC. OTOH Carrajena may well have
> gone in other directions.
>
Well, C-a is VSO for one thing.
> > Do you think the addition of "to" marking the
> clause
> > boundary makes thing clearer, more confused or
> just
> > silly?
> >
> I don't think it helps one way or t'other...but it's
> up to you; as we say,
> it's your conlang.....:-))))
>
So it is, but thanks loads for the needed input.
Adam
Jin nifalud fistus todus idavi eseud adimpuudu ul isu fi aved niminchunadu pera ul
Dju peu'l medju djul provedu cumvi dichid: «Iñi! Cunchepijid ed nadajid il
virdjini ad junu huiju, ed cuamajuns ad si il Emanueli fi sñivigad ul Dju simu
noviscu.»
Machu 1:22-23