A C-a grammar question
| From: | Adam Walker <carrajena@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, June 8, 2005, 19:47 |
|---|
In looking back over the Carrajena folk tale I
recently finished, (while implimenting Jan's
suggestion about formating, changing colors and
searching for typos of which I found several in both
the English and the C-a versions!) 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? I'm considering adding the word
"ad" meaning "to" between "cadoligu" and "ils" which
would make:
«Echa, esti junu fapu grandu pera undrari junu
cadoligu ad ils cunxueduñis djils huidelis.» dichid al
chimpeda.
Now it would parse as:
already be.3rd.sg.pres one/a.masc. deed/act/fact
great/large/big for to.honor one/a.masc Catholic to
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 to
the customs of the Faithful," said the beggar.
Do you think the addition of "to" marking the clause
boundary makes thing clearer, more confused or just
silly?
Awaiting the collective wisdom of the list,
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
Replies