[B-Greek] hOTI

Daveat168 at aol.com Daveat168 at aol.com
Thu Sep 15 16:24:44 EDT 2005


<<Please follow B-Greek protocol when posting to the list hereafter: we  
insist upon a full-name signature, i.e., we don't permit anonymous  
posts.

Do I gather correctly from your post that you are simply translating  
the Latin MS and that you really don't know Greek at all? If you knew  
or had
read any significant amount of NT Koine Greek, you would be aware  
that hOTI is indeed used (a)  to introduce indirect discourse, (b) to  
introduce
direct discourse (in which case it's not translated at all), (c) to  
introduce an adverbial causal clause ("because ..., since ..."), (d)  
sometimes to
introduce a noun clause of some other sort (much like the Latin QUOD  
bearing the sense "the fact being that ..."). I'm not sure that one  
could
readily discern where a Latin QUIA reproduced one of these functions  
of hOTI in the Greek original without consulting the original Greek text
and judging the sense there.

On Sep 15, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Daveat168 at aol.com wrote:

>     I have over the past 3 years, been occupied in translating the  
> Victor
> Codex Gospel into English, using the Douay-Rheims translation  
> synchronised with
> Jerome's Vulgate.  To see my work, you are welcome to look at <A
> HREF="http://www.sangallen56.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/">The Forgotten  
> Gospel</A>.
>     I am now refining an A5 hard back edition, which follows as  
> best as I
> can, the layout of the Latin/Saxon version, but only giving the  
> English
> translation.  My intent is to follow closely the language of Douay-
> Rheims, but where
> that translation is archaic or obscure, to attempt a better  
> translation.
>     I have though met a problem, which seems to be without  
> solution.  There
> are quite a few cases where speech is introduced by the Lating  
> conjunction
> <quia>, which is clearly derived from the Greek <hOTI>.  <Quia> is  
> in this useage
> translated as <that> in English, and used to introduce, at least in  
> English,
> indirect speech.  It seems though in the Latin, that <quia>, though  
> introducing
> indirect speech, frequently leaves the speech in verbatim format.
>     The Latin in question is dated around 200AD, so is not truely  
> Classical,
> neither is it Vulgar, but would be better described as Hellenised  
> Classical.
> In this dialect, it would seem that Greek syntax has been  
> introduced to better
> convey the Greek concepts involved.
>     Can it be that the Greek has this propensity to introduce  
> indirect speech
> with <hOTI>, but then use the verbatim format for the speech.  
> Would it then
> be proper to correct the format into correct reported format, or  
> should the
> speech be regarded as being direct in spite of having been  
> introduced as
> indirect?
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/>>

Dear Carl, Dear Friends,
   Please forgive my coarseness, I am new to your circle, and my interest in Greek is limited to its influence on the Latin following it.
   My knowledge of Greek is about as small as it can be, being hardly more than some familiarity with the un-accented alphabet.
   My query, concerning <hOTI> and its translation into Latin as <quia>, is a direct result of me being obliged to closely compare the Latin and the English of Jerome and Douay-Rheims respectively.
   You seem to be confirming that my suspicions were correct in essence, you seem only to differ in nomenclature.  Wher I suggest that the Hellenized Latin, following the Greek syntax, introduces  indirect discourse, then sometimes formats the discourse verbatim, whereas you say plainly that <hOTI> merely introduces a    clause which may be of direct or indirect discourse, or causal.
   Thus I deduce, that where the discourse is plainly verbatim, this should be treated as direct discourse, and not as a syntactical peculiarity, which to be translated into English, needs to be converted into reported format.
   Usually, though, the Latin does not use <quia> to introduce direct discourse, so I am inclined to believe Latin is either an incorrect translation of the Greek, or is correctly following a syntactical peculiarity of Greek.
-- 
Best regards,
    Dave R Smith,
    (B.A.2,1, Science & Technology, Open Univerity.)
    168 Bristol Road,
    Frampton Cotterell,
    Bristol, BS36 2AX,
    U.K.
eMail    <DaveAt168 at aol.com>
WWW:     <http://www.sangallen56.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list