« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
not mean simply pronzaction
; ella far enough from expressing the res that usages are not writers, and the O ginal has done, that they are sure n is wholly omitted. L " sier Juden an die syrische... ch as the Polish and German da me dres to) the Syriac. C, "The Poistote Syriac." Now it is one thing to save
I which is what Rasters, and 1 " --16.)
, "Christen;" ie. Christine & Ib ), R., “mehr und mit pritet
and Portuguese Jews apprents to the Arabic pronuriation) 6,7
this he has apparently made met 131' rem Rechte, (which would then rester
as wholly omitted it
, and along the rotimating nearer or more to d approrimation
. In fact this is a gre curacy in the highest degree;' and !
must begin to think in a case, ist ight almost say " quot voces dat er
followed by the phrase, from the lungs, but it is not so specific as the other word. (Ib.)“ Schon," here indeed, to be sure. C., “ even;" and so we have “even before a vowel it is almost lost to the ear," i. e. (as the implication must necessarily be in case we translate “schon" by even), “Before consonants it (&) is altogether lost, etc., for even before a vowel it nearly undergoes the same fate.' Now the original says: “Before a vowel, indeed, the sound is almost lost... noch mehr nach demselben,” i. e. still more after the same. C. has wholly omitted noch mehr and thus marred the comparison. What follows is still looser. R., “ und fliesst dann ganz damit zusammen;" i. e. and coalesces then altogether wilh it. C., “it is often not heard at all, except in connection with the preceding vowel sound, with which it combines its own.” Gesenius means to say, that Aleph is not only a very soft slight sound when standing before a vowel, but that after one it is wholly suppressed as to sound, i. e. is not audible. C. says, that this happens merely often ; which is a limitation not made by the German. In expressing even this, he has a peculiar paraphrase. First we have Aleph after a vowel ; then, “except in connection with the preceding vowel;" which, with what goes before, and as it now stands, can mean neither more nor less than that 'after a vowel it is often (not always) not heard, i. e. it is sometimes audible; and “it is not heard at all except in connection, etc.,” must mean that it is heard when connected with a preceding vowel. The word except must relate to not heard, and of course it must imply, that it is audible in the case of a vowel preceding it; which is the very thing that the original means to deny. “With which it combines its own,” after such an assertion as precedes, is incongruous, and in a measure contradictory --not as to matter of fact, but in relation to what the translator had just said.
Ib. par. 6, “ am Ende der Sylbe ; i. e. at the end of a syllable. C., “at the end of words.” The German then goes on thus: “ it  is a Guttural . . . yet at the end of words often a representative of a vowel. C., “it may like x upite its sound with that of the preceding vowel, or it may retain its character as a Guttural, which is regularly the case at the end of a syllable in the middle of a word.” This is something very different from the simple original; and for now and then a like liberty in my version, Prof. C. bas administered severe rebuke to me.
Ib. par. 7, “ Dem * zunächst verwandt ist 3'; i. e. to Aleph is nearest related. C., “is nearly related;" thus changing the nature of the assertion. (ib.), “ ein am Hintergaum gebildetes
tion of this passage was mingled me
nur;" i. e. only, bed. C, botere ich behelfen, so gut sie konnta?
hemselves as well as they codd. l. '11
ake what shifts they could fall spassing on the dignity that being I may be well to look to the line d," and, he renders “ in which can following list," added by C. is de what follows resemble a list
. Itsin a few letters of peculiar sound was Besonderes zu bemerken ist ation of chich something peculiers nunciation requires special atten
and to have something pecahay ideas quite distinct and diferent i
, most slender. " vid to apply to pronunciation (M) breathing." It is well enough
schnarrendes g; i.e. a quavering & formed in the back part of the palale. C., “a g slightly rattled in the throat.” Whence now comes the slightly? Where is the rattled ? And where the throat ? In the original are none of these ideas. (ib.), “swächerer," i. e. weaker. C., "gentle.” (Ib.), “ einen vocalartigen Ton;" i.e. a vowel-like lone. C., “a sort of vowel sound.” (Ib.), “ fast am gewöhnliclisten;" i. e. almost the most common usage. C., " it is the prevailing usage.” R. merely says, that it is almost so. (16.) “ beiin Lesen und Umschreiben der Wörter in unsere Schrift;" i. e. in reading, and in wriling over the words in our written characters. C., "and in writing its words with Roman or occidental letters." This is no departure from the real seose, but a variation from the style, to which I ain held fust bound by Prof. C. (Ib.), “Die anvähend richtigste Art es in unsere Schrift zu unterdrücken;" i. e. the mode most nearly correct of expressing il () in our wrillen language. C., “ The best representation we could give of it in our letters.” (Ib.), “ aber der Buchstab lautet gelinder," i. e. the letter (3], however, has a more slender sound. This is wholly omitted in C. (Ib.), “ ganz falsch;" i. e. altogether erroneous. C., “quite false."
P. 35, par. 2, “ festeste ;" i. e. firmest, strongest. C., “hardest." What follows is altogether paraphrastic. In a note on this paragraph, at the bottom of the page, we have “ hat man,” i. e. one has, translated by " the peculiarities of which have been carefully noted by grammarians ;" whilst I am often accused of trespassing upon the brevity of the original. lo the sequel,“ ausserdem," besides, is rendered “as well as ;" “ gewisse,” certain, is left out, er else translated “different." Still further along, “dem Laute gemäss” is wholly omitted. R. says, that y is divided (by the Arabic) into the softer Ain and the harder Ghain ; but C. says, that these Arabic letters are made from s, i. e, that the two Arabic letters sprung from the corresponding Hebrew one. The same mistake be has made in respect to 7, in the same passage. R. says nothing of derivation. All this, in a Note of five lines.
P. 35, par. 3. “ das haben die Hebräer mehr als schnarrenden Kehllaut, nicht als bebenden Zungenlaut, ausgesprochen;" i, e. then the Hebrews pronounced more as a quavering guttural, not as a tremulous lingual. C., "m also the Hebrews frequently pronounced with a boarse guttural sound, not as a lingual made by the vibration of the tongue.” Whence comes the frequently? for this of course must imply that sometimes it was not propounced in the way described ; which surely is not Roediger's meaning. Schnarrenden is not hoarse, but indicates a quavering
sound, as it is translated above. Bebenden is not vibrating. A pendulum vibrates ; but whose tongue makes such a motion in pronouncing the rolling r, as we name it? What R. means to designate, is the tremulous motion of the tongue in rolling the r, in such a manner as is usual in the French language.
P. 35, par. 4, “die hebräische Sprache [ist] reicher als die aramäische ; i. e. the Heb. language is richer (in sibilant sounds) than the Aramaeun. C.,“the Heb. language is rich, more so than the kindred dialects, especially the Aramaean.” The whole clause, " than the kindred dialects," is added to the original, and contains a manifest error. Is not the Arabic a kindred dialect ? and has it not more sibilants than the Hebrew? Is not the same true of the Ethiopic? (Ib.), “welche dafür zum Theil (platte) Zungenluute hat; i. e. which in their place adopls in part (flat) lingual sounds. C., “which adopts instead of them the flat lingual sounds.” R. says, that in part the Aramaean adopts flat Jinguals instead of sibilants ; C. says that this is done throughout ; for this expression cannot mean anything less. Here, then, in a German paragraph of two lines, are two material errors as to fact contained in C.'s translation.
Ib. par. 5, “ Da aber;" since however. C., “But as." Further on, "auffallend,” strikingly, is rendered very ; certainly without any injury to the sense, but as certainly a trespass on the rules which the translator prescribes for me. Again, “an 8 grenzte,” bordered on s; C., "approaching to that of s.” The ideas of approaching to and of bordering on, are specifically different; the latter designating greater proximity, and being therefore intensive. The awe in which the original is viewed by Prof. C, should have deterred him from obscuring even the slightest colouring of the original.
P. 35, par. 6, “ iz stand in der Ausprache dem o gewiss sehr nabe;" in pronunciation in certainly stood very near to b. C., " i resembled o in pronunciation.” Now a resemblance may be more or less, small or great. But to resemble a thing very much is quite another idea ; and this, which is the meaning of Gesenius, C.'s version does not at all designate. In the next clause, " it differed from this letter, however,” is superadded to the text, and is an offence against the conciseness of the original, which the translator insists should be religiously respected. — (Ib.), “mag es;" it might. C.,“ was probably,” which is more than R. asserts, who only makes a mere conjecture. — (Ib.), “Wenigstens begründet sich dadurch bisweilen ein Unterschied der Bedeutung, z. B. ED... 20;" i. e. at least on this a difference of
meaning is sometimes grounded, as, etc. C., “Hence bo... 13 have different meanings, being distinct roots.” The Gerinan says, that a difference between the sound of O and ing is probable, because a difference of meaning, in some verbs, seenis to be grounded on a supposed or assumed difference; of which the verbs quoted give an example. C. says, that these verbs have a different meaning because they are distinct roots. This is not untrue, but it is not what the German expresses. (16.)
, “ Die Syrer gebrauchen;" The Syrians employ. C., “ At a later period this distinction was lost, and hence the Syrians employed." Here a whole clause is added, which states as a fact what manifestly is not true, viz. that because the Hebrew at a late period lost the distinction between D and icy, the Syrians employed only o for both. Did not the Syriac language then exist, with the alphabet that it now has, before the later Hebrew began to neglect the distinction in question? And if so, how could their alphabet have been modified by a neglect of a certain distinction between two letters in the late Hebrew? In the next clause, the translator makes R. assert the same thing in respect to the Arabic; whereas the Arabic is, for aught we know, as old, or older than the Hebrew. R. says, that the two letters in question were indeed exchanged in the later Hebrew ; C. says, “ they began to be interchanged even in the later Hebrew.” Now there is some difference between saying that a thing began to be, and saying without limitation that it was. By again translating "schon" even, C. has given to the clause the implied sense, that these letters were actually interchanged elsewhere, and even began to be so in the Hebrew. Which, then, of the cognate dialects had the two letters in question, and which interchanged them?
P. 35, par. 7, "y ist ein gelinde säuselndes s, das griech. $;" i. e. Zayin a soft whizzing s, the Greek S. C., “y was like ds (hence in the Sept. 5), as ' was is.” The German does not say that I was like ds; it says it was the same as the Greek G. C. represents this as true only of the Septuagint. The German says nothing about y.
P. 35, par. 8, the German says, u, P, and y are, etc.; C., “p and 3 are, etc.” (Ib.), "Zusainmenpressung der Orgarie im Hintermunde;" i. e. compression of the organs in the back part of the mouth. c., “compression of the organs of speech.” The distinct peculiarity io pronouncing the letters in question, is wholly lost sight of in the translation of C. (Ib.), “ die unserem t und k entsprechen, und ausserdem oft der Aspiration unterliegen;" i, e. which corresponds to our t and k, and moreover are often subjected to aspiration. The whole of this is entirely omitted in C.'s translation.
Thus much for our first excursion. On less than two pages in Prof. C.'s book are some sixty-five errors; some twenty or more of them marring the sense of the original, and all of them coming within the bounds of error which he himself bas prescribed. This is enough for the first excursion for the purpose of seeing if there be any errors. I presume my North American friend would willingly halt here, and take a breathing spell before we embark on a second voyage. I should be bappy to indulge him, but time is short, and we must not occupy much of it in resting before our task is completed.
I open at random again, at p. 92 of Prof. C.'s book, and begin with Rem. 1. on the article, Roediger, $ 35, p. 80. In line 5, " neben” is translated besides ; it means together with. The German says, “ ein demonstratives }; the translator, “ the demonstrative form." The German makes — a demonstrative word; the translation, a demonstrative form. The words and distinct,” in the next sentence of the translation have no existence in the German. (ib.), “ obwohl,” although, is translated “indeed."
Ib., Rem. 2, “ die Preposition tritt in dessen Vocalisation ein;" the preposition enters upon (or assumes) ils vocalization. C. “ the preposition takes its points.” Points is an equivocal word. Daghesh and Mappiq are points. Vowel-points or vocalization is unequivocal. Next sentence,“ nur," only, is rendered however, and this wholly obscures the sense. The meaning of the German is, that only often retains the article, while the other prepositions do not; which shade of meaning is lost in the translation. In the parenthetic part of this sentence is inserted" the word.” What word ? The German mentions none, and should not. It says merely, which less closely attaches itself. In the next clause, “öfter” means often ; translation, “very often.”—Ib.) “ sonst fast nur in spätern Büchern;" i. e. elsewhere, almost only in the later books. The German avers, that often permits the article to remain, mentions examples, and then says, that elsewhere, such a practice is to be found almost only in the later books. For this C. has the following expression,“ seldom with other prefixes, except in the later books.” Now here the original is obscure and equivocal, wbich C. has made plainer, without any apology for adding or altering. Rightly; but then he imputes to me the like as a fault. In the following sentence, “ Das ?... wird nie contrahirt;" them is never contracted. C.,