Geocalyx wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:19 am
Nice! I did a literal translation of Apocryphon of John into my native tongue (turned it into a free verse sort of deal after noticing it has a certain rythm to it and rhymes in places) and have been working on a Thomas one. Thomas really is
a complex piece of work! I'm not sure how
said he : oh slaveowner
there-be many of the going-round within the(F) separation
there-is-not anyone However
in the(F) sickness
gets truncated to "many are looking into the well, but there is nothing in it" so often in local translations, for one, and there is nowhere any mention how that child could also be old in seven "sins" as opposed to "days", or for instance logion 74 featuring accumulation of vovels in Coptic;
ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ
ⲙⲛⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲇⲉ ϩⲛⲧϣⲱⲛⲉ
... or at least a sense of vocational fluidity that has seldom been accounted for.
The text is taken way too lightly for all its nuance and no amphibolic setups are taken into account in general (seems like 20th century translators were all like OMG full GoT translate ASAP get help from Greek original NOW go go go) so I'm glad to see people doing stuff like this.
Carry on the good work!
Re: saying 74. I believe the scholars are correcting what they see as scribal errors
The word for well is ϣⲱⲧⲉ (show-te)
The first 'well' is ⲕⲱⲧⲉ (kow-te)
The second 'well' is ϣⲱⲛⲉ (show-ne)
Coptic spelling can vary especially with vowels and between dialects
Now in this case... unless the scholar is aware of a variant spelling (Crum doesn't appear to list these as known variants) then the 'correction' is open to question
A good scholar would give evidence for their corrections, maybe the scribe made many mistakes, maybe there's a pattern, maybe they can't make sense of it without a correction, or a suspected Greek original they think explains it. It's a game. Surely at least sometimes the 'correction' is mistaken. There should be whole books on this subject really for a text like Thomas, but i'm not aware of any so what ML is doing seems very valuable to me
Sometimes I think what we see as scribal errors is just an incomplete knowledge of the language. Little plays on words that meant something and have been lost. Something like that might be going on here even if it ends up that 'well' is the correct translation overall
It's harder too because Coptic has no gaps between letters, so the TE and NE could be part of other words and the ϣⲱ 'show' is a short form for well. Crum does list ϣⲱⲱ as a variant for ϣⲱⲧⲉ, so could that make sense?