Using La Sankta Biblio to learn Esperanto
貼文者: Starkman, 2010年5月11日
訊息: 113
語言: English
ceigered (顯示個人資料) 2010年5月20日下午11:43:40
ninjaaron_0:Furthermore, the LXX actually translates it differently with God says 'tell the sons of Israel I AM has sent you.'So does that mean it's effectively saying "tell the sons of Israel the one who is has sent you"? Or did I poop/begger/feck/roger up? (avoiding using an actual swear word
It says ὁ ων, meaning, the one who is, "la estanto"
) 
ninjaaron_0 (顯示個人資料) 2010年5月21日上午7:42:06
ceigered:Yeah, something like. Of course, it's only the LXX, so it doesn't make a big difference about the meaning of the Hebrew text, but it does mean that John can't have expected his gentile readers to 'get it' unless they had Exodus in Hebrew (not too likely... with the possible exception of Luke... if that guy didn't know Hebrew, I'm a monkey's uncle).
So does that mean it's effectively saying "tell the sons of Israel the one who is has sent you"? Or did I poop/begger/feck/roger up? (avoiding using an actual swear word
Then again, there are theories that some of the narratives in John's gospel are based in an Aramaic or Hebrew oral tradition, and the allusion would probably have been very clear to that audience.
------
In other news, I've been going over Zamenhof's translation, and it looks to me like he relied on his translations a bit more than the Hebrew. I started working on a little revision with translation notes based more closely on the Hebrew text (Biblical and ANE languages are my main field of study here at the Hebrew U Jerusalem). Maybe I'll throw it up here when I finish the first three chapters. It takes a while, ĉar me nur komencas lerni Esperanto, sed ĝi ŝajnas kiel vojo bona por lerni.
erinja (顯示個人資料) 2010年5月21日下午3:18:52
I have always heard that Zamenhof's Hebrew wasn't that great, so documentary evidence backs up what you're finding in the text.
His translations of Shakespeare were also heavily based on German translations, so I hear. His English wasn't that great.
One thing that you should note when looking at the Esperanto text, is that the meanings of some Esperanto words have shifted with time. One obvious example is the "facila vento" (easy wind) in the Esperanto anthem, "La Espero". It isn't facila in the sense of easy - actually in this case it means "gentle" or "mild". No-one at all uses "facila" with the meaning of "gentle" any more. So be on the lookout for these small differences between the Esperanto you find in the bible, and what you might find in modern speech. I have found that the Reta Vortaro normally includes archaic meanings in the list; at least, it does in the case of "facila".
Francisko1 (顯示個人資料) 2010年8月20日下午7:41:51
Francisko
La Sankta Biblio.
I know the Bible quite well, so I've thought about using it as a tool to enhance learning Esperanto.
What I need to know is if it modern enough—I assume it is an Esperanto equivalent of the King James Version, which isn't modern—and useful in general for learning the language.
Thanks,
Starkman
horsto (顯示個人資料) 2010年8月21日上午10:32:02
darkweasel:That makes me think if god can have ideas at all. And if god news are a good news. (I'm only joking).Francisko1:I think this is a god idea.It is indeed. In the most literal sense of your misspelling.
(sorry I didn't want to mock you, I just couldn't resist...)
NJ Esperantist (顯示個人資料) 2011年3月10日下午1:33:50
La Sankta Biblio.I thought that when the Esperanto translation was termed 'a translation of the King James Bible' that it meant it was translated previous to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The language used in the OT would likely be Zamenhofian, but still good Esperanto.
I know the Bible quite well, so I've thought about using it as a tool to enhance learning Esperanto.
What I need to know is if it modern enough—I assume it is an Esperanto equivalent of the King James Version, which isn't modern—and useful in general for learning the language.
Thanks,
Starkman
erinja (顯示個人資料) 2011年3月10日下午3:19:43
NJ Esperantist:Zamenhof's translation of the Bible has nothing to do with King James and the mention of King James has nothing to do with the dead sea scrolls. I think the only reason why King James was even brought up in this thread was that King James is written in English that is now archaic, so the meaning is not always obvious to speakers of modern English.What I need to know is if it modern enough—I assume it is an Esperanto equivalent of the King James Version, which isn't modern—and useful in general for learning the language.I thought that when the Esperanto translation was termed 'a translation of the King James Bible' that it meant it was translated previous to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The language used in the OT would likely be Zamenhofian, but still good Esperanto.
And yes, Zamenhof's translation is still perfectly understandable. The style is sometimes a little different and a few words may differ in meaning slightly, but Zamenhof's translation is still very readable.