The translator of Comenius's Janua Linguarum writes:
825. Ἁγνός ἐστιν ὁ ἀφροδισίων ῥητῶν τε καὶ ἀῤῥήτων ἁγνεύει. τὸ γὰρ ἀσελγαίνειν θηριῶδες.
as a translation of
825. Castus est qui se libidine vel fanda vel nefanda non contaminat. Lascivire enim belluinum est.
Shouldn't it be Ἁγνός ἐστιν ὃς κ.τ.λ. ?
Thanks!
ὁ for ὃς
- bedwere
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 5111
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
- Location: Didacopoli in California
- Contact:
ὁ for ὃς
Corrections are welcome (especially for projects).
Blogger Profile My library at the Internet Archive
Meae editiones librorum. Αἱ ἐμαὶ ἐκδόσεις βίβλων.
Blogger Profile My library at the Internet Archive
Meae editiones librorum. Αἱ ἐμαὶ ἐκδόσεις βίβλων.
- jaihare
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 959
- Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: ὁ for ὃς
It would best be ὁ... ἁγνεύων, but I think he wanted to avoid all of those -ων endings, which would cause confusion between the genitive plurals and the one instance of a masculine nominative singular participle. It looks odd to me, though following ἐστίν with ὁ... -ων seems more sensible than ἐστὶν ὃς... -ει (pres. ind. act.).
What do others thing?
What do others thing?
Jason Hare
jason@thehebrewcafe.com
jason@thehebrewcafe.com
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4816
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: ὁ for ὃς
Yes, unless ἁγνεύει should be -ων as Jason suggests. If this is really what the translator wrote, he must have slipped from the one to the other. But I don't know anything about the translator's behavior, nor whether there could be transmissional error.bedwere wrote:The translator of Comenius's Janua Linguarum writes:
825. Ἁγνός ἐστιν ὁ ἀφροδισίων ῥητῶν τε καὶ ἀῤῥήτων ἁγνεύει. τὸ γὰρ ἀσελγαίνειν θηριῶδες.
as a translation of
825. Castus est qui se libidine vel fanda vel nefanda non contaminat. Lascivire enim belluinum est.
Shouldn't it be Ἁγνός ἐστιν ὃς κ.τ.λ. ?
I was not aware that Mongolian was understood by all the East Indies, as Wikipedia quotes Comenius as writing.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 12:44 am
- Location: USA
Re: ὁ for ὃς
ὁ ... ἀγνεύων sounds better to me too, except for the possible confusion with the endings. jaihare and mwh, do you think that possible confusion is a good enough reason to change it to something simpler like "ὁ ἀγνὸς ἀφροδισίων ῥητῶν τε καὶ ἀῤῥήτων ἁγνεύει"?bedwere wrote:The translator of Comenius's Janua Linguarum writes:
825. Ἁγνός ἐστιν ὁ ἀφροδισίων ῥητῶν τε καὶ ἀῤῥήτων ἁγνεύει. τὸ γὰρ ἀσελγαίνειν θηριῶδες.
as a translation of
825. Castus est qui se libidine vel fanda vel nefanda non contaminat. Lascivire enim belluinum est.
Shouldn't it be Ἁγνός ἐστιν ὃς κ.τ.λ. ?
I didn't know that either! I couldn't find anything more via Google search.mwh wrote:I was not aware that Mongolian was understood by all the East Indies, as Wikipedia quotes Comenius as writing.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4816
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: ὁ for ὃς
No, not that. Ἁγνός ἐστιν is untouchable (~ Castus est). The choice is between changing ο to ος and changing αγνευει to -ων (unless we know the given text is actually what the translator wrote). Either one is acceptable. I'd imagine the latter (it's a very common sort of error), but it really depends on how literal the translator is.Phil- wrote: do you think that possible confusion is a good enough reason to change it to something simpler like "ὁ ἀγνὸς ἀφροδισίων ῥητῶν τε καὶ ἀῤῥήτων ἁγνεύει"?
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 12:44 am
- Location: USA
Re: ὁ for ὃς
I see, thanks! The latter sounds good.mwh wrote:No, not that. Ἁγνός ἐστιν is untouchable (~ Castus est). The choice is between changing ο to ος and changing αγνευει to -ων (unless we know the given text is actually what the translator wrote). Either one is acceptable. I'd imagine the latter (it's a very common sort of error), but it really depends on how literal the translator is.Phil- wrote: do you think that possible confusion is a good enough reason to change it to something simpler like "ὁ ἀγνὸς ἀφροδισίων ῥητῶν τε καὶ ἀῤῥήτων ἁγνεύει"?