Talk:оудавлѥнина
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Translation of the quote[edit]
Here's a Cyrillic transcription in case it's easier to read for anyone than the Glagolitic or romanization (I also linked the words in it):
@Atitarev, Vorziblix, Useigor, Ivan Štambuk, CodeCat: My current translation is "If whosoever without dire need eats strangled meat, or beast's blood, or that which he knows not how it died, or that which was sacrificed, let him fast for 12 weeks." Can you guys check the accuracy and make sure I understood it correctly? --WikiTiki89 15:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Has the Euchologium Sinaiticum ever been translated into English? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- This might be one, but I don't have access to it and I couldn't find any English or Russian translations available online. --WikiTiki89 15:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the translation, only I don't see the part "or that which was sacrificed". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Atitarev: That was my interpretation of і҅ли трѣбъно ч꙽то and I'm very uncertain about it. I really couldn't figure out whether без бѣдꙑ goes with that or with ѣ҅стъ. --WikiTiki89 21:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- "If whosoever ..." is not really idiomatic English. I'd go with "If anyone eats..., let him fast" or "Whosoever eats..., let him fast". It's very common for languages to use their interrogative pronouns as indefinite pronouns (i.e. "who" to mean "anyone", "what" to mean "anything", and so on). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Angr: Perhaps you're right. I was trying to simultaneously mimic Biblical style and translate both the words аще (ašte) and къто (kŭto). If you can think of something better, feel free to change it. --WikiTiki89 22:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify, "anyone" and "someone" do not sound Biblical enough for me, but I don't want to leave out the word "if". --WikiTiki89 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- The construction the King James Bible uses most is "if any man...", but more modern translations like the NRSV are perfectly content to say "if anyone...". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify, "anyone" and "someone" do not sound Biblical enough for me, but I don't want to leave out the word "if". --WikiTiki89 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Angr: Perhaps you're right. I was trying to simultaneously mimic Biblical style and translate both the words аще (ašte) and къто (kŭto). If you can think of something better, feel free to change it. --WikiTiki89 22:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- "If whosoever ..." is not really idiomatic English. I'd go with "If anyone eats..., let him fast" or "Whosoever eats..., let him fast". It's very common for languages to use their interrogative pronouns as indefinite pronouns (i.e. "who" to mean "anyone", "what" to mean "anything", and so on). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Atitarev: That was my interpretation of і҅ли трѣбъно ч꙽то and I'm very uncertain about it. I really couldn't figure out whether без бѣдꙑ goes with that or with ѣ҅стъ. --WikiTiki89 21:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the translation, only I don't see the part "or that which was sacrificed". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- This might be one, but I don't have access to it and I couldn't find any English or Russian translations available online. --WikiTiki89 15:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm lost, sorry. Russian dictionaries define уда́вленина (udávlenina) as strangled animal forbidden for eating. Not sure if this should be added here. Another quote might be here. Dictionary publishers seem to be certain about the stress too, which is on the 2nd syllable as in the Russian descendant. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well yes, I think this part of the text is trying to spell out punishments for various things, including the eating forbidden meat from a strangled animal. I just don't get all the details of this sentence. --WikiTiki89 22:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Logically, I think "without dire need" must refer to eating, not to sacrificing. There is no animal sacrifice in Christianity, but there is a rule against eating meat from animals that were sacrificed to pagan gods. In Acts 15:20, St. James says that gentile converts to Christianity do not need to be circumcised and follow all of the Jewish laws, but only "to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood". So it would make sense for this text to impose a punishment on Christians who fail to abstain from things polluted by idols (e.g. meat sacrificed to pagan gods), from whatever has been strangled, and from blood; but an exception is made in case of dire need (if it's a choice between eating unacceptable food and starving to death, you can eat the unacceptable food). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Then it could be that ѣ̀ко means "if" here instead of "how", giving "if someone eats strangled meat or beast's blood, not knowing if it it died or was sacrificed, let him fast for 12 weeks." But then what is the function of ч꙽то? --WikiTiki89 22:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Not knowing if it died"? If you've got a plate of meat in front of you, it should be pretty obvious that the animal died! Maybe it's "that which he knows not how it died—[for example,] if it was sacrificed". In other words, if you don't know your butcher, the animal the meat is from might have been sacrificed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Angr: Maybe this is only works in my mind, but I meant "not knowing if the cause of death was that it died (on its own) or that it was sacrificed", but again, I'm not sure that that's correct. --WikiTiki89 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not even completely sure трѣбъно means sacrificed. --WikiTiki89 14:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like if they had wanted to say "not knowing if it had died of natural causes" they would have been that explicit. Also, I don't know if there's a religious injunction in Christianity against eating the meat of animals that died of natural causes, but I think there's a pretty strong taboo against it in most cultures. No one usually wants to eat the meat of a sick or old animal, or roadkill, or carrion from some predator's kill anyway. I think "not knowing how it died, (for example) if it was sacrificed" is most likely, provided that трѣбъно really does mean "sacrificed". I don't know enough about Slavic to recognize what root that word appears to come from. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- The related words трѣбьникъ (trěbĭnikŭ) and трѣбище (trěbište) both mean "altar", but трѣбити (trěbiti) means "to clean/purify" and трѣбовати (trěbovati) means "to require/search for". However, this dictionary defines трѣбьнъ (trěbĭnŭ) as "sacrificed" (Жертвен, принесен в жертва) and even uses our same quote as the example, so I think that's solid evidence that it means "sacrificed". But still, there is the і҅ли (i҅li, “or”) in there right before трѣбъно. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's true too. I was thinking или (ili) might mean "whether", but it doesn't look like it. So maybe they are just separate conditions: if someone eats (1) strangled meat or (2) animal blood or (3) meat of unknown butchering history or (4) sacrificial meat, then he has to fast for 12 days. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- The related words трѣбьникъ (trěbĭnikŭ) and трѣбище (trěbište) both mean "altar", but трѣбити (trěbiti) means "to clean/purify" and трѣбовати (trěbovati) means "to require/search for". However, this dictionary defines трѣбьнъ (trěbĭnŭ) as "sacrificed" (Жертвен, принесен в жертва) and even uses our same quote as the example, so I think that's solid evidence that it means "sacrificed". But still, there is the і҅ли (i҅li, “or”) in there right before трѣбъно. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like if they had wanted to say "not knowing if it had died of natural causes" they would have been that explicit. Also, I don't know if there's a religious injunction in Christianity against eating the meat of animals that died of natural causes, but I think there's a pretty strong taboo against it in most cultures. No one usually wants to eat the meat of a sick or old animal, or roadkill, or carrion from some predator's kill anyway. I think "not knowing how it died, (for example) if it was sacrificed" is most likely, provided that трѣбъно really does mean "sacrificed". I don't know enough about Slavic to recognize what root that word appears to come from. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not even completely sure трѣбъно means sacrificed. --WikiTiki89 14:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Angr: Maybe this is only works in my mind, but I meant "not knowing if the cause of death was that it died (on its own) or that it was sacrificed", but again, I'm not sure that that's correct. --WikiTiki89 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Not knowing if it died"? If you've got a plate of meat in front of you, it should be pretty obvious that the animal died! Maybe it's "that which he knows not how it died—[for example,] if it was sacrificed". In other words, if you don't know your butcher, the animal the meat is from might have been sacrificed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Then it could be that ѣ̀ко means "if" here instead of "how", giving "if someone eats strangled meat or beast's blood, not knowing if it it died or was sacrificed, let him fast for 12 weeks." But then what is the function of ч꙽то? --WikiTiki89 22:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Logically, I think "without dire need" must refer to eating, not to sacrificing. There is no animal sacrifice in Christianity, but there is a rule against eating meat from animals that were sacrificed to pagan gods. In Acts 15:20, St. James says that gentile converts to Christianity do not need to be circumcised and follow all of the Jewish laws, but only "to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood". So it would make sense for this text to impose a punishment on Christians who fail to abstain from things polluted by idols (e.g. meat sacrificed to pagan gods), from whatever has been strangled, and from blood; but an exception is made in case of dire need (if it's a choice between eating unacceptable food and starving to death, you can eat the unacceptable food). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well yes, I think this part of the text is trying to spell out punishments for various things, including the eating forbidden meat from a strangled animal. I just don't get all the details of this sentence. --WikiTiki89 22:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm lost, sorry. Russian dictionaries define уда́вленина (udávlenina) as strangled animal forbidden for eating. Not sure if this should be added here. Another quote might be here. Dictionary publishers seem to be certain about the stress too, which is on the 2nd syllable as in the Russian descendant. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Angr, Wikitiki89, Atitarev: How happy are you with the translation? Can it be featured? (Also, not necessary for featuring, but two things that would be nice to have are a reconstructed pronunciation (see below) and an entry for the Russian descendant.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm content with the translation. I did add a reconstructed pronunciation a while back, but it was removed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not content with the translation as a whole, but at least the part that actually concerns the actual word in question I am confident enough about and hopefully no one will pay too much attention to the rest of the sentence. I stand by my comment below regarding the pronunciation. I don't feel comfortable creating the Russian word, but hopefully Anatoli can do that. --WikiTiki89 18:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- The translation is the best attempt you can get for now. I'm OK for it to be featured but if an expert of OCS had a look at, it would be even better. I'll make the Russian entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, everyone. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- The translation is the best attempt you can get for now. I'm OK for it to be featured but if an expert of OCS had a look at, it would be even better. I'll make the Russian entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not content with the translation as a whole, but at least the part that actually concerns the actual word in question I am confident enough about and hopefully no one will pay too much attention to the rest of the sentence. I stand by my comment below regarding the pronunciation. I don't feel comfortable creating the Russian word, but hopefully Anatoli can do that. --WikiTiki89 18:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm content with the translation. I did add a reconstructed pronunciation a while back, but it was removed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@Angr, Wikitiki89: Sorry I was away earlier, when all this was under discussion! трѣбьнъ (trěbĭnŭ) does indeed mean »sacrificed« here (although it has another attested meaning of »needed, required« in some later Church Slavonic manuscripts, in OCS потрѣбьнъ (potrěbĭnŭ) is used with this meaning instead). The SJS glosses it as »obětní, obětí (gen.), žertevní; жертвенный, жертвы (gen.); zum Opfer bestimmt; ad sacrificium destinatus«, and cites the passage given as an example.
без бѣдꙑ almost certainly does go with ѣ҅стъ, paralleling other constructions in the Euchologium, e.g. аще к꙽то бѣдоѭ оукрадетъ….
As far as I can tell the only correction needed for the currently given translation is that ли кръвь скоти꙽ѭ, не вѣдꙑ ѣ̀ко о̀умръло естъ should be »…or beast's blood, not knowing how it died,…«; (не) вѣдꙑ is an active participle. (edit: It’s fixed now.) —Vorziblix (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Pronunciation exception[edit]
@Metaknowledge: I have removed the pronunciation, because we really do have an inadequate understand of OCS phonology to produce IPA transcriptions. I hope we can ignore the pronunciation requirement for FWOTD for OCS terms. --WikiTiki89 21:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine, and I'm still willing to feature it. That said, I would prefer a reconstructed pronunciation, with methodology cited to a particular paper or book that you think is most reliable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)