Print

Print


Steg Belsky togemat:

> On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:52:36 -0500 Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> writes:
> >> Interesting, so is _a_ used as a universal accusative marker in
> >Ladino?
>
> >Or perhaps is there a Yiddish/Hebrew influence?  In other words, does
> >either of those use an analagous structure to "a" in this instance?
> >In
> >any event, the construction is fascinating: the use of "a" in this
> >instance evokes the image of a rather personal involvement in creation
> >or
> >(almost) the image of a process.  To me anyway!
>
> Hebrew does have an accusative marker.  _et_ is used for...lemme see if i
> can remember the exact terminology..."definite direct objects".  The
> Ladino _a_ is being used as a generalized Spanish "_a_ personal", the
> equivalent of _et_, and also as "to".  In the Hebrew text there seems to
> always be an _et_ or _l-_ (to) where the Ladino translates "a".

It is probably a generalization in Spanish probably influenced by Hebrew...
or an archaic form of Spanish.  Actually in Spanish is not uncommon to use
the object marker "a" for impersonal nouns... I have not checked but I guess
that many translations of the bible say:

En principio creo' Dios a los cielos y a la tierra.

It doesn't sound unnaturally to me.

> >el dios creo los cielos: a fiat, a perfect action, a certain
> >"distance"
> >from the action
> >el dios creo a los cielos: an action in the process, a certain
> >"proximity"
> >to the action (perhaps because 'a' evokes motion)

... Dios creo' el cielo ... Dios creo' al cielo ...
I'm not sure what is the difference but there is some there.  Both are
perfect actions.  I feel like the use of the preposition makes "el cielo"
like a more unique concept... which is a little more clear in:

... Dios creo' la tierra ... Dios creo' a la tierra ...
Where the first would probably suggest that God created earth (where plantas
would grow) and the second is more like God created the Earth (the planet).

> >I may not be expaining this well, but the two say very different
> >things
> >to me anyway.  Que dicen los hispanoparlantes aqui?
>
> I've never heard "hispanoparlantes", just "hispanohablantes"....

Both are posible.  I even think that "hispanoparlante" is more formal (if not
correct) but "hispanohablante" is more modern and is getting more and more
widely acceptance.

> >> > 2. y la tiera era vana y vazia y escuridad sovre fasis de abismo y
> >> > espiritu de el dio abolava sovre fasis delash [sic] aguash. [sic]
>
> >> Is this a typo?  _de el_, two words, but _delash_, one word?
>
> >I wonder if such construction is analagous to "de El Salvador", where
> >"el"
> >is part of the name and resists contraction.
>
> It could be, that sounds logical.

I believe it too.

--
Carlos Eugenio Thompson Pinzon