Posts

Posted on

ñēim

njeeim

ñēim

The next part of the fifth sentence of the Babel text:

ē teteñ ien hēja ñanna lewēra tō tūaþ wā ñi ñēim makkepōlien rā anmārwi āñ pēxa;

consists of ñi ñēim makkepōlien. ñēim is the first person inclusive paucal pronoun. The relational ñi is not inflected to match, so “we” cannot be the agent. However, ñi plus rā as a change in location does not generally inflect either. “I went home” is ñi liēn rāmāra. Inflecting ñi as in ñalla liēn rāmāra is “I made myself go home” and implies that I was unwilling to go home or did not choose to go home but was forced to anyway.

Posted on

wā

waa

wā

Continuing on the fifth sentence of the Babel text:

ē teteñ ien hēja ñanna lewēra tō tūaþ wā ñi ñēim makkepōlien rā anmārwi āñ pēxa;

wā is one of those words that can modify a noun phrase or a clause. In either case it carries a meaning of negation.

So far we have:
And they said to each other: We should make ourselves a name in order that not ….

Posted on

tō tūaþ

toospacetuuath

tō tūaþ

Continuing from yesterday on the fifth sentence of the Babel text:

ē teteñ ien hēja ñanna lewēra tō tūaþ wā ñi ñēim makkepōlien rā anmārwi āñ pēxa;

tō tūaþ conjoins clauses and signals that a reason is to follow. I tend to translate this as “in order to” or “in order that”.

Posted on

sawēra

saweera

sawēra

So, the fifth sentence of the Babel text:

ē teteñ ien hēja ñanna lewēra tō tūaþ wā ñi ñēim makkepōlien rā anmārwi āñ pēxa;

This starts off easily enough. ē teteñ ien “And they to each other said” and hēja ñanna “we should make…”. And then there is lewēra. This is the first person possessive form of sawēra, an obligatorily possessed noun meaning “name”. Except that name (also jawēra) is not actually obligatorily possessed. Or rather, it doesn’t have to be. This is one of those nouns that can be possessed or not, and when it is it means “one’s name considered as an integral part of oneself” or maybe “one’s self-identity”.

ē teteñ ien hēja ñanna lewēra “And they to each other said: we should make ourselves a name…”

Posted on

ja

ja

ja

This is a relative pronoun that relativizes inanimates. In the fourth sentence of the Babel text

ē teteñ ien hēja ñanna jamāonre nīkan jakōnōr ja ñi jōl rā anīstīli;

ja relativizes jakōnōr. ñi jōl rā anīstīli is “make the top of it to heaven” and it is jakōnōr “a tower”.

And they to each other said: We should make a city with a tower whose top is to heaven.

Posted on

jōl

jool

jōl

the top of something. This is related to the postpositional modifier ōl, which I blogged about earlier. That completes all the nouns in the fourth sentence of the Babel text.

ē teteñ ien hēja ñanna jamāonre nīkan jakōnōr ja ñi jōl rā anīstīli;

As for the rest, it should all be straightforward. The only word in there I haven’t mentioned before is ja.

Posted on

jamāonre

jamaaonre

jamāonre

jamāonre is a word that best translates as “city”. It first occurs in the fourth sentence in the Babel text:

ē teteñ ien hēja ñanna jamāonre nīkan jakōnōr ja ñi jōl rā anīstīli;

Of the four nouns in this sentence, two are already familiar: jakōnōr “tower” and anīstīli “night sky, heaven”. This post discusses jamāonre and tomorrow’s post will discuss jōl.

Posted on

te & la

te

te by itself can be either the past tense of se or of la. When in doubt, assume la, since se is usually inflected.

la

la is a relational that takes an object and asserts its existence. So, in the third sentence of the Babel text

ē teteñ ien
hēja ñanna jacālmi jajūti nā
aþ te sāim nīkan jacālmi ñe jakīþi
aþ te sāim nīkan ancēwri ñe anhērmi;

te merely asserts that the object or situation (sāim nīkan jacālmi ñe jakīþi in the first te clause, and sāim nīkan ancēwri ñe anhērmi in the second) is so. It is in the past tense because the whole narrative is in the past tense.

And they to each other (said)
we should make many baked bricks
and they with bricks as stones
and they with mud as mortar.

And that ends the third sentence. The fourth tomorrow.