From: Isaac A. Penzev (isaacp@ukr.net)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 12:51:22 EST
Padraic Brown eskribiw:
> --- John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote:
> > Isaac A. Penzev scripsit:
> >
> > > 2. Why do you use 2sn in <<que es in los
> > cielos>>? Traditionally, 3sn is used
> > > in such constructions.
> >
> > The Vulgate says "Pater noster qui es [not est]
> > in caelis",
>
> It may also not be out of line to consider that
> when the prayer was taught, it was taught as an
> address to god. I.e., first person speaks to
> second person. Only the 2s would make sense. In
> English or Latin.
See reply to Dr.Cowan :-))
But I didn't notice that the switch to indirect address is not made throughout
the text, because it continues with "let Thy Name be hallowed"...
> Presumably Greek as well, but I
> don't have a Greek version to compare.
As Dr.Cowan says,
<<Note the total absence of a copula in "ho en tois ouranois".>>
No wonder I made this silly mistake.
The Hebrew form |avinu she bashamayim|, met in traditional Jewish prayers from
Siddur (the Prayerbook) has no copular either...
> Padraic.
Yitzik,
who is very sorry if he offended somebody with his mistake
0:-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 12:19:45 EST