I suggested a third hypothesis in Hagemannemiliqnenses to a greater degree accounts for the contradicting aspects of the Glosas Emilianenses. These glosses were not intended to explain the text. Glosas Emilianenses — Wikipedia Facanos Deus Omnipotes tal serbitio fere ke denante ela sua face gaudioso segamus. Another example shows us the pronoun nos marking the subject complement instead of the verb: As a rule, yet there are many exceptions, these forms gloss the subjects and direct objects in the base text respectively.
|Published (Last):||26 January 2014|
|PDF File Size:||14.88 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.67 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Tocage Nos could then be overlooked. I suggest that the Glosas Emilianenses were emendation marks in the manuscript, meant as guidelines to emilianensees scribe when copying a new version of the sermons.
The gloss nos over miserabiliores indicates that the emjlianenses is not there to explain the glossas or person, but rather was to be added. The syntactic and grammatical annotations may have been intended to edit or emend the text, adapting it to the usage of the time and region. There are features among the grammatical glosses that indicate their not having to do with learning Latin. This combination of modifications is difficult to fit into the didactic hypothesis. If indeed this is the case, it has important implications on the analysis of the untraditionally written Romance glosses in the manuscript as well as the relationship between spoken and written Latin in the 11th century Spain.
Concluding remarks I have shown that many of the changes indicated by the grammatical glosses are stylistic in nature rather than syntactic or grammatical. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I show that there are great many examples that do not fall into such a category; rather, some glosses appear to be stylistic changes to the text. Combining the stylistic element with the relative complexity, I suggest instead that these glosses may have been intended as emendation marks for a scribe.
These complexities may be explained, however, within the hypothesis that the glosses are indications on how to copy the texts. He wrote about a emilkanenses years ago in three languages:. The first gloss qui antechristus may have been added for the purpose of understanding: I have shown that many of the changes indicated by the grammatical glosses are stylistic in nature rather than syntactic or grammatical.
As a rule, yet there are many exceptions, these forms gloss the subjects and direct objects in the base text respectively. The dative forms show number cui, quibus and gloss indirect objects. If the purpose of the sequential glosses were to facilitate understanding or translating, it would make more sense to use them in the cases when the base text represented some particular difficulty as to the word order.
This supposed Latin teacher had no problem overlooking that the verb was in the passive, and that canonical passives cannot allow direct objects, but he insisted on agreement between subject and verb. Is it merely a coincidence that this type of passive did not survive in Romance, while verb-subject agreement did?
The pronoun does not mark the verb; it appears to have been added for stylistic reasons. Con o aiutorio de nuestro dueno Christo, dueno salbatore, qual dueno get ena honore et qual duenno tienet ela mandatione con o patre con o spiritu sancto en os sieculos de lo siecu los.
A possible explanation for disregarding the passive form may be found in the increase of deponent verbs17 in Late Latin, perhaps resulting in the redundancy of the passive ending even with real passives. However, there are other glosses that contribute to changing the word order.
It may also have been an impersonal passive. In many instances, the apparent reason for glossing is stylistic. Such glossing only makes sense if the purpose were to improve stylistically the text, not if the purpose were to teach Latin. This tendency to stylistically improve the text manifests itself in various ways; two of them are treated in the following. Glosas Emilianenses Compare with example This way of interpreting the language community, together with the fact that the texts are mostly sermons, have led to an alternative hypothesis, namely that they were guidelines or tools meant to facilitate reading the texts aloud, 5 perhaps for a person who did not speak Ibero-Romance.
God Omnipotent, make us do such a service sklenses before His face joyful we are.
Glosas Emilianenses y Glosas Silenses 2006
Shakabei In some cases a gloss that clearly belongs to a specific word in the text, like a personal pronoun belongs to a verb, is placed not above the verb itself eilianenses above the place where the verb is supposed to move to according to the sequential glosses. There are three main types of glosses in the manuscript: It may also have been an impersonal passive. The regularity of these changes and their synchronicity with later developments in the language unambiguously indicate that they are silejses to diachronic developments in the word order. Actes du IXe flosas international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Lyon septembre Such changes include making subjects explicit by inserting them, adding full nouns where the base text merely has pronouns, adding pronouns where the verb appears alone, simplifying sentence structures, adding information to make the text more available. Compare with example If the glossator were a teacher, this would be where he would stress the need for agreement to his students.
Fezil The longest gloss appears on page 72 of the manuscripts. What would perhaps have been confusing to the students was the fact that the transitive verb multiplicare in the passive allowed for a direct object. The syntactic and grammatical annotations may have been intended to edit or emend the text, adapting it to the usage of the time and region. This glosax strongly suggests an endeavour connected to changing and improving the text, and support the hypothesis that the glosses are adaptations of the texts to contemporary needs. The idea that such changes should have an instructional motivation is unconvincing. Stylistic preferences which overrule syntactic considerations are a clear indication that grammar is not the main concern.