|
Translation - Rumunski-Engleski - Origine necunoscută. Opinia predominantă esteCurrent status Translation
This text is available in the following languages:
Category Essay Ovaj prijevod zahtijeva "samo znacenje". | Origine necunoscută. Opinia predominantă este | | Source language: Rumunski
Origine necunoscută. Opinia predominantă este că avem de-a face cu un cuvînt de proveniență orientală, dar anterior contactului cu turcii(ceea ce pare a se adeveri prin prezența sa în dialecte și de asemenea prin apariția sa constantă, ca nume de persoană, din secolul XIII;)Ar fi prin urmare, cuvînt cuman sau turanic sau derivat de la iranianul bac. Evident, este dificil de combătut fundamentele acestor opinii, atîta vreme cît nu se poate indica, pe de o parte, calea de pătrundere a cuvîntului iranian.Cert este că termenul se află în toate limbile balcanice slave care inconjoară teritoriul romîn. Însăși aria de răspîndire a cuvîntului pare a indica prezența sa romînă;căci numai romîna a fost direct legată de toate limbile menționate mai sus, și faptul că acest cuvînt nu se explică prin mijloacele proprii nici uneia din aceste limbi. Totuși nu este posibil sa-l explicăm, pînă în prezent , numai prin intermediul romîn. În ce ne privește, și dat fiind faptul că în orice caz ne aflăm pe terenul fragil al conjecturilor, nu excludem posibilitatea de a se fi conservat în baci un cuvînt autohton, poate cel care corespunde latinescului pater și posibil același care s-a păstrat în bade. Originea dacică a cuvîntului fusese postulată încă de Hasdeu, Columna lui Traian. Celelalte explicații vechi par prea puțin plauzibile. După Miklosich, ar fi vorba de un termen slav care trebuie pus în legătură cu "basta" tata și cu "bastina" moștenire , ipoteză greu de susținut, datorită dificultăților fonetice.Șeineanu propunea ca etimon turc "baș" șef, care la rîndul lui nu poate fi posibil nici din punct de vedere istoric, nici fonetic. | Remarks about the translation | |
|
| Unknown origin. The predominant opinion is | | Target language: Engleski
Unknown origin. The predominant opinion is that we are dealing with a word of oriental origin, but previous to the contact with the turks( which seems to be confirmed through its presence in the dialects and also by its constant appearance, as a personal name, from the XIII century. So it would be, a Cuman or Turan word or the derivation of the Iranian "bac". Of course, it is difficult to dispute the foundation of these opinions either way, since there is no proof of its penetration into the Iranian language. Certain is the fact that it is found in all the Balkan Slavic languages that surround the Romanian territory. The range of the word itself seems to indicate it's Romanian presence; because only the Romanian language was directly tied to all the of the above mentioned languages, and the fact that this word doesn't explain itself through personal methods to any of these languages. Still it is not possible to explain it, until now, except through Romanian inter media. In what concerns us, and by the fact that we find ourselves on the fragile ground of the conjectures, we are not excluding the possibility that it preserved itself in "baci" a local word, maybe the one that corresponds to the Latin "pater" and possibly the one that preserved itself in "bade". The Dacian origin of the word has been postulated by Haseu, Traian's Column. The other old explications seem too slightly plausible. According to Miklosich, we are talking about a Slavic word that must be compared with "basta" father and "bastima" legacy, hypothesis hard to sustain, because of the phonetic difficulties. Seineanu proposed as a Turkish etymon "bas" - "leader" which, on its turn, can be possible neither from the historical, nor from the phonetical point of view. |
|
Last messages | | | | | 13 March 2010 14:49 | | | Hi again
Just a few edits:
"Unknown origin. The predominant opinion is that we are dealing with a word of oriental origin, but previous to the contact with the turks( w hich seems to be confirm ed through its presence in the dialects and also by its constat appearence, as a person al name, from the XIII century; So it would be a cumanic or turanic word or the derivation of the iraninan "bac"."
In the next part of your text I have some difficulties in understanding exactly what you mean, in particular the following sentenc
"Of course, it is difficult to dispute the foundation of these opinions, as long as it can not be indicated, o one side, the penetration way of the iranian word."
Certain, is the fact that it is in all the balcanic slavic languages that surround the romanian territory. The range of the word itself seems to indicate its romanian presence; because only the romanian language was directly tied to all the above mentioned languages, and the fact that this word doesn't explain itself through personal methods to any of th ese languages. Still it is not possible to explain it, until now, except through romanian intermedi a. In what concerns us, and by the fact that we find ourselves on the fragile ground of conjecture, we are not excludin g the possibility that it preserved itself in "baci" a local word, maybe the one that corresponds to the latin pater and possibl y the one that preserved itself in "bade". The dacic origin of the word has been postulated by Haseu, Traian's Column. The other old explications seem too slightly plausible. According to Miklosich, we are talking about a Slavic word that must be compared with "basta" father and "bastima" legacy, hypot hesis hard to sustain, because of the phonetic difficulties. Seineanu proposed as Turkish et ymon "bas" leader, which, on its turn can be neither historical, n or phonetic."
Once you have edited I will set apoll.
Bises
Tantine | | | 12 March 2010 23:35 | | | Hi Ionut Andrei
Could you do the edits I suggest for your translation, otherwise I will not be able to open a poll.
Bises
Tantine | | | 13 March 2010 11:55 | | | Ok Tantine. I edited the text as you told me. | | | 13 March 2010 12:24 | | | Hi Ionut Andrei
Unfortunately you missed out some of the edits. I've gone through the text and cleaned it up
Also, I checked out the names of the different languages the texts speak of and have also edited them
I still don't understand the meaning of:
"Of course, it is difficult to dispute the foundation of these opinions, as long as it can not be indicated, o one side, the penetration way of the iranian word."
Can you explain it to me in other terms so as I can edit that bit too, then I can set a poll
Bises
Tantine | | | 13 March 2010 12:56 | | | Well if I understood well, some people think that we are dealing with a iranian word, introduced by the turks.
The sentence you don't understand (neither I did) says that it is difficult to belive this opinion since we can't prove the way penetrated tha language. | | | 13 March 2010 16:11 | | | Ok, I think I got it
If you agree, I will edit it with:
"Of course, it is difficult to dispute the foundation of these opinions either way, since there is no proof of its penetration into the Iranian language"
Let me know, then I will set a poll
Bises
Tantine
| | | 13 March 2010 17:05 | | | | | | 13 March 2010 19:21 | | FreyaNumber of messages: 1910 | It's well translated, just the last line should be like this:
"...which, on its turn, can not be possible from both historical and phonetical point of view". | | | 13 March 2010 20:53 | | FreyaNumber of messages: 1910 | Again - "can be possible neither from the historical point of view, nor from the phonetical one." All in all, its possibility of existence is denied from both historical and phontical points of view. Funny me! I hope I managed to make myself understood. | | | 13 March 2010 21:45 | | | Hi Freya
Thanksfor your help. I understand perfectly what you mean, and will edit.
Bises
Tantine | | | 14 March 2010 15:47 | | | Après les corrections apportées, le sens semble bien respecté.
After corrections, the significance seems respected. | | | 15 March 2010 11:56 | | | Hello,
1) the turks --> the Turks (or Turkish);
2) "ar fi prin urmare" --> "therefore, it would be..." (not "so it would be);
3) "of course" --> "obviously" (ro. "evident" ;
4) "since there is no proof of its penetration into the Iranian language" = a sentence rather ambigous because of the first part of the sentence. Who is "its"? In Romanian it is clearly stated. --> "... since the means by which the Iranian word infiltrated cannot be indicated..."; "pe de o parte" (on one hand) has been omitted from the translation (the meaning of this particular sentence has been slightly changed from its original);
5) "was directly tied to all the of the above mentioned languages" --> "was directly connected to the languages mentioned above";
6) "and the fact that this word doesn't explain itself through personal methods to any of these languages" = in this sentence there is nothing about "personal methods", but about the very methods, the specific methods of those languages; languages cannot have "personal" methods (so the actual meaning of the original is being slightly changed). Also, "doesn't explain itself" is not accurate because in the Romanian text the meaning is that of "it cannot be explained (passive); to make my point clear for the Romanian translator another way of saying that in Romanian would be: "acest cuvânt nu poate fi explicat". My suggestion: "and the fact that this word cannot be explained through the specific means of neither of these languages.";
7) the "Still it is not possible to explain it, until now, except through Romanian inter media" was incorrectly understood by the person who translated the text. The sentence should read like this: "To this day, however, it is not possbile to explain it only through the Romanian medium" (or "the Romanian part" ;
8 ) "In what concerns us" --> "concerning us" or "as far as concerns us";
9) "and by the fact that" --> "and given the fact"; "în orice caz" was omitted when the translation was done. Suggestion: "and given the fact that, in any case, we find ourselves...";
10) the "we are not excluding the possibility that it preserved itself in "baci" a local word" is entirely ambigous (to me); it wasn't well understood in the original (that is because the syntax in Romanian is a bit entangled). This part should read something like this: "we do not exclude the possibility that within the word 'baci' an indigenous word might have been preserved...";
11) "and possibly the one that preserved itself in "bade" --> "and possibly the same that was preserved in 'bade'";
12) "The Dacian origin of the word has been postulated by HaÅŸdeu" --> "The Dacian origin word had been postulated even since HaÅŸdeu..."
13) "The other old explications seem too slightly plausible" --> "The other old explanations seem much less plausible."
14) "According to Miklosich, we are talking about a Slavic word that must be compared with "basta" father and "bastima" legacy, hypothesis hard to sustain, because of the phonetic difficulties" = it could be improved, and the whole sentence should sound hypothetical. My suggestion: "According to Miklosich, it would be a question of a slavic term that should be put in connection with "bast"-"tata" and with "bastina"-"moÅŸtenire", an assumption hard to sustain due to the phonetic dificulties.
15) "Seineanu proposed as a Turkish etymon "bas" - "leader" which, on its turn, can be possible neither from the historical, nor from the phonetical point of view." -- My suggestion: "As a Turkish etymon, Åžeineanu proposed (or "suggested" the word "bas"- "chief", which can not be possible, too, from the both historical and phonetical point s of view."
Pheewww. I'm done :P .
All the best. | | | 15 May 2010 15:52 | | GrYmNumber of messages: 1 | "since there is no proof of its penetration into the Iranian language" - sensul corect -> "since there is no proof of how(the way) the Iranian word has penetrated."/// "Dacian origin of the word has been postulated by Haseu, Traian's Column." - sensul corect -> "The Dacian origin of the word has been postulated by Hasdeu in 'Columna lui Traian'(or The Column of Traian)."///"According to Miklosich, we are talking about a Slavic word that must be compared with 'basta' father and 'bastima' legacy" - sensul corect -> "According to Miklosich, we might be talking about a Slavic word that must be linked with 'basta' father and 'bastima' legacy"///"canNOT be possible neither from the historical". |
|
| |