The perfect and the imperfect

[Maximus VII]

Hello,

I know there are many excellent threads of explanation on this topic, but I'd just like to post a brief passage and ask for comment:

​

Here we see the author switching between the imperfect and the perfect within a single narrative:

Iēsūs... sequēbātur... dīcīcēbat... intrāvit... tenuit... dīxit...

Where the imperfect is used, it's being accompanied by a present active particle.

Is this a rare or common style? I'd be grateful simply for any thoughts or comments on the use of the tenses in this passage. Many thanks indeed

 

[Pacifica]

Many of the imperfects there feel slightly unusual for Latin. Greek, on the other hand, likes the imperfect more than Latin does, and this was translated from Greek.

 

[Maximus VII]

Thank you Pacifica. It's a lovely passage nonetheless. The Bible in English (or other modern languages) also sometimes carries quirks of grammar due to the original Greek...

 

[Pacifica]

Translations in general, not only Bible translations from Greek, tend to exhibit source-language interference.

A "law of interference" has actually been postulated in translation theory. Dantius, you wanted me to teach you translation theory, so come and see this. I'm sure you never would have guessed the above was the case if I hadn't studied translation theory and been there to inform you.

 

[cinefactus]

Thank you Pacifica. It's a lovely passage nonetheless. The Bible in English (or other modern languages) also sometimes carries quirks of grammar due to the original Greek...

My understanding is that the language of the Vulgate was deliberately written to imitate the original Greek or Hebrew because the original text was sacred, and therefore altered to the minimum degree possible.

 

[Pacifica]

Yes, I think that's a commonly accepted belief, and I believe it as well.

St Jerome (who wrote most of the Vulgate) wrote in a letter that he usually adopted a non-literal approach to translation except for the Scriptures because there even the word order was a (divine) mystery:

Ego enim non solum fateor sed libera voce profiteor me in interpretatione Graecorum absque scripturis sanctis, ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est, non verbum e verbo sed sensum exprimere de sensu.

Jerome, However, wasn't the most radical in the literal approach to the translation of Scriptures. Some preserved bits of the Vetus Latina show constructions so awkwardly literal Jerome wouldn't have used them. I remember reading something about a calque of the Hebrew way of expressing the idea of comparatives. Hebrew, if I recall correctly, has no comparative degree of adjectives but expresses the idea of "more [adjective] than..." with the positive + a preposition like ab. This construction apparently occurs rendered in Latin word for word in some Vetus Latina fragments. This would need to be checked, but I remember something along the lines of oculi pulchri a vino for oculi pulchriores vino.

Of course, some translations exhibit more source-language interference than others. The Latin Vulgate has a relatively great deal of it, most likely for the reason stated by Cinefactus.