Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2009, Romance Philology
…
24 pages
1 file
Although we usually indicate only the Old French forms, in all cases, a Middle French reading would also be possible. 2. We use the transcription adopted in Bos, Mensching et al. (in press), which is briefl y described in Zwink 2006. The symbol ' represents the letter alef. In the system of transliteration adopted here, vowels (which, with only one exception, are absent from the text under discussion) are represented by lowercase letters. 3. Note that this spelling potentially allows also a reading *pia, since the same letter sequence represents-a in Latin and other Romance languages; cf.
''Studies in Honour of Mária Ivanics'' - University of Szeged, Department of Altaic Studies , 2020
This study aims to demonstrate some groups of animal names that appear in the Book of Leviticus of the so-called Gözleve Bible translation, which was published in Crimea in 1841. The translation presents a mixed vocabulary for the animal names, which consists of Oghuzic (e.g. gelinčik ‘weasel’ etc.), Kipchak (e.g. ečki ‘goat’ etc.), Hebrew (e.g. ꭓagav ‘locust; grasshopper’ etc.), Arabic (e.g. ꭓïnzïr ‘pig, swine’), Persian (e.g. šepere ‘bat’) and some undefined words (e.g. göz tökä prob. ‘chameleon’). Therewithal, the distribution of the Kipchak, Oghuzic and non-Turkic elements will be compared with their equivalents in other Books of the Gözleve Bible, and a recently-published critical edition of another Crimean Karaim Bible translation.
Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 2021
This paper is a continuation of a previous study that presented the names of mammal, insect, and reptile species appearing in the Book of Leviticus of the so-called Gözleve Bible. The present study aims to survey the rest of the animal names in the corpus, representing bird species. The translation shows a mixed vocabulary and therefore the distribution of the Kipchak, Oghuzic, and non-Turkic elements will be compared with their equivalents in some of the other books of the Gözleve Bible, a recently published critical edition of another Crimean Karaim Bible, and some Ottoman Turkish Bible translations.
Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic …, 2004
... However, an Aramaic loanword in Neo-Ethiopian (without being attested in Geez!) is an incredible rarity. Of interest is Gez. nestdli (nesdtdli, rwstale)'serpent-idol of bronze; field Page 168. 150 LEONID KOGAN AND ALEXANDER MILITAREV snake'(LGz. 403). ...
The Fox in Enki and Ninhursaĝa Dumuzi and the Fly Lugalbanda and Anzu Ninurta and the Anzu's chick Inanna, Šukaletuda, and the Raven Conclusions: magical helpers and the metamorphosis human-animal Chapter 3 Canines from inside and outside the city: of dogs, foxes and wolves in conceptual spaces in Sumero-Akkadian texts 23 Andréa Vilela Canines from the 'inside': dogs Canines from the 'in-between': stray dogs Canines from the outside: wolves and foxes Conclusion Chapter 4 A human-animal studies approach to cats and dogs in ancient Egypt: evidence from mummies, iconography and epigraphy 31 Marina Fadum & Carina Gruber Human-cat relationships in ancient Egypt: the cat as an animal mummy Human-canine relationships in ancient Egypt: the dog as companion animal Conclusion Part II Animals in ritual and cult Chapter 5 Encountered animals and embedded meaning: the ritual and roadside fauna of second millennium Anatolia 39 Neil Erskine Deleuze, Guattari, and reconstructing ancient understanding Landscape, religion, and putting meaning in place Creatures, cult, and creating meaning Folding animals in ritual Bulls, boars, birds Folding animals on the road Human-animal interactions Conclusion vi Chapter 6 The dogs of the healing goddess Gula in the archaeological and textual record of ancient Mesopotamia 55 Seraina Nett The dogs of Gula in Mesopotamian art The Isin dog cemetery The dogs of Gula in Ur III documentary sources Conclusion
In this contribution I will focus on bestiaries as privileged subject-matter to analyze semantic variations deriving from the translations of the Bible as a space of cultural encounter. Through specific examples-such as formicaleon, deer-goat, behemoth, sirens and so on-the semiotic value of monstrous creatures in the Hebrew Bible, in the Greek Septuaginta and eventually in Jerome’s Vulgata, will be investigated. I will explain the reasons why processes of cultural interaction become more evident in the case of monstrous or “aporetic” animals (i.e. animals that cannot be included in ordinary taxonomies). Finally, with reference to Christian commentaries ad loca, I will show the cultural proceedings underpinning the translation and the interpretation of the biblical bestiary.
Proceedings of the 6th Biennial Meeting of the International Association for Comparative Semitics and Other Studies (Babel und Bibel 9), 2016
Interfaces: A Journal of Medieval European Literatures, 2018
This issue of Interfaces explores the question of how Jewish and Christian authors in pre-modern Latin Europe thought and wrote about some of the animals mentioned in the Bible. To them, thinking about animals was a way of thinking about what it means to be human, to perceive the world, and to worship God and his creation. Animals' nature, animals' actions and animals' virtues or shortcomings were used as symbols and metaphors for describing human behavior, human desires, human abilities and disabilities, and positive or negative inclinations or traits of character.Both Christian and Jewish medieval and early modern scholars wondered about how they could possibly delve into the deeper layers of meaning they assumed any textual or extra-textual animal to convey. Not surprisingly, they often had to deal with the fact that a specific animal was of interest to members of both religious communities. A comparison between Jewish and Christian ways of reading and interpreting bi...
Studii şi cercetări de onomastică şi lexicologie (SCOL) , 2014
This study aims to analyze the zoo-chromatic dilemma issued in the Exodus, regarding the quality of the skins that covered the Tabernacle. Depending on the translation sources, the Romanian translators interpreted this term as referring to an animal or to a certain color. The translators proposed some specific animal names or color names, filtering the biblical sources though their own interpretation. We intend to find the origins of these points of view and the changing perspectives from the 16 th century Palia de la Orăştie, the first translation in the Romanian language of the Book of Exodus, to the contemporary versions.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Oxford University Celtic Colloquium
New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew, 2021
Animals in Ancient and Medieval Cultures and Societies. A Multidisciplinary Approach (éd. C. Franco, A. Zucker, M. Vespa, Sienne, p. 97-138. https://edizioni.unistrasi.it/volume?id_sez=1282, 2023
Ugarit-Forschungen 53 (2022 [2024])
JNSL 44, 2018
Talking Animals in Ancient Literature, 2020
Encyclopedia of the Bible and its reception. Vol. 20. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2022
Interfaces: A Journal of Medieval European Literatures, 2018
Currents in Biblical Research, 2020
Malkah's Notebook: A Journey into the Mystical Aleph-Bet, 2022
Indogermanische Forschungen vol. 129, 2024
A World of Beasts: A Thirteenth-Century Illustrated Arabic Book on Animals (the Kitab Na‘t al-Hayawan) in the Ibn Bakhtishu‘ Tradition, 2012
English Linguistics Research, 2021