Mixed Translation Patterns : The Ladino Translation of Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew Verbs

ITargrt 5: l . 7 l -E8 ( 199.1) . r ' )John l le n jan: ins B. V. . , , \ n)st( r ( l , r lNo t t o bc r cp roduced i n any f o rm w i t hou t r v r i t t cn pc rm iss i on l i o r r r t l r , 1 ' r r l ' l r ' . 1 r , r

Mixed Translation Patterns :The Ladino Translation of

Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew Verbs

Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald tBar llan University, Ramat Gan, lsrael I

Abstract: 'lhe

present study is a lingttistic analysis oJ the translations of sonteBiblical and Mishnaic verb forms into Ladino in Pirke Avot'Ethics oJ theFathers'. 7'he liturgical Hebren'text in<'ludas futh language layers, Biblical andMishnaic. It is read by Sephardic Jev'ry lrom Pussover to Pentecost a chapter aweek, and has been translated into Ladirut, the Judeo-Spanish calque-type lan-guage, in a variety of ploces since 1552. The article focuses on the morphologi-cal aspects <tJ'the translations. The results show that v'hereas Ladinrs translator.sopted for lileral translations of the Biblical verses, they adopted frecr renrlitionsof the less sacred Mishnaic text. The differences stem from the difference inauitudes towards the sanctity of the two linguistic layers.

Risumd: Cet urti<'le compar( les truductions en ladino, dan.s les Maximes desAnciens, de formes verbales h(hraiques de la Bible et de la Michna. Les juifss(pharades ont I'habitude de lire ces Maximcs ente Piques (Pessah) et la Pente-c6te (Chavouot), ii raison d'un chapitre par semaine. Depuis 1552, le texte litur-gique a 6rt traduit en ladino (judto-espagnol calqu() dans diff(rentes rdgions.L'article se concentre sur les aspects norphologiques des traduttions, et ntontreque les verscts bibliques sont rendus de maniirc plus litt(rala tlue le texte mich-nslque moins sacrt. De plus, en comparant les difftrentes versions, on remer-que que le:; verbes du texte michnaiquc ont it! traduits avec plus de diversitd queceux du texte hiblique. l.u difftrence setnble provenir de I'attitude tlu traducteur

face d la saintett du texte.

t )72 ORA (RODRIGUE) SCHWARZWALD

Introduction: Pirke Avot and lts Ladino Translation

Pirke Avot ( 'Ethics of the Fathers'; henceforth PA), one of the most popu-

lar tractates of the Mishna, consists of a collection of ethical maxims andproverbs attributed to Jewish sages who lived between 300 B.C. and 200

A.D. Like the rest of the Mishna, it was composed in the post-Biblical

period and consequently reflects the l inguistic norms of post-Biblical l i ter-

ary usage. However, the Mishnaic text abounds in citations from the Bibli-

cal text furnishing the referential framework of the Mishnaic portions.

Hence the language of PA includes both varieties of the Hebrew language

historical layers, Biblical and Mishnaic (henceforth BH and MH), which

vary in grammar and vocabulary. In particular, the verbal systems differ

considerably in form, distribution and usage.It has long been customary among Sephardic communities originating

from Spain, in Italy, the Ottoman Empire, the Netherlands and North

Africa, to have a chapter of PA recited each Saturday morning between

Passover and Pentecost (Sharvit 1976). On account of its popularity and

important l i turgical status, PA has been repeatedly translated into various

forms of Ladino, the Judeo-Spanish calque-type language used by Judeo-

Spanish east Mediterranean communities as well as by western Portuguese-

speaking ex-Marrano communities (Schwarzwald 1989: 74-97). Thus about

fifty Ladino editions of PA from Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Austria. Hol-

land, England and lsrael are extant for the period from 1552 to the pre-

sent.1 While most of these were published as separate booklets, some were

appended to prayer books (Ferrara, 1552; Amsterdam, 1612; Florence,

1736; Belgrade-Vienna, l8l4l 5 ; Salonika, 1846; Belgrade, 1856/8; 19041 5).

A few, f rom Amsterdam (1664; 1683; 1701; 1706; 1712:1766; 1867). were

published together with the Ladino translation of the 'Song of Songs',

which is read on the Saturday of Passover, and one precedes the book of

Ruth which is read on Pentecost (London, 1731). All the translations that

appeared in Amsterdam, London and Ferrara, as well as some versions

from Venice (1651; 1706) and Florence (1736), are written in Roman

characters: the rest uti l ize the Hebrew square alphabet, mostly vocalized

(Leghorn (x8) , Pisa, Salonika (x1l ) , V ienna (x2) . Venice (x5) and Flor-

ence, though one edition (Jerusalem 1901) is published in the Hebrewsquare alphabet with no vowels and a few are in unpunctuated Rashi script(Belgrade-Vienna 1814/5; Vienna 1857; Belgrade 1856/8; 190415).?

In the following sections I shall attempt to formulate the principles

MIXED PATTERNS IN LADINO TRANSLATIONS

governing the translation of Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew verb forms inPA into Ladino. I shall start by introducing the special features of Ladino,then proceed to describe the differences between the Biblical and Mishnaictense systems, and contrast these with the (Judeo-)Spanish one. A detailedcomparison of verb forms in PA wil l follow, and prove that the translationof BH tenses is unique among the translations and demonstrates fewergrammatical varieties than does the translation of the MH tenses. Tentativeexplanations for the differences encountered wil l then be ventured.

1. Ladino Translations

Since the text is educational and liturgical, the translators follow certainnorms which were common among the Jews in the translations of sacredtexts, especially of the Bible. In order to avoid profaning the text, they usea straightforward technique of exact l i teral translation of the Hebrew text,although interpretation was inevitable due to the complexity of the text andits laconic nature (Sephiha 1973: 42-116,1979, l:23-45; Revah 1970:236-237; Schwarzwald 1989:7-15) . The paragraph in (1) demonsrrates some ofthe techniques:3

( 1 ) H e b r e w t e x t :(a) kol yisra'el yei lahtm ftelry (b) la'olam habbA (c) itnnt'tmar (d) vZ'am-mell kullam saddiqin (e) li'oldm yiriitt 'arts (f) neser nwttd'ay (g) ma'aseyaday (h\ lihitpa'el

L a d i n o t r a n s l a t i o n :(a) Todo Ysrael ay a ellos parte (b) a el mundo el vinien/venidero (c) queansi dize el pasuk/verso (komo dize el pasukl+,erso, que assi es dicholcomoes dicho) (d) y tu pueblo todos ellos jusros (e) para siempre heredaran tiena(f) rama/ramo/ramas de mis plantas (g) obra/hecha/hechas de mis manos(h) p ar a / p o r s e e r afo rmos i guado / afe r mo s ig uado ( p ar a afe r o ms iguar )

E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n :(a) Al l Israel have a share (b) in the world to come. (c) as i t is said: (d)"And al l your people wil l be r ighteous; (e) they wil l inherit the land forever;(f) they are my plants, (g) rhe work of my hands, (h) wherein I glory"( Isa iah 60 , 21)

Spanish ay a el los (a) ' they have, l i teral ly: there is to them' is the exact mor-phosyntactic copying translat ion of the Hebrew phrase yei lahem, instead ofthe more common t ienen. Hebrew la'oldm habba (b) ' in the world to come.

1574 ORA (RODRIGUE) SCTIWARZWALD

l i t . : to the coming wor ld ' is t ranslated as e i ther a e l mundo e l v in ieninthe

east or a e l mundo a l venidero in the west . The Hebrew preposi t ion / - ' to ,

f o r ' i s l i t e ra l l y t r ans la ted as a ' t o ' and no l as pa ra o r po r ' f o r ' , and s ince

Hebrew uses the definite article before both the noun and the adjective, the

part ic le e/ precedes in the t ranslat ion the adject ive as wel l . Fur thermore,

vinien, the apocopated archaic present participle is used as a reflection of

brz 'comes, coming' in the east. The western versions prefer the adjectival

past participle form v,enidero.

Hebrew kullam saddiqim (d) 'all of them are righteous', a perfectly

rcgular Hebrew nominal sentence wi thout any copula, is l i tera l ly t ranslated

into Ladino as todos ellos justos without the necessary Spanish copulative

verb ser ' to be ' ( i .e . todos e l los son justos) . The word l i 'o lam (e) ' forever ,

l i t.: for the world, for eternity' is unvaryingly interpreted as para siempre'forever'.

The translation of itnne'tmar (c), a typical Mishnaic expression mean-

ing ' for the (Bib l ica l ) verse says, ( l i tera l ly : ) that was said ' is d is t r ibuted

among the various versions of PA in the following formulae:

ke ansi dize el pusuk'that so says the versc' (pasuq is Heb. for Sp. verso)- all eastern versions: Salonika, Vienna, Belgrade, Jerusalem

ke ansi dize el verso - western Hebrew-script versions from Florence,Pisa, Lcghorn

komo dize el v,erso'as the verse says' - Vcnice Hebrew-script versionsscomo es dicho 'as said' - Roman-script versions from Ferrara 1552,

Amsterdam 1612. somet imcs Anrsterdam 1664; Veniceque as.s i es d ic l to ' that so is sa id ' - o ther Roman-scr ipt vers ions f rom

Amsterdam, Florence, London.

Two verbs occur in this paragraph: future form yirEiu (e)'wil l inherit '

rendered solely by heredaran in all vcrsions, and the infinit ive lehitpa'er (h)'to glorify' translated as paralpor seer aformosiguado, para/por seer afer-

mosiguado'to be glorif ied', and para aferomsiguar'to glorify'. The latter, a

verbal infinit ive, occurs only in the early Roman-script versions; all other

vers ions use the compound equivalent of 'be + adj ( : past par t ic ip le) ' .

2. The Hebrew-Ladino Verb Systems Compared

The techniques presented above have direct bearing on the issue of the

tense t ranslat ion: thc l i tera l ism and archaic forms suggest that Ladino t rans-

lators havc at temptcd to creatc l i tera l r ig id formal para l le ls between


Hebrew verb forms in PA and Spanish ones. In contrast, interprctationssuggest that they might have felt free to adopt verb forms at l iberty as well.

As noted earlier, PA represent an admixture of BH and MH. The dif-ferences in the verb system present a unique possibil i ty for assessing theLadino translators' use of either formal l i teral or informal morphosyntactic-semantic approaches to translation. It can also demonstrate to what extentthe translators adhere to the same norms while dealing with a coherent textof various l inguistic layers. As background for this analysis, a schematicdescription of the verb systems in each Hebrew-language period wil l be pre-sented here and compared to the Judeo-Spanish one. Although other verbforms were studied as well, the discussion wil l be restricted in detail to theLadino translations of Hebrew "past", "future", and "participle" mor-phological forms for reasons explained below.

2.1. Hebrew Verb Forms

Table 1 presents the differences in use between the tense system of BH andMH (Bendavid 1967 1 197 1 : 527 -566; Kutscher 1982: 37 -42, 44-46, 125-128).The various Hebrew verb conjugations (binyanim) are ignored here.

Table l. Hebrew Verb System in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew

Form Model Form Bibl ical Use Mishnaic use

(a) pa'al

(b) yip'al

(c) po'el

(d) p'al

(e) pa'ol/p'ol

( f ) w+pa 'a l

(g ) wa+y ip 'a l

(h ) haya+po 'e l

lamddta

ti lmad

lomed

ldmad

lamod/lmod

w€lamadtd

watt i lmad

hlyita lomed

perfect a/past t

present-future t/imperfect a/mood

consecutive t/durative a

imperative m

tense/mood/inf init ive

future t/consecutive t

past t

(rarc) habitual a

past t

mood

present-future t

imperative m

infinit ive

habitual/progressive/durative a

I - e g e n d : a - A s p c c t i m - m o o d : t - t e n s e ; M o d e l f o r m - t h c v c r b / r i n r a r l ' s t u d y ' i n 2 n d p c r -son mascu l ine .

7'7'76 ORA (RODRIGUE) SCHWARZWALD

Forms (a-d) appear in both BH and MH, although with some differ-

ences in morphosyntactic use. The BH pa'al mainly aspectual usage turns

into a temporal one in MH. On the other hand, yip'al is uti l ized in MH only

in modal circumstances, whereas in the Biblc it is used as a temporal, aspec-

tual or modal marker. The present and future tenses in MH are expressedpredominantly by the po'el participle form, which is nominal in BH and car-

ries the temporal value of the morphosyntactic or semantic environment.

The imperative p'al is similarly used in both language periods.

The forms in (e-h) vary. The forms in (f) and (g), typical of the BHprose style (e.g. wayyomer Moie 'and Moses said', wd'ahavth 'and thou

shalt love'), do not exist in MH, whereas (h) - the verb 'to be' with a par-

ticiple form - which is marginal in BH gains a substantial value in MH andserves mainly to indicate aspectual contents (e.g. haya 'omer 'he used tosay'). The forms in (e) include the absolute and construct infinit ives widelyused in BH, and restricted in MH to one infinit ive form l+p'ol 'to do', e.g.l i lmod 'to study'(cf. BH lamod 'you should study', bilmod 'while studying',

milmod 'more than studying', etc.).Forms (")-(g) are incomparable in BH and MH, and form (h) does not

exist at all in BH citations of PA. Furthermore, there are no variations in

the imperative forms (d) between BH and MH. Therefore, I shall describe

below only the Ladino equivalents of (a), (b), and (c), namely, the so-cal-

led past, future and participle forms.

2.2. The Ladino Verb System

The Ladino verb system must be described in terms of both Spanish and

Judeo-Spanish morphology. The Spanish system is much more complicated

than the Hebrew one (Bull 1960; Rall ides 1971). In addition to the tense

expressions, there is an aspectual-modal usage with special perfective and

subjunctive forms. Since the Judeo-Spanish system is very similar to it, but

different in some respects, I shall describe it here in Table 2, based on

Kahane and Saporta's (1953) analysis. The additions after j in Table 2 are

Spanish verb forms not attested in Kahane and Saporta's study.

The Judeo-Spanish verb system includes a few verb compounds which

do not occur in Spanish, e.g. a4, a6, a7, c2, c3, c4, d, el, e2, f l, f2. On the

other hand, forms l-p are not attested in Kahane and Saporta's study, but

do occur in Judeo-Spanish written texts. The present participle of the form

cantante (k in Table 2) is an archaic gerund, for which there are residuals in


Table 2. Judeo-Spanish Verb System

Model Form T-Usage A-Usagc M-Usagc Form

1 kant62 kantava3 a kantado4 t iene kantado5 avia kantado6 tenia kantado7 tuvo kantado

kanta

I kantard2 va kantar3 iva kantar4 avia a kantar

fud kantadcr

I estd kantando2 va kantando3 kantando

I est i i kantado2 kedo kantado3 kantado

kantar fa

kante

kanta

kantar

paslpastpastpastpastpastpast

prfimprf

prf (act)

prcsent/past/futu re

futurefuturefuturefuture

condit ional

condit ional

subj unctive

pretenteimprfpres prfpres prfpast prfpast prfpast prf

pres

futurepres(ir) + infpast prf( ir) + infpast prf + inf

preteri te + prtcp

pres + prtcp(act)pres + prtcp(act)pres prtcp(gerund)

pres + prtcp(pass)pres + prtcp(pass)past part iciple

condit ional

pres subjunctive

imperative

inf init ive

b

c

d

g

h

i

j

prf (act)

imprf (act)imprf (act)imprf (act)

prf (pass)prf (pass)prf (pass)

cantante pres prtcp (rare)

Imnop

habra cantadohuvo cantadohabrfa cantadocantara/cantasecantare

prf (pass)prf (pass)prf (pass)imprf

condit ionalsubj unctivesubj unctive

future perfectpreteri te perfectcondit ional prfmprf subjunctivefuture subj.(rare)future

Legend: Model form - the verb cantar (,kantar, in JS)6'sing', 3rd person singular; T -

tense; A - aspect; M - mood; Form - grammar tradit ional term; act - act ive; imprf -

imper fcc t i vc l in f - in f in i t i vc l pass - puss ive : p res - p resent t p r f - per fec t i ve l p r tcp - par t i c -iple; subj - subjunctive; unmarked M form - indicative.

78 oRA (RODRIGUE) SCHWARZWALD

modern Spanish. Since it is very frequent in the Ladino translations' as we

shall demonstrate below, it is included in the intermediary place in this

Table.

3. ExpectedReplacements

The enhanced range of Judeo-Spanish and Spanish verb forms offers the

translators a number of options. On the one hand they could rigidly adhere

to formal replacements, in which case no differences would be expected in

their translations of either BH or MH. On the other hand, if the translated

verbs were morphosyntactically and semantically motivated, a greater

range of Spanish forms could be employed to reflect the thrust of the

Hebrew forms. In such a case, one would expect differences between the

translations of Biblical or Mishnaic forms, reflecting the Hebrew variety of

uses.

Table 3. Formal Literal Expected Replacements between Hebrew and Ladino

Hebrew Form Ladino replacements

MIXED PATTERNS IN LADINO TRANSLA'TIONS J()

Table 3 presents the hypothesized Judeo-Spanish verb forms wlrich

would be expected with formal l i teral replacement, in which no diffcrcncc

between Biblical or Mishnaic Hebrew would be expected. Table 4 presents

the hypothesized Judeo-Spanish forms which might be expected in case of

morphosyntactically or semantically motivated translations. Since there is a

difference in tense usage of Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew, a different

range of forms would be expected for each time period.

In the following chapter (a) I wil l present the Ladino translations with

regard to the three morphological Hebrew forms, pa'al. yip'al and po'el (a'

b, c) in BH and MH. I t wi l l be demonstrated that (a) there is a greater var i -

ety of Ladino replacements for MH than for BH, and (b) BH forms are

more l iterally handled than MH ones, proving that there definitely are dif-

ferent attitudes towards these two kinds of language, in spite of their being

incorporated in one single text, and notwithstanding its l i turgical status. An

explanation wil l be given in the discussion section.

4. The FindingsT

4.1. PA'a l

The pa'al form is more rigidly translated by preterite (a1) Ladino forms in

BH verses than in MH verbs, where the content dictates the choice of the

Spanish or Judeo-Spanish forms.

Biblical pa'alBH pa'al is almost always translated by the preterite (al in Table 2),e.9. ft lr/n'sinned'(R2 15, 130: 5. l8) :8 pccol yEsarah' (He) establ ished her ' (Amos 9, 6:3,6)" la l loacimento; ydiav'sat' (Ps l, 1: 3,2): se as(.t)ento (total of 23 verbs).

The verb bdratiw,I created him' (Jes 43,7: 6, l1) is translated in most of the ver-

sions by lo crie ,lo crie, lo kri'e, or lo kri'i (preterite), as expected. only two versionsfrom Salonika (1884, 1887) translate itby lo crio.lo krl 'o, (present indicative), a form

which could be explained either by a copier mistake - since the vowel letters for i <y>

and o .w, are very similar in Hebrew orthography - or by an analogy to two previous

translations of MH bdrdlbera'o'(he) created/(he) created it ' which are rendered by

kri 'o .The verb ndtannu ,we gave' (chz 29 , 4: 3, 7) is translatcd as damos 'we give' (pre-

sent indicative) in all versions except Salonika 1800 which renders it as dantes, the

archaic plural participle form. It seems that the verb was interpreted as indicating pre-

sent tense rather than past, as is sometimes used in Judeo-spanish (cf. b in Table 2).

(a )(b)(c)

pa'alyip'alpo'el

preteri te (a 1 )future (c1 )present (b), pres. part iciple (e3) or (k), past part iciple (f3)

Table4. Morphosyntacric and Semantic Expected Replacements between Ladino, BH,

and MH

Hebrew Form Ladino replacements of BH Ladino replacements of MH

(a) pa'al

(b) yip'al

(c) po'el

past (a1-7),prf (d), ( f l - f3), (m)

future (c),imprf (e).mood (g), (h), ( l) , (o-P)

present (b),pres. prtcp (e), (k),past part iciple (f)

past (a1-7)

mood (g ) , (h ) , ( l ) , (n -P)

present (b),

future (c)

8180 ORA (RODRIGUE) SCHWARZWALD

T h e v e r b ' a m a r ' ( G o d )

s a i d ' ( H a g 2 , 8 : 6 . 9 1 J e s 6 1 , 1 : 6 , l 0 ) i s n o t a l w a y s t r a n s -lated. When it is, i t is rarely dixo ldi iol (preteri te), and frequently dlze (present) ordicho de'saying of ' . Apparently, God's saying was interpreted not as belonging to thepast but as an everlast ing truth, hence the preference of the present-t ime or nominalforms.

Mishnaic pd'alMany pa al forms are translated in Mishnaic Hebrew by preteri te too, e.g. i t 'akElu' lhalate (pl) ' (3. 3): que contieron; qibhel ' received' ( 1 , 1): re(s)cibio; gadalt i ' l grew up' ( I ,l7): me crielme kri ' i (atotal of 50 verbs). However, there are a number of exceptionscompared with the Bibl ical ones.

The present indicative (b in Table 2) is used in several versions in the fol lowingthree verbs: \ . bafi in (da') ntc'ayin bata '(know) where you came from' (3, 7x2): vienes'you come' (Hcbrew-script versions from Venice), probably because of i ts habitual con-tent. Most versions luse v'enisteslvenites, typical of colloquial Judeo-Spanish, in the east-ern versions, veniste in the western ones. 2. The verb yasa in the phrase yasa sikarobihefsedo'his gain exceeded his loss' (5, 11.12x): sale, because of the permanent natureof the saying. 3. The verb lAmadta'you (m.sg) learned' (4,5): vees'you see' only onceas a translat ion of ha ldmodta ' from this you could have learned' in three l tal ian Roman-script versions.

Three verb forms are rendered by the imperfect (a2 in Table 2): hAyA 'was' (23times), hayu'were'(2, t t l 5, 2x2), andsa/d'f loated' (2,6): era, eran and nadava. The useof the imperfect here is commensurate with the durative meaning of these three Hebrewverbs. Had the regular preteri te been used, the special lexical content would have beenlost.

Thed is t r ibu t ionof the t rans la t ions o f i tnne 'Emar 'aswassa id 'hasa l readybeend is -

cussed folkrwing example (1). I t should be emphasized that none of the translat ions usesany past-tense form, although the form in Hebrew is definitely past.

The verb 'dmar'said' in the sixth chapter of PA is rendered by either dize'says'(present) or dizien'( is) saying' (apocopated part iciple form of type k in Table 2), as i fthe Hebrew version entai led 'omer'says'. See discussion below on the part iciple formspo'el.

Eleven verbs occur in condit ional sentences. Three of them are translated by thepreteri te, thus translat ing the Hebrew form l i teral ly: bit tahd'( i f) you (m.sg) neglected'(4, I0): te halda(s)te(s): 'amalm'you (m.sg) toi led' (4, 7O): trabajaste, laz(d)ra(s)te(s);ldmadE'you (m.sg) studied' (2, 16): aprendiste, deprendi(s)te(s). Five are translatedsolely by imperfect subjunctive forms (o in Table 2) ' . met vE'avar uvatel '(as i f he) werealready dead and gone and departed (from the world)' (5, 2l): nrurie(n)se/murieralfueramuerto (a compound of ser ( imprf subj.) + adjectival (past prtcp) in the Roman-scripteditions). .v pasa(n)selpasaralpassado y (se) balda(n)se/se baldaralse baldalbaldado;(ke' i l lu) 'r isl tem'(as i f) you (pl.m) had made'(2,2): ( f /h) izierades (with -d- in the 2ndperson plural) l ' iz ierais: 'al i i lu '(as i f) they ate' (3, 3): comieranlcomiesen. Three aretranslated either by imperfect or future subjunctive or by preteri te, depending on theedit ion: bala'ulbdla'o '( they)swallowed/(he)swallowed(him)': tragaran(pl),englut ieran

(pl), englut iera (sg; imprf subj), next to englut ian (pl; imprf), in the Belgrade edit ions;


fiqEfA'@ven if it) overcame' (3. 8): dificultol(se) enfortecio (pret)/.rc anfortesere (imprfsubfi: qihbilu'(when) they received' (1, 8): re(s)cibieron (pret)lrescihiererrlrecibieran(imprf. subj)/ 'an (: 1ton1 recibido (pres + past prtcp).

The description above shows that the translation of MH is more distributedthan that of BH. Although most pa'ql verb forms were translated by thepreterite (past) Ladino forms in both BH and MH, following the formal l i t-eral expected replacement as presented in Table 3, the number of excep-tions is much greater in the translation of MH, and the distribution amongthe various renditions is more dispersed than that of BH. Also, conditionaland subordinate constructions were taken into consideration in thc transla-tion of MH verb forms, whereas they were ignored in BH in spite of theiroccurrence in Biblical citations. This fact indicates that the translation o[MH is more morphosyntactically and semantically oriented than the trans-lation of BH, according to the hypothesized replacement in Table 4.

4.2. Yip'al

Unlike the case for pa'al, a much wider variety of Ladino forms appear inthe translation of both BH and MH, reflecting the expected replacementbased on morphosyntactic and semantic criteria, as presented in Table 4.Nevertheless, Ladino translations of BH show a stronger tendency towardsliteralism than those of MH.

Biblical yip'alBH verb forms are translated mainly by future indicative forms (cl in Table 2; 23 verbs),as exemplif ied in (2), sometimes by present indicative (b in Table 2) or future (8 verbs)as in (3), and rarely by imperfect or present subjunctive (h or o in Table 2; 3 verbs) asin (4), the latter referring to verbs of durative-permanent aspect.

(2) 'avo'I shall come'(Ex 20,24:3.6): verne (the archaic verb form)/vendre;wiyosifu'and they wil l add' (Prv 3, 2;9, l l : 6,7x2): afiadiranlefiaderan;tisiheka 'wil l talk to you' (Prv 6,22:6,9x2): te (f/hlablara.

(3) y i ipo l 'wl l l judge' (Ps 82, l :3 ,6) : juzga; yavo'wi l l come' (Jer 17, 6.8: 3, 17) :viene (next to future verna, viendra): t ivnu'you (pl) wil l build' (Jes 66, l: 6,1O) : fr a gua d e s I fra gua r e is.

(4) wEya'dir 'and wil l glorify' (Jes 42, 21: Final): enfortescase (next to futureenfortecera, a compound of present with infinitive aze enfortecer, or com-pound of future with infinitive era enfortecer); wdyiddom'and will be quiet'(Thr 3, 25: 3,2): calle (pres stbj)lcallie(n)se (imprf subj); ya'dvor'will pass'(Ex 15. 16: 6. l0x2) : passe.


The negative future , ncgatecl in Hebrew either by /o (6 verbs), by'al for the imperative(3 verbs), or by pen ' lesr ' (2 verbs), is expressed l i teral ly by the future indicative (cl inTable 2) or semantical ly by either the imperfect or present subjunctive (h or o in Table2) o r by the present (b in Tab le 2 ) , e .g . ( lo ) ydmi i ' ( i t w i l l no t ) s top ' (Jer 17 ,8 : 3 , 17) :no t irara (fut ind); ') ( 'ul) ta'azdvu'(you (pl) do nor) leave' (prv 4,2:3, l4): (no) dexedesldexeis (pres subj) l ( /o) yt ial lem '(wi l l not) pay' (Ps 3i,21:2,9): (no) paga (pres); Qttn)yasuru'(lest they) be removcd' (Deut 4, 9: 3, 8): (de kwando se) tiraraltiraranltirenl(queno se) t iren (fut ind or pres subj). In al l these negative cases there is a large variat ionamong the dif ferent edit ions, ref lect ing the interpretive rather than l i teral nature of theLadino translat ions of these verbs.

Mishnaic vip'alRegular MH vip'al is translated by either l i teral future (16 verbs) or " l iberal" presentsub junc t ive (15 verbs) , e .g . .v i in r ' ( rhey) w i l l d r ink ' (1 , 1 l ) : beveran; 'e jne ' I w i l l s tudy '(2.4): Ieere (Roman script), melt lare (Hebrew-script) (fut); tadur'(you) wil l dwell ' (6,9): mores; yihyu '( they) wil l be' ( l , 5): sean (pres subj ).

The Ladino present indicative sometimes comes with the verb deve de 'must ' ,

namely, a modal construction ref lect ing the MH verb meaning, e.g. yavor 'wi l l choose'(2, l): tleve (de) eskoier (Sp. escojer) in mosr Hebrew-script versions, next to escojera(fut) of the Roman-script versions, and a (: ha) de eskoier in the Belgrade versions;yirlbaq'will stick' (2, 9)'. se deve de apegar (western Hebrew-script versions)ldeve deapegarse (most eastern versions)/se apegara (fut.; Roman-script versions)lsea de apegar(Belgrade).

The yip'al in modal consecutive or jussive constructions is translated by presentsubjunctive (h in Table 2;5 verbs) or by imperfect subjunctive (o in Table 2; I verb),e.g. yEvattel 'would cancel ' (2,4): (se) balde (pres subi); ( ' iz) yihyu,( i f) they were ( l i t .i f they wil l be) ' (2, 8): (si) fuessenl(si) fueren ( imprf subj).

The negative imperative, expressed in Hebrew by 'al + 2nd person yrp'al, is unani-mously translated into Ladino by present subjunctive (22 verbs): 'al r i lawwt,do notdesire' (6, 4): no desees; 'al t iqra 'do not read'(6, 2) ' . no leas (Roman-script) lno meldes(Hebrew-script).

other negative Hebrew yip'al forms are expressed either by present subjunctive (3verbs) or by future indicative (1 verb), or by both (2 verbs), e.g. (to) yinenu'(they) wil l(no t ) g ive ' (5 , 13x4) : (no) den (p res sub j ) ; ( lo ) t ippant . (you) may (no t ) be f ree ' (2 ,4 ) :te vag(u)araslternas vagarltendras vagar; (kmmd) yi lmddu'( lest) they learn' (1, 9):de p re nderanl aprenderanl' e mbe zaran (fut)l aprendan (pres subj).

The verb ie'al in' thar I shal l sleep' (5, 5) takes a wicle range of translat ions, from thepreteri te to the future: ke durmi (pret.; Salonika and vienna)lquando duermo (pres.;Venice Roman-script)//<e duerma (pres subj.; venice Hebrew-script)lque dormiere (futsubj.; Fforence 1736)/que dormire/durntire/duermire (fut ind.; all other versions, exceptFerrara, Amsterdam 1612). Ferrara 1552 and Amsterdam 1612 choose quando subian(imprf ind) 'when they were ascending'. I t seems that the original Hebrew source in thiscase was ie'o/in 'when ascending (pl)' as found in some MH sources; however. theHebrew text is absent in these two edit ions of pA.


As indicated above, the Ladino translat ion of both BH and MH yip'al verbsis much more distr ibuted than that of pa'al ones. Nevertheless, the fact thatBH verbs are more often rendered by Ladino future forms than are MHones proves that distr ibution notwithstanding, the translat ion of BH tendsto be more l i teral than that of MH.

4.3. Po'el

The analysis shows that the part icipial forms are preferred in translat ingBH po'el forms, while in MH translat ions the present indicative forms pre-dominate .

Biblical po'elMost of the BH po'el parriciple forms are transferred into Ladino by present participle(archaic) forms (k in Table 2; 5 verbs), apocopared in the singular, instead of rhose com-mon in Judeo-Spanish and Modern Spanish, such as e3 in Table 2. compare sg. moiel'ruler, one who overcomes' (Prv 16, 32: 4, l): podestan (<podestante?); lofted ,con_queror' (Prv 16, 32: 4, l): prendien, conquistan; to pl. mahdziqim .holders, those whohold' (Prv 3, 18: 6, 7)'. travanteslesforsantes; mil-<abbiday 'those respecting me' (S1 2, 30:4, l) : mis \h)on(d)rantes.

Two verbs are translated by either the apocopated present participle or the pastparticiple (f3 in Table 2). Both belong in Hebrew to the nifal (passive) verb partern:nfuqriv'stands'(Ps82,1:3,6): esran (pres prtcp)l parado (pastprtcp); niqra. iscal led,(Jes 43, 7: 6, 11): llamanselllamado.

Two verbs are translated by either the apocopated present participle or the presentindicative (b in Table 2) ' . honen winoten'deals graciously and gives'(ps 37,21:2,9):engracian y dan (prrcp)lengracia y dalapiada y da (pres).

Only one BH verb is translated solely by the present tense in al l versions: love'bor-rows' (Ps 37,2l:2,9). This verb is translated into Ladino as toma (em)prestado, a com-pound of the verb tomar'rake'with the adjectival (participle) prestado 'being a loan',perhaps in order to avoid a sequence of two participle forms.

The verb lr i leq'desires' (Jes 42,21: f inal verse from Makkot 3, 16, writ ten at theend of the f irst and the sixth chapters of PA) requires special consideration. In addit ionto being translated by apocopated present participle, envoluntan (most Roman-scriptversions) and the present indicative, enveluntu (some Roman-script versions in its sec-ond occurrence), it is frequently rendered by preterite, envelunto or envolonto (Hebrew-script versions). Apparently, the form hafes, being ambiguous in BH - denoting bothpast and participle form - was perceived by some translators as past-tense marker inPA; hence the variat ions amonq the edit ions.

Mishnaic po'elThe MH po'el parriciple form presents a considerably different picture. There are 162Hebrew verb forms. The participle is constantly used in the nine verbs presented in (5):

83

8-s84 ORA (RODRIGUE) SCHWARZWALD

(Ribi x) 'omc,' ' (Rabbi X) says' (about f35 r imes)' . dizien (but not in

other constructlons)( 'olarn) habba ' the world to come' (2, 7, etc.): (el rnundrt) el vinien(eastern version; cf. discussion after example ( l) above)

hahba' inr ' the coming' (1, t) : los +' inientes

neuirr 'understands' (4, 22): entendien

mezitl'intenlional sinner' (4, 4): soberhian

m€r'dies, dead' (4, 22)' . munen

iogeg'err ing, unintentional sinner' (4, 4): (y)erran

rodel 'pursuing' (1, l2): persiguienlsiguien'ohev ' love ' (6 , l x2 , 6 .6x5) : aman

In forty-six verbs, only the present tense is uscd, as in (6):

(6) | . md'abbett. loses' (2, 8): ( t le)pierde (a few Roman-script versions use the

Present subjunctive, Pierda\2. botcl 'stop, neglect ' (1, 5): baidcsselse balda

3. mdgall in'reveal ' (6, 1): descubrenldcskuveian4. miial lam'PaYs' (2, 9): Paga

The remaining MH po'el part iciple forms (107 verbs) are translated by either part icipial

or present-tense Ladino forms, as in (7). There is a sl ight preference in Ferrara, Amster-

dam 1612 and Venice Roman-script, as well as in the castern versions, for using apoco-

pated present part iciple forms, especial ly in relat ive clauses. The variat ions sometimes

exist in the same versions in dif ferent chapters, and there is no clue in the morphosyn-

tactic or semantic frame as to the factors leading to the preference of any particular one.

(7) l . 'okel 'eats. eating'(4,20x2): comienlcome

2. 'omir im 'say (pl) ' (5.6x2, 5. l0): dizienteslquien dize

3. bd'come' (2, 1, 3, 1, 5, 8x4, 5, 78): vinienlviene (cf . (-5) '2 above)

4. yodea' ' (you) know' (2, 7): sabienlsabes5. ro 'd 'sees ( f ) ' (2 . l ) : ve(y len lve(e)

6. hassameah 'who is glad' (4, 1,6,6x2): el alegranselel que se alegralcon-

Although there are more MH than BH po'elforms in PA, the ratio of the

various forms used in the Ladino translations clearly marks the difference

among them. In the translation of BH po'el f.orms there is a strong tendency

to use participle forms, whereas with MH ones thc tendency is towards pre-

sent-tense forms.In spite of the differences, it is clear that both kinds of translations

reflect the l iteral tendency as presented in Table 3. In none of the MH verb

forms can we find a future-tense translational replacement aS expected from

Tabte 4. Since PA includes proverbs and general truths of l i fe, the Ladino

translations of MH po'el forms definitely prefer the "present tense" forms

MIXED PATTERNS IN LADINO TRANSI-ATIONS

to thc "future" ones.

5. Discussion

In the Expected Replacement section above, it was suggested that therecould be a difference between the translation of the Hebrew verb formsdepending on the method of t ranslat ion chosen, i .e . formal vs. morphosyn-tactic-semantic. The analysis demonstrates that different norms dictate lhedifferences in the translations. The translation of BH tends to be guided byliteral considerations, i.e. formal equivalence, while the translation of MHis usually governed by morphosyntactic-semantic considerations, thus giv-ing preference to hypothesized syntactic and semantic equivalences. Thesedifferences reflecl the attitude of the translators towards the text: the moresacred the text, the stricter and more formal the translation, and the fewerthe textual variants.

Since the tradition of reading the Bible is older and stricter than that ofPA, the sanctity of the Hebrew text was retained in the Ladino translationof the verb by the formal devices chosen. PA is a post-Biblical text whichbecame part of l i turgy during the Middle Ages. The Ladino translators ofpost-Biblical texts were not as strict about their translations as they wereabout the translations of the Bible. The same difference can be seen clearlvin the comparison of the Ladino translations of the Passover Haggadahswhich include considerable portions of Biblical passages to those of PA(Schwarzwald in press a; in press b). The differences berween the verbtranslations, it can be argued, derive from the fact that post-Biblical textswere not considered as sacred as the Bible and were thus treated lessstrictly. It is worth adding here that there are very few Ladino translationsof the Bible, compared with the large number of translations made of PA.This finding supports the claim that translators viewed these two liturgicaltexts differently.

It should be noted that in no case were simple one-to-one translationspreferred in this study. Indeed, one-to-one translations exist for two verbforms: l. the BH wa1:yip'al forms (g in Table 1), matched by Ladino prerer-ite; 2. the Hebrew imperative forms (d in Table 1), translated by Ladinoimperative forms. Both these morphological forms were not described indeta i l in th is ar t ic le s ince, as ment ioned above, there was no point in com-par ing BH and MH in these cases.

l .

3 .

5 .6.-7.

6 .

9 .

2.

a \ l

1


It is clear that Hebrew morphological form is not necessarily what

determines the choice of the Ladino translation replacement; the syntactic

structure also plays an important role in determining the nature of the

translation (e.g. conditional clauses, negative commands, subjunctives,

etc.). Thus, while one characteristic feature of the Ladino translation

appears to be l iteralism, the data of the tense translations suggest that it is

far from absolute. Also, the readiness of Ladino translators to depart from

literalism appears to change with time and place, with the older and eastern

versions preserving archaic forms best (e.g. participial apocopated forms).

However, later versions based on the early translations also preserve

archaic forms.It is interesting to note that in spite of the wide choice of possible forms

in Ladino, the translators do not uti l ize all the available ones. The use of

the present (apocopated, archaic) participle - which is rare in Spanish and

absent in colloquial Judeo-Spanish - typifies Ladino translation. Many of

the possible Judeo-Spanish forms presented in Table 2 do not occur in the

text. On the other hand, typical Spanish forms are frequently uti l ized. The

avoidance of compound perfect forms is probably due to the lack of direct

correspondence to the single verb used in the Hebrew text; it is unclear to

me why the Ladino conditional and the future subjunctives are systemati-

cally avoided.In this paper I have focused on the issue of l i teralism in the translations

of the verb forms. clearly, there are other areas of language, e.g. the lexi-

con, which also invite comparison, but this topic is beyond the scope of the

present paper.

A final comment in conclusion: this study might have further implica-

tions for the study of translation. The data show that different norms are

used in the translation of a unique text. As demonstrated above, the factors

that determine the choice of the specific norms are not necessarily related

to either the textual coherency or any l inguistic systematic method of trans-

lation. The choice of norms in the Ladino translations seems to l ie far

beyond the actual l inguistic data.

Author's address:

Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald . Department of Hebrew and Semitic Lan-

guages . Bar Ilan University ' RAMAT GAN ' Israel 52900

M I X I : I ) I ' r ! l l l l ( N S l N | , . \ l ) l \ ( ) l l ( \ \ \ l \ | l l \ ' ,

Notes

l . There are n few morc cdi t ions of Judco-Spanish t ranslat ions t r I PA f ronr ' l

urkcv, l . r ; r r r t t . .Rhodcs and Grccce which arc f rec intcrprctat ions of thc text and do not l i r l low thc r ig i t lnorms of Ladino t ranslat ions. ' l 'hcy wi l l not be discusscd hcrc. Scc Schwarzwald 1989: 6-t2.

2. The detai led bib l iographical data is publ ishr- t l in Schwarzwald l9f i9: 2( f37.

3. Hebrew is t ransl i (err tecl bv thc lo l lowing notat i ( ) r ' ls : vor lc ls - - i ( l l i r iq) . c (Tserc) . t

lScgo / ) , u (Pa tah ) .A (Qana ts ) . o (Ho lun t \ . u (Qubu ts -Shu ruq \ . i (Schv ,a ) ; consonz rn t s -' (Aleph), ' (Avin) . r ' ( . f f t l r r ; phonet ic [ i l ) . l r ( l1ct) . t (Tsat l i \ . k (Kal) . q (Qol) . f t (kafRafo), 1 ( l -et) . t t ' ( /ar ' ) . Thc Ladino t ransl i terat ion incluclcs f ivc vowels l i e a o u l . and Iuse the fo l lowing spccia l notat ions for thc consonants: : rcprcscnts [2] (spel led wi th e i ther,Zoin, or .Gincl ' wi th a d iacr i t ic rnark) t A rcprcscnts , (aJ, or .Qof, l t should bc notedthat ,x , in the Roman-scl ip l I -at l ino l r iuts l l r t ions rcf lccts / i / t , l l , rc l lc .cts /y / . spcl led some-t in les . ly , in the Hetrrcw-scr ipt t ransht ions. l -hc prcscnt pxragrrph has been div ic led intonumbcrcd uni ts to lac i l i tatc fur thcr rc lcrcnce to the tcxt rn the t i r l lowing discussion. ' fheslashes in thc t ranslat ion indicate word val iat ions l rnrong thc var ious t ranslat ions. ' fheforms in parentheses reprcscnt var iat ion ol the sarnc exprcssions among thc t ranslat ions.For the fu l l descr ipt ion of the al ternat ions scc Schwarzwalc l l9t l9: l7- l t l .

4. This paragraph, f rom Sanhcdr in 10, I . is rcc i tcc l bcforc cach ch;rptcr of PA. a l thoughwri t ten only at the bcginning of thc l i rs t chaptcr .

5. The f i rs t page of Venice l60l is missing. However, in a l l othcr occurrcnces of the verbitnnt'Fmar, the translation is'. komo dize t'l pasuk.

6. Thc forms u, uv ' {a in a3, a5, and c4 arc the Judeo-Spanish rcal izat ions of the auxi l iary verbhuher, a,s in I , m and n. Jucleo-Spanish uscs thc vcrbs t?ner 'have'(a4, a6, a7), cs lar lser' bc ' ( d . c1 , f l ) , t l r t cdu r . , k c r l a r , ' r cma in ' ( f l ) . and l r ' go ' ( c2 . c3 ) as aux i l i a r i es as we l l .

7. Thc reader c i tn f ind thc dctai lcd dist r ibt r t ion ol vcrb t ranslut ions in thc lex ical part ofSchwarzwald I 9tJ9: 211.1-55U.

U. In Bib l ical c i tat ions I indicatc the locat i ( )n of thc or ig inal verse, and af tcr thc colon, i tsoccurrcnce in PA: in Mishnaic c i tat ions, onlv thc chaDter and vcrsc nun.rbers wi l l bcg i ven .

9. Note that in ccr ta in vcrb l i r rms the lutLrre- int l icat ive has lhe samc form as thc imperfectsubjunct ive. espccia l ly considcr i r rg the lact that s l rcss rrarks arc- missing in thc cdi t ionss tud i cd .

References

Bendavid, Abba. 1967/1971. Lcion hantiqra ul. ion hakambl lBibl ical Hcbrew andMishna ic Hebrewl l -2 . Te l Av iv : Dv i r . I in Hebrcw]

Bull , Wil l iam Emerson. 1960. Time,' I 'ensc und the Verb: A Study in Theoretical andApplied Linguistic's, with Particular Attetttirsn to Sporrish. []erkcley: The Universityof Cali fornia.

t{t{ ORA (RODRIGUE) SCHWARZWALD

Kahane, Henry R. and Sol Saporta. 1953. "The Verbal Categories of Judeo-Spanish".Hispanic Review 21. 193-214. 322-326.

Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel. 1982. A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem andLeiden: Magnes and Bri l l .

Rallides, Charles. 1971. The Tense Aspect System of the Spanish Verb.'lhe Hague:Mouton.

Revah, Israel S. 1970. "Hispanisme et judaisme des langues parl€es et dcri tes par lesSefardim". Iacob M. Hassan, ed. Actas del primer Simposio de Estudios Selardies.Madrid: Inst i tuto Arias Montano. 1970. 233-24-.

Schwarzwafd (Rodrigue), Ora. 1989. Targumey haladino lefirke Avot [The LadinoTranslat ions of Pirke.4vol]. Jerusalem: Magnes. [Eda velaSon, 13.] [ in Hebrew.]

Schwarzwald (Rodrigue), Ora. in press a. "Ma beyn targumey haladino befirke avotuvhagadot hasfaradim" [The Differences between the Ladino Translations of. PirkeAvot and the Sephardic Haggadotl. Proceedings of the Third International Congress

for the Study of Sefardic and Oriental Jewry. Jertsalem: Misgav Yerushalayim. [inHebrew.]

Schwarzwald (Rodrigue), Ora. in press b. "Venice 1601-1609 Ladino Translat ions ofPirke Aboth and the Haggada". Glasgow Colloquium Papers 3.

Sephiha, Haim Vidal. 7973. Le Ladino: Deutironome. Paris: Centre de RecherchesHispaniques.

Sephiha, Haim Vidal. 1979. Le Ladino (judfu-espagnol calque). Paris: Universite de laSorbonne.

Sharvit, Shimon. 1976. "Minhag hakri'a Sel Avot bE5abat vdtoldot habraytot Senisp€lrulah b€'ikvotaw" [The Custom of Reading Avot on Sabbath and the History of theBraytot Associated therewith]. Bar llan 13. 169-"187. [in Hebrew.]

Documents

Mixed Translation Patterns : The Ladino Translation of Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew Verbs