'Aktionsart' in the Old High German Passive, with Special Reference to the 'Tatian' and 'Isidor' Translations by Howard Jones

Abstract

884 Reviews as well as by critics), namely a discrepancy between themodalities of translation thathe advocates (faithful, transparent) and what he actually produces: unfaithful, highlymediated and manipulated texts thatoften tellusmore about him than about their original author, and which are in some cases more closely identifiedwith his signature thanwith that of the 'real*author. There are compelling implications to Insana's analysis, particularly concerning the fusion of authorial identities and of witnessing voices resulting from the translation process, which produces an almost corporeal effecton both the translator's physical and textual body/corpus (p. 225). Insana does not fully explore these implications, neither does she engage in a sustained way with issues of intertextuality raised by her argument. However, she does point to a wealth of new directions in research on Levi as translator,which will benefit from the contribution made by this carefully researched study. University of Birmingham Charlotte Ross Aktionsart' in theOld High German Passive, with Special Reference to the 'Tatian and Tsidor Translations. By Howard Jones. (Beitrage zur germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft, 20) Hamburg: Buske. 2009. xii+272pp. 58. ISBN 978 3-87548-541-7. This detailed study of the passive inOld High German, principally in the Tatian and Isidor translations, but with reference to other texts and with additional con siderations of the situation inGothic and Anglo-Saxon, has, of course, to balance extreme thoroughness against areas where there is simply not enough material in Old High German to permit final judgements, but thework is a full and useful one. The aim is to use an Aktionsart-based model to consider the uuerdan/uuesan distribution of Old High German passives, which differs in the twomain bodies of text under discussion, and the author discusses early on the close proximity of Aktionsart to aspect. Itmight be noted that in the early 1950s Jeffrey Ellis was clear in his Old High German Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953) that they are not the same. In general terms,moving on from the simplest model of Vorgangs- and Zustandspassiv, there are almost limitless possibilities of distinction (see page 4), but thiswork concentrates on the eventive, resultative, and stative categories ofAktionsart. After a detailed examination first of the Latin passive as such, then of the two main texts, followed bymore selective discussions of the other Old High German and comparative monuments, Jones reaches the conclusion that the ungramma ticalized model remains in the Tatian translation, with some copular alignment in the Isidor, but with no real auxiliarization of uuerdan, which is the only verb used in the Isidor. In the other Old High German texts, theMonsee fragments and Otfrid also show copular alignment, but full grammaticalization of uuerdan is not obvious until Notker. Jones draws some attention to the customary claims for the superiority of the Isidor text against the Tatian translation, but is aware (and this becomes clear at the conclusion) that it is as much a question of (genre-based) MLR, 105.3, 2010 885 difference rather than relative skill.At all events,with the use ofOld High German periphrastic passives, slavish adherence isnot really a serious problem, permitting even gloss-type material to be analysed. The Benedictine Rule does not in fact contribute much (as Jones points out), but theMurbach hymns are interesting, providing one significant example (discussed on pages 202-03) where traditur (11. 8. 2) is rendered kasalt istand traduntur (vm. 4. 1) as kiselit uuerdant. Overall, the results are clear and convincing, although of course there are in dividual cases which one might want to discuss further, especially in thematter of anteriorization, which is probably the most difficult issue in the work. One might recall, though it is not considered here, the (later) Ludwigslied's celebrated sang uuas gisungan, uuig uuas bigunnan. With the Tatian translation, the ultimate acceptance of the debated rendering in Tatian 217. 5 (discussed on page 122) of arhangan ist rendering crucifixus est surelymust be anterior (and compare perhaps the Weissenburg and StGall Creeds). With the Isidor translation, the renderings of (Paruolus) natus est nobis with a present tense (uuirdit uns chiboran) might (also) show extra-linguistic influences based on liturgical familiarity. The arguments for interpreting gasaihvans warp inGothic as transitional (p. 220) are...