Verse:Irta (Old)/Judeo-Mandarin/Filichdiș: Difference between revisions

IlL (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
IlL (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1: Line 1:
Learăgüsiș forms are extremely marked: they're considered archaic and poetic at best, and deliberately "overusing" them is used for evoking certain Ăn Yidiș literary works, or e.g. in neopagan/new-religious-movement material. These forms, including case forms and synthetic verb forms, are best preserved in Munster Irish, but in Ăn Yidiș they were almost completely lost by Proto-Ăn Yidiș times. Later Ăn Yidiș writers recreated these forms by cognatizing older Irish or Munster Irish forms.
Learăgüsiș forms are extremely marked: they're considered archaic and poetic at best, and deliberately "overusing" them is used for evoking certain Ăn Yidiș literary works, or e.g. in neopagan/new-religious-movement material. These forms, including case forms and synthetic verb forms, are best preserved in Munster Irish, but in Ăn Yidiș they were almost completely lost by Proto-Ăn Yidiș times. Ăn Yidiș writers during the Learăgüs 'Awakening' period recreated these forms by cognatizing older Irish or Munster Irish forms.


The Yăhuaș translation of the Tanakh (which is post-Judeo-Gaelic Haskalah) uses Learăgüsiș for the poetic passages that use archaic/archaizing language in Biblical Hebrew (such as Ha'azinu and the Song of the Sea).
The Yăhuaș translation of the Tanakh (which was made post-Learăgüs) uses Learăgüsiș for the poetic passages that use archaic/archaizing language in Biblical Hebrew (such as Ha'azinu and the Song of the Sea).