Translation:He gave out five loaves of bread and two fish.
Why did this comment get downvoted twice? It's not wrong, is it? Is it just because everyone's an atheist here, or something? I mean, I am one myself, but I still appreciate this reminder of the reference, which I missed myself at first.
I dunno, I'm not religious either. Zamenhof himself translated the Bible into Esperanto, and it was one of the earliest pieces of literature translated into Esperanto. I assumed this sentence was intentionally a reference to that, and all of the other sentences with references to Esperanto culture and history (or references to pop culture) have someone sharing information on the reference. It's not like reading the Bible makes you a Christian.
Zamenhof himself translated the Bible into Esperanto... I assumed this sentence was intentionally a reference to that,
Zamenhof was raised in a Jewish family and translated the Jewish Bible (i.e., no New Testament). The sentence is from the Christian Bible.
(Zamenhof also had his differences with Judaism, and tried to found Homaranismo, a humanistic philosophy inspired by Hillel the Elder. He wrote a book about it but that idea didn't catch on like Esperanto did.)
And Zamenhof's youngest daughter, Lydia, eventually became a Baha'i because she felt that it was Homaranismo, but with more meat to it. Lydia did have some input into the Esperanto translation of the New Testament.
Though how much I could never determine.
I would add, however, that the New Testament is also a good translation, completed in 1912 by a group of Anglican Esperantists using the original Greek. It is among the works cited by PIV (with a superscripted N).
Naturally, it isn't as important for the Esperanto Movement as La Malnova Testamento given its provenance. Yet it is still an important work of world literature; it has been included in the important Serio Oriento-Okcidento.
En la U. K. en Cambridge en 1907 komitato formiĝis por akceli la tradukadon de la Biblio. Komitato elektita dum la brita kongreso en Leeds en 1909, entreprenis la tradukadon de la Nova Testamento el greka teksto. La ĉefan laboron plenumis pastro John Cyprian Rust kaj A. E. Wackrill kaj la traduko aperis en 1912 ĉe la Brita kaj Alilanda Biblia Societo kaj Nacia Biblia Societo de Skotlando.
(Vidu mian komenton suben)
Depost 1989 Gerrit Berveling laboris super nova traduko de la Nova Testamento. En 1992 aperis, en unuopaj libretoj, ĉe Fonto lia traduko de la kvar evangelioj. En 2001 ĉe la sama eldonejo aperis la iom prikomentita eldono "Paŭlo kaj lia skolo" (Nova Testamento, vol. 1) kun ĉiuj leteroj atribuataj al Paŭlo. La kvar evangelioj intertempe estas funde reviziitaj kaj aperis en 2012 ĉe Fonto kune kun iom da komentoj, sub la titolo "La bona Mesaĝo de Jesuo; la kvar evangelioj" (Nova Testamento, vol. 2). Pri la cetero de la Nova Testamento, li aperigis la kompletan tradukon sub la titolo Flanke je Jesuo (Nova Testamento, vol. 3) en 2010 ĉe VoKo.
Vikipedio: Nova Testamento
Mi mem devas diri ĉi tie, ke laŭ mia legado de la Esperanta teksto ,el la Brita societo, estas efektive laŭvorta traduko de la «King James» biblio en la angla. Mi intencas akiri la tradukon per Berveling kaj kompari ilin.
valid, I'm curious to know what "differences with Judaism" you understand Zamenhof having had (?)
Exactly! I was reading the Bible myself, although I did get a bit bored with it. Still mean to finish at some point. Perhaps being able to read it in Esperanto eventually will make it easier to get through :)
I would say, that for every language in this world, there are three great books to read for learning. "the little prince" from St. Exupéry, "the adventures of Tintin" from Hergé and the Bible. What do they have in common? All are translated in almost every language, they have a clear grammar and they don't use slang.
thaenthraen, Just for clarity's sake, Zamenhof translated the "Old Testament;" (the New Testament was translated in London).
I'm not an atheist, but I don't get upset if someone else is.
To me, religious stories, as long as one leaves the dogma out of them, CAN be a great source of moral education. (note the emphasis on can) I don't care which religious tradition the story is from, I just seek the moral message hidden , like a jewel, within.
Even atheists can appreciate that.
Well, sure, to an extent. Just be sure to pick the right stories, because there's some pretty immoral stuff in there, too (talking about the Bible specifically because that's the one I know some things about, but I imagine the same would be true for other holy books and religious texts). Personally, I'd rather get my moral education elsewhere, but some of it can be nice.
One just needs to distinguish which is history, which is a lesson, and what the scribe who included the story was trying to tell us.
In other words: THINK. Don't just say, Hey! it's a story in a Holy Book, we obviously have to act like this guy!.
I'm not a Christian nor was I ever and I was unaware of the reference until it was linked and find it neat now that I get the reference.
It's probably a combined reaction. A lot of people--atheist or not--have some mild traumatic reaction to the pressure of religion, and will interpret a comment as above as a know-it-all crossed with a preacher. Humans can be pretty aggressive for silly reasons.
If you're going to go that route, you may as well have a philosophical argument about it; it'd be more entertaining than just a down-vote or other meaningless grumble. I assume nobody bothered to voice a particular complaint because there wasn't any actual preaching, just someone's imaginary trigger being pushed.
A proper philosophical debate requires mutual respect at least for the other person to have a different opinion but the type of people who would downvote a comment which merely mentions that something comes from a religious text probably don't have any respect for other people's right to disagree with them or to believe when they do not. It's actually much more insidious than your comment would suggest because there's a big difference between actively hating something, and just doing without it.
You can listen to the story in esperanto here.
Entire bible in audio in esperanto
Huh, I didn't know that the plural of the English noun "fish" is also just "fish", unless (as I've now read in a dictionary) when referring to the number of fish species (then it's the word "fishes" I'd have expected here).
So five trouts and three sharks are eight fish or two fishes, I guess? Train Esperanto, learn some English along the way!
for means "away". dis- means "apart". fordonis implies an amount of distance and is more appropriate for, say, a delivery service.
Jes. Kaj ankaŭ fordonaci. I referenced the CEED for this.
But this usage is probably better with dis-
Basically - that's just how it is. Many other European languages work the same way and I've always understood that English is kind of the odd man out for requiring use of this odd counting word "loaf."
My take is that FredCapp's reply is slightly misleading, especially if he's suggesting that the meaning of pano has shifted in his Esperanto lifetime. It has not. It has always meant a loaf of bread
My apologies on that, it was MY understanding on what pano meant which shifted. Which may have been the fault of my teacher, or may have been my own failing.
Being human, I make mistakes. Being a native English speaker, I will often err in the direction to which I was raised. Having a sense of humor (as compared to some folks here?) I am willing to laugh off my mistakes, while correcting them.
I've wondered that myself. When I first learned the word it just meant "bread" in a somewhat generic sense. Near as I can tell, someone asked "how does one say 'loaf of bread'?" and so the meaning shifted somewhat. But the old dictionaries (and some of the newer ones) still say pano = "bread". And pano has many of the same nuances as I see in other languages (i.e. "the bread of life," "daily bread," etc.)
How one says "a slice of bread" still seems to be the same as it was back when Zamenhof first asked his wife for one: pantranĉo.
I hope that this helps.