Syntactical Analytical Overview of the New Testament Translation by Vangjel Meksi, After the Editing of Grigor of Gjirokastra, Focusing on the Syntax and the Sentence Types Strata

Introduction

It would be an honourific act that instead of the introduction of this paper, for the syntactical level of the translation of Vangjel Meksi, with the editing of Grigor of Gjirokastra, to bring an extract from the work of Prof. Kol Ashta, for the historic Lexicon of Albanian language; here: for the translation of the New Testament by V. Meksi, with the editing of Grigor of Gjirokastra. ¹

It must be said that in this translation and editing, Albanian language had found the ancestor of the Great Master, Kristoforidh, as a continuity of the work on writing our language, also in compliance to the Memorandum which the prominent Renaissance representative had planned and proclaimed. We shall not enter into elaborated theoretical investigations of the translation act, semiotists and analyzers of this linguistic work, as it is the example of Umberto Eco, have emphasized that sometimes the nativenessity of the text is necessary, because the text shall be in compliance with the nature of the target language, because translation is not just a transfer from one language to another, but also a transfer from one culture to another, from one encyclopedia to another. ² Even though that the models were not of Albanian language, this famous philologist has also brought into attention even the fact of Biblic translations, about which it is to be noted that they have archaic and Hebrew purposes and tend to recreate the poetic atmosphere of the semitic text. ³ Other linguists have paid attention to this issue, such as R. Jakobson, whom more than a half century (1959), has studied linguistic aspects of the translation and he has also noticed that there are three kinds of translation: rewording, interlinguistic and intersemiotic. ⁴ Within these definitions we shall consider Biblical translations, including also the Albanian translations which have been made by the translator and editor of The Gospel of Matthew, in 27 chapters which we have made here an object of linguistic investigation, focusing firstly in two extreme syntactic units, as follows: syntagms – as constructive units for sentences and utterances; - as commentary units, which are formed by predicate nucleuses, sentences. In the translations of Meksi-Gjirokastiti there are nit divisions in connected texts, as we are used to see in the epic genre, but the limitations in chapters constitute texts which are divided in sentences and clauses. We notice here the Testament (evangelical), which starts with 2-3 sentences/clauses and the connection with the predefined through the conjunctive “e”; for example, in the first Chapter, which has 25 subchapters, after the 2 first phrases, it goes into a more dynamic (active) sequences and static (descriptive), by using it 23 times, such as:

“23. Ja Vashëza do të bënëtë me barrë, e do të pjellë djalë edhe do ta thonë emërit’e tij Emanuil, që do të thotë Perndia me nevet.“24. E si u ngre Iosifi nga gjumi, bëri si e porsiti Ëngjëll’i Zotit, e muar me vetëhe gruan ‘ e tij.”

“25. E nuk’e njohu atë fare, gjersa polli djalën’e saj të parën’e të vetëminë, e i vuri ëmërin’e tij Iusu.”⁵

There are also other conjunctions within the phrases. In these structures, we will bring a view of syntagmatic constructions, types according to heads, connections and relations and means with which these indicators are accomplished.

Construction of Syntagms

NS

Most of the time, Noun Phrases (NP) are forms of nominative groups, which have one or more attributes: nouns, adjectives and pronouns, but the language of Biblical texts turns more to the simplicity, without many epithets, as are seen in the style literature today, in prose or poetry; thus nominative syntagms are not varied in the translation of Meksi and the editing of Grigor:

Krishtër të rremë, t’ardhurit e birit, të sosurit e jetësë, i birit së njeriut, dritën’e saj, anët’e qiellvet, të dridhurit’e dhëmbëvet, fjalët’e mia, jati im, ditët’e Noesë, zoti juaj, kopil i besuarë etj.

For example, for SN t’adhurit e birit, kopil i besuarë, we analyse that they have respectively leading connections and attribute relations, with the scheme.

PS

Whereas, the construction of Prepositional syntagms, with a preposition as a head, distinguishes not only for the number of prepositions that come in the prose translated by Meksi, but also of two prepositions, which are very old today “mbë” and “ndë”; great in number, these syntagms are complec, such as: ndë Vithleem të Iudhesë, mbë ditë të mbretit, përpara ature, nga vetëheja, prej ti (ty), ndë vdekëjë t’Erodhit, mbë vend të Israilit, mbë maje të malit, ndë mbretëri të Qiellvet, me lëkura të deleve, ndë jetë të pasosurë, ndë zemërën e tij, etc.

As means of syntactic relations (m.s.r.) among constituents, there are: articles, case inflections and syntactical order.

We think that the selected part of "The Gospel of Matthew", with all the chapters of this summary, creates the possibility for an analysis of the syntax plane of the lexicon streams from the syntagmatic level, to a sentence plane and then to the phrase structure, in the the religious style that Meksi brought about two centuries ago. The overriding function of this style, as mentioned above, is the suggestive one, which means that the word is intended to stimulate the feeling of something beyond, mystical, supernatural, sacred, eternal. ⁶

To complete this function, all the translators of the Gospels or of the Bible (Old and New Testament) have aimed at communicating with believers, their understanding, and therefore the language of these utterances tends towards popular folk, towards simplicity. This definition defines not only the relevant style of the lexicon, but also the syntactical unions in the syntax unit "syntagma", where, besides the character of relationships and connections, a first-hand importance takes on valence⁷, as belonging not only to verbal syntax ( VP), but also those with a head or component from the other parts of speech (otherwise: from other word parts of speech, so called in the generative school), such as noun, adjective, numerator, pronoun and adverb. ⁸ Since a long time, theoretical linguistics have defined that besides the verbs, we can speak of valence even for other categories of noun classes. ⁹ The prominent Italian generativist G. Graffi, emphasizes that with some changes, even nouns, just like verbs, show valences, which does not seem strange, because many naouns derive from verbs (and as a result they have been called verbal nouns), for example shpjegim (explanation) which derives from shpjegoj (explain); nisje (start) from the verb nisem (start), etc. ¹⁰ Unlike what would happen in other writings, the translations of the Bible by Meksi and the editing of G. Gjirokastrit are always in a certain style, outlined as a religious style, with the appropriate suffix function, dominating the denominational words of the biblical , religious, theological spheresm such as known names from the Testament, from historical events, toponyms of the arena where tribes and ancient peoples of Egypt lived, Israel, Mesopotamia, Palestine; there is a dominance of different actions of earthly life and beyond the grave (verbs), there is also a lack of words in the psychic, spiritual sphere that create what is called the lexical field of this style, etc., which appears in different language situations. Even the rich tradition in the design of such colloquial Dictionaries in Albanian¹¹, starting from the 18th century to the present day, has, in particular, reflected this very well. On this theoretical basis, we can select the following syntagmatic order from the translation of the Gospel of Mattheus, by looking at the concept of language, by L.Tesnièr, who speaks only of the syntax of the verb.¹²

Noun valence (syntagmatic connections according to V.Meksi): gaz të madh, mbretëria e Qiellvet, zemërë të pastruarë, krip’ e dheut, drit’e dynjasë, vëllait së tij, shtëpi të vogëlë, mbretëria jote, urdhëri it, bukën e sotme, fajet tona, të këqijat e saj, nga priftërit e rrem, fjalë vetëm, im bir, ndë vdekëjë t’Erodhit, kube të qiellësë, një boce me verë, sëmundët’ e laoit, të mirat e dheut, drit’e diniasë, të gremisurit të saj, të ndenjurit’e ture etj. Their typicall structure would be:

Adjectives valence – të lartë shumë, më i ndriçuarë nga të ngrënëtë, të dashurat pemët, më i madh se atë, etc.

Numerators valence – di vëllazër, di të tjerë, di të verbërë, dymbëdhjetë mathitivet, tri llojë, tri pasdreke, dy a tri javësh, dhietë mijë dërhemë, tre kute cohë, etc.

Adverbs valence – fort mirë, fort më rrallë, shumë mirë, teprë fellë, mjaft i njohur, keq shumë, kaqë vonë, etc.

Verbs valence – with the verbs there are formed a lot of syntagms, because, accordint to Tesnerian structuralism, the analysis of the sentence starts from the verb and this part of speech has the possibilities to connect with other lexical and grammatical units; thus we have taken most of them from the translation of Meksi.

pagëzoj me ujë, do të bënëtë me barrë, do të pjellë djalë, do ta thonë emërit, u ngre nga gjumi, e muarë me vetëve, e muarë gruan, polli Sadhoknë, polli Ahimnë, polli Eliudhnë, polli Iakovnë, u arravonis me Iosifnë, ta lijë atë fshehura, leu ndë Vithleem, vijnë nga Anatolia, vijnë ndë Ierusalim, pam illin e tij, mbëjodhi të parëtë, është shkruar nga Profiti, e mësoi mirë, mësoi nga ata, hajdeni ndashti, sillmëni mua haber, shkon përpara, panë mbë gjumë, ranë mbë dhe, ju falë atij, u duk ndë ëndërr të Iosifit, vat endë Egjipto, tha me anë të Profitit, e thirra birrë tim, u pru ndë erimi, del nga goja e Perndisë, e vuri mbi kube, ejani pas meje, gjezdiste nëpër Galileë, hipi mbi mal, kanë et për të drejtën, të shkeletë nga njerëzitë, biri derësë, mos shtini të shëntëruarëtë qenet, u mbitnë ndë ujëra, u derdh me vrap, vanë ndë mal të Ullinjet, do t’i bie çobanit, erdhë afër, ra përmbis, pa sosurë fjalën etj., etj.

In a linguistic plan, the possibility to have grammatical connections has as a condition the valence of parts of speech, a fact that points out what is called the dichotomy “language’speech”, i.e. the noun is connected to other nouns of different cases, with adjectives, with some pronouns, numerators, etc. Whereas the verbs connect with names, adverbs, past participles, etc. In all cases, the means of syntactical connections among units, called syntagms, in the translation of Meksi are mostly prepositions, inflections, syntactical order, which very often is according to the Albanian language structure, what can be explained with the influence of foreign languages and the author was obliged to use them during the process of translating; thus there are many models “adjective + noun” (e bukurë grua, tietërë herë, e para punë, e madhe vapë, etc.) We can say the same thing for the intermediate construction of predicators with analytical verbs, such as: gjith’ata që ishin keq gjëmuar.

Regarding the level of syntagmatic connections, we can notice the density of the non-prepositional dative case, such as: takim miqësh; prepositions of objective case (place): “mbë” and “ndë”: do të bjerë mbë dhe, ndë pisë, ndë Qiell, ndë të korrë, për të ngrënët’ e tij etc. In the divine rules of the Gospel we find uses of the dative case instead of nominative case with the preposition “nga” , such as: e mpsoni nga meje (nga unë/prej meje), f. 272. Ose me parafjalën tjetër “tek”: E erdhm tek teje. (p. 301).

Or with the construction of correct and incorrect cases within the sentence, such as: Unë kam shtrëngim të pagëzonem prej teje, është përtej juvet, e ti vjen tek meje? (f. 256) As we have cases like: Ejani tek u gjithë sa jeni të lodhurë. (p. 272)

We also witness construction models of grammatical groups for the Albanian, such as: “verb + noun in the nominative case with a preposition”: mpsoni nga meje, p. 272 (mpsoni prej meje). In the translation of the Gospel of Matthew, there are types of sintagms, but the mos common ones are nominative ones, especially verbs and also prepositional. Regarding the structure, we encounter simple and complex syntagms.

From the prepositional syntagms groups, we bring constructions of prepositional syntagms (PS), such as: ndë Vithleem të Iudhesë, mbë ditë të mbretit, përpara ature, ndë vdekëjë t’Erodhit, mbë vend të Israilit, mbë maje të malit, ndë mbretëri të Qiellvet, me lëkura të deleve, ndë jetë të pasosurë, ndë pisë të zjarit, mb’anë të mëngjërë, ndë vend të Golgothas, mbi rrobën time, nga zilia e madhe, nga të gjashtë sahatë, ndë çarçaf të pastruarë etc. The means of syntactical connections are generraly as follows: order, articles, case inflections.

For the presentation of the syntagmatic structures we shall base on what N. Chomski said, which is that the linguistic description in a syntactical level is formed in the aspect of the contituents’ analysis. ¹³

Sentence Level (Types)

In sentences, we can say that in the chapters under analysis there are seen different types of sentences; among the most common are declarative sentences, which in many cases start with the conjunction “e”, “dhe” and “edhe”, such as: Edhe Iisui i tha. E ai nuk’ u përgjigj asaj asnjë fjalë. E gruaja i falej atij. Zot ndihmë mua. Edhe ajo tha. E erdhë nde ai shumë botë. Edhe Iisui u tha ature. E hangarë të gjithë etc. They are all complex sentences, with S + P and the general order is: S + P, S + P + O1, S + O2; but also the other way round: P + S. Some other types, such as, Interrogative sentences, sometimes extended in long periods (sentences), there are noticed the following interrogative means:

Interrogative pronouns:

Sa bukëra keni? Ç’u duketë juvet, ndë pastë ndonjë njeri njëqind dhënt, e t’i humbasë një nga ato, nukë lë të nëntëdhjet’e nënta, e vete nëpër male të kërkojë të humburën? Dhaskal i mirë ç’të mirë të bëj, që të kem jetë të pasosurë? Ç’më duhet’akoma. Me ç’urdhër bën këto? Kush ta dha ti këtë urdhër? Mbretërit’e dheut nga cilët marënë të dhënatë, a haraçnë? The last one generates an incomplete interrogative sentence, which does not contain interrogative grammatical means: Nga bijt’e ture, a nga të huajtë? Të pamend, edhe të verbërë, cila është m’e madhe, ari a Qisha që shëntëron arë?

Interrogative adverbs:

Ku të gjejmë navet nd’ erimi kaqë shumë bukëra, sa të frihenë kaqë shumë njerëz? E juvet cili thoi se jam unë? Pse mendoneni me vetëve tuaj besëpakë, se bukë nukë muartë? Qish nukë kuptoni se nuk’ u thaçë juvet për bukë, të ruheni nga brumët’e Farisejet, e të Sadhukejet? Gjerë kur të u duroj juvet? Si të duketë Simon? E ndë e thërret atë Dhavidhi zot, qish është biri i tij?

With interrogative particles:

A mund të bëj unë atë? A të duketë se nukë mund ndashti t’i lutem jatit sim, e të më dërgojë më tepër se dymbëdhjetë tajmë ëngjëjet? Nga u gjendnë vallë gjithë këto te kij?

With interrogative particle and interrogative pronoun, which makes the question more intensive, like for example: Vallë cili është më i madh ndë mbretëri të Qiellvet? Sometimes, the grammatical means of the question comes and it is repeated for the words the question is made, such as: Cila është mëma ime, edhe cilët janë vëllazërit’e mi? However, sentences and phrases which contain the question, are not built only with particles, such as: interrogative particles, interrogative pronouns and interrogative adverbs, which generally stand at the beginning, but in the translation of Meksi, there are also brought interrogative intonation sentences, which become such, thanks to the interrogative intonation, even though they have parallel structures with interrogative sentences, as: Njerëz me di faqe (Ipokritej) faqen e Qiellit dini ta njihni, e nishanet’e kohëve nukë mundni t’i njihni? Dhaskali juaj nukë paguan haraçnë? Nukë dhiavastë, se ai që bëri që herën e parë mashkull edhe fëmërë, i bëri ata? Mundni të pini potirë që do të pi unë, edhe pagëzimnë, që do të pagëzonem unë, të pagëzoneni edhe juvet? Mik, ç’të dëmtoj ti, nuk bëtë me mua pazar për një dinar? I kupëtuatë gjithë këto? Të vë mbë be Perndinë’ e gjallë, të na thuaç nevet ndë je ti Krishti, i biri i Perndisë?

Generally, interrogative sentences, in each language they are formed, start with question words (particles, or lexical grammatical categories, like pronouns and adverbs), they have an indirect order and they are characterized by the interrogative intonation, with the exception of cases when they are seen as indirect interrogative sentences, which are in the phrase and lack question antonym, such as: S’e di ç’të keq bëri. In the translation of Meksi, the main part of the interrogative sentences are rhetorical questions, which do not need a response, but in many casesm the answer comes from Jesus and in this models there are found phrases with some predicate units, with the indirect structure and in different functional relations, as in the following examples: 16. E juvet lum sitë tuaj, sepse shohënë, edhe veshëtë tuaj sepse digjojënë.”(p.275) “17. Se me të vërteta u thom juvet, që shumë profitër, edhe të drejtë dëshëruanë të shihnë këto që shihni juvet, e nuk’i panë, e të digjojnë këto që digjoni juvet, e nuk’i digjuanë.” (p. 275) The unit that comes after the conjunction of reason “se” can stay alone in the context of phrase 16. But the textual relation (minitext) can be wider, as in p. 279 of Chapter XV, where we will bring the following examples:

Atë herë vijënë te Jisui nga Ierusalimi Gramatikotë, edhe Farisejtë, e i thonë:

Pse mathitit e tua nukë mbajnë porsit’e pleqet, se nukë lajnë duartë kur hanë bukë?

Edhe ai u përgjigj ature, e u tha: Pse edhe ju nukë mbani porsin’e Perndisë për porsi tuaj?

Sepse Perëndia porsiti e tha: Ndero babanë edhe mëmën tënde, edhe ai që thotë te ligë babait a mëmësë, le të vdesë me vdekëjë.”

Very rarely we see other intonative sentences, as for example, some causative sentences: Jam pa faj nga gjaku i këtij së drejtit, ju e paçi mbë qafë. In our lexical studies it is emphasized that, to be in the right level, according to linguistic requests, the lexicographic treatment of word connections shall be if such level, as to fulfill the profound theory of speech activity. ¹⁴ Linguist H. Shehu emphasizes that for the issues of dictionaries, there are some known criteria, such as: a) word density; b) thematic value and word situations; c) width of lexical syntagmatic connections of the word with other words of the language, bearing in mind other extralinguistic factors, logical and material ones, interlinguistic factors, the structure of the language…¹⁵ only on syntagms, but also in the whole structure of the sentence, to reach the level of the research in the paper.

Schematic Approach for the Functional Order of Parts of Speech and the Lexical and Syntagmatic Correlation in Some Extracts from the Gospel of Saint Matthew

In this part, we are doing a schematic approach among words, phrases and statements from Greek to Albanian, accordint to the translation of V. Meksi with the editing of G. Gjirokastriti, to show the lexical and syntagmatic correlation of some syntactical units from the Gospel of Saint Matthew, according to the translation of the New Testament of these authors.

We shall note since in the introduction of this part of syntax, that when we make comparisons or such approaches, regarding the order of functional parts of speech in the unit of sentences, otherwise, according to its constituents: main parts of speech, and secondary ones, as well as tertiary units in order, as are the middle words, separate parts, homogenous parts, exclamations, in both languages: Greek and Albanian have a common typology, thus: SVO – is about the direct syntactical order (neutral order), by passing to emphatic order: VOS/OSV/SOV. For example, in the sentence Populli shqiptar ka ruajtur në shekuj gjuhën e tij (The Albanian people have preserved for centuries its own language) units or syntactical words emphasized have a neutral order (direct); whereas all the other orders, VOS/OSV/SOV: ¹⁶ Ka ruajtur në shekuj gjuhën e tij populli shqiptar/ Gjuhën e tij populli shqiptar ka ruajtur në shekuj/ Populli shqiptar gjuhën e tij ka ruajtur në shekuj – are all neutral orders, but emphatic (indirect). The same is also in Greek:

In this approach, we have noticed that there are differences only with the means of syntactical connections, some lexemes are not shown at all, as in many sentences there is a lack of subject (S), implying that (according to generativism) from the personal flections of the verb, the same phenomenon is in Albanian, too, such as: Bisedojmë së bashku.(Talk together) For the native speaker of Albanian, there is no need to express the subject, because the trace is in the flection of the verb -jmë; which belongs to the personal pronoun “ne” (we) – First person/plural. Let us compare: Bisedoj me ju (unë), Bisedon me ju (ai, ajo), Bisedon me ta (ti), Bisedoni me ju (ju) Bisedojnë me ju (ata, ato). The indispensable need to express the subject – speaker comes only in those cases (linguistic situations) when we want to emphasize who does an action, for example:

Unë e kam shkruar këtë poezi (I have written this poem) (not you or anyone else); Ti e theve gotten (You broke the glass) (not him or anyone else); Ne u vlerësuam shumë mire (We had good results) (not you or them) etc.

Historians of the language, or even of the two languages, have not been able to ascertain that this phenomenon is influenced by one or the other language, since the phenomenon is also observed in the Neolatin languages (Italian, Spanish and Portuguese and Romanian) and beyond. In today's linguistic theory, apart from the syntax in the known sense, it is important to construct the text as a whole. In this translation, as we have already pointed out, translators try to follow as strictly as the original. But even in the face of this demand, the different translation variants do not emerge exactly the same again. One of the basic points to which text analysis is today is the way of linking periods or paragraphs. The main tool that serves this purpose is called a "connector" or "conjunction" which are foreign terms. It is well known that Bible texts have been compiled at different times and by different authors. However they retain an important feature that was characteristic of oral narrative mode. This appears in the intense use of the conjunction "edhe". It is a use of simple narration in the mouth of ordinary people, but since it is embedded in Bible texts, it is perceived today as a feature of Bible teaching. In the New Testament this conjunction goes over 10,000 times.

Regarding the translation that we have as our object, this issue is further extended because it is known that a range of Bible expressions have been translated into foreign languages and over time have emerged from the text and have become part of the general use as in the language both spoken and literary one. Understandably, the translation of Bible expressions has been done by keeping as close as possible to the original.

However, there are two sides, the impact of which has appeared in the linguistic shaping of these Bible formulas. The first has to do with the very nature of the language in which they are translated, i.e. although it was the Hebrew and Greek traits, it would necessarily be subject to any change to the Albanian language. The second has to do with the continuity of translation and linguistic delivery in general. This means that over time some expressions have been elaborated to fit the newest language scale and at the same time the interpreters have tried to provide the most striking formulations.

For the Albanian language it is characteristic that in a great number of cases there is a double choice of synonyms, i.e. the same action can be expressen with a verb, but also with a verb phrase. The typical case is the use of the verb bëj (do) mainly with a noun, but also with an adverb. Thus, in Albanian, it is said: bëj pushim and pushoj (have a rest and rest), bëj durim and duroj (have patience and patience), i bëj lajka and lajkatoj, i bën dëm and e dëmton etc. It is interesting to note that this ability of the Albanian verb bëj has enabled the use of various Turkish words in Albanian, such as: bëj qejf, bëj gajret, bëj hesap, bëj kabull etc. In Turkish, in this case the order is the other way round and in the second place is the word etmek which means bë. To make it more evident how strong this characteristic is for Albanian language, we will add that in some cases there is also the verb phase with bëj and not the verb, thus for bëj be we use betohem, but for i bën dobugh the antonym verb is: i bëj dëm, dëmtoj. By broadening the view, we see that the verb bëj takes part widely in idiomatic phrases, such as: i bëj gropën, ia bëj me sy, i bëj bisht, ia bëj me dorë etc.

Thus we can understand why in the New Testament 1827 we encounter the verb bëj very often. For example: Mathew 8:24 έγινε σεισμός - u bë tërmet. This is word by word translation. Whereas in the edition of 2007 there is an interpretation: u ngrit një stuhi e madhe. The reason for the interpretation is that if the tërmet (earthquake) is accepted, it is a phenomenon of the earth's movement, not the water. The impact of the earthquake is a tsunami, as we know it today. The new translation has avoided this, in keeping with the idea that a storm raises water in the seawater. Meanwhile, we will admit that the verb of the Greek “bëj” is naturally accepted for the Albanian language, so it has not been passed on to these beginnings, to think that related to the sea, should not be said earthquake but storm. So much so that today's text is about a lake and not the sea. We will not get into the details of this case, because we already have a discrepancy of the word with the content, i.e. we will not make a textual discussion of whether the event occurred near the sea or lake.

Conclusions

We think that a part of the text from the translation of Vangjel Meksi, with the editing of Grigor of Gjirokastra, we can list here some conclusions on the defined object, which since in the beginning of the topic: in the construction of syntagms and some types of sentences. Thus, regarding what was mentioned above, we list the following:

The syntagmatic couplings of the constituents in these building units come in all their types, classified according to the heads of the components.

It is noticed that the most common and various structure are NS, which show different connections N + N in different cases without preposition; Noun + PS in different cases with prepositions; N + N, N + Adj, N + P, etc.

The connective syntactic means among constituents of syntagms are mainly: article, prepositions, inflections according to order of m.l.r.

In writing, we have not left without even introducing new facts from structural and generative linguistics, such as the verb valence, defined by L.Tesniere, but also the valence of other classes of words such as adjectives, pronouns, numerals, adverbs and nouns, in the process of grammatical connections between them.

Recognizing well the requirements and the religious style indicators in both languages, in this treatise, it has been possible to carefully select and distinguish several sentences from the translation of the New Testament to group them by type.

Not so much based on the punctuation marks of the time in which Meksi's translation was realized, it is possible to identify the intonational characteristics, the features of the order of functional parts, and the emphasis on unit-sentence types, starting from the questionnaire, with the grammatical tools of the question - as well as a few other sentences, found on their own, or in a phrase structure.

Even for the order, we could draw some considerations of parts of speech in a sentence in both Albanian and Greek, provided with some lexical language correlations from the source language to the receiving language.

It is of interest to look at the grammatical tools of the question in interrogative sentences, their plurality, and the place they occupy in relation to the other words of these sentences, as words bearing the logical emphasis of the statement.

References