# Croatian (BCS): In the collapsing scheme of things barbarian



## sauge

Hello! Here's a sentence:

In the collapsing scheme of things barbarian, the bishops of Rome were among the weakest.

U sustavu koji se urušavao (.....?), rimski biskupi bili su među najslabijima.

I do not understand the position of "barbarian", nor if it is an adjective or a noun here. 
I have the impression that one comma is missing. How do you understand the first part of the sentence? 

Thanks!


----------



## Duya

I would parse it as an adjective, i.e. '...of barbarian things', but I'm far from sure. Its interpretation remains problematic. You'd better ask in an English forum -- the issue is of meaning rather than of translation.


----------



## sauge

Yeah. 
Thank you. Hm. 
It occurs to me: They were barbarian in the collapsing scheme of things, thus they were among the weakest. 
(I'm not sure, however... what do you think?)

(I thought of "barbarian things" myself, but my grammar books don't agree. No such adjective position!)

When I look at it again, I'm quite sure I'm right. This forum works its magic every time!


----------



## sokol

Duya said:


> I would parse it as an adjective, i.e. '...of barbarian things', but I'm far from sure. Its interpretation remains problematic. You'd better ask in an English forum -- the issue is of meaning rather than of translation.


Yes, an adjective it is indeed. This word order is very much marked in English (I'd say poetic even). Grammatically you could also explain this as an elliptic sentence ("... of things [which were] barbarian").

But whatever should be the correct grammatical explanation here, meaning is more or less clearly what you suggest. (And yes, I too think that it would be a good idea to discuss this construction in English Only; or probably there's already a thread about it. )


----------



## Duya

sokol said:


> Yes, an adjective it is indeed. This word order is very much marked in English (I'd say poetic even). Grammatically you could also explain this as an elliptic sentence ("... of things [which were] barbarian").



Yes, I've heard such construction with reverse word order before too, chiefly in poetry and stylish writing. But then, that particular adjective doesn't quite fit. If it's about the fall of the Roman Empire, I'd expect "In the collapsing scheme of things imperial" or "Roman" instead: it was the empire which was collapsing, not barbarians. Or it is some double entendre that I don't get.


----------



## sokol

Well, depends to what epoch this line is referring; don't forget that with Odoaker Rome had the first barbarian emperor already in 476 (even though he declared himself only king, but not caesar). I wouldn't say double entendre exactly - probably "barbarian" is meant here quite literally, referring to Germanic emperors in Italy.


----------



## sauge

In the collapsing scheme of things barbarian, the bishops of Rome were among the weakest.

It is about the period after the fall of Rome indeed. I understood it as "they were barbarian in such situation (=in the collapsing scheme of things)", _barbarian _referring to "bishops", not "things".
So, "As they were barbarian (...), they were among the weakest." 
The broader context doesn't give much explanation here. 
Such a construction is quite common in French, so I understood it like this. 
I'd like to ask if it sounds natural (?) in English.


----------



## vatreno

hej sauge! mislim da ti bio si pravi prije, barbarian meaning irrational in a negative way. It sounds like the author might have used a correlational pun with a historical reference (maybe, but sokol would know more about that).

To je znace _tezak_.

Poslaj meni pitanja ako ti imas vise i ja cu ucinit isto!


----------



## Duya

sauge said:


> In the collapsing scheme of things barbarian, the bishops of Rome were among the weakest.
> 
> It is about the period after the fall of Rome indeed. I understood it as "they were barbarian in such situation (=in the collapsing scheme of things)", _barbarian _referring to "bishops", not "things".



In my opinion, there's no way to parse it like that. "Barbarian" can modify either _"things" _(see e.g. a similar quote from the Bible here: "_do not concern yourself with material things, but with *things heavenly*, the prophet admonished_"), or perhaps, though unlikely, "_scheme of things_". But like I said before, it doesn't make too much sense either way. 

That "barbarian" stands out from the sentence, as you noticed. Your interpretation is the most plausible from the logical point of view. But then, the "barbarian" is misplaced, and it perhaps is a typo from the start. In that case, it should read "In the collapsing scheme of things, the barbarian bishops of Rome were among the weakest".


----------



## sokol

Vatreno, unfortunately I can't think of a possible historical pun (probably I could if I'd read the complete text ).

I am as puzzled by this sentence as Duya is; it would make more sence if it would go like that:
- In the collapsing scheme of things barbarian, the bishops of Rome were among the *worst*.
Because this would/could indicate that in a world which had turned "barbarian" the bishops of Rome were right among the worst even though they were supposed to sustain culture and tradition (thus, Roman civilisation, so to speak).
This, then, *could *work as a pun indeed - those which were supposed to be the "shepherds" (to use Catholic metaphors) indeed were the "wolves".

But the sentence has "weakest" ... which really doesn't fit here. Probably the author just meant what I'm guessing here - and just chose a bad metaphor; many authors do  (that is, choose bad metaphors).


----------



## sauge

Hm. I agree with Sokol that "the world had turned barbarian", and in such a "scheme of things" those poor bishops were the weakest indeed. My translation is: 

U barbarskom sustavu koji se urušavao, rimski biskupi bili su među najslabijima. 

So, "bishops" weren't barbarian, but the "scheme of things", after all.
Here I avoided trying any marked translation, but since the author often writes in this crazy way, I do it elsewhere, where possible. 

You have helped me a lot and I thank you very much. 

(Even if I'm stubbornly convinced that a Pulitzer Prize winner hasn't made a mistake choosing bad metaphors. As an American (God bless him!), he often uses crazy comparisons in making his points (e.g. American football and soccer when talking about Roman army), and sometimes it is my fault in not giving you enough context, and you come to conclusions that he struggles with style. I do, not him. Unfortunately.) 

Nevertheless, thank you all again!


----------

