Ich verstehe das Verb "zuweisen" in diesem Satz nicht. Hier mein Übersetzungsversuch des Restes des Satzes:
Mir ist plötzlich eine Möglichkeit eingefallen. Könnte "dem Denkmal zugewiesen hat" "had assigned to the memorial" bedeuten?
Hm...upon further reflection, I don't think "assigned to" makes much sense here. When I guessed "assigned to," I meant that he added that piece to the memorial or something - but now I'm not so convinced. The previous sentence states that only fragments of a certain memorial remain to this day. With that in mind, I think a better translation would be "which H.P.O. had already matched with the memorial." Essentially, that would mean that he determined that the piece belonged to the memorial.Ralf said:
I would read from the text, that H. P. L'Orange is an expert who once identified separate fragments (that had been found elsewhere) as belonging to a specific memorial that may be has gotten lost over the centuries. Just a guess, but it makes perfectly sense to me since "zuweisen" can be actually understood this way: "Ein bisher unbekanntes Bild, dass sich in Privatbesitz befand, konnte nach eingehenden Untersuchungen einer frühen Schaffensphase des Malers XXXX zugewiesen (= zugeordnet) werden."elroy said:
I agree with your assumption that he "once identified the separate fragment." However, why do you assume that the memorial was lost over the centuries? All the sentence is saying is that one of the fragments that now remain had been identified as belonging to the memorial in question.Ralf said:
My assumption was that there were only reports on the former existence of an, say ancient, memorial and that fragments had been identified as belonging to the whole ensemble, perhaps on the basis of contemporary descriptions or graphics.elroy said:
