Watching Eurovision with subtitle words of songs last night, it occurred to me that most of the language could only have been even contemplated by writers for whom English is a second, -or other, language. Is this what has happened with the Missal?
Does what they have cobbled seem to them proper formal English, because they have no real knowledge of Engish 'as she is spoke?'
Archaic translations (ICEL)
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
-
contrabordun
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 4:20 pm
Re: Archaic translations (ICEL)
Ah yes, just like all those English-as-a-second-language types who overruled the...er...English-speaking Bishops regarding the...er...English translations of the Missal.
Paul Hodgetts
-
gwyn
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:42 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Archdiocese of Cardiff
- Location: Abertillery, South Wales UK
Re: Archaic translations (ICEL)
English-speaking Bishops
The jury's still out as to what, if any, language the Welsh ones are speaking.
Did you know that Cardiff are trying to raise mega bucks to spend on a cathedral where the assembly at the principle Sunday Mass is at best 30 and which is surrounded by hardly any residential population.
It's a special world that these folk inhabit.
-
presbyter
- Posts: 1651
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:21 pm
- Parish / Diocese: youknowalready
- Location: elsewhere
Re: Archaic translations (ICEL)
Gwyn wrote: the assembly at the principle Sunday Mass is at best 30 and which is surrounded by hardly any residential population..
I'm sorry Gwyn - but as this is a language thread - principle is a noun - principal is an adjective (and also a noun). Sorry!
-
contrabordun
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 4:20 pm
Re: Archaic translations (ICEL)
They have different principles in the Principality. (Or is Principles principally a clothing retailer?)
-
gwyn
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:42 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Archdiocese of Cardiff
- Location: Abertillery, South Wales UK
Re: Archaic translations (ICEL)
Presbyter, MCB, and Contrabordun
It's a fair cop Gov'nor.
Mae'n flun da fi.
It's a fair cop Gov'nor.
Mae'n flun da fi.
Re: Archaic translations (ICEL)
As a matter of interest does anyone know if other languages are having to "translate" into archaic language? I seem to remember that English was being singled out because it has been used as a base-translation for minor languages, where there might not be latin experts.
Alan
Alan
-
contrabordun
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 4:20 pm
Re: Archaic translations (ICEL)
Who needs translation? Latin itself might of course be considered a suitably archaic version of Italian.
and French, Spanish, Portugese, Catalan, Occitan, Romanian...
and French, Spanish, Portugese, Catalan, Occitan, Romanian...
Paul Hodgetts
Re: Archaic translations (ICEL)
Given the authority which many people are speaking about the new translation - how many have seen the texts we are talking about, in particular the Proper?
Another blog
-
Southern Comfort
- Posts: 2024
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:31 pm
Re: Archaic translations (ICEL)
You rang?
I want to emphasise that one of the major problems with the texts is that on paper they look better than they will actually be when listened to by a congregation. To clarify, it's not just the over-literal translation of the text and the stilted effect that this produces, it's the slavish following of the Latin syntax. Most if not all of the Collect prayers are just one sentence, with subordinate clauses abounding. That in itself makes it very difficult for the listener to pick up the sense at first hearing, let alone when combined with the alien resonances of the language used..... Even with the printed text in front of you, disentangling the sense is by no means always easy. This translation, in other words, has not been designed for public proclamation, I maintain. We are not used to the rolling cadences of 5th-century Roman oratory, and there is no reason why we should be. The 1973 text we currently use preferred to split lengthy sentences into shorter ones for better comprehension by the listener.
Another problem is the insistence on using a 2nd-person singular construction for Deus, qui when our language has moved on now and uses a 3rd-person construction. Here are two examples:
(Christmas Midnight Mass)
(Holy Family)
The justification given for using this is that it mirrors the Latin 2nd person singular, and is shorthand for "O God, you who have/you who were . . .", etc, but it doesn't alter the fact that it's going to sound peculiar to all of us. Today, we would say "O God, who has made" and "O God, who was pleased".
ICEL's 1973 solution to this sort of problem was to use "O God, you make/made/have made/were", etc - in other words, to substitute the word "you" for "who" and to terminate the sentence with a full stop before moving on to the next thought or petition. It was a good solution, and one which we need to retain. Of course, it will always be possible for presiders to edit the new texts for proclamation, but how many are going to be willing to put in that amount of preparatory work?
Finally, it's worth mentioning that the content of the prayers, when translated literally, makes us realise that our spirituality is a long way away from what it was at the time many of these prayers were composed, often centuries ago. The piety and self-abasement often to be found in them, not to mention sheer platitudes, will make us feel uncomfortable when combined with the stilted language. The effect will be to distance us from the texts, and make them sound insincere and artificial. Surely the aim should be to enable us not only to pray these texts but to grow through praying them?
We didn't realise that this was a problem with the 1973 translation, because by paraphrasing it tended to disguise this aspect of the texts. If we had seen them for what they were in our own language, would we have even wanted to use them? The disguising of the problem did have the effect of watering-down the texts, which is why ICEL also gave us those Alternative Opening Prayers, which are a triumph of the text-writer's art and feed our spirituality, but which will be lost to us in the new Missal because they are original compositions and not translations. They encapsulated the feel of the day, gave us substantial spiritual meat, and led very naturally into the scriptures that we would hear, since they provide separate options for Years A, B and C. The translated texts that await us will not lead us into the scriptures because they are completely independent of the Lectionary we now use. (This in turn is a result of empowering different working groups to implement the reforms to the Missal, without any one group having an overview of the entire project.) In fact the Alternative Opening Prayers are published separately, and presiders who are using them now will doubtless continue to do so.
I want to emphasise that one of the major problems with the texts is that on paper they look better than they will actually be when listened to by a congregation. To clarify, it's not just the over-literal translation of the text and the stilted effect that this produces, it's the slavish following of the Latin syntax. Most if not all of the Collect prayers are just one sentence, with subordinate clauses abounding. That in itself makes it very difficult for the listener to pick up the sense at first hearing, let alone when combined with the alien resonances of the language used..... Even with the printed text in front of you, disentangling the sense is by no means always easy. This translation, in other words, has not been designed for public proclamation, I maintain. We are not used to the rolling cadences of 5th-century Roman oratory, and there is no reason why we should be. The 1973 text we currently use preferred to split lengthy sentences into shorter ones for better comprehension by the listener.
Another problem is the insistence on using a 2nd-person singular construction for Deus, qui when our language has moved on now and uses a 3rd-person construction. Here are two examples:
(Christmas Midnight Mass)
O God, who have made this most sacred night
radiant with the splendour of the true Light,
grant, we pray,
that . . .
(Holy Family)
O God,
who were pleased to offer us
the shining example of the Holy Family,
The justification given for using this is that it mirrors the Latin 2nd person singular, and is shorthand for "O God, you who have/you who were . . .", etc, but it doesn't alter the fact that it's going to sound peculiar to all of us. Today, we would say "O God, who has made" and "O God, who was pleased".
ICEL's 1973 solution to this sort of problem was to use "O God, you make/made/have made/were", etc - in other words, to substitute the word "you" for "who" and to terminate the sentence with a full stop before moving on to the next thought or petition. It was a good solution, and one which we need to retain. Of course, it will always be possible for presiders to edit the new texts for proclamation, but how many are going to be willing to put in that amount of preparatory work?
Finally, it's worth mentioning that the content of the prayers, when translated literally, makes us realise that our spirituality is a long way away from what it was at the time many of these prayers were composed, often centuries ago. The piety and self-abasement often to be found in them, not to mention sheer platitudes, will make us feel uncomfortable when combined with the stilted language. The effect will be to distance us from the texts, and make them sound insincere and artificial. Surely the aim should be to enable us not only to pray these texts but to grow through praying them?
We didn't realise that this was a problem with the 1973 translation, because by paraphrasing it tended to disguise this aspect of the texts. If we had seen them for what they were in our own language, would we have even wanted to use them? The disguising of the problem did have the effect of watering-down the texts, which is why ICEL also gave us those Alternative Opening Prayers, which are a triumph of the text-writer's art and feed our spirituality, but which will be lost to us in the new Missal because they are original compositions and not translations. They encapsulated the feel of the day, gave us substantial spiritual meat, and led very naturally into the scriptures that we would hear, since they provide separate options for Years A, B and C. The translated texts that await us will not lead us into the scriptures because they are completely independent of the Lectionary we now use. (This in turn is a result of empowering different working groups to implement the reforms to the Missal, without any one group having an overview of the entire project.) In fact the Alternative Opening Prayers are published separately, and presiders who are using them now will doubtless continue to do so.