Concern over the new Missal translation

[ProVobis]

I should think that the standards of the language used in the missal should be higher than what is expected on a quick reply on a forum where full sentences are generally not expected, many acronyms and abbrevations are used for the sake of time in typing, and the point is communicated anyway.

Relax. You did well to point out the things you did. No sin in thinking outside the box and party lines.

 

[zab]

Three sentences, no verb.


tee

You can make your point understood without a verb, but you cannot make a sentence without one.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Why don’t you look back through the thread to see what I am referring to… You state that you are being sincere, but its kind of hard to believe… really? I mean, really? Do you get on everyone for the bad grammar in their posts?

No, I don’t.

Do you really believe I get on everyone for bad grammar in their posts? Why don’t you search for posts I have written to see if I do…

Do you really disbelieve everyone who tells you upfront they are being sincere? …really? I mean, really?

Bah. Fine.

tee
Who is sincerely sorry for his contribution to this thread

 

[tee_eff_em]

You can make your point understood without a verb, but you cannot make a sentence without one.

But can you not make a point with 48-68 word sentences? St Paul seems to do fine.

tee

 

[ProVobis]

Three sentences, no verb.


tee

And where is the verb in Dominus vobiscum, Sursum corda, Gloria Patri, Gloria in excelsis Deo? And who decided to insert a subjunctive verb in the translation?

 

[agapewolf]

The whole point is being lost. Someone here, (as well as other places) , claim that this is a higher form of language. I brought up the fact that the sentences are so long that the point is lost. It isn’t a higher form of language by that standard.

 

[benedictgal]

The whole point is being lost. Someone here, (as well as other places) , claim that this is a higher form of language. I brought up the fact that the sentences are so long that the point is lost. It isn’t a higher form of language by that standard.

Might I remind you that even the Lectionary has very long sentences, especially those that involve the Pauline epistles. Thus, with all due respect, you have not really made your point at all.

 

[katy]

And where is the verb in Dominus vobiscum, Sursum corda, Gloria Patri, Gloria in excelsis Deo? And who decided to insert a subjunctive verb in the translation?

The verbs are implied, and Latin is an inflected language, which English mostly is not. We usually have a separate word for everything.
Perhaps we should just have Mass in Latin.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
Someone said that its going to be a higher form of language. I said, Nope. I explained it pretty well, and I’m tired of having to repeat myself.

…

You haven’t explained it at all. You’ve simply repeated yourself. That’s not an explanation.

You have yet to provide any concrete examples–instead you’re just quoting soundbites from people who are opposed to the translation. And you’re doing it apparently without even knowing what these “problems” are. That hardly qualifies as “I explained it pretty well.”

 

[FrDavid96]

The whole point is being lost. Someone here, (as well as other places) , claim that this is a higher form of language. I brought up the fact that the sentences are so long that the point is lost. It isn’t a higher form of language by that standard.

Yes, the whole point is being lost. And unfortunately, the point here is that you keep criticizing something which is becoming more and more apparent that you have not even read.

All you have done here is to quote third parties who have an agenda against the English speaking Church using an accurate translation of the Latin. Thus far, you have presented nothing in support of your statements.

How can you insist that it isn’t a higher form of language if you don’t even know how the sentence reads? That’s a nice trick.

 

[Chatter163]

My point still remains, there is bad grammar. Run on sentences with over 50 words is not a “higher form” of language as attributed earlier.

You obviously do not teach English and would appear to know little about grammar.

There is nothing wrong with a fifty-word sentence, so long as it is structured and punctuated properly. Dickens, Chesterton, Waugh, et al–they all used long sentences, and most upper level textbooks today do the same. It is a very current and trendy mindset that dislikes lengthy sentences, simply because our modern attention spans have grown shorter and shorter.

I recall when I encouraged my students to use varying sentence lengths, instead of the mostly short, choppy sentences that they generally used. Like you, they tried to claim that lengthy sentences were run-ons, but the fact of the matter was that they, like yourself, really had no idea of what constitutes a run-on sentence; they were simply trying to keep their writing as brief and shallow as they could, without having to get “too deep.” (That sentence, BTW, was 53 words and was by no means a run-on, since its clauses were properly punctuated.) A four-word sentence can be a run-on, if not properly punctuated. This claim is all a smokescreen.

 

[agapewolf]

Yes, the whole point is being lost. And unfortunately, the point here is that you keep criticizing something which is becoming more and more apparent that you have not even read.

All you have done here is to quote third parties who have an agenda against the English speaking Church using an accurate translation of the Latin. Thus far, you have presented nothing in support of your statements.

How can you insist that it isn’t a higher form of language if you don’t even know how the sentence reads? That’s a nice trick.

I’m not quoting anyone. I don’t have an agenda nor am I quoting anyone that does. DO NOT accuse me of doing things which I am not doing.

I DO know how the sentence reads, I read it myself. I can’t find it at this time. For the 5th time now, I can’t find it. If you all want to sit and attack me because I can’t find something, fine go ahead.

BUT DO NOT accuse me playing tricks, nor of quoting agenda. I am doing neither.

Fr, do you speak to your parishioners this way? With the sarcasm and accusations? THAT sir, is not a nice trick.

 

[agapewolf]

You obviously do not teach English and would appear to know little about grammar.

There is nothing wrong with a fifty-word sentence, so long as it is structured and punctuated properly. Dickens, Chesterton, Waugh, et al–they all used long sentences, and most upper level textbooks today do the same. It is a very current and trendy mindset that dislikes lengthy sentences, simply because our modern attention spans have grown shorter and shorter.

I recall when I encouraged my students to use varying sentence lengths, instead of the mostly short, choppy sentences that they generally used. Like you, they tried to claim that lengthy sentences were run-ons, but the fact of the matter was that they, like yourself, really had no idea of what constitutes a run-on sentence; they were simply trying to keep their writing as brief and shallow as they could, without having to get “too deep.” (That sentence, BTW, was 53 words and was by no means a run-on, since its clauses were properly punctuated.) A four-word sentence can be a run-on, if not properly punctuated. This claim is all a smokescreen.

Like me? how in the world would you know that? Why are you personally attacking my knowledge here? Just because I can’t find a sentence, you are all just assuming I’m making it up or it doesn’t exist or I don’t know what I’m talking about. I was trying to make a simple point to the pp to mine, and to have a war against me about this silly thing is so ridiculous when it isn’t worth it for the point I made.

I never claimed to be an “english teacher” . I never claimed to be gifted in writing, and I especially don’t employ skills in quick writing on a forum, where, as I said before, abbreviations and acronyms are used all the time to save time.

But I can still identify a run-on sentence, and bad grammar. I don’t care if people use bad grammar on a forum. I care when someone calls poor grammar “higher form of language”. Which was my original point, and there it stays.

 

[agapewolf]

Might I remind you that even the Lectionary has very long sentences, especially those that involve the Pauline epistles. Thus, with all due respect, you have not really made your point at all.

So? What does this have to do with anything? My point stands without even considering the lectionary as it is.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not quoting anyone. I don’t have an agenda nor am I quoting anyone that does. DO NOT accuse me of doing things which I am not doing.

I DO know how the sentence reads, I read it myself. I can’t find it at this time. For the 5th time now, I can’t find it. If you all want to sit and attack me because I can’t find something, fine go ahead.

BUT DO NOT accuse me playing tricks, nor of quoting agenda. I am doing neither.

Fr, do you speak to your parishioners this way? With the sarcasm and accusations? THAT sir, is not a nice trick.

Actually, agapewolf, Fr.David was not being rude to you, nor have any of us who have challenged you. You state some mighty big claims, but, you do not back them up with the actual texts. Having dinner with a panel may validate how you feel, but, it does not necessarily validate what the Holy See has already mandated.

If you feel that there are problems with the sentence structure, please qualify that statement by citing examples. Thus far, you have not done anything of the sort. One can certainly accuse, but, without the facts, the charges are completely baseless.

 

[benedictgal]

So? What does this have to do with anything? My point stands without even considering the lectionary as it is.

You have not proven anything because you have not provided anything to go by other than your opinion.

 

[agapewolf]

Do you remember what my point is? DO YOU?

Did you know i’m not arguing against the new translations? Do you know I actually like them? Do you know this? Why in the world are you arguing with me?

I’ve made a point that it can’t be considered a “higher form of language” Thats all. thats ALL.

I haven’t made ANY big and mighty claims. I haven’t presented anything huge at all. Just made a simple comment that there could be misundertsandings with mannicheism, and that there are some (one in particular that I can remember) long sentences that are run-on, and it maybe its not completely a “higher form of language”

That is not a big and mighty claim. really, it isn’t. For those that want to be absolutely blind to ANY possible problems that can arise with the new translation, go ahead. Good luck with that. There are going to be problems, and I think pointing out some issues now could only help. It bothers me when people don’t call it what it is though. Praising it completely and adding some huge claims like “a higher form of language” without any consideration of some faults of direct translation is naive. THAT is where there is a problem with credibilty.

And yes, Fr. was indeed rude. I couldn’t imagine priests that I work with speaking to the people in the parish in such a way.

 

[benedictgal]

Do you remember what my point is? DO YOU?

Did you know i’m not arguing against the new translations? Do you know I actually like them? Do you know this? Why in the world are you arguing with me?

I’ve made a point that it can’t be considered a “higher form of language” Thats all. thats ALL.

I haven’t made ANY big and mighty claims. I haven’t presented anything huge at all. Just made a simple comment that there could be misundertsandings with mannicheism, and that there are some (one in particular that I can remember) long sentences that are run-on, and it maybe its not completely a “higher form of language”

That is not a big and mighty claim. really, it isn’t. For those that want to be absolutely blind to ANY possible problems that can arise with the new translation, go ahead. Good luck with that. There are going to be problems, and I think pointing out some issues now could only help. It bothers me when people don’t call it what it is though. Praising it completely and adding some huge claims like “a higher form of language” without any consideration of some faults of direct translation is naive. THAT is where there is a problem with credibilty.

And yes, Fr. was indeed rude. I couldn’t imagine priests that I work with speaking to the people in the parish in such a way.

Actually, you have made claims without backing them up. Have you even seen the texts, agapewolf, or, are you going by someone else’s opinion of them? Please cite the texts that concern you and post them. As I told you in my replies to your posts, you have not cited anything that would give us an indication of your concerns with the text. All you are going by is your opinion on the wording and not what the official text actually says.

Father was not being rude. On the contrary, you have been the one who is rude. We have made our points, but, the burden of proof is on you.

The good part about all of this is that it will prevent the publishing houses from paraphrasing the parts of the Mass, as has been the case with what we currently have right now. Furthermore, it will bring beauty and dignity to the Mass and force the composers to work their settings around the text rather than the other way around. Hopefully, it will put an end to bad settings and make the music more fitting for the Mass. Could that be what is bothering you about the new translations?

 

[FrDavid96]

I find it ironic that the people who are so quick to criticize long sentences in the upcoming translation of the Mass are those same people who had a hand in the ICEL interpretations of the past, and who are now defending the use of those interpretations over and against accurate translations–based on what? Sentence length! . So let’s look at some of ICEL’s own sentences from the current ICEL interpretation, shall we?

The current Eucharistic Prayer I

“We your people and your ministers…” 52 words–that’s right 52 words in the current version
“Look with favor…” 37 words

EP II
“Remember our brothers and sisters…” 29 words
“Have mercy on us all…” 35 words

EP III
“Father, calling to mind…” 38 words
“May he make us…” 44 words–even more if the priest mentions a saint’s name!
“Strengthen in faith…” 32 words–and that’s not counting the names of the pope & bishop(s)

Take a look at the current Eucharistic Prayer IV

From the Preface

“Source of life and goodness…” 28 words
“Countless hosts…” 22 words

From the EP itself:
“Even when he disobeyed…” 28 words
“And that we might…” 41 words

After the “Through him…”
“We recall…” 43 words That’s right folks, 43 words!!!
“Lord, look upon…” 36 words
“Father in your mercy…” 32 words
“Then in your kingdom…” 33 words

Thanksgiving Preface
“Once you chose…” 38 words

Ded. of a Church I preface
“Here you build…” 43 words

Pref. Christ the King
“As king…” 41 words

Pref. Holy Trinity
“You have revealed…” 38 words

Rite of Sprinkling, blessing B
“Lord in your mercy…” 34 words

Consecration of the Chrism
“At your command…” 45 words (46 if you count a hyphenated word as 2)
“Above all…” 50 words (five zero)

If long sentences are such a problem now, why were long sentences not such a problem back when the original interpretations were being offered?; and why are they not calling for a revision of the current version?

 

[Sarabande]

This has been an interesting discussion.

Having not read the passages in the new translation which have been criticised or praised for good/bad grammar, I cannot comment directly on it. That said, I think it is a bit harsh and unfair to accuse Agapewolf of knowing little about grammar. I’m sure she has a decent grasp of grammar based on her past posts.

Moving on…

…There is nothing wrong with a fifty-word sentence, so long as it is structured and punctuated properly. Dickens, Chesterton, Waugh, et al–they all used long sentences, and most upper level textbooks today do the same. **It is a very current and trendy mindset that dislikes lengthy sentences, simply because our modern attention spans have grown shorter and shorter. **

I do agree with this, especially the part bolded by me. I studied both journalism and music whilst at university. What I found very interesting were the various different styles and approaches to writing based on the audience you were addressing. In journalistic writing, for example, you were taught to write for the average 6th to 8th grader - short sentences, simple, quick and easy comprehension, a concise overview of the entire story in the first and last paragraphs since it is known that most people will focus on those paragraphs and then scan through the rest. I also worked at a law library throughout my college years, and discovered the confusing style of writing of law, which, at first glance, appeared to be the worst kind of writing. It bothered the heck out of me, especially when I’d be asked to proofread and edit my boss’s work, continually reminding myself I had to edit according to that writing style and not of any other kind.

I actually preferred writing more for literature, thus, took many literature and English courses. Most of the courses I chose focused on the classic writings, especially of the 19th century British and American writers. The use of the language was like an art, with such impeccable beauty in which to describe the authors’ thoughts, scenes, etc. There was something sacred (not in the religious sense) with the way they used words and how they could so perfectly compose an incredibly long sentence with such beauty and meaning, as well as comprehension. It created a heightened sense of importance to what was written. It was something I have always been in awe of even as a little girl. Edit… To add, we were also instructed to read writings of bad writers of the time as well, just so we can see how mediocre or bad writers used “flowery” language in the worst and distasteful ways. Sort of like certain kinds of musical compositions of various centuries past.

I also took courses in which the professors were very much into the current way of writing, even within literature. They completely pooh-poohed the “old” way of writing. It was considered passe and they even admitted to the fact that it was because people’s attention spans had shrunk considerably and would be putting too much of a mental burden on them, which I found somewhat insulting to humans in general. That said, I still had to learn how to write in this style as well. Most certainly, there are writers of this century and of the last century which were able to write beautifully in the modern style, thus keeping the art of writing in tact, but there is also a lot writing which leaves much to be desired, keeping the “sacredness” out of it and making it cold, too practical and untempered. As you have probably seen with your students, some will take advantage of that and write poorly out of sheer laziness. I saw this with some of my own classmates.

For certain subjects, this cold, practical style works very well. For others, it wouldn’t be appropriate, especially in regards to subjects which require a high sense of quality, respect, sacredness and even “other-worldliness”, thus often compelling a person, purposely, to focus more on what they are reading so that they can receive a fuller and deeper comprehension of what is being described. I know that is the case for me when I read these kinds of writings.

Again, I cannot and will not comment on the new translations as I have not seen those passages which have been criticised, but if these passages are truly grammatically sound and the construction of the sentences is meant to relay the sense of sacredness, importance, as well as require a deeper sense of focus and understanding, I would not find anything wrong with it. I’m of the mind-set of not underestimating the ability of people in many spheres of life, as well as providing that utmost sense of importance to the sacredness of anything to do with the Mass and the Church. But if those passages are written poorly, then there is no excuse for it, because it most likely is very difficult for anyone to comprehend since the entire meaning of the passage would be missed.