Criticism of the New Translation

[agapewolf]

I am not stupid. I hardly think the majority of English-speaking Catholics are stupid. If you passed senior year high school English class, you can probably understand the new missal.

I am not aware that proper English constitutes “poor English.”

The new translation is most certainly not “proper English”. There are many many sentences in there that would be in English books as a bad example, and the question “how should this be rephrased in a simpler way”.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The new translation is most certainly not “proper English”. There are many many sentences in there that would be in English books as a bad example, and the question “how should this be rephrased in a simpler way”.

But that’s the thing: most of the stuff in the new translation can’t be rendered any simpler and still preserve the full meaning. That’s why we’re getting a new translation in the first place, to re-insert the meaning, as far as possible, into the English translation, which has been over-simplified and has only possessed a fraction of the meaning that the Latin has.

You really can’t express all that the Roman Missal expresses with the almost-obsolete translation. Is the new missal a bit awkward in wording? Yes, it is. However, we don’t translate the missal like we translate an instruction manual or an essay.

And yes, the new translation still fits fully within the constraints of English grammar.

 

[agapewolf]

But that’s the thing: most of the stuff in the new translation can’t be rendered any simpler and still preserve the full meaning. That’s why we’re getting a new translation in the first place, to re-insert the meaning, as far as possible, into the English translation, which has been over-simplified and has only possessed a fraction of the meaning that the Latin has.

You really can’t express all that the Roman Missal expresses with the almost-obsolete translation. Is the new missal a bit awkward in wording? Yes, it is. However, we don’t translate the missal like we translate an instruction manual or an essay.

And yes, the new translation still fits fully within the constraints of English grammar.

Yes, it can be rendered simpler and preserve meaning, simply rearranging the existing words can do this. The bizarre and awkward positioning of “O Lord” and “we pray” split the sentence and make it a construction zone.

The prayer after communion this coming Sunday is an example of it.

New Translation: “May these mysteries, O Lord, in which we have participated, profit us, we pray, for even now, as we walk amid passing things, you teach us by them to love the things of heaven and hold fast to what endures”

This is a train wreck.

are we being taught by the passing things or the mysteries? This would be in an English textbook and say “Reword this sentence”.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yes, it can be rendered simpler and preserve meaning, simply rearranging the existing words can do this. The bizarre and awkward positioning of “O Lord” and “we pray” split the sentence and make it a construction zone.

The prayer after communion this coming Sunday is an example of it.

New Translation: “May these mysteries, O Lord, in which we have participated, profit us, we pray, for even now, as we walk amid passing things, you teach us by them to love the things of heaven and hold fast to what endures”

This is a train wreck.

are we being taught by the passing things or the mysteries? This would be in an English textbook and say “Reword this sentence”.

Seems coherent to me.

It seems we are being taught by the mysteries.

 

[agapewolf]

Seems coherent to me.

It seems we are being taught by the mysteries.

Yes, we are…that’s the intent of the meaning, but that is not what the sentence says.

Again, I’m you said it was proper english. This is not the best way to state that sentence.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yes, we are…that’s the intent of the meaning, but that is not what the sentence says.

Again, I’m you said it was proper english. This is not the best way to state that sentence.

Meh. I suppose I transfer my argument to supporting the decrees of Liturgiam authenticam.

 

[agapewolf]

Meh. I suppose I transfer my argument to supporting the decrees of Liturgiam authenticam.

That has nothing to do with it. I’m not arguing changing any vocabulary. Just rearranging the sentence. This is the most awkward and stilted sentence structure.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That has nothing to do with it. I’m not arguing changing any vocabulary. Just rearranging the sentence. This is the most awkward and stilted sentence structure.

That has absolutely everything to do with it. That document directed ICEL to re-translate and remain as absolutely faithful to the Latin editio typica tertia in vocabulary and structure as possible.

 

[agapewolf]

That has absolutely everything to do with it. That document directed ICEL to re-translate and remain as absolutely faithful to the Latin editio typica tertia in vocabulary and structure as possible.

Latin is not the same language as English. Other languages place words in different order than English. It is IMPOSSIBLE to retain the Latin structure and have it make any sense in English. The first step of translating is to make sure that every word is accounted for. THEN, it is to put it in order that follows rules for English.

As I said before, this sentence structure is a trainwreck, and is awkward. If you try to diagram it, it would be a maze. This is simply a fact.

You can keep arguing all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that the sentence can be put in a bit better order so its not as stilted.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Latin is not the same language as English. Other languages place words in different order than English. It is IMPOSSIBLE to retain the Latin structure and have it make any sense in English. The first step of translating is to make sure that every word is accounted for. THEN, it is to put it in order that follows rules for English.

As I said before, this sentence structure is a trainwreck, and is awkward. If you try to diagram it, it would be a maze. This is simply a fact.

You can keep arguing all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that the sentence can be put in a bit better order so its not as stilted.

Well, you can send your regards to the Holy See.

 

[agapewolf]

Well, you can send your regards to the Holy See.

Sure…nice last word. Not necessary

I’m simply refuting YOUR point that it is proper english and not “poor english”