Domine, non sum dignus

  • Thread starter Thread starter henrikhank
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

henrikhank

Guest
Pax!
At Mass we pray: Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea

Sanabitur is third-person singular future passive indicative of sano.
We are here speaking of the soul in the “third person”. We are also speaking of “my soul”.
Why do that if a person is his soul?
In the Gospel it is:…sanabitur puer meus. Then this centurion is asking Jesus to help his servant and therefore he could speak of “my servant”.
It’s kind of confusing to me.
 
henrikhank said:
Pax!
At Mass we pray: Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea

Sanabitur is third-person singular future passive indicative of sano.
We are here speaking of the soul in the “third person”. We are also speaking of “my soul”.
Why do that if a person is his soul?
In the Gospel it is:…sanabitur puer meus. Then this centurion is asking Jesus to help his servant and therefore he could speak of “my servant”.
It’s kind of confusing to me.
Click to expand...
Is your argument in favor of changing it to “sanabitor”?

I think that (first person) is what the original ICEL translation intended. “I will be healed/saved” or something to that effect. But that was a dynamic translation. Perhaps you’re taking things too literally here? The Latin third-person may just be a place-holder of sorts.
 
henrikhank said:
Pax!
At Mass we pray: Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea

Sanabitur is third-person singular future passive indicative of sano.
We are here speaking of the soul in the “third person”. We are also speaking of “my soul”.
Why do that if a person is his soul?
In the Gospel it is:…sanabitur puer meus. Then this centurion is asking Jesus to help his servant and therefore he could speak of “my servant”.
It’s kind of confusing to me.
Click to expand...
It’s been a long time since my Latin sessions. Doesn’t anima (fem.) agree with sanabitur (third person)?
 
Hello Henri!

I looked on my Sparky chart and found it is in fact the First Conjugation, future indicative but third person plural passive not singular. As to this: “et sanabitur puer meus,” the Centurion was asking Jesus to heal his servant, not himself. But you know this. What we say in Mass isn’t exactly as it happened. I think I heard it said once that this is so we’ll follow the Centurion’s good example. I’m not really clear on why it was changed. I’ve heard different things said about it though through the years. It would be interesting to re-visit the debate. Thanks for bringing it up.

Glenda
 
“Anima” is the subject to which the verb “sanabitur” is referring. It would not make grammatical sense to render the verb in the first person. The only subject to which you could refer in the first person using “sanabor” is “ego”. Thus, if you intend to specify that the soul shall be healed, as opposed to the less specific “I shall be healed”, it must be rendered in third person.

I would not necessarily agree that the soul is the equivalent of a person. I would say personhood includes both soul and body, and “ego” or “I” would refer to both of these parts. The purpose of using “my soul” is specifically to distinguish the soul from the body in this case.
 
chrisharper80 said:
Don’t feel bad. I looked it up. 👍 It’s been over a decade since I studied Latin.
Click to expand...
Well, the Latin is authoritative so it has to be done right. These are actually “fun” threads for me. So thanks for the correction.
 
henrikhank said:
Pax!
At Mass we pray: Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea

Sanabitur is third-person singular future passive indicative of sano.
We are here speaking of the soul in the “third person”. We are also speaking of “my soul”.
Why do that if a person is his soul?
In the Gospel it is:…sanabitur puer meus. Then this centurion is asking Jesus to help his servant and therefore he could speak of “my servant”.
It’s kind of confusing to me.
Click to expand...
I think “sanabitur anima mea” is what we want. A person is technically not their soul. The soul is the form of a living organism, which in the case of a human being is rational and therefore immaterial. Hence it survives bodily death, but your soul cannot be said to be you without your body. So the soul is in a debilitated state until the final resurrection at the end of the world. I think we speak of our souls being healed because it’s our misaligned intellects and wills that lead us to sin, which are functions of the rational soul. Hence the soul needs healing, so we say “sanabitur anima mea” and not “sanabor” as others have pointed out.
 
chrisharper80 said:
"Anima" is the subject to which the verb “sanabitur” is referring. It would not make grammatical sense to render the verb in the first person. The only subject to which you could refer in the first person using “sanabor” is “ego”. Thus, if you intend to specify that the soul shall be healed, as opposed to the less specific “I shall be healed”, it must be rendered in third person.

I would not necessarily agree that the soul is the equivalent of a person. I would say personhood includes both soul and body, and “ego” or “I” would refer to both of these parts. The purpose of using “my soul” is specifically to distinguish the soul from the body in this case.
Click to expand...
^^^This. It’s a grammar thing, just let it be.

(FWIW, in the Greek [which really should be the authority here], the verb is 3rd-person singular future passive indicative = the same.)
 
Here’s the Conjugation:

Future 1st Indictive of sano, sanare, sanavi, sanatum = to heal - first conjugation feminine verb
Code: 
ACTIVE
1 person singular = sanabo
2 person singular = sanabis
3 person singular = sanabit
1 person plural = sanabimus
2 person plural = sanabitis
3 person plural = sanabunt

PASSIVE
1 person singular = sanabor
2 person singular = sanaberis (or re)
3 person singular = sanabitur
1 person plural = sanabimur
2 person plural = sanabimini
3 person plural = sanabuntur

There ya have it! I can’t believe I’m actually doing this. Sheesh! 😃

Future tense describes action that has not happened yet but will sometime later. Thus the Centurion’s use of sanabitur = say the word and my servant shall be healed - the action taking place in the future, which it did.

But this is no explanation of the different use in the Mass. That’s all my help for tonight.

Glenda
 
Why not save the trouble and just say “Lord I am not worthy” or the equivalent in Swedish?
 
I can’t figure out the amima mea - in the Latin the endings have to match, noun and pronoun. It should be animea mea but the first “e” is dropped. I don’t know enough of my Latin yet to get it, but maybe another year. Literally it says “it shall be healed soul mine.” I’m in too deep. Yikes!

But I looked in the Latin Dictionary I have and it says anima, ae is feminine Genitive singular noun for 1) breath 2) life or 3) soul. That’s all I got. Unless I dig some more but I’m tired.

Glenda
 
glendab said:
I can’t figure out the amima mea - in the Latin the endings have to match, noun and pronoun. It should be animea mea but the first “e” is dropped. I don’t know enough of my Latin yet to get it, but maybe another year. Literally it says “it shall be healed soul mine.” I’m in too deep. Yikes!

But I looked in the Latin Dictionary I have and it says anima, ae is feminine Genitive singular noun for 1) breath 2) life or 3) soul. That’s all I got. Unless I dig some more but I’m tired.

Glenda
Click to expand...
I don’t think there should be an e in anima. It’s anima, animae f. if I remember correctly, not to be confused with animus, animi m. which is something different. The literal translation is “my soul shall be healed” because anima is the subject of the verb “sanabitur” which is passive voice 3rd person singular like you said.

Also, you get brownie points from me for doing Latin 👍. I wish my undergraduate institution had offered Latin because I would have liked to continue it from high school.
 
It so happens this gospel was in tonight’s EF readings. The priest gave a nice homily on it. Remember that this was a pagan’s faith in what he heard about Christ not for himself but for someone else.
glendab said:
But I looked in the Latin Dictionary I have and it says anima, ae is feminine Genitive singular noun for 1) breath 2) life or 3) soul. That’s all I got. Unless I dig some more but I’m tired.
Click to expand...
FWIW, there is also animus, animi, a masculine counterpart, meaning mind and having more human qualities. Latin is a nicely organized language in many ways.
DaveBj said:
^^^This. It’s a grammar thing, just let it be.

(FWIW, in the Greek which really should be the authority here], the verb is 3rd-person singular future passive indicative = the same.)
Click to expand...
Maybe it should, biblically speaking, but I think in this case, there is a high probability that the centurion actually spoke his words in Latin. How else did they know he was Roman? 😉
 
ProVobis said:
*snip8

Maybe it should, biblically speaking, but I think in this case, there is a high probability that the centurion actually spoke his words in Latin. **How else did they know he was Roman? **😉
Click to expand...
Umm, his uniform? The fact that he was surrounded by Roman soldiers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top