I know it's just a comma, but

[Ricardus]

I hope this doesn’t seem trivial or nit-picky, but I have a question concerning the placement of the third comma in the current English translation of the Sanctus:Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might
You see, I am old enough to remember not only the early days of the Novus Ordo, but also the post-Vatican II but pre-Novus Ordo vernacular Masses in English, and from what I remember, the first line of the Sanctus was as follows:Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts (post-Vatican II, pre-Novus Ordo)

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of power and might (original English of Novus Ordo)
I would also note that in Polish Masses, both the pre-Novus Ordo and Novus Ordo vernacular has always been and still is translated as follows:Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts
In the Tridentine Mass, the first line began:Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,
**And so, I guess my question is, in current English vernacular Masses, when and why did the placement of the third comma shift the way it did, and does it matter?
**

• Doesn’t the comma shift lessen the superlative of holy (Holy, Holy, Holy,…) ?
• Doesn’t it create an unfortunate punctuation break between Lord and God, when we are supposed to be addressing the Lord God?
• When we address the “Lord God” in the second person (grammatically speaking), isn’t this more fitting than merely addressing the “Lord (second person), God (third person) of power and might”?

p.s.

I notice that the upcoming new translation of the Mass (which I am looking forward to) seems to omit the third comma altogether, thusly:Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts
Now I’m really scratching my head. Can anybody shed some light on this issue for me?

Thanks.

 

[IHM333]

It’s getting more complicated now and you will see even more… CONFUSIONS!!! Read the message of Fatima and you will be guided towards the Light! Include the last book of Daniel and Revelation especially Chapter 12 onwards. Now I believe is the time! And what happen to the “Third of the Stars”? Let’s Cling to the Immaculate Heart of Mary…

 

[Holly3278]

I am not much on grammar but it seems to be just a grammatical thing to me.

 

[Suscipiat2011]

I believe that in English when there is a noun with an adjective, or more than one adjective, the last adjective before the noun does not need a comma.

For instance: Would you say: You are a holy Lord. Or: You are a holy, Lord.

That is just the way it is.

 

[MarkThompson]

[/INDENT]In the Tridentine Mass, the first line began:Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,
And so, I guess my question is, in current English vernacular Masses, when and why did the placement of the third comma shift the way it did, and does it matter

You’re mistaken, I’m afraid. The punctuation in the Tridentine Mass is:
Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus sabaoth.

It’s that way in the 1962 editio typica, and sure enough here’s how it looked in a 1577 copy I could find:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lw...NVo70q1V9K-QQAN3GHw&ci=469,926,479,235&edge=0

Thus (to whatever extent it could possibly make a difference) the omission of the comma is proper after the third Sanctus. The addition of the comma in “Lord, God” is because English requires more commas than Latin does. Frankly, the comma was not even invented until the late Middle Ages, so Latin doesn’t generally have much need of them. In English, however, you cannot run on in the same way without punctuation. The Pian missal was standardized after the comma came into use, but I’m sure if you bothered to hunt down earlier texts of the Sanctus – say, from before the tenth century – you would find no commas at all, and generally no paragraph breaks or even spaces between the words. Here you can see a page of a 4th-century manuscript of the pre-Jerome Latin text of John’s gospel. How does it strike you?

And I’m curious, whatever made you think there was a comma after the third Sanctus in the Tridentine Mass anyway? Didn’t you check before writing this long post?

 

[Digitonomy]

Ricardus:

Doesn’t the comma shift lessen the superlative of holy (Holy, Holy, Holy,…) ?

I don’t really think so. In fact, I think the use of a comma after the third Holy to separate it from Lord makes it more of an exclamation, rather than a superlative adjective. I.e. Holy, holy, holy!, Lord God… But even then, the meaning is virtually identical.

Ricardus:

Doesn’t it create an unfortunate punctuation break between Lord and God, when we are supposed to be addressing the Lord God?

I don’t see significant differences between Lord God with “Lord” as an adjective, Lord God as a compound noun (like God-man), and a list (Lord, God, Creator, etc).

Ricardus:

When we address the “Lord God” in the second person (grammatically speaking), isn’t this more fitting than merely addressing the “Lord (second person), God (third person) of power and might”?

I think assuming God is in the third person there is forcing a false division between the subject Lord and its parenthetical phrase. You’re still addressing the second person, and if you used pronouns it would be more clear. You wouldn’t say “Lord, he who created the heavens and the earth.” You would say “Lord, you who created…”

English majors, forgive me for my mangling of proper grammatical terminology.

 

[paperwight66]

If you think of ‘Lord’ as equivalent to ‘King’, Monarch’, ‘Ruler’, etc. the problem disappears.

‘Holy, holy, Holy King, God of power and might’.

In other words, I hear the word ‘Lord’ as a personal title, and ‘God’ as the descriptor of what that ‘Lord’ is.

 

[ProVobis]

I would also note that in Polish Masses, both the pre-Novus Ordo and Novus Ordo vernacular has always been and still is translated as follows:
Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts

You’re right. It’s Swiety, Swiety, Swiety, Pan Bog Zastepow. But I wonder if it’s just my copy, which may not reflect the official Missal.

English majors, forgive me for my mangling of proper grammatical terminology.

Speaking of grammar, isn’t this problem similar to a situation such as when you have (or don’t have) a comma before an “and,” such as “high, dry and mighty desert” instead of “high, dry, and mighty desert”? In other words, is it just a standard which we try to use in English?

 

[Ricardus]

And I’m curious, whatever made you think there was a comma after the third Sanctus in the Tridentine Mass anyway? Didn’t you check before writing this long post?

My 1962 edition of the Maryknoll Missal has:Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,
And so yes, I did check beforehand.

 

[Ricardus]

I think assuming God is in the third person there is forcing a false division between the subject Lord and its parenthetical phrase.

That’s part of my concern. Doesn’t the new placement of the comma (which differs from the former placement of the comma) force this false division? Just my two cents.

 

[Ricardus]

You’re right. It’s Swiety, Swiety, Swiety, Pan Bog Zastepow. But I wonder if it’s just my copy, which may not reflect the official Missal.

Bardzo dobrze i naprawde! But you may have a point about whether the missalettes in the pews faithfully follow the actual official Polish Missal in this regard. I was merely going by the missalettes.

 

[Ricardus]

OK, perhaps the question I’ve raised was more molehill than mountain. And I’ll accept the point of view that, in intent:Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of…
*can *be intended to mean the same asHoly, Holy, Holy Lord, God of…
But I’m still left wondering, "If they both mean essentially the same and any difference between the two is at best a very subtle one, then why the comman shift, and hence, why the change in the first place?

I’m willing to let this thread trickle to a quiet end. I was just wondering whether anyone else wondered the same thing. Thanks to all for your feedback.

 

[MarkThompson]

My 1962 edition of the Maryknoll Missal has:Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,
And so yes, I did check beforehand.

Okay, good, but that’s just a handmissal. The official texts of the Tridentine missal have never had the comma here.

But I’m still left wondering, "If they both mean essentially the same and any difference between the two is at best a very subtle one, then why the comman shift, and hence, why the change in the first place?

One could also ask, why did the editors of the 1962 Maryknoll missal see fit to insert a comma where there was none?

My real guess is that for some people it seems more natural to have a comma there, and for others it doesn’t. It sometimes surprises people to learn that the Sanctus is not addressed to God directly; if it were, the vocative form Domine would have to be used instead of Dominus. So what exactly is it saying? To whom is it speaking? I think most people aren’t sure, and hence the confusion about whether to punctuate it more like an exclamation, or a description, or what. At any rate, the original had no punctuation at all and the Pian Latin text had no comma after the third Sanctus anyway.

 

[Digitonomy]

My real guess is that for some people it seems more natural to have a comma there, and for others it doesn’t.

I think this is correct, it makes for a neat and slightly more poetic arrangement to divide the first four words from the second five: Holy Holy Holy Lord, God of Power and Might. Frankly I don’t think the triple Sanctus “works” well at all in English; rather than repeating words we usually express superlatives by repeating the same idea but with different words, or by comparisons.

MarkThompson:

So what exactly is it saying? To whom is it speaking? I think most people aren’t sure, and hence the confusion about whether to punctuate it more like an exclamation, or a description, or what.

Do you have your own answer to these questions?

 

[paperwight66]

My real guess is that for some people it seems more natural to have a comma there, and for others it doesn’t. It sometimes surprises people to learn that the Sanctus is not addressed to God directly; if it were, the vocative form Domine would have to be used instead of Dominus. .

I’ve always assumed the Sanctus was addressed to God, because it goes on ‘Heaven and earth are full of Your glory’, doesn’t it?

 

[MarkThompson]

Do you have your own answer to these questions?

Can’t say I’ve given it sufficient thought or research. I suppose I would think of it as a sort of exclamation or ejaculation.

I’ve always assumed the Sanctus was addressed to God, because it goes on ‘Heaven and earth are full of Your glory’, doesn’t it?

You’re right, I should have been clearer. I meant to refer just to the first sentence that we were talking about: “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus sabaoth.” The word “Dominus” is not addressed to the Lord; it would have to be Domine.

 

[Carlan]

Not to worry friends, It really is O,K. And you are right in the first place OP .It is just a comma! Peace, Carlan

 

[Digitonomy]

Speaking of grammar, isn’t this problem similar to a situation such as when you have (or don’t have) a comma before an “and,” such as “high, dry and mighty desert” instead of “high, dry, and mighty desert”? In other words, is it just a standard which we try to use in English?

It is similar. In fact, I had originally linked to a recent article about the so-called Oxford comma, until I realized it really wasn’t the same issue.

 

[Ricardus]

I meant to refer just to the first sentence that we were talking about: “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus sabaoth.” The word “Dominus” is not addressed to the Lord; it would have to be Domine.

Good point about Lord (Dominus) not being in the vocative in the Latin. I missed that completely. You’re right, it is surprising that the first sentence does not seem to be addressed to God directly. Thanks again for your feedback.

 

[Ricardus]

Not to worry friends, It really is O,K. And you are right in the first place OP .It is just a comma! Peace, Carlan

Yes, you’re right, just a comma. Good thing it wasn’t an iota!