If Latin is so stable and unifying how can there be incorrect translations?

[Eilish_Maura]

Do they hunt down the errors introduced when moving from the language it is composed in to Latin?

 

[Brendan]

Do they hunt down the errors introduced when moving from the language it is composed in to Latin?

In the case of the Cathechism, they corrected the original language (French) to correspond to the Latin.

Remember that the ‘original’ language is only a draft. The finalization is composed and editited in Latin.

The draft needs to be changed to correspond to the final changes and edits that were composed in Latin.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

In the case of the Cathechism, they corrected the original language (French) to correspond to the Latin.

Remember that the ‘original’ language is only a draft. The finalization is composed and editited in Latin.

The draft needs to be changed to correspond to the final changes and edits that were composed in Latin.

The draft was not formalized/finalized in French?

 

[Chatter163]

The draft was not formalized/finalized in French?

Nope. It was only a working document.

 

[benedictgal]

What guarantee is there that those committees of translators who take a document composed in another language into Latin don’t have an agenda or make errors?

Ah, but, such a document does exist. It is called Liturgicam Authenticam. In fact, it was signed on April 25, 2001 and released May 1, 2007.

Here is what is says, in part:

1. The Latin liturgical texts of the Roman Rite, while drawing on centuries of ecclesial experience in transmitting the faith of the Church received from the Fathers, are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal, just recently brought forth. In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.20

1. Especially in the translations intended for peoples recently brought to the Christian Faith, fidelity and exactness with respect to the original texts may themselves sometimes require that words already in current usage be employed in new ways, that new words or expressions be coined, that terms in the original text be transliterated or adapted to the pronunciation of the vernacular language,21 or that figures of speech be used which convey in an integral manner the content of the Latin expression even while being verbally or syntactically different from it. Such measures, especially those of greater moment, are to be submitted to the discussion of all the Bishops involved before being inserted into the definitive draft. In particular, caution should be exercised in introducing words drawn from non-Christian religions.22

I hope this sheds some light to the OP.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I hope this sheds some light to the OP.

I asked about documents (not necessarily liturgical ones) composed in languages OTHER than Latin.

BTW - it seems stupid to half finish a process via a draft THEN take a partially completed item in draft form to Latin. THAT seems to be a big entry point for errors and a difficult situation to try to back track and fix.

 

[Digitonomy]

"Eilish Maura:

The draft was not formalized/finalized in French?

Nope. It was only a working document.

I think the Catechism was more than a draft - the Church doesn’t usually publish drafts and sell them in bookstores. I think it was in fact the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not just a draft of what they hoped would become the Catechism, but it was also understood that there would be revisions in the future, and that once the Latin translation was completed, it would be the authoritative version. Since I don’t have a copy of the original French Catechism, or the early English edition, I can’t check what wording was used in the introduction.

If I remember next time I’m at the diocesan library, I may check to see if they have the original French version, which was the only one available for a year or so.

 

[SMHW]

Ah, but, such a document does exist. It is called Liturgicam Authenticam. In fact, it was signed on April 25, 2001 and released May 1, 2007.

Here is what is says, in part:

1. Especially in the translations intended for peoples recently brought to the Christian Faith, fidelity and exactness with respect to the original texts may themselves sometimes require that words already in current usage be employed in new ways, that new words or expressions be coined, that terms in the original text be transliterated or adapted to the pronunciation of the vernacular language,21 or that figures of speech be used which convey in an integral manner the content of the Latin expression even while being verbally or syntactically different from it.

I think the part I highlighted might help to explain why translations can be so tricky. For the most part, Latin can be literally translated into English. But every now and then a Latin expression might evoke the wrong initial image in an English speaker’s mind.

Some translators think that paraphrasing is the answer to that problem. But even if that were the case, since modern language word usage can evolve even over the course of a few years, we’d need new paraphrased translations every 10 years or so!

Better that people learn the more literal translation and the rich shades of meaning behind it.

 

[benedictgal]

I asked about documents (not necessarily liturgical ones) composed in languages OTHER than Latin.

BTW - it seems stupid to half finish a process via a draft THEN take a partially completed item in draft form to Latin. THAT seems to be a big entry point for errors and a difficult situation to try to back track and fix.

Liturgicam Authenticam does address a good part of your question (and the subsequent discussions that have evolved in this thread).

However, you seem to insist that the Latin language is to blame, when, in all honesty, as others have noted, the fault lies with the ones who are doing the translating. ICEL botched the Roman Missal and now has to correct its errors. The USCCB, for its part, has botched translations as well, both for the Lectionary and where sacred music is concerned. They were supposed to have based themselves on Liturgicam Authenticam when they were working on the new document on sacred music. In fact, they had a deadline to meet. Unfortunately, the USCCB is not immune to special interests. The deadline passed and the necessary corective action was not taken.

 

[benedictgal]

There is something else in Liturgicam Authenticam that relates to liturgical translations:

1. In the translation of texts of ecclesiastical composition, while it is useful with the assistance of historical and other scientific tools to consult a source that may have been discovered for the same text, nevertheless it is always the text of the Latin editio typica itself that is to be translated.

Whenever the biblical or liturgical text preserves words taken from other ancient languages (as, for example, the words Alleluia and Amen, the Aramaic words contained in the New Testament, the Greek words drawn from the Trisagion which are recited in the Improperia of Good Friday, and the Kyrie eleison of the Order of Mass, as well as many proper names) consideration should be given to preserving the same words in the new vernacular translation, at least as one option among others. Indeed, a careful respect for the original text will sometimes require that this be done.

1. Furthermore, it is not permissible that the translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages; rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin, as regards the texts of ecclesiastical composition, or the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture. 24

Furthermore, in the preparation of these translations for liturgical use, the Nova Vulgata Editio, promulgated by the Apostolic See, is normally to be consulted as an auxiliary tool, in a manner described elsewhere in this Instruction, in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy.

1. So that the content of the original texts may be evident and comprehensible even to the faithful who lack any special intellectual formation, the translations should be characterized by a kind of language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves these texts’ dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision.25

By means of words of praise and adoration that foster reverence and gratitude in the face of God’s majesty, his power, his mercy and his transcendent nature, the translations will respond to the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people of our own time, while contributing also to the dignity and beauty of the liturgical celebration itself.26

Now, not only is Latin used for official pronouncements (dogmas, erection of a new diocese, annuoncement of a new Pope or a diocesan bishop), sometimes, the Holy Father will also make a statement in Latin, as Pope Benedict XVI did in his first homily as Pope, which, he preached in Latin.

We need to remember that above all else, Latin is the official language of the Church. However, how it is translated and dealt with is something that the translaters have to be very careful in doing.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Liturgicam Authenticam does address a good part of your question (and the subsequent discussions that have evolved in this thread).

However, you seem to insist that the Latin language is to blame, when, in all honesty, as others have noted, the fault lies with the ones who are doing the translating. ICEL botched the Roman Missal and now has to correct its errors. The USCCB, for its part, has botched translations as well, both for the Lectionary and where sacred music is concerned. They were supposed to have based themselves on Liturgicam Authenticam when they were working on the new document on sacred music. In fact, they had a deadline to meet. Unfortunately, the USCCB is not immune to special interests. The deadline passed and the necessary corective action was not taken.

I would appreciate you NOT putting words into my post that are not there.

I am asking about going TO Latin and not coming FROM Latin.
What guarantees that no errors are introduced at this point.

Say I compose an official church document in Gaelic - what level of certainty can be expected that the person putting it into Latin won’t make some serious errors?

 

[benedictgal]

I would appreciate you NOT putting words into my post that are not there.

I am asking about going TO Latin and not coming FROM Latin.
What guarantees that no errors are introduced at this point.

Say I compose an official church document in Gaelic - what level of certainty can be expected that the person putting it into Latin won’t make some serious errors?

No one is putting words into your mouth. Actually, the way the thread is styled, that appears to be the topic at hand.

The original Church documents are written in Latin. Pope Benedict’s encyclicals, as well as Pope John Paul’s, are written in Latin. You translate from the official Latin text, not to the text. As many of us have been saying throughout this thread, the problem is that the translation from the official, original Latin text to the vernacular (especially English) can (and is) faulty.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

No one is putting words into your mouth. Actually, the way the thread is styled, that appears to be the topic at hand.

The original Church documents are written in Latin. Pope Benedict’s encyclicals, as well as Pope John Paul’s, are written in Latin. You translate from the official Latin text, not to the text. As many of us have been saying throughout this thread, the problem is that the translation from the official, original Latin text to the vernacular (especially English) can (and is) faulty.

It has already been pointed out that not all documents are originally **composed **in Latin. For those NOT originally composed in Latin (how many times do I have to restate this?) what guarantee is there that those translating to Latin won’t introduce errors?

 

[Digitonomy]

Say I compose an official church document in Gaelic - what level of certainty can be expected that the person putting it into Latin won’t make some serious errors?

In most cases you can be pretty certain, because they take great care in assembling such documents - that’s why it took 5 years before the Latin translation of the Catechism was complete. There are usually a number of people involved in the process. In the case of the CCC, there was an interdicasterial committee headed by Cardinal Ratzinger. This means there were representatives from several different Vatican departments making sure that the text didn’t cause problems in their areas of authority, whether that was doctrine, or liturgy, or religious life, or foreign relations, etc. (Here are the changes that were made to the original English edition following the release of the Latin translation.)

Not all documents will not be this thoroughly analyzed during their translation into Latin, but while a fairly insignificant papal speech or homily may get translated in short order, important documents like encyclicals or last year’s motu proprio will get the fine-tooth comb treatment.

Most documents are probably composed in Italian, which is the working language of the Vatican, and slightly closer to Latin than some other romance languages.

Getting back to your OP, the advantage of Latin is not that text can’t be mistranslated to or from Latin. The advantage is that everyone using Latin learned its use by reading Caesar, Aquinas, etc, and so there isn’t as much room for interpretation. In English, on the other hand, not everyone will agree what the word “bad” means in “Dude, that is one bad catechism.” Similarly, in the US a bill is tabled when it’s removed from the voting agenda, while in Britain a bill is tabled when it is taken up onto the agenda.

 

[Brendan]

It has already been pointed out that not all documents are originally **composed **in Latin. For those NOT originally composed in Latin (how many times do I have to restate this?) what guarantee is there that those translating to Latin won’t introduce errors?

And once again, the DRAFTS were done in different languages.

The final composition is done in Latin.

Are you honestly claiming that a draft is the same thing as a final document?

 

[Brendan]

The draft was not formalized/finalized in French?

No it was not.

The French edition was a draft only. It was after the translation to Latin was the final editing and composition done.

For other documents, the language of the draft is usually Italian, but the final composition is always done in Latin, and from that, a final translation into other languages is created.

 

[Chatter163]

(how many times do I have to restate this?)

How many times do we have to restate that there is a difference between drafts and documents?

 

[Harmony1988]

They are NOT necessary composed in Latin to begin with, but the official versions, the final version from which all translations are to be made, is (usually) in Latin.

This is true. Pope Benedict drafted some of his encyclicals initially in his native german as well as latin, I don’t know why he does that, but it’s his choice. Eitherways, the formal promulgation is always in Latin as Latin is the official language of the church.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

And once again, the DRAFTS were done in different languages.

The final composition is done in Latin.

Are you honestly claiming that a draft is the same thing as a final document?

Well, I am not saying they jerked folks around making doodles before moving the document into Latin.

Is it unreasonable to think the document would have been nearly in final form before the translation - if not actually in final form other than the change in language?

 

[SMHW]

Is it unreasonable to think the document would have been nearly in final form before the translation - if not actually in final form other than the change in language?

The point is that it doesn’t really matter if the foreign language draft can be perfectly translated into Latin or if the Latin document is a complete re-write.

The ideas expressed in a foreign language draft are just ideas. There is no partial credit for them. A draft in any language is just a draft.