Pray brethren

[ProVobis]

My understanding is that it was constructed by SS. Cyril & Methodius, and is closest to one particular language. They also produced the written form.

Although they were sent from Constantinople, they were summoned to Rome to defend their use of this language in liturgy. Satisfied, the Pope ordained one a bishop and sent them back to their mission . . .

hawk

In the 9th century supposedly. It wasn’t a language of the cross (as are Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) but it’s hard to tell if Church Slavonic was one of the languages addressed in Veterum Sapientia:

Venerable languages

The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.

 

[FrancisB]

Slavonic was the vernacular of mediaeval Bulgaria, where Sts. Cyril and Methodius first went to spread the Gospel. Because it was understandable in other Slavic lands, and the liturgy and Scriptures had already been translated into it, it was used elsewhere.The “Traditional Latin Mass” was prayed in Slavonic in parts of central Europe. I wonder if they do that any more.
It’s a mediaeval language, though, used because it was the vernacular. Just as with Latin, where the vernacular was entrenched by the idea of “this is the translation we always used”, the point of using the language changed with time. This may be a good reason to re-translate every century or so, just to make sure that we keep the vernacular and don’t end up with some entrenched “Church English”.

 

[ProVobis]

This may be a good reason to re-translate every century or so, just to make sure that we keep the vernacular and don’t end up with some entrenched “Church English”.

The problem with English, for example, is that meanings are all over the place unless one specifies he is using the Elizabethan English or 1950 English where words like “gay” doesn’t mean what they mean in 2011 English. We’re also putting Australian English, British English, and American English all under one umbrella. My stepbrother, who happens to be a professional court linguist, recites Beowulf and Chaucer but I recognize that he’s not speaking in my vernacular though technically he is speaking English. My native tongue is actually Polish and I can recognize a lot of Croatian and Russian because of the sounds. But at least I know that they are separate vernaculars and I know I wouldn’t be comfortable if I were completely immersed in them. We don’t seem to be making that distinction between the different types or periods of English.

 

[FrancisB]

The problem with English, for example, is that meanings are all over the place unless one specifies he is using the Elizabethan English or 1950 English where words like “gay” doesn’t mean what they mean in 2011 English. We’re also putting Australian English, British English, and American English all under one umbrella. My stepbrother, who happens to be a professional court linguist, recites Beowulf and Chaucer but I recognize that he’s not speaking in my vernacular though technically he is speaking English. My native tongue is actually Polish and I can recognize a lot of Croatian and Russian because of the sounds. But at least I know that they are separate vernaculars and I know I wouldn’t be comfortable if I were completely immersed in them. We don’t seem to be making that distinction between the different types or periods of English.

Well this goes to Max Weinreich’s famous statement: “A language is a dialect with an army and navy.” I feel quite strongly that the Australians, for instance, should have their own translation, since I have so much trouble understanding them even in writing that I cannot imagine that the translation that we have adopted is really an effective vernacular translation for them, but perhaps I am wrong there.

This is all the more reason not to use Early Modern English.

 

[Spirithound]

I have had this discussion with a couple of English teacher friends. Whoever were the powers that be that decided to consolidate all forms of the second person (plural and singular, subjective and objective) into “you” and got rid of ye, thou and thee really did a great disservice to the language. Furthermore, TPTB didn’t send out the memo to everyone. Ya’ll, You all, Youse, Youse guys, you lot, etc., all represent an internal need of the English-speaking peoples to have a separate second person plural.

There are no PTB. Language change happens. If you don’t like it, just try to stop it. That’s apparently what Texas did…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I think the Texan form would be better: “Pray ya’ll…”

 

[ProVobis]

This is all the more reason not to use Early Modern English.

You may need to ban a few Christmas carols then.

“Round yon virgin…” / “Don we now our gay apparel” ???

 

[FrancisB]

You may need to ban a few Christmas carols then.

“Round yon virgin…” / “Don we now our gay apparel” ???

Honestly, I think most people do not completely understand the first verse of “Silent Night”, judging from the fact that they break up “all is calm all is bright” from “round yon Virgin Mother and Child”, when if you understood the sentiment, you could not possibly breath between them. And that’s not Early Modern English. It’s a Victorian English translation. If it read “around that Virgin Mother and Child” I think the break between the two lines would disappear.

As for “don we now our gay apparel” my question would be this: what the hell are you doing singing “Deck the Hall” in church? It has nothing to do with the Feast of the Nativity and everything to do with Yule, as evidenced by the fact that it mentions Yule and not Christmas. Of course I think this is lost on many people, since I don’t believe the average person understands these lyrics very well. This is also Victorian English, not Early Modern English.

It is interesting that you point out these two songs, since they are both substantially more modern in vocabulary than “brethren” is, and yet you realise that they are old-fashioned to the point of creating a language barrier, even though the translations are both less than 200 years old.

Happy Christmas, Pro Vobis. We’ll continue these debates after Nativity, I’m sure.