Why did we not have accurate translations to begin with?

[NPC]

With all the talk and excitement surrounding the new translations in the Roman Missal, I’m just wondering why (in English at least) there were so many inaccurate translations from the Latin in the first place.

I mean, why, when the Latin says “Dignum et justum est” - did we get the translation “It is right to give Him thanks and praise”? In essence, I suppose it’s expressing the same sentiment, but the Latin response said nothing about thanks and praise. It was merely an affirmative response to what the priest had said: “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God” --“It is proper and just (so to do)”.

Other languages got a correct translation of “et cum spiritu tuo” - why did it take us forty years!?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Translation (especially of spiritual texts) is an art, NOT a science, as I have learned in my own experience.

Some languages are highly inflected, such as Latin, where word endings indicate meanings for verbs, nouns, and adjectives. This gives them great flexibility of expression.

When the receptor language is NOT as inflected and must depend on word order to convey meaning (as does English), it can be a great challenge.

It is very easy to translate between Latin and Slavonic. Both are highly inflected Indo-European languages that do NOT use articles (a, an, the).

Greek has many definite articles, some of which function as prepositions in English.

And in English, the stress given on a word in speaking can convey meaning:

1. You baked bread today. (Simple declarative.)
2. YOU baked bread today. (Not another person)
3. You BAKED bread today. (As opposed to buying or eating bread)
4. You baked BREAD today. (And not cookies or pies)
5. You baked bread TODAY. (Not yestrday or last week)

Same words, in the same order, but meaning five different things.

See what translators are up against?

 

[SMHW]

This document should give you some idea as to the reasons the translation was done as it was.
natcath.com/NCR_Online/documents/comme.htm

(Thanks to Japhy for pointing it out to me.)

Here’s another thread on the general topic:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5674247#post5674247

In general, any time you make a translation from one language to another you have to chose between word for word translations and thought for thought translations. Each has pluses and minuses. Literal translations may not convey idioms very well and thought for thought translations can reflect the bias of the translator.

My personal opinion is that the translators feared that the first (literal) English translations used at Mass would strike people as being old fashioned and not relevant for modern people. And I think that fear was not unjustified for that brief period of time.

 

[CDNowak]

With all the talk and excitement surrounding the new translations in the Roman Missal, I’m just wondering why (in English at least) there were so many inaccurate translations from the Latin in the first place.

I mean, why, when the Latin says “Dignum et justum est” - did we get the translation “It is right to give Him thanks and praise”? In essence, I suppose it’s expressing the same sentiment, but the Latin response said nothing about thanks and praise. It was merely an affirmative response to what the priest had said: “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God” --“It is proper and just (so to do)”.

Other languages got a correct translation of “et cum spiritu tuo” - why did it take us forty years!?

bpbasil is certainly right about the difficulties of translating to English. To make it worse, the first translation was rushed at a time when the dynamic-equivalence theory was popular. Dynamic equivalence seeks to capture the meaning rather then the literal translation, often taking great liberties to do so. The problem is that the literal translation also carries part of the meaning.

 

[kimmielittle]

Personally,

I like the word "read’
I have read red ] a book.
I will read reed ] this book.
I have read the red book. etc etc

 

[FrDavid96]

With all the talk and excitement surrounding the new translations in the Roman Missal, I’m just wondering why (in English at least) there were so many inaccurate translations from the Latin in the first place.

I mean, why, when the Latin says “Dignum et justum est” - did we get the translation “It is right to give Him thanks and praise”? In essence, I suppose it’s expressing the same sentiment, but the Latin response said nothing about thanks and praise. It was merely an affirmative response to what the priest had said: “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God” --“It is proper and just (so to do)”.

Other languages got a correct translation of “et cum spiritu tuo” - why did it take us forty years!?

The discussions about translating are informative, yet the real problem was that the ICEL tranlators decided not to translate, but instead to use the Latin text as a basis, and to essentially compose their own texts in English. In a certain sense, they gave us what they thought the Latin text should have said, rather than attempting to provide an English version of what the Latin did say.

The example you gave is typical. It’s not at all a translation. Granted, different translators might render a phrase differently from one language to another–they might even vary greatly. Yet, what we have from ICEL is not a translation at all. The responses at the Memorial Acclamation, and the introduction to the Our Father are even worse examples.

Quite frankly, it’s an insult to translators to even use the word “translation” to what ICEL did to the texts.

 

[OnceLostSoul]

Beloved brothren,

When might we reasonably expect the new English translation of the Roman Missal to be released? 2010? 2011? 2012? …

Will this new English translation include the lectionary? If so, where will the scripture readings be drawn from- NAB? Jerusalem Bible? Or newly translated from Latin?

Gratias!
OnceLostSoul

 

[benedictgal]

I believe that we are looking at Advent 2010. At least, that is what one of the bishops who emailed me back told me. They need to give the publishers enough time to get the new Roman Missals out and the priests to practice. Rome stared down the USCCB on this one and this time, the USCCB blinked. Thank God for Bishop Seratelli!

 

[kimmielittle]

Rome stared down the USCCB on this one and this time, the USCCB blinked. Thank God for Bishop Seratelli!

Hiyas
What does the above mean, please?

Thank you

 

[benedictgal]

Hiyas
What does the above mean, please?

Thank you

This is Old West talk that translates into:

The Holy See issued the USCCB an ultimatum. Either the USCCB approves the new translations or Rome will move without their ascent. Cardinal George and Bishop Seratelli did an incredible job moving the final vote through and getting it passed by the necessary majority.

 

[kimmielittle]

This is Old West talk that translates into:

The Holy See issued the USCCB an ultimatum. Either the USCCB approves the new translations or Rome will move without their ascent. Cardinal George and Bishop Seratelli did an incredible job moving the final vote through and getting it passed by the necessary majority.

Ohhhhh Thank you

 

[RosalieM]

I’m so glad the changes are happening. It means so much to me, as a “revert”.
I tried to get a glimpse into some of the changes on my computer. I think “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault” is coming back. And (please correct me if I’m wrong) “…my soul shall be healed” will replace “…and I shall be healed”.
“and with your spirit” is such a wecome change. I’m so looking forward to all the new Mass music, as I’m in the choir. We’ll have so much to learn.
May our Holy Father live many more healthy, happy and productive years!

 

[NPC]

This document should give you some idea as to the reasons the translation was done as it was.
natcath.com/NCR_Online/documents/comme.htm

Well, to an extent it does show me why the translation was done as it was. I know there are difficulties in translating any language to another - I know Latin is different in structure and in the fact that often it would take several words in English to convey an accurate meaning of a single Latin word.

However, several things stuck out at me when reading this document. It says, for example that the language used should be that which is in common usage (I hope the translators haven’t taken that too seriously this time round) - it mentions that the word “temptation” (as in the Pater Noster) “is inaccurate and can only be misleading to people who are not biblical scholars.” It also refers, in the same paragraph (15) about “scandal” being an inaccurate translation of “scandalum”. As we know “temptation” is still the word used in the Pater Noster, and we often use the word “scandal” in the context of “giving scandal”. A few paragraphs later we are told that there is no exact equivalent for “myterium”. Rather condescendingly, I think, it insinuates that we would not be able to drag the word “mystery” from it’s common meaning i.e. the sense of a murder mystery, for example. Yet the word “mystery” remains - the mystery of faith; the mysteries of the Rosary. The same thing is implied of the word “venerable”.

I know, as I said, that translation from Latin to English is by no means straightforward, however it seems to me that the original translators of the O.F. missal, if they had this document as a guide, took many liberties.

Thanks for the comments so far - I hope there’ll be more. I think I’d be more inclined to agree with Fr David on this though. Translators can put their own slant on things - this applies universally, not just to ecclesiastical translators. There are many examples which we all know where words were simply omitted - “sanctae” of “Ecclesiae suae sanctae”. Nothing about “Holy” Church - did translators really think that the sentiment would be diminished by calling it a “Holy Church”?

I suppose the other thing, too, is that it’s not merely the original translators who took liberties with the translations - these texts were supposed to be studied and approved by individual bishops conferences and their liturgical commission. Perhaps, like some bishops here in Ireland, they were too concerned with getting rid of the sanctuary in “accordance with Vatican II” to worry about the small matter of authentic and proper liturgical texts…

 

[Joannm]

I believe that we are looking at Advent 2010. At least, that is what one of the bishops who emailed me back told me. They need to give the publishers enough time to get the new Roman Missals out and the priests to practice. Rome stared down the USCCB on this one and this time, the USCCB blinked. Thank God for Bishop Seratelli!

It wasn’t an ultimatium directed toward the USCCB. The deadline for approving the translation, which is for the entire English speaking world, is November 30th. There are other conferences that also have the same deadline and are working this month to vote on approval. If they don’t vote on approval, then yes, the Vatican will work on the translations without them. All this really meant is that if a conference does not approve the gray books, with their requested adaptatations, then there is no way the the Vatican can approve those adaptations or amendments. There are still some amendments that our bishops are waiting on to see if they will be included in our Missal here in the US. I am sure other conferences have similar situations. The approved translations, after being approved, then need to go to Vox Clara, which meets in January and April. Unless ICEL and the folks at the Congregation for Divine Worship work long through the Christmas season on this, they won’t get to Vox Clara until April. Given that our Bishops have said they want a year plus of preparation after the recognitio comes, it looks like Advent 2011 date might be pushed back to Lent or Easter 2011.

 

[Phemie]

Beloved brothren,

When might we reasonably expect the new English translation of the Roman Missal to be released? 2010? 2011? 2012? …

Will this new English translation include the lectionary? If so, where will the scripture readings be drawn from- NAB? Jerusalem Bible? Or newly translated from Latin?

Gratias!
OnceLostSoul

No, Lectionaries are not included.

Each national conference, with Rome’s approval, chooses its preferred translation for the Lectionary. In the US that’s the NAB; I think the UK uses the New Jerusalem and Canada has just issued a new Sunday Lectionary, a modified NSRV. Some of the inclusive language was removed, bad grammar was allowed (the plural ‘their’ to avoid use of ‘his/her’) and some words were retranslated.

We hope to soon have the next 4 volumes (2 Weekday Lectionaries; Gospel Book; Lectionary for special liturgies such as Marriage, Baptism, Funerals, Confirmations, etc) but I’m not holding my breath. It took 15+ years to get this new one after Rome declared that the NRSV wasn’t to be used for Liturgy and gave the CCCB 5 years to come up with a new Lectionary.

 

[benedictgal]

It wasn’t an ultimatium directed toward the USCCB. The deadline for approving the translation, which is for the entire English speaking world, is November 30th. There are other conferences that also have the same deadline and are working this month to vote on approval. If they don’t vote on approval, then yes, the Vatican will work on the translations without them. All this really meant is that if a conference does not approve the gray books, with their requested adaptatations, then there is no way the the Vatican can approve those adaptations or amendments. There are still some amendments that our bishops are waiting on to see if they will be included in our Missal here in the US. I am sure other conferences have similar situations. The approved translations, after being approved, then need to go to Vox Clara, which meets in January and April. Unless ICEL and the folks at the Congregation for Divine Worship work long through the Christmas season on this, they won’t get to Vox Clara until April. Given that our Bishops have said they want a year plus of preparation after the recognitio comes, it looks like Advent 2011 date might be pushed back to Lent or Easter 2011.

True, but, to my knowledge, their debates have not been as cantankerous as ours. In fact, if memory serves, we are the last ones to have worked on this issue. Now, as far as the preparation goes, we have had about a year now for the Ordinary of the Mass. These have already been released to give us that time of preparation and for composers to work on the new settings.

 

[Joannm]

True, but, to my knowledge, their debates have not been as cantankerous as ours. In fact, if memory serves, we are the last ones to have worked on this issue. Now, as far as the preparation goes, we have had about a year now for the Ordinary of the Mass. These have already been released to give us that time of preparation and for composers to work on the new settings.

The year is counting beginning from the time of recogntio for the entire Missal. They don’t want it released piece meal. According to the head of ICEL, who spoke at the Conference meeting this week, there are still some conferences that have not completed their approval of the texts. They will have to do so by Nov. 30. They might just have been waiting to see what we did here in the states. I guess they figured let us argue it out and they will just follow suit. I think he mentioned some conferences in Africa. Also it is not completed until it is completed. Yes, composeres have been working on the Ordinary of the Mass, but there is still a possibility of some changes, additions, adaptations. Nothing can be published until all that is settled…most likely in April. This has been a long process and patience is still required. There will be some resistance to this and our bishops want to be sure to transition in a way that will cause the least amount of problems. Even those in liturgical circles who were originally very hostile toward the entire project have come around due to slow and careful education and formation and not just ramming it down their throats. That is what is also needed on a national level, in our dioceses, and in our parishes to make this transition smooth and as painless as possible. It is a process of conversion, and conversion can not be hastily achieved.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe the better question would be is why we even bother with any translations at all. The Council of Trent anathematized an all-vernacular Mass and Vatican II voted to preserve Latin in the liturgy. It appears that the council fathers knew best on the matter after all.

 

[JaMc]

Maybe the better question would be is why we even bother with any translations at all. The Council of Trent anathematized an all-vernacular Mass and Vatican II voted to preserve Latin in the liturgy. It appears that the council fathers knew best on the matter after all.

But, even though VII said that the Latin should be preserved, didn’t it expressly allow an all vernacular Mass? It seems to me that it was something like, “you can offer Mass in the vernacular, but we’d like it if you’d keep using some Latin.” Human nature being what it is, and the vernacular being “easier” for a Priest than Latin, it is not surprising that the vast majority of Priests and Bishops just started using the Vernacular exclusively.

Otherwise, one would think that the CDW would have just said exactly what you said, and that would be the end of it. Not to mention that it would mean that Cardinals, Bishops, and even Popes themselves, have been offering illicit masses all these years.

 

[FrDavid96]

But, even though VII said that the Latin should be preserved, didn’t it expressly allow an all vernacular Mass? It seems to me that it was something like, “you can offer Mass in the vernacular, but we’d like it if you’d keep using some Latin.” Human nature being what it is, and the vernacular being “easier” for a Priest than Latin, it is not surprising that the vast majority of Priests and Bishops just started using the Vernacular exclusively.

Otherwise, one would think that the CDW would have just said exactly what you said, and that would be the end of it. Not to mention that it would mean that Cardinals, Bishops, and even Popes themselves, have been offering illicit masses all these years.

In reality, Vatican II never did “expressly allow an all vernacular Mass.” The Council allowed for parts of the Mass to be in the vernacular, but contrary to popular belief never actually said “all vernacular.”

Here’s a link to the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. Go to the page, do a word find for “vernacular” and see what comes up.