Why the change in the Preface of Consecration?

[ericka1701]

I just got my 1962 Missal yesterday, and I have noticed quite a few differences in the wording that doesn’t really change the meaning, except for in the Preface of Consecration, where the line “We lift them up to the Lord” is “We have them lifted up to the Lord”. The first one indicates to me that it is through our own effort alone that our hearts are lifted up to the Lord. The second one seems to suggest that though it might be through our own effort, something else is also helping that process along.

First, am I reading into this correctly? If not, what should it be? If so, why was it changed?

Thanks so much, and God Bless!
Ericka

 

[wynd]

I believe it is supposed to have the past-tense meaning of “We have lifted them up to the Lord,” not something like “They were lifted up to the Lord for us by someone else.”

 

[thistle]

I just got my 1962 Missal yesterday, and I have noticed quite a few differences in the wording that doesn’t really change the meaning, except for in the Preface of Consecration, where the line “We lift them up to the Lord” is “We have them lifted up to the Lord”. The first one indicates to me that it is through our own effort alone that our hearts are lifted up to the Lord. The second one seems to suggest that though it might be through our own effort, something else is also helping that process along.

First, am I reading into this correctly? If not, what should it be? If so, why was it changed?

Thanks so much, and God Bless!
Ericka

Is it “we have them lifted up to the Lord” or “we have lifted them up to the Lord”? I don’t think it would be the former.

 

[malphono]

I just got my 1962 Missal yesterday, and I have noticed quite a few differences in the wording that doesn’t really change the meaning, except for in the Preface of Consecration, where the line “We lift them up to the Lord” is “We have them lifted up to the Lord”. The first one indicates to me that it is through our own effort alone that our hearts are lifted up to the Lord. The second one seems to suggest that though it might be through our own effort, something else is also helping that process along.

First, am I reading into this correctly? If not, what should it be? If so, why was it changed?

Thanks so much, and God Bless!
Ericka

If I’m reading this post correctly, it sounds like an editing (or perhaps a typographical) error in the English translation.

The Latin text, of course, remains as it has always been:

Sursum Corda.
Habemus ad Dominum.

Seems to me the English should read: We have lifted them up to the Lord. Whether the present tense (We lift them up to the Lord) or the past perfect is used in English, the meaning is pretty much the same.

You might want to contact the publisher.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I just got my 1962 Missal yesterday, and I have noticed quite a few differences in the wording that doesn’t really change the meaning, except for in the Preface of Consecration, where the line “We lift them up to the Lord” is “We have them lifted up to the Lord”. The first one indicates to me that it is through our own effort alone that our hearts are lifted up to the Lord. The second one seems to suggest that though it might be through our own effort, something else is also helping that process along.

So, after reading your post three times, I think you are making too big a deal out of the difference in wording. But it’s not your fault.

At first I thought your two competing translations were “We lift them up to the Lord” and “We have lifted them up to the Lord” and I was scouring my brain for some long-forgotten rule of Latin grammar, wherein it would be preferable to translate the present tense as the perfect.

Then I reread and realized that your translation from the '60s reads “We have them lifted up to the Lord.”

And no, malphono, even though it looks like a typo, it’s not one. It’s just a poor translation.

There are some cases in which “literal” (I hate to even call it that- maybe “word-for-word translation” or “translation-ese” would be better…) translation is not accurate- and this is one of them.

What the translator has done in this case, is to attempt to recreate the Latin syntax so exactly that he has misused the English.

The (very) literal translation of the dialogue is this:

Sursum corda. — Lift up your hearts.]

Habemus = literally “we have” (but not in the sense of hold, grasp; could also be translated “we are”) ad Dominum =to the Lord

Thus Latin omits the verb lift, because the priest has just said it. This is a convention we don’t have in English. We generally do not (in formal language) have implied verbs. It also omits the object “hearts.”

Your translator in trying to preserve the “exact” meaning of the Latin has mangled English word order. He cannot translate the response as “We have to the Lord” because that is nonsensical, so he does the next most “literal” thing – supplies the missing verb, lift and the missing object, hearts-- thus “We have them [our hearts] lifted up to the Lord.” He doesn’t want you to think that “have” in this case means “hold on to” so he places it after “them.”

Which results in confusion for an English speaker like yourself and obscures the actual meaning of the response (which is along the lines of, “Yes, Father, we do lift our hearts up to the Lord”…)

Although a translator should try, as far as possible, not only to preserve the meaning of a translated text, but also to transfer its “flavor” over to the new language, translation is not a 1 to 1 propostion and should not be treated as such, lest atrocities like this one persist.

This has been my experience with Missals from the '50s-'60s (originals; I’ve never had my hands on a reprint) beautiful binding, beautiful artwork, great collections of additional prayers, wretched, wretched English.

I begin to think the ICEL is merely continuing a 50 year trend of poor translation…

 

[peregrinator_it]

Oh, and if the OP mis-typed the 60’s translation and it really reads “We have lifted them up to the Lord,” I retract my rant and will try to find that obscure rule of grammar.

But I’ve seen an awful lot of this brand of literalism in translation in old missals.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Warning: grammar geekery ahead

If this translation was correctly given, then it also seems to me that the translator has gone out of his way to make sure that the reader understands that our hearts [them] are the object of habemus.

Thus, the translation “We have them…”

But our hearts are the (implied) object of habemus merely by grammatical convention (habemus is transitive and takes a direct object) and this translation actually works against the sense of the response-- which is that we are readily doing what is asked of us (lifting our hearts to the Lord.)

Habemus is used as a strong affirmation that we will do/are doing what has just been commanded…

 

[ericka1701]

peregrinator_it, I want to that you SO MUCH for your thorough explaination. I’ve always been a (very little) bit of a language affictionado, especially when it comes to translating. Transposing music, for example, is a walk in the part compared to translating languages, because with transposing, all of the variables stay the same. Languages, wow… I am but a babe in trying to learn and know. Because of that, I don’t mind the grammar geekiness. It’s wonderful that, not just you, but others do have a very good grasp on language.

I double checked this morning, and it says Habemus ad Dominum (We have them lifted up to the Lord). It’s a Barionus Press publication, and it’s copywritten 2008. It does look like wrong translation is going to be perpeuated for the years to come.

God Bless!
Ericka

 

[peregrinator_it]

I’ll admit to not being very patient, so I surfed around looking for the Tridentine Ordo online. The results were mixed: about 1/2 have what you have and 1/2 had “We have lifted them up to the Lord.”

So I suppose it might be a typo. Perhaps you might ask the publisher (although I’m willing to bet this is not their translation, but a reprint of an older one…)

On the other hand, I don’t think there’s much justification for translating only one response in the perfect tense, when the whole dialogue is clearly in the present tense. Maybe some more expert person could clarify if that is the case.

For all my harsh comments (I’m easily annoyed by this type of thing) I don’t know that I would call it a “wrong” translation. It’s technically correct. It’s just not a good translation… IMO

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

The (very) literal translation of the dialogue is this:

Sursum corda. — Lift up your hearts.]

Habemus = literally “we have” (but not in the sense of hold, grasp; could also be translated “we are”) ad Dominum =to the Lord

Thus Latin omits the verb lift, because the priest has just said it. This is a convention we don’t have in English. We generally do not (in formal language) have implied verbs. It also omits the object “hearts.”

Your translator in trying to preserve the “exact” meaning of the Latin has mangled English word order. He cannot translate the response as “We have to the Lord” because that is nonsensical,

Would a comma solve the problem? That is:

“We have, to the Lord.”

 

[peregrinator_it]

Would a comma solve the problem? That is:

“We have, to the Lord.”

Well, I don’t think so. And that is because translation is not a one to one proposition.

What you have posted looks like the exact equivalent to the Latin… except habemus and “have” are not completely equivalent words.

When you use “have” in English as in your above post, you are using it as a part of the past perfect tense of another verb. Thus, if you say to your child "Clean your room, " your child may respond, “I have.”

Your child is using the statement “I have” to mean “I have [cleaned my room.]” Thus “have” is the “helping verb” (auxiliary verb? I’m blanking on the technical term) that helps to put the verb “clean” in the past perfect tense in English.

But habemus is not an auxiliary verb in Latin (most active tenses are formed by changing verb endings.) There is no word for “yes” in Latin, and so there are a variety of ways of affirming and assenting to a command or request.

That is what habemus is doing in this response, it’s way of strongly saying “yes” to the priest’s request-- not an auxiliary verb that’s part of the past perfect of “lift.”

And anyway, saying “We have” as you given in your example is pretty informal language, that I don’t think really belongs in the Mass…

 

[malphono]

…

So I suppose it might be a typo. Perhaps you might ask the publisher …

… now where have I seen that before???

Anyway, that was my whole point. I simply said it looked like an editing error (or a typo): I didn’t say it was either. When in doubt, ask the source.

I’m certainly not a Latin scholar, but I know enough to understand that the translation (if one wants to call it that) that the OP cited is either a printing issue or, if not, at best a sloppy translation and at worst a wrong translation.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

But habemus is not an auxiliary verb in Latin (most active tenses are formed by changing verb endings.) There is no word for “yes” in Latin, and so there are a variety of ways of affirming and assenting to a command or request.

That is what habemus is doing in this response, it’s way of strongly saying “yes” to the priest’s request-- not an auxiliary verb that’s part of the past perfect of “lift.”

So it sounds like we’d need an English form of “to have” that didn’t distinguish past from present tense so precisely.

And anyway, saying “We have” as you given in your example is pretty informal language, that I don’t think really belongs in the Mass…

True, it’s informal now, but I think with use in the mass it would come to have a formal aura to it within a generation.