Oh, not that I mind; “I have greatly sinned” sounds just fine to my ears.
However, I will never tolerate “between you and I” or “who do you want.”
- Status
However, I will never tolerate “between you and I” or “who do you want.”
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I think so, though only silly grammarians IMO.
S
Spirithound
Guest
You know what it means, I know what it means. Why do you have to go and dredge up rules that make no sense? Language is always in evolution. Go with the flow!
I have a master’s degree in linguistics.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Looks like it’s becoming a great skill to have.
H
Hokomai
Guest
I was not raising point of grammar except to explain what I was talking about. My point was that the translation does not appear to me to be in normal English, that is, the English I use of course
. Incidentally I have often wondered if linguists attend a special course in repeating “language is always in evolution” as an answer to any question about what arrangements of words is best. Of course, we all know that. We don’t need linguists to tell us. But it does not mean that every variation we see is some sort of evolutionary development. Sometimes they are mistakes. Sometimes they get in the way of good communication. Discussing which words are best is an interesting and enjoyable thing to do. Avoiding discussion because someone else may have a Masters degree stops us enjoying ourselves and learning new things. I have learned a lot from this thread, and hope to learn more.
C
Cavaille-Coll
Guest
I don’t see the problem with the new translation. All sin is against God by definition. That shouldn’t have to be restated.
S
Spirithound
Guest
I was not raising point of grammar except to explain what I was talking about. My point was that the translation does not appear to me to be in normal English, that is, the English I use of course
It’s not actually a separate course, but a major component of every course in 1st, 3rd, and 4th year Sorry, I probably just don’t like discussing “correct” grammar because my highschool English teacher was… “that kind”… of teacher
If I may make an observation, understanding the “fun” aspect of this thread, I think I made an error in the implications of my earlier post. While it seems I was saying this construction is a new and exciting thing, maybe they were going for an older/more poetic reading? I’m not sure whether I really believe that. I lean towards saying that “greatly” is just a word that can go on either side, and I take it to refer to the degree of sin, as opposed to frequency.
P
ProVobis
Guest
True, and sometimes these mistakes get reinforced so that eventually they become the norm. Mispronouncing “nuclear,” for example, by a politician. Or leaving out the “d” in the “-nd” endings in certain dialects. Or now the “ze” instead of “the” is becoming more accepted from the foreign speakers. (I had such teachers in college physics classes, by the way.) And on and on. Who’s going to tell them they’re wrong?
T
tracer724
Guest
Can someone explain why, with all the problems of the church, that changing the words in the liturgy is the issue we are now focused on. The money spent to “revise” the word order of the liturgy could have been used to help some of the people in need during these hard economic times. Or better yet, to keep open some of the many churches that have been closed in the past few years. I find it all very upsetting.
Because everything else in the Christian life revolves around the liturgy. If one wants to see the rest of the Church’s problems solved, we must first solve the problems in our liturgy. Everything, including helping the poor, comes second to the way we worship.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Well, now you are discussing spoken English instead of written English grammar. Completely different system with its own influences. Our tongues tend toward “laziness,” so that if it’s a bit easier to say a word a certain way, such as “nuke-yoo-ler,” then that variation will exist. It is not just a “redneck” pronunciation. Going from one location to another in the mouth can cause the addition of a “bridge sound,” as in “ath-a-lete.” (I can’t recall the exact term for that, is it "infixing? I don’t have my linguistics textbooks handy.)True, and sometimes these mistakes get reinforced so that eventually they become the norm. Mispronouncing “nuclear,” for example, by a politician. Or leaving out the “d” in the “-nd” endings in certain dialects. Or now the “ze” instead of “the” is becoming more accepted from the foreign speakers. (I had such teachers in college physics classes, by the way.) And on and on. Who’s going to tell them they’re wrong?
Both spoken and written English is always a moving target. New words are created, live for a while, and usually die out of usage. New phrases are invented, such as “My bad,” for “So sorry, that was my mistake.” It’s really an amazing language and fun to observe in all its variations.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Ok, challenge for the week! Everyone say, “So sorry, that was my mistake” everytime you are tempted to say “My bad!”
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Its what we call ‘Yoda-speak’ in my house. “Greatly sinned have I, yes.”
P
ProVobis
Guest
Or “mea culpa”?Ok, challenge for the week! Everyone say, “So sorry, that was my mistake” everytime you are tempted to say “My bad!”
M
MarkThompson
Guest
A couple of thoughts:
- The bishops, priests, and others who have been involved in working on the translations are all already on our payroll, so it’s not as though there’s been some giant cost associated with this. Emails, teleconferences, and printer paper don’t really cost all that much.
- This process has been going on, in fits and starts, for about twenty years. Things really got underway after 2001, ten years ago, when the Vatican instruction Liturgiam Authenticam was published. It wasn’t as though when the economic recession hit in 2008 somebody suddenly said, “Hey, let’s revise the Missal pronto!” It’s just the luck of the draw that it happens to be ending (and thus getting implemented) right now.
- English is a particularly important language for the worldwide Church, which is one of the reasons the English missal has received so much attention. For many smaller and less common languages, there are very few native speakers who are also highly proficient in Latin – but always lots who are proficient in English. As a result, the codified English becomes a point of reference for doing translations into many other languages, and so it is important that the English be translated both well and early.
- As to whether “changing the words in the liturgy is the issue we are now focused on,” it might be the issue that you are focused on, but the Catholic Church has some 5,000 bishops and, I don’t know, 400,000 priests or something. Believe it or not, we can “focus” on more than one thing at a time.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Fair point, especially since English has nuances different than the Latin (or Polish, for that matter) and lacks precision when it comes to the demonstrative adjectives and word order and ever-changing word meanings, especially those of the many overused words. It even has to guess at definite and indefinite (“a” vs “the”) articles and other words in order to make sense in the English. Any attempts to perfect the English texts will fail ultimately, as the Church of England has demonstrated for over 500 years. We have yet to find the perfect English Bible, for example. There also appears to be a decline in the number of those attending the English Mass in favor of many other vernaculars, especially Polish and Spanish. (Chinese too?) As well as a predicted further decline in the number of native English speakers who can preserve whatever grammar necessary to analyze the theology expressed in the Latin. One only needs to hear the politicians to know how to confuse with the English language.
But the cost of the new translation (which I’ve even heard as being too “pompous”) is nothing compared to the amount of money the Church or its parishes have spent in razing the internal church structures in the last 40 years. I heard estimates of the removal of the high altars, communion rails, confessionals, statues, kneelers, pews, etc. as reaching at least a billion dollars.
F
FatHead
Guest
if its so upsetting, would you like us to go back to the 1962 missal, where there was no translation? that would solve many “problems” in your mind.
F
FatHead
Guest
very good point
- As to whether “changing the words in the liturgy is the issue we are now focused on,” it might be the issue that you are focused on, but the Catholic Church has some 5,000 bishops and, I don’t know, 400,000 priests or something. Believe it or not, we can “focus” on more than one thing at a time.
- Status