Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form, referring to only Paul.
In Huautla Mazatec, however, the translators selected the inclusive we.
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding King Agrippa).
In Huautla Mazatec, however, the translators selected the inclusive we.
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the seven brothers). (Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.)
In Huautla Mazatec, however, the translators selected the exclusive we. SIL International Translation Department (1999) notes that as a possibility.
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form (only referring Paul) with the exception of “our God” for which the inclusive form is used.
In Huautla Mazatec, however, the translators selected the inclusive we in all instances of this verse.
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
In Fijian, the paucal exclusive forms neitou and keitou (“of me and a few [two or slightly more]”) are used instead. This choice is understandable in view of the introduction found in both letters to the Thessalonians, where the writer Paul indicates clearly that the letters were co-authored by two other colleagues, Silas and Timothy, hence the use of a pronoun referring to three people (“Paul, Silas and Timothy”).
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the listeners of the sermon).
In Huautla Mazatec, however, the translators selected the exclusive we.
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding Jesus). (Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.)
In Huautla Mazatec, however, the translators selected the inclusive we (including the Pharisees talking to each other). SIL International Translation Department (1999) notes that as a possibility.
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
According to Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan (in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.) translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding Timothy), but SIL International Translation Department (1999) recommends the inclusive form (including Timothy).
Following are a number of back-translations of Acts 24:3:
Uma: “All this we (excl.) always put on top of our (excl.) pates [i.e., we keep in mind] and there is no end to our (excl.) saying thank you very, very much.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Everywhere and every time, we (excl.) really accept your help and we (excl.) are very grateful to you.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “This is a great source of joy to us and large is our thanks to you.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Therefore no matter where we (excl.) go, big is our (excl.) thanks to you (sing.) continually.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Therefore, all of us (excl.), we (excl.) are really pleased about it and we (excl.) give thanks with big thankfulness.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Huautla Mazatec: “Every day, also everywhere, thus we stand well to you. Twenty times thus we give you grace, you little father Felix.” (“In court procedure among the Mazatecs ‘twenty times’ is the accepted number of times to thank an official in opening up a procedure before him: ‘little father’ is a term of high respect and is equivalent to ‘noble [Felix].’ — Source: Florence Cowan in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 135ff. )
