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, Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan (in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.) recommend the exclusive form (excluding Titus) and SIL SIL International Translation Department (1999) the inclusive form (including Paul and Titus.
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 Father). The Tok Pisin specifies this even more by using the dual (only including two, Jesus and the Father).
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 reader of the letter). The Tok Pisin translation uses the exclusive form, though.
Source: SIL International Translation Department (1999)
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, Pickett and Cowan recommend the inclusive form (including Jesus).
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 addressee) (source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.). SIL International Translation Department (1999) also states that it could be an exclusive meaning (if not used parenthetical) a usage that Tok Pisin follows.
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 quotation from Isaiah 53:1 (“Lord who has believed our report?” in many English translations) “does Isaiah mean the message of God and himself (hence inclusive) or the message he and others were giving out? The Hebrew form [translated into English as] ‘what we heard,’ together with the Greek form (translated as) ‘what is heard of us,’ gives the clue that it should be exclusive, the message that he and others were giving out.” (Source: Velma B. Pickett in The Bible Translator 1964, p. 88f. )
The Jarai and Adamawa Fulfulde translations, however, use the inclusive pronoun for this (“referring to the speakers and their fellow Judeans in exile”), following the recommendation of Ogden / Sterk.
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 Father). The Tok Pisin specifies this even more by using the dual (only including two, Jesus and the Father).
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, the translators into Karbi selected the exclusive we (excluding Jesus).
M. John explains the difficulty of the choice this way: “If we take the previous sentence (in which Jesus expresses his desire that the crowds must be fed) in close connection with this verse, the inclusive we, meaning the group including Jesus, would be natural. In verse 34, however, Jesus asks the question, ‘How much bread do you (not we) have?’ So the choice of the particular form of the pronoun will relate verse 33 either to the sentence before it or to the sentence after it. If we use the inclusive we it would mean that the disciples imply a close relation between themselves and Jesus, while Jesus sets them at a distance by his question. If we use the exclusive we, it would be the disciples themselves who make that distinction.”
The Tok Pisin translators chose the inclusive form. SIL International Translation Department (1999) lists two opinions: “The disciples imply that it is Jesus alone who could provide, that it is beyond them (i.e., the disciples) to find that much food in the desert.” vs. “It seems that the disciples might easily have included Jesus with them, since it was he who had provided the abundance of food the previous time. Also, this is an intimate conversation between the Twelve and Jesus. Therefore, it would be natural for them all to consider that they are all involved in this problem.”
