The concept of “shame” in Wantoat is “to feel badly because someone has said bad things about me which I consider undeserved, or to feel badly because another’s actions towards me have been improper or disappointing to me. (…) The result is that the shamed person avoids the one who has insulted him.”
“In Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26 if we were to use the Wantoat word mäakagat (“I am ashamed”) we would bring into the translation the component of shame which implies that Jesus has rebuked or insulted the person concerned, and so he is too embarrassed to remain in His presence; too embarrassed to go on serving Him; too disappointed in Jesus to remain as one of His people.”
Therefore, in Wantoat, the idea is expressed like this: “If someone rejects me and what I say, I, the Son of Man, will reject him…”
Source: Don Davis in Notes on Translation December 1974, p. 8-9.
Many languages in the world distinguish between plural and dual (and sometimes trial) pronouns (for instance, “you” specifically addressing many, two, or three people).
In Matt. 20:22 (“You do not know what you are asking…” in one English translation) it is left open whether “you” refers to James and John or James and John and their mother (who had asked the questions preceding Jesus’s answers).
While one Fijian translation uses a trial and the Wantoat uses a plural (both indicating that the mother is included), the Bislama translators (in the Nyutesteman long Bislama of 1980) and the Tok Pisin translators use a dual (indicating that the mother is not included).
One of the translators explains: “Here, because of differences between this Matthew passage and the parallel passage which begins at Mark 10:35, the translator must enter into the issues of the so-called ‘Synoptic Problem’ when deciding how many people Jesus is addressing. I suggest the following guidelines for making a decision here and in the passage considered below: a single real historical event is recounted by both Mark and Matthew, both without error, although each with their own selection of material and emphasis. So what do we make of the fact that Matthew has James and John’s mother asking the question, whereas Mark does not mention her at all, having the two men themselves ask it? We conclude that she must have been there, since Matthew says she was; but she was not important in Mark’s eyes, and so he abbreviates her out of his account. Now the answer Jesus gave to the question is identical in the Greek text of the two gospels; and it must have had only one intention, even though as it stands in Greek, it is ambiguous as to dual or trial reference. I suggest that although the mother asked the question, Jesus either perceived that she was merely a ‘front’ for the two men, or else his primary interest was in them anyway, and so he bypasses the mother and makes his answer directly to them. This is certainly the way Mark saw the situation.”
Source: Ross McKerras in Notes on Translation 2/1 1988, p. 53-56.
The Greek that is translated as “wineskins” in most English translations is translated in Guhu-Samane as “gourds.”
“Wineskins” caused “puzzlement [because] why would one put wine or any liquid into the skin of an animal since the skins just rot quickly? [But] it is conceded that a person wishing to store a liquid (wine or other) would not choose an old, but a new gourd. The people here are familiar with wine in the Eucharist and can readily conceive of how wine (literally ‘strong water’) could burst an old gourd and as such the argument is not lost.” (Source: Ernest L. Richert in Notes on Translation December 1963: p. 4-7; reprinted in The Bible Translator 1965, p. 198ff. .)
In Wantoat it is “old/new bamboo” (source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation, March 1965, p. 2-20) and in Matumbi it is also translated as “gourd” (mapu’tu’), which just like wineskins become less flexible the older they are, and the verb associated with its breaking (“rip” in English) was translated as “burst.” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext).
In Chukchi translating this concept presented an obstacle. Andrei S. Desnitsky explains (in: The Bible Translator 2018, p. 233ff. ): “This polysynthetic Paleo-Asiatic language is spoken by several thousand people living on the Chukotka peninsula beyond the polar circle, just opposite Alaska. Only reindeer breeding is possible there, no agriculture. (…) Needless to say, the process of fermentation is absolutely unknown to the Chukchi people. Alcoholic beverages (almost always strong) arrive in Chukotka in bottles and cause many problems for the local population, who had absolutely no experience of drinking alcohol before they met Russian and American traders. So the very idea of pouring vodka into any kind of leather sack sounds bizarre.
“Here, we managed to find a substitute. When Chukchis build a sledge, they tie wooden parts together with leather straps. For a new sledge they need to be fresh and flexible, since an old strap which has lost its elasticity would simply break and the whole construction would collapse. This was the choice we made in translating the verse into Chukchi. As for the continuation (‘no one after drinking old wine desires new wine’), the translators found another piece of leather equipment used for driving a dog sledge that is better if it is old and tested.”
During the translation of one of the miracles of feeding or crowds with fish and bread into Yami, Graham Ogden tells this story:
“A small population on tiny Orchid Island, off the S-E coast of Taiwan, depended to a large extent on fishing as a source of food. When translating the story of the Five Loaves and Two Fish the translator asked a question that took me by surprise. He asked what kind of fish they were. I said they were just fish! But he said, I have to know what kind of fish they were because we have no word ‘fish.’ How come? I asked. He said we have no general word, because every fish has a name. So I suggested he choose a common type. He then said, But was it a fish that only men can eat or only women? Do you mean that there are cultural restrictions on who can eat which kind of fish? Yes, he said. Is there not one kind of fish that everyone can eat, given the circumstances? Oh yes, he said, there is one kind. Then that’s the name to use, I said. He was satisfied with that answer.”
In Wantoat, fish were unknown so there the translation is “eel” (source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation, March 1965, p. 2-20).
Low German translation by Johannes Jessen, publ. 1933, republ. 2006: “steppe”
Yakan: “the lonely place” (source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “a land where no people lived” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “the place with no inhabitants” (source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Cherokee: inage or “far away downstream” (source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 16)
Matumbi uses various term: lubele (desert, sandy place without water) — used in John 11:54, lupu’ngu’ti (a place where no people live, can be a scrub land, a forest, or a savanna) — used in Mark 1:3 et al.), and mwitu (a forest, a place where wild animals live) — used in Mark 1:13 et al.) (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
Chichewa Contemporary translation (2002/2016): chipululu: a place uninhabited by people with thick forest and bush (source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Adioukrou: loj or “savannah” — “land that is not village, nor forest, nor field (source: Hill 2006)
Note that in Luke 15:4, usually a term is used that denotes pastoral land, such as “eating/grazing-place,” in Tagbanwa (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation).
The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “leaven” (or “yeast”) in English is translated in Tzotzil as “the thing that swells the stomach of bread” and in Mairasi “bread cooking ingredient” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
In the occurrences in Mark 8:15 it is translated in Wantoat as “salt.” (Source: Ronald D. Olson in Notes on Translation January, 1968, p. 15ff.)
