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 the addressee) for the first occurrence of the pronoun (“us and you”) and either the inclusive or exclusive form for the second (“anointed us”) to either include the Corinthians or not.
The Copainalá Zoque translators chose an inclusive form for the second occurrence (“anointed us”), because they take it “as referring to Paul, his associates, and those addressed, the Corinthians, and all true Christians, if need be.” The Tok Pisin Translation uses the exclusive form for the second occurrence.
Sources: Roy and Margaret Harrison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 173ff. and 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, translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding the addressee).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
The Karbi and Copainalá Zoque translators chose an inclusive form. D. Filbeck says: “We do not feel that Paul expected to be made an exception to believers in general. Informant insists on inclusive.”
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 (“he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue” in English translations), Yagua translators selected the exclusive forms. The translators justify this by saying “Jesus was also of the Jews’ nation and could have been included in this ‘our.’ However, the ‘us’ and ‘our’ of the second clause are doubtless exclusive and we guess since Jesus was not a native of Capernaum that these Jews probably would have used the exclusive in the first clause.”
Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 165ff.
Pickett argues that “the first ‘our’ is inclusive, referring to the Jewish nation of which both the speakers and Jesus were a part, But the second ‘our’ is no doubt exclusive, i.e. the synagogue in their town, of which Jesus was not a part.”
SIL International Translation Department (1999) notes that he second pronoun could be either inclusive or exclusive. The Tok Pisin translation uses the inclusive for the first occurrence and exclusive for the second.
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”).
The Copainalá Zoque translators chose an exclusive form, because “we take this to refer to Paul and his associates speaking of their ministry” (source: Roy and Margaret Harrison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 173ff.), whereas SIL International Translation Department) describes this as a case where either the inclusive or the exclusive pronoun could be used (and where, if inclusive, this could refer to only Paul or Paul and his associates).
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 the addressee).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
The Karbi and Copainalá Zoque translators chose an inclusive form. D. Filbeck says: “We do not feel that Paul expected to be made an exception to believers in general. Informant insists on inclusive.”
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 (“we are perishing” in English translations), Yagua translators selected the inclusive form, including Jesus (the Sierra Totonac and the Tok Pisin translators did as well). The Yagua translators justify this by saying, “Did the disciples think of their Lord as about to perish with them, or were they selfishly only thinking of their own safety, or did they feel He at least would not perish? We translated this one with the inclusive, giving the disciples the benefit of the doubt, since they had waited so long to waken Him, they couldn’t have been too selfish in their thinking.” (Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 165ff.)
Different versions of the Bible in Marathi have chosen different solutions for this. The versions by Pandita Ramabai (NT publ. 1912) chose the exclusive form and B. N. Athavle the inclusive form in his translation (publ. 1931). The Bible Society’s version (initially the British, later the Indian BS) in their revision of the 1950s also chose the exclusive form, despite strong protests of the revision committee’s chair H.G. Howard who interpreted Jesus’ strong rebuke of the disciples in succeeding verses due to the fact that the disciples had included him in their worries, which would necessitate the inclusive form. (Source: H.G. Howard in The Bible Translator 1925, p. 25ff. )
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”).
The Warlpiri and the Copainalá Zoque translators chose an exclusive form, because “we take this to refer to Paul and his associates speaking of their ministry” (source: Carl Gross and Roy and Margaret Harrison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 173ff.). SIL International Translation Department (1999) mentions the possibility that the inclusive form could possibly also be used.
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 the addressee).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
The Tok Pisin and the Copainalá Zoque translators also chose an inclusive form, because “we do not feel that Paul expected to be made an exception to believers in general. Informant insists on inclusive.”
Source: Roy and Margaret Harrison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 173ff. (Copainalá Zoque) and SIL International Translation Department (1999) (Tok Pisin).
