inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Dan. 1:12)

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 Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the exclusive form, “since the hearer is not included.”

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Dan. 1:13)

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 Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the exclusive form, “since the hearer is not included.”

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Dan. 3:16)

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 Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the exclusive form (excluding the king).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Dan. 3:17)

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 Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the exclusive form (excluding the king).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Dan. 3:18)

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 Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the exclusive form (excluding the king).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Dan. 6:5)

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 Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the inclusive form (including the presidents and the satraps).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Dan. 9:6)

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 Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the exclusive form, “since this is a prayer of confession addressed to God.”

Translation commentary on Daniel 2:4

Chaldeans: compare verse 2. The translation should not give the impression that only one category of specialists mentioned in verse 2 came to speak to the king. Those addressing the king are actually spokesmen for the entire group. In some languages it may be possible, as in Good News Translation and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, to translate this by using the third person plural pronoun.

The words “in Aramaic” (Good News Translation) are found only in a footnote in Revised Standard Version, although they are included in parentheses in the text of New Revised Standard Version. They are also omitted by Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch and placed in the left margin by New Jerusalem Bible, because they are considered an editorial note added to the text. It is, in fact, at this point that the text of Daniel changes from Hebrew to Aramaic and continues thus to the end of chapter 7. However, it is also possible that these words were a part of the original text, because this is the beginning of a quotation from Aramaic-speaking people. Probably it is better to retain this in the translation, as has been done in New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, and many others, as well as in Good News Translation. But in those translations where footnotes are being used, it may be advisable to explain the problem in more detail.

O king, live for ever!: the use of the vocative form O king … was the usual respectful way of addressing royalty in the Semitic languages, but this often sounds quite unnatural in translation. It is used more than twenty times in the next five chapters, and an effort should be made to find a natural equivalent in other languages. In English the most natural equivalent is probably “your majesty,” as in Good News Translation (and in most cases also in New English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible). But the receptor language may have a very different form of address to begin talking to a chief, a president, or some other very important person. Naturalness in the language should determine the form here; but it is likely that a literal rendering of “your majesty” will sound awkward.

The words live for ever are used to express the desire that the king will have a long life. While it is unnecessary to give a word-for-word translation, it is probably advisable to maintain the theme of “life” in whatever form is used. In English the most natural wording may be “Long live the king!” as in New English Bible/Revised English Bible. In other languages translators may something like “may the king remain (or continue)!” or “may the chief never die!”

Tell your servants the dream: the specialists are not asking that the king tell his dream to someone else (as his household servants, for example) but to them. Referring to themselves in the third person as servants is a way of showing respect and acknowledging their subordination to the king, as with Daniel and his companions in 1.12. But it is a mistake in most languages to translate this literally. It is usually much more natural to say simply “tell us your dream,” or perhaps retaining something of the form, “we are your servants. So tell us your dream….” In those languages distinguishing between inclusive and exclusive forms of the first person plural pronoun, the exclusive form should be used here.

These experts could not believe that the king was really demanding that they tell him the content of the dream. They understood him to be asking only for the interpretation. But the king’s response makes it clear that he was asking for both the content and the meaning.

Show the interpretation: the verb here translated show occurs at least eight times in this chapter and is used as a sort of technical term for revealing the unknown. New Revised Standard Version actually translates it using the English verb “reveal.” While the object of this verb is most often the word for “interpretation” as in this case, in verse 6 both “the dream and its interpretation” are objects. And in verse 28 the object is the word “mystery.” In some languages it will be more natural to use an expression like “cause to see the meaning….”

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .