“that evil they think to do will never be carried out” (Mezquital Otomi)
“think a lot about big things but can’t do them” (Tataltepec Chatino (Source for this and above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
In Gbaya, the notion of rising up in large numbers in the referenced verses is emphasized in with the ideophone gɛrɛm.
Ideophones are a class of sound symbolic words expressing human sensation that are used as literary devices in many African languages. (Source: Philip Noss)
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 (“our ancestor”), translators typically select the exclusive form (only including all believers present).
Source: SIL International Translation Department (1999).
For “Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and his anointed,” see Psalm 2:1 and Psalm 2:2 with Acts 4:25 and Acts 4:26.
The Greek that is translated as “my Father” in English is translated in Matumbi as Tati’ bangu’ or “my fathers.” “Our Father” is translated as “our Fathers” (and likewise “our ancestor” as “our ancestors”). Matumbi uses a majestic plural as an honorific when addressing parents. (Source: Tim Macsaveny)
Following are a number of back-translations of Acts 4:25:
Uma: “You (sing.) are the one who gave words to our (excl.) ancestor of old, King Daud. Because Daud was your (sing.) servant [lit., ordered-one], and while he was controlled by the Holy Spirit, his words foretold ahead-of-time the opposition of all people, opposing the Lord Yesus. He said like this: ‘Why are the people who are not Yahudi so angry? And why also do the crowds make-plans wanting to oppose the Lord God? Their plans have no purpose.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “You caused your servant, Da’ud, our (excl.) forefather to speak and he was taught by the Holy Spirit what he spoke, he said, ‘Why are the non-Yahudi nations/tribes angry? Why do the people plan/agree to destroy but/and-what’s-more it was useless/there was no (good) result?” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “You are the one who said long ago through our ancestor, your servant King David, because when he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, he said, ‘Why are the people who aren’t Jews so angry? And why the Jews think about that which has no purpose?” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “You (sing.) moreover are the originator of the words (lit. word owner) that the Holy Spirit caused-David our (excl.) ancestor who served you (sing.) long-ago -to-write saying, ‘Why did the Gentiles become arrogant (lit. raise themselves) against God? Why did the descendants of Israel decide on a useless (lit. without use) plan to fight against him?” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Through the inspiration by the Espiritu Santo, our (excl.) ancestor David spoke this which you caused him to speak, saying, ‘Why did the people who don’t acknowledge/recognize God become so angry? Why did people decide to do what is worthless/ineffective?” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Teutila Cuicatec: “By means of your Holy Spirit you caused David who obeyed your word to write: ‘Why are all the nations rising up? ‘Why are people thinking about useless things?'”
Lalana Chinantec: “The heart of your servant David obeyed what the Great Spirit of God wanted back then. He announced your word. He said: ‘Why is it that the other people very much make a fuss? Why is it that the Israel people think thoughts that are worthless?'” (Source of this and one above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or modern English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.
Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”
In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.
Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking.” (Source Philip Noss)
In the most recent Manchu translation of 1835 (a revision of an earlier edition from 1822), God is never addressed with a pronoun but with “father” (ama /ᠠᠮᠠ) instead. Chengcheng Liu (in this post on the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Theology blog ) explains: “In Manchu tradition, as in Chinese etiquette, second-person pronouns could be considered disrespectful when speaking to superiors or spiritual beings. Manchu Shamanist prayers avoided si [‘you’] and sini [‘your’] for this very reason. To use them for God would be, in Lipovzoff’s [one of the two translators] words, ‘the most uncouth and indecent way to speak to the Almighty — as if He were a servant or slave.’ There was also a grammatical problem. In Manchu, si and sini could refer to both singular and plural subjects. For a faith that insisted on the singularity of God, this was potentially confusing. By contrast, repeating ama removed any ambiguity.”
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin that is often translated as “gentiles” (or “nations”) in English is often translated as a “local equivalent of ‘foreigners,'” such as “the people of other lands” (Guerrero Amuzgo), “people of other towns” (Tzeltal), “people of other languages” (San Miguel El Grande Mixtec), “strange peoples” (Navajo (Dinė) (this and above, see Bratcher / Nida), “outsiders” (Ekari), “people of foreign lands” (Kannada), “non-Jews” (North Alaskan Inupiatun), “people being-in-darkness” (a figurative expression for people lacking cultural or religious insight) (Toraja-Sa’dan) (source for this and three above Reiling / Swellengrebel), “from different places all people” (Martu Wangka) (source: Carl Gross).
Tzeltal translates it as “people in all different towns,” Chicahuaxtla Triqui as “the people who live all over the world,” Highland Totonac as “all the outsider people,” Sayula Popoluca as “(people) in every land” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), Chichimeca-Jonaz as “foreign people who are not Jews,” Sierra de Juárez Zapotec as “people of other nations” (source of this and one above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.), Highland Totonac as “outsider people” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), Uma as “people who are not the descendants of Israel” (source: Uma Back Translation), “other ethnic groups” (source: Newari Back Translation), and Yakan as “the other tribes” (source: Yakan Back Translation).
In Chichewa, it is translated with mitundu or “races.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.