The Hebrew and Aramaic that is translated in English as “long live” or “live forever” and the Greek that is translated as “Hail” in English is translated in Mandarin Chinese as wànsuì (万岁 / 萬歲) or “(may you live) 10,000 years” which was used to hail Chinese emperors and, more recently, the late Chinese leader Mao Zedong (Máo Zhǔxí Wànsuì [毛主席万岁] or “May Chairman Mao live for ten thousand years!”).
Likewise it is also used in these verses in other East Asian languages, including Japanese with ban zai (ばんざい / 万歳), Korean with man se (만세), Vietnamese with vạn tuế or muôn tuổi, or Mongolian with mandtugai (мандтугай). (Note that Mongolian does not use that term for the New Testament renderings.) (Source: Zetzsche)
For more information on this phrase, see 10,000 years .
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 and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronoun, excluding the king.
The name that is transliterated as “Chaldean” in English is translated in Libras (Brazilian Sign Language) with the sign that combines “Mesopotamia” (see here) and “spreading out,” since the Chaldeans originated in southern Mesopotamia and spread out from there. (Source: Missão Kophós )
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.
Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.
One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a first person plural pronoun (“we” and its various forms) that expresses humility as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, watakushi-domo (私ども) combines “I” (watakushi) with the humbling pronoun -domo.
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:
Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))
Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:
“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”
Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.
One way to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek that is translated as “show (your will)” or “explain” or similar in English is translated in the Shinkaiyaku Bible as o-shimeshi (お示し), combining “show” (shimeshi) with the respectful prefix o-.
Other uses of honorifics in this verse include:
The usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme rare (られ) is affixed on the verb. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, iki-rare-ru (生きられる) or “live” is used.
The choice of a benefactive construction. Here, ohanashi (お話し) or “speak” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”
The choice of a humbling plural suffix. In this verse, the Hebrew and Aramaic that is translated as “servants” in English is translated as shimobe-domo (しもべども) or shimobe-ra (しもべら), combining “servant” (shimobe with the humbling plural suffix -domo or ra.
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.