Chaldean

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 )


“Chaldean” in Libras (source )

More information about Chaldea .

king

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:

(Click or tap here to see details)

  • Piro: “a great one”
  • Highland Totonac: “the big boss”
  • Huichol: “the one who commanded” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Ekari: “the one who holds the country” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Una: weik sienyi: “big headman” (source: Kroneman 2004, p. 407)
  • Pass Valley Yali: “Big Man” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • 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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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.”

(Source: Faye Edgerton in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 25ff. )

See also king (Japanese honorifics).

2nd person pronoun with low register (Japanese)

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 second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used anata (あなた) is typically used when the speaker is humbly addressing another person.

In these verses, however, omae (おまえ) is used, a cruder second person pronoun, that Jesus for instance chooses when chiding his disciples. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

See also first person pronoun with low register and third person pronoun with low register.

Translation commentary on Daniel 2:5

The king answered the Chaldeans: literally “answered and said to the Chaldeans….” Aramaic, like Hebrew, often uses two verbs where many other languages use only one. Even Revised Standard Version reduces the two verbs to one in this context, but compare King James Version. Also, in many languages it may be smoother to leave the Chaldeans implicit and say simply “the king answered…,” as in Revised English Bible.

The word from me is sure: this phrase, repeated in verse 8 below, gives the idea of a firm decision or decree. The notion of this strong resolution has been communicated in other English versions as “This is what I have decided:…” (New American Bible), “I hereby decree:…” (New Jerusalem Bible), “This is my declared intention” (New English Bible), “This is my firm decision” (Revised English Bible), and “What I say, I mean” (Moffatt).

The dream and its interpretation: some other ways of phrasing this may be “what I dreamed and what it means” or “the story and meaning of my dream.”

You shall be torn limb from limb: or “you will be cut into pieces.” This expression describes a form of torture that was fairly common in ancient times. Because it is a passive expression, it will have to be reworded in many languages. Some may use a causative form: “I will cause someone to mutilate you.” Others may use an expression like “I will order them (indefinite) to cut you to pieces.”

Your houses shall be laid in ruins: this passive form will also have to be made active in many languages. According to some scholars the Aramaic word corresponding to ruins is derived from a verb meaning “to destroy.” But others think that it comes from a root evoking the idea of ugliness, horror, or garbage. This is why New Jerusalem Bible has “… turned into dunghills.” New Jerusalem Bible, however, translates “your houses will be confiscated” but acknowledges in a footnote that the meaning is uncertain. It is probably best to understand it in terms of the total destruction of their homes.

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 .