5When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, the minds of Pharaoh and his officials were changed toward the people, and they said, “What have we done, letting Israel leave our service?”
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 inclusive form (including the Pharaoh and his officials).
Both the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the inclusive pronoun.
The term that is used for monarchs in ancient Egypt and is transliterated as “Pharaoh” in English is translated in Finnish Sign Language with the sign signifying the “fake metal beard (postiche)” that was word by Pharaohs during official functions. (Source: Tarja Sandholm)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Exodus 14:5:
Kupsabiny: “When the ruler was told that the Israelites had escaped, he changed his minds together with his leaders and said that, ‘Now what is this that we have done? Why have we allowed the Israelites to go, so now we lack people of work?’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “When the king of Egypt came to know that they had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds and they said, ‘What have we done"? We have let them go instead of making them our slaves.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “When the king of Egipto heard-the-news that the Israelinhon had-fled, his thinking changed and his officials (thinking changed) about the leaving of the Israelinhon. They said, ‘What have- we (incl.) -done? Why did- we (incl.) -let- the Israelinhon -go? Now we (incl.) do- not -have slaves.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Bariai: “And the great chief of the Isip people heard talk that the Israel people fled and went, therefore he together with his leaders changed their minds back again and so were ill disposed toward the Israel people and so said, ‘Why is it that we (incl.) allowed the Israel people to go? Today who will do our work?’” (Source: Bariai Back Translation)
Opo: “When they told going of people of Israel for king of Egypt, thought his and thoughts of chiefs of his servants, it changed. They said «What is it that we (incl.) did for it thus? And we (incl.) let go people of Israel go, there is no ones who will do for us (incl.) service.»” (Source: Opo Back Translation)
English: “When someone told the king that the Israeli people had left during the night, he and his officials changed their minds and said, ‘What have we done?/What we have done was stupid! The Israeli people will no longer be our slaves!’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.