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 to do this is through the usage of lexical honorific forms, i.e., completely different words, as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
In these verses, tamawaru (賜る), a respectful form of morau (もらう) or “receive” is used. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
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 King Artaxerxes.
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.”
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 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 concept of “informing” (“may it be known,” “good tidings” etc.) is translated in the Shinkaiyaku Bible as o-shirase (お知らせ), combining “inform” (shirase) with the respectful prefix o-.
Now is a marker that indicates a shift or a development in the thought of the writers of the letter. It is a shift to the next appeal, which is to the honor of the king. The writers suggest that a successful rebellion by the people of Jerusalem will be to his shame.
We eat the salt of the palace is literally “our salt is the salt of the palace.” This is a statement symbolizing the fact that they are under obligation to the king. It is an expression of loyalty to the king. It may be a reference to a covenant or solemn pledge (see Lev 2.13). In many cultures to eat what is offered by someone is a sign of dependency or loyalty. Or here it may mean to be in the king’s service, as indicated in the Traduction œcuménique de la Bible footnote for this verse.
And it is not fitting for us to witness the king’s dishonor: Because they “are under obligation” to the king (Good News Translation), they say that it is not proper for them to see the king’s dishonor, which is literally “the king’s nakedness.” The figurative meaning is dishonor or shame, and here it is applied to the possible political and economic humiliation of the king. Good News Translation implies this when it says “we do not want to see this happen.” It would be preferable for the translator to specify that they do not want to see the king dishonored. Some cultures may describe it as “we do not want to see the king fall” in a metaphorical sense, or they may say something like “… to see shame seize the king” or “… to see the king lose face.” Note that Good News Translation is structured to show the causal relationship between the two clauses connected by and in Revised Standard Version.
They send this letter to inform the king about a course of action. The two verbs convey the two distinct actions of sending the message and of causing the king to know certain information. In some languages this will be treated as a single combined action through the use of a serial verb construction: “we send inform the king.”
Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.