king

Click here to view graphically

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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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).

large numbers in Angguruk Yali

Many languages use a “body part tally system” where body parts function as numerals (see body part tally systems with a description). One such language is Angguruk Yali which uses a system that ends at the number 27. To circumvent this limitation, the Angguruk Yali translators adopted a strategy where a large number is first indicated with an approximation via the traditional system, followed by the exact number according to Arabic numerals. For example, where in 2 Samuel 6:1 it says “thirty thousand” in the English translation, the Angguruk Yali says teng-teng angge 30.000 or “so many rounds [following the body part tally system] 30,000,” likewise, in Acts 27:37 where the number “two hundred seventy-six” is used, the Angguruk Yali translation says teng-teng angge 276 or “so many rounds 276,” or in John 6:10 teng-teng angge 5.000 for “five thousand.”

This strategy is used in all the verses referenced here.

Source: Lourens de Vries in The Bible Translator 1998, p. 409ff.

See also numbers in Ngalum and numbers in Kombai.

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 Isaiah 36:8

Up to this point the Assyrian ambassador has been quoting his king, but now he speaks for himself. He shows his arrogance here by mocking Hezekiah, whom he addresses through Hezekiah’s officials. He says that even if Assyria were to give Judah 2,000 horses, Hezekiah would not be able to find the horsemen to ride them. So Assyria’s cavalry would still be able to defeat Judah. This is the traditional understanding of the verse. However, it is also possible that the ambassador is inviting Hezekiah to make a deal with Assyria. He suggests that if Hezekiah were to withdraw from the rebellion, Assyria would give him 2,000 horses, as long as he could provide riders for them. In this second view the offer of horses is an incentive for Hezekiah to surrender.

Since the Assyrian king is no longer speaking here, but his ambassador, it would be helpful to add a quote frame at the beginning of this verse to indicate this; for example, “Then the ambassador said to Hezekiah through his representatives.”

Come now, make a wager with my master the king of Assyria: These are words of invitation. Come now is literally “And now.” These words mark a shift in topic, away from the previous reference to Hezekiah’s policies. Many languages will need to mark this topic shift in some way. The Hebrew verb rendered make a wager comes from a root meaning “make a pledge,” “make a bargain/deal,” or even “make an agreement.” The Hebrew verb form here is a reflexive imperative, meaning “pledge yourself.” This is either a mocking taunt or a challenge (see the comments above), addressed to Hezekiah through his officials to accept an offer from the Assyrian king. As he mocks Hezekiah, he uses the Hebrew particle of entreaty, which Nouvelle Bible Segond renders “I pray you.” Most versions omit it in this context. The Assyrian ambassador refers to his king as my master. Those meeting here are the representatives of two kings; they could make a deal on behalf of their respective masters. Good News Translation renders the first half of this verse as though it is the Assyrian ambassador who is making a deal. This is not strictly correct since the Hebrew text calls on Hezekiah to make a deal (to provide horsemen). New International Version translates it more accurately with “Come now, make a bargain with my master, the king of Assyria.”

I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders upon them: This is the deal the Assyrian ambassador offers to Hezekiah. If Hezekiah can find two thousand men who can ride horses, then he will give him two thousand horses. As noted above, he probably says this to mock Hezekiah, because he believes Hezekiah does not have that many horsemen. However, since the days of Solomon the Israelites had used horses in war (see 1 Kgs 4.26; see also the comments on 2.7). I will give you two thousand horses may be rendered “We will give you two thousand horses,” since the Assyrian ambassador is speaking on behalf of his king. If you are able on your part to set riders upon them may be translated “but you will not be able to find any riders for them” to express the implied meaning here.

Some translation examples for this verse are:

• Then the ambassador said to Hezekiah through his representatives, “How about making a deal with my master the king of Assyria! We will give you two thousand horses if you can find [or, if you agree to find] riders for them.

• Then the ambassador said, “Come now, make an agreement with my master the Assyrian king. We will give you two thousand horses if you have anyone who can ride them!

Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Sterk, Jan. A Handbook on Isaiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .