forget

The Hebrew, Latin, and Greek that is translated as “forget” in English is translated in Noongar as dwangka-anbangbat, lit. “ear-lose.” (Source: Portions of the Holy Bible in the Nyunga language of Australia, 2018).

See also remember.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Lam 5:20)

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.

addressing God

Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed. The first example is from a language where God is always addressed distinctly formal whereas the second is one where the opposite choice was made.

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.

As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff.), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.

In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.

Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”

In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.

Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking (source Philip Noss).

In Dutch and Western Frisian translations, however, God is always addressed with the formal pronoun.

See also female second person singular pronoun in Psalms.

Translation commentary on Lamentations 5:20

Having expressed his faith in God’s eternal rule, the poet now questions God’s faithfulness. Each half of verse 20 consists of a “Why?” question. The first asks God the reason for his failure to remember his people, as though to repeat the appeal made in 5.1. The thought that God was capable of forgetting is expressed elsewhere in the Old Testament. For example, the psalmist asks in Psalm 13.1 “How long, O LORD? Wilt thou forget me for ever? How long wilt thou hide thy face from me?” In Psalm 42.9 we read “Why hast thou forgotten me?” and in Psalm 74.1 “O God, why dost thou cast us off for ever?” The poet is afraid that God’s forgetfulness will last indefinitely, so in the agony of his lament he pursues these two parallel questions. Translators will note that Good News Translation has switched the two verbs. Although this is not necessary in English, the Good News Translation wording in the second half gives a greater sense of being forgotten.

Forget us for ever: forget has the sense of neglecting, putting out of mind, ceasing to think about, and so, ceasing to care for. For ever refers to an indefinite future. So long in the second half-line translates “length of days” and refers to a long period of time. Here the reference is most likely to the years of suffering experienced by the people of Jerusalem, and so Moffatt translates “all these years.” Forsake here has the sense of God deserting someone (Israel) who has been formerly under his care and protection, and in some languages this may be translated “Why have you left us like orphaned children?” or “Why have you gone away and left us behind?”

In some languages the first line of Revised Standard Version may be rendered “Why do you go on and on forgetting us?” and the second line as “Why do you go on and on abandoning us?” Since these are so closely parallel, the verse may also be translated “Why do you go on and on forgetting and abandoning us?”

Quoted with permission from Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on Lamentations. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1992. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .