inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Neh. 9:36)

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 translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the exclusive form, because it “includes those who are praying and the people they represent and excludes God who is being addressed in the prayer.”

complete verse (Nehemiah 9:36)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Nehemiah 9:36:

  • Kupsabiny: “So now today we are slaves in this land with the many things that you gave to our grandfathers!” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “That is why we (excl.) are now slaves of this land that you (sing.) gave to our (excl.) ancestors, where they can-eat its produce and some of good products of it.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Today here-now we (excl.) are-enslaved in the land that you (sing.) gave to our (excl.) ancestors so-that it would be the source of our (excl.) food and all the benefits we (excl.) are-able-to-gain.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • English: “‘So now we are like slaves here in this land that you gave to our ancestors, the land that you gave to them in order that they could enjoy all the good things that grow here.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Japanese benefactives (ataete)

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 benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, ataete (与えて) or “give” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Japanese benefactives (goran)

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 benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, goran (ご覧) or “see/behold/look” (itself a combination of “behold/see” [ran] and the honorific prefix go- — see behold / look / see (Japanese honorifics)) is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

addressing God

Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or modern 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 the most recent Manchu translation of 1835 (a revision of an earlier edition from 1822), God is never addressed with a pronoun but with “father” (ama /ᠠᠮᠠ) instead. Chengcheng Liu (in this post on the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Theology blog ) explains: “In Manchu tradition, as in Chinese etiquette, second-person pronouns could be considered disrespectful when speaking to superiors or spiritual beings. Manchu Shamanist prayers avoided si [‘you’] and sini [‘your’] for this very reason. To use them for God would be, in Lipovzoff’s [one of the two translators] words, ‘the most uncouth and indecent way to speak to the Almighty — as if He were a servant or slave.’ There was also a grammatical problem. In Manchu, si and sini could refer to both singular and plural subjects. For a faith that insisted on the singularity of God, this was potentially confusing. By contrast, repeating ama removed any ambiguity.”

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

See also formal pronoun: disciples addressing Jesus, female second person singular pronoun in Psalms.

Translation commentary on Nehemiah 9:36

Behold, we are slaves … behold, we are slaves: Behold (hinneh in Hebrew) is a very emphatic way of drawing attention to what will follow (see Ezra 9.15). It occurs twice in this single verse drawing attention to the people’s lament, focusing on their complaint that they are slaves. In Latin this is expressed as ecce (literally meaning “Look!”), but in English Behold is an archaic interjection. Many languages have similar interjections that emphatically mark the discourse for what will follow, for example, Ndaa! (Deftere Allah). A shift is made from third person for the Israelites (“they/their/them”) in verse 35 to the independent first person plural pronoun we in this verse. This is the first person exclusive plural pronoun that includes those who are praying and the people they represent and excludes God who is being addressed in the prayer.

For slaves see the comments at Neh 5.5. Instead of serving God in their own land, the speakers here acknowledge twice that they are slaves to other people. This repeated statement emphasizes the irony and tragedy of their present situation. New Living Translation tries to capture this emphasis by rendering this verse as follows: “So now today we are slaves here in the land of plenty that you gave to our ancestors! We are slaves among all this abundance!”

In the land that thou gavest to our fathers to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts: Their ancestors had been given the land … to enjoy, but they had been unfaithful. Now the descendants live in the land but are slaves and must even give its “yield” in taxes to foreign kings (verse 37 below). Not only had God given them good gifts, but even the land had given them its fruit and its good things. This statement is full of sad irony. To enjoy is literally “to eat,” and many languages will have a similar expression as in Hebrew.

The following is a close rendering of the Hebrew that can be a model for the translator:

• Look! Today we are slaves!
The land that you gave to our forefathers
to eat her fruit and her good things,
look, we are slaves in her today!”

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .