Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 56:8:
Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
“Write about my cry,
write the number of my tears in your book.
Are these not written in your book?” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Newari:
“You know how much suffering I have already borne.
You have kept account of my tears.
You have written all this in Your book.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon:
“You (sing.) know of my being-troubled.
You (sing.) take-notice/pay-attention-to my crying[s].
Have- you (sing.) not -listed- these -down in your (sing.) book?” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Laarim:
“Write the ways in which I am suffering,
you when I cry much.
Are they not written in your book?” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
“Unajua machozi yangu,
umeandika habari zake katika kitabu chako,
je, hukumbuki?” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
English:
“You have counted all the times that I have been wandering alone/distressed;
it is as though you have put all my tears in a bottle
in order that you can see how much I have cried.
You have counted my tears and written the number in your book.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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 usage of an honorific construction where the morphemes rare (られ) or are (され) are affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, shirushiteo-rare-ru (記しておられる) or “recording” is used.
Also, a benefactive construction is used. Here, takuwaete (蓄えて) or “store” 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).”
Ans lastly, the honorific form kudasai (ください) reflects that the action is called for as a favor for the sake of the beneficiary. This polite kudasai imperative form is often translated as “please” in English. While English employs pure imperatives in most imperative constructions (“Do this!”), Japanese chooses the polite kudasai (“Do this, please.”).
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 Translator2002, 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.”
My tossings translates a Hebrew noun that occurs only here in the Old Testament, and whose form and meaning are quite uncertain: “grief” is one rendering, also “lament” (New English Bible, Dahood) or “sorrows” (New Jerusalem Bible). Anderson takes the word to mean “homelessness,” and this is the meaning expressed by New Jerusalem Bible “wanderings” (see also Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Hebrew Old Testament Text Project also takes the Hebrew to mean “wandering,” which “expresses the fugitive’s unresting, moving life, its sojourning far away from his home, his family and his land, as in Ps 11.1.” It indicates some form of distress.
If the translator takes line a to refer to distress, in some languages this may be expressed idiomatically; for example, “You know how my heart hangs up” or “You know how my stomach trembles.”
The vivid picture “put my tears in your waterskin (or, wineskin)” in line b is a way of telling God (or reminding him, if the verb is understood as indicative, not imperative) to notice how troubled the psalmist is. Dahood takes the word “skin” to mean here a parchment for writing on: “list my tears on your parchment” (see New International Version “on your scroll”). This fits well with the next line. Good News Translation has abandoned the figure and translates “you have kept a record of my tears” (so Biblia Dios Habla Hoy); a similar possibility is “You have taken note of my grief.” In some languages, if the expression put thou my tears in thy bottle is used, it will be necessary to make explicit the reason for such a request; for example, “put my tears in your bottle so that you can see how much I have cried.”
The next line Are they not in thy book? is taken by some to have originally been a note in the margin (see New Jerusalem Bible, Bible de Jérusalem); the copyist wrote, “Shouldn’t this [that is, the word for ‘your waterskin’] be ‘your book’?”–which was introduced into the text by a later copyist (New English Bible puts this line in a footnote). This is quite possible, but it is best to stay with the traditional interpretation of the Masoretic text. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project also considers it possible that the line was originally a marginal note, “is it not: ‘in your reckoning’?”
In some languages line c, if translated as a rhetorical question, will require a reply; for example, “Yes, they are.” In many languages it will be necessary to say regarding the tears, lines b and c, “have they not been counted and the number of them written in your book?”
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on the Book of Psalms. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1991. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.