 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
CHANGES IN THE ROMAN MISSAL, PART 7: Principles and Process for the New Translation (Cont.)
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This column is part of an ongoing series written by Father Daniel Merz highlighting many of the historical and theological bases of the forthcoming publication of a revised English translation of the Roman Missal. The new translation, tentatively set for release around November 2011, will involve slight but noticeable changes at Mass. Father Merz is the chairman of the Liturgical Commission for the Diocese of Jefferson City, Mo. — BH]
I offer some of the stylistic differences that will be seen in the new translation when it is available for use in the liturgy.
Liturgiam Authenticam provides its main principles for translation in paragraph 57:
“That notable feature of the Roman Rite, namely its straightforward, concise and compact manner of expression, is to be maintained insofar as possible in the translation. Furthermore, the same manner of rendering a given expression is to be maintained throughout the translation, insofar as feasible. These principles are to be observed:
“a) The connection between various expressions, manifested by subordinate and relative clauses, the ordering of words, and various forms of parallelism, is to be maintained as completely as possible in a manner appropriate to the vernacular language.
“b) In the translation of terms contained in the original text, the same person, number, and gender are to be maintained insofar as possible.
“c) The theological significance of words expressing causality, purpose or consequence (such as ut, ideo, enim, and quia) is to be maintained, though different languages may employ varying means for doing so.
“d) The principles set forth . . . in n. 51, regarding variety of vocabulary, are to be observed also in the variety of syntax and style (for example, in the location within the Collect of the vocative addressed to God).
The US bishops’ Committee for Divine Worship makes the following comment with regard to the challenges presented by these principles of translation:
“The application of this paragraph of Liturgiam authenticam has made some extraordinary demands on translators, especially with reference to 57a. The use of extended subordination is a method to order all the elements of a sentence in such a way as to express a dependence on God as the source of all saving action. The very syntax of the sentence indicates what is secondary or subordinate. In addition, the meaning of the prayer is communicated through the use of a sequence of [verb] tenses that links all action solely to that of the main clause.
When such a sentence is broken up, in English, into many shorter sentences there comes about a cumulative loss of meaning between those ideas which are secondary and their subordination to a principal action. In general, the translators have remained faithful to the principle, but there have been some prayers that were so extensively long that they needed to be broken into two sentences.”
An example of the difference this principle of translation demands can be seen in the following comparison of the current translation of the Prayer Over the Offerings for the Eleventh Sunday in Ordinary Time and the proposed new translation:
Current Translation:
“Lord God, in this bread and wine you give us food for body and spirit. May the eucharist renew our strength and bring us health of mind and body.”
A Suggested Early Draft
“O God, who in the gifts presented here nourish with food and renew with Sacrament the twofold nature of the human race, grant, we pray, that their sustenance may not fail us in body or in mind.”
The present English translation breaks up a long Latin sentence into two (as here, or sometimes even three independent clauses). This has made the content easier to grasp, but has resulted in the loss of some meaning. It has also caused a style of prayer in which the Church makes statements to God about what God should already know, and the link between the address of the divinity and the request of the prayer is broken. We end up telling God what he does, and then separately asking him for something, whereas in the proposed translation, we are asking God for something because we recognize what he has already done for us.
The longer sentence does make it more tricky both to proclaim and to hear, but the potential benefits seem well worth it. Other modern languages do this already and have adapted to this style without any trouble. The new translation will, therefore, also better harmonize with the closer translations of other languages, thus creating a more unified voice throughout the Catholic world.
Another change will be the use of a broader vocabulary. The current translation employs a rather narrow range of words to translate a considerably larger lexicon in the Latin original. In the new translation, then, a greater English vocabulary will not only be more faithful to the Latin but also enrich the sounds, content and images of the English translation. There are many images in the Latin original that were never used in the current translation. One example is the image of dewfall used for the action of the Holy Spirit in the second Eucharistic Prayer. In the current translation, this imagery was simply omitted.
[NEXT COLUMN: We continue to compare translations.]
(This article was reprinted with permission from The Catholic Missourian, the newspaper of the Diocese of Jefferson City, Mo.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |